The necessity of dealing with reality requires giving up the idea that righteousness is found in keeping one’s hands clean. Christian action incurs guilt for the sake of making a dent in the world.
Here's an attempt at realism directed at one of the core goals of Christianity, to bring peace.
It won't take long for a clear minded realist seeking peace among human beings to realize that the primary obstacle to peace in the world arises from a single easily identified source, violent men. Anyone can confirm this reality for themselves just by following their news feed and observing who it is exactly that is conducting the overwhelming vast majority of violence.
Such a Christian realist may then proceed to look for a response to the epidemic of violence in solutions that seem realistic. A serious realist will soon discover that every "realistic" idea they can think of has already been tried in some form somewhere over a period of thousands of years, and none of them have come close to ending human violence. At this point the realist may realize that when no realistic plan has solved a problem over a long period of time, the serious person has no choice but to turn their attention to that set of ideas considered unrealistic and unreasonable.
As example, it's considered reasonable to identify the violent men and remove them from society, while keeping the peaceful men. This seems like a reasonable and realistic plan, until you realize that it's never worked. And so it can't be labeled realistic.
The Christian realist may then reflect that to have any men is to have violent men, and to have violent men is to embrace the chaos of today's world, and all the unspeakable horrors it inflicts upon the innocent.
The Christian realist then faces a question which will define how they should proceed. What is it about the male gender which is so important that it justifies such a horrible price tag? After all, a tiny number of men can impregnate huge numbers of women, and would probably be glad to do so.
What will the Christian realist choose? Will they choose to serve the horrific status quo, or will they make the suffering of the innocent their highest priority? Will they choose endlessly more horror, or will they choose a world without men?
Is the Christian realist willing to abandon what everyone else defines as "realistic" if that collection of ideas has never brought the true peace which Christians are instructed to seek and serve?
1. It is utopian to plan on reducing violence to zero. The intellectually mature Christian will recognize that we can reduce, not eliminate, crime and war.
2. We have succeeded in reducing war and crime at various times and places. In respect to crime, rates of crime have been reduced by various means. For example, crime in NYC was reduced by certain policing measures until the "progressives" regained control and undid the measures.
3. If we had half as many men, there would still be reasons to fight and commit violence. We don't know that we would substantially reduce violence.
4. If you are as bold as you paint yourself, why not propose to greatly reduce the number of men in the racial group that commits a disproportionate share of crime, instead of reducing the number of all men?
I think by not "surreptitiously appealing to divine law" you are engaging in Christian realism; we're having a debate instead of a heresy trial, which is good. What are the real world consequences of the widespread acceptance of contraception? I agree with you and with Catholics when they discuss the great negative effects of "the contraceptive mentality." However, I do not think this precludes faithful and conscientious use of contraception by a Christian couple. Prudence comes into play in the bearing of children, and there is no categorical distinction between a couple spacing children by other methods than contraception and non-abortifacient contraception.
This narrative is directed towards environmentalism, right? True Christians and honest environmentalist should’ve been fast allies in the 60s.
I didn't have that particularly in mind, but that would be a great arena of collective action to which to apply it!
Too bad it’s not Handgrenades or horseshoes…. Context is a thing.
Oh well, I certainly enjoyed reading the piece. Thank you!
You have a great reading voice
Thanks, Chris! I was really trying on this one. :)
Here's an attempt at realism directed at one of the core goals of Christianity, to bring peace.
It won't take long for a clear minded realist seeking peace among human beings to realize that the primary obstacle to peace in the world arises from a single easily identified source, violent men. Anyone can confirm this reality for themselves just by following their news feed and observing who it is exactly that is conducting the overwhelming vast majority of violence.
Such a Christian realist may then proceed to look for a response to the epidemic of violence in solutions that seem realistic. A serious realist will soon discover that every "realistic" idea they can think of has already been tried in some form somewhere over a period of thousands of years, and none of them have come close to ending human violence. At this point the realist may realize that when no realistic plan has solved a problem over a long period of time, the serious person has no choice but to turn their attention to that set of ideas considered unrealistic and unreasonable.
As example, it's considered reasonable to identify the violent men and remove them from society, while keeping the peaceful men. This seems like a reasonable and realistic plan, until you realize that it's never worked. And so it can't be labeled realistic.
The Christian realist may then reflect that to have any men is to have violent men, and to have violent men is to embrace the chaos of today's world, and all the unspeakable horrors it inflicts upon the innocent.
The Christian realist then faces a question which will define how they should proceed. What is it about the male gender which is so important that it justifies such a horrible price tag? After all, a tiny number of men can impregnate huge numbers of women, and would probably be glad to do so.
What will the Christian realist choose? Will they choose to serve the horrific status quo, or will they make the suffering of the innocent their highest priority? Will they choose endlessly more horror, or will they choose a world without men?
Is the Christian realist willing to abandon what everyone else defines as "realistic" if that collection of ideas has never brought the true peace which Christians are instructed to seek and serve?
I would respond in multiple ways:
1. It is utopian to plan on reducing violence to zero. The intellectually mature Christian will recognize that we can reduce, not eliminate, crime and war.
2. We have succeeded in reducing war and crime at various times and places. In respect to crime, rates of crime have been reduced by various means. For example, crime in NYC was reduced by certain policing measures until the "progressives" regained control and undid the measures.
3. If we had half as many men, there would still be reasons to fight and commit violence. We don't know that we would substantially reduce violence.
4. If you are as bold as you paint yourself, why not propose to greatly reduce the number of men in the racial group that commits a disproportionate share of crime, instead of reducing the number of all men?
I think by not "surreptitiously appealing to divine law" you are engaging in Christian realism; we're having a debate instead of a heresy trial, which is good. What are the real world consequences of the widespread acceptance of contraception? I agree with you and with Catholics when they discuss the great negative effects of "the contraceptive mentality." However, I do not think this precludes faithful and conscientious use of contraception by a Christian couple. Prudence comes into play in the bearing of children, and there is no categorical distinction between a couple spacing children by other methods than contraception and non-abortifacient contraception.