I think you hit the nail on the head when you remind us that grace perfects and does not destroy nature. Thanks to generations of Protestant readings of Paul, we in the West tend to read the word "Law" as referring only to the commandments given Moses on Sinai, and not the entirety of the Torah. We forget that the Torah includes Genesis. Torah was at work, and is at work, in the birth and movement of planets and the turning of seasons as much as in the moral law: indeed, the latter is a reflection and outworking of the former, in accordance with the Divine nature. The Torah is inescapably social, revealing a cosmos which is ordered, hierarchical, interdependent and thus, in a sense, patent of "civilisation" at every level.
Good thoughts. FYI, you might want to make it clearer that the command to soldiers to forego extortion was given by John the Baptist, though certainly it would be hard to believe that Jesus would have disagreed with John’s practical instructions about what repentance would involve.
I was just pointed towards this critique - a month late, I see. Thanks for engaging.
Unfortunately, quite a lot of words are put into my mouth here. The result is a summary of what I didn't say, and then something of a straw man response.
Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the fact that I am an Orthodox Christian, and am writing from that tradition, within which the spirit (and practice) of the Desert Fathers is still very much alive. This is not the same thing as 'the monastic stream of Catholic Christianity and the radical Reformation stream of Protestantism' and it has nothing to do with 'grace abolishing nature.' I don't even know what that means.
It is, rather, a simple attempt to follow Christ's instructions to die to the passions and live for Him rather than the world. This can be done by monastics, but also, as I said in my talk, but those of us in the world. But it cannot be done by a civilisation; and indeed, civilisation is founded on values inimical to it.
I didn't say that civilisation per se was 'constituted by the seven deadly sins', but rather that current Western cultural values are founded on them.
I didn't say that civilisation was simply about 'wielding power.' I described it as a city-based culture, built on settled agriculture, which produced surplus on which power hierarchies were built, and required continual expansion.
I didn't say that 'nature was relatively untouched by human action', nor did I oppose nature to civilisation.
I didn't say that 'Action must be limited to that of the more peace-loving Native American tribes', nor that 'Man is not a political animal, but something less, a pre-agricultural, and therefore, nomadic and tribal animal.' The last statement makes no sense to me, since it assumes that non-agricultural societies do not engage in 'politics.'
I didn't say anything about being 'missionaries in non-Western countries.'
The notion that 'Christian sacrifice requires material success' is pure Thatcherism: indeed, Mrs Thatcher notoriously used the parable of the good samaritan in this way, arguing that Christ was praising the samaritan for his wealth. An astonishing twisting of his words, and precisely what I was speaking against. These are merely clever attempts to evade what Christ was clearly and repeatedly telling us to do.
My speech was in fact *precisely* about how to be a Christian in the midst of civilisation. My answer was to attempt as far a possible to live as Christ taught us, rather then engaging in political projects designed to defend a culture based on values he explicitly condemned.
I’m listening back through your response to Ryan Anderson, and I hear you distinguish between culture and civilization. That might be an important counter to my argument.
However, I think it lands us in a similar place. You can’t really have hospitals if you don’t have armies. Should Christians engage in occupations from monasticism up through hospitals, but leave government, armies, and new technology to heathens?
Again, I am sympathetic to the idea that there is a distinction between idolatrous and “tower of Babel” civilizational activity, and that which is appropriate to Christians. However, I’m not sure you’re drawing the line at the right place. I think there are civilizational activities Christians must be able to engage in that are protective of the more simply cultural ones.
Paul, I'm honored by your reading and responding. Thanks for clarifying your intent; I did not mean to put words into your mouth.
I did not intend to attribute all these statements to you, for example, about "becoming missionaries in foreign countries." I am trying to point out that your talk is in the stream of what Reinhold Niebuhr called a "Christ Against Culture" approach to the problem of Christ and Culture. That is a stream which includes the Desert Fathers, monasticism, Radical Reformation (Anabaptists), and Tolstoy.
My worry, and Niebuhr's, is that this stream is one-sided. It's answer to culture is only a hearty "No." And every Christian approach to culture needs an aspect of contradiction to existing culture. But it also needs a recognition that culture is partly the fruit of our created nature, and not only the building of the Tower of Babel. Likewise, Christian duty includes acts of culture-building. So a Christian approach to culture also requires a hearty "Yes," in other respects.
The kind of worry I have about your talk was well-stated by Jake Meador: https://mereorthodoxy.com/kingsnorth-erasmus-lecture. An Eastern Orthodox friend of his, not Paul, found in the Desert Fathers the commendation to “move to a desert, adopt strict ascetic practices, and pray all day and you will become holy.’” Jake continues, “Which is fine if that choice is available to you. But what if it isn't? What if you have people depending on you to provide for their livelihood, such that you have to work a regular job, earn a paycheck, keep a home, and all the rest? What then?”
“Does the renunciation of syncretistic attempts at civilization renewal also mean the renunciation of the pursuit of temporal, creaturely goods altogether?”
People like Jake and I raise these concerns because advice like yours has actually been quite common in certain Christian circles, Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical. Jake and I would have both experienced a conservative evangelical form. It takes different forms, many of which you would not endorse - like being a missionary to a foreign country as the ideal of Christian life. But the pattern is perennial, and one that many of us millennial evangelicals have had to escape from. We have had to find a world-affirming and, yes, civilization-affirming brand of Christianity.
I still believe in the need to distinguish between sinful forms of civilization-building, and non-sinful ones. What percentage of the American stock-market is about the production of real economic goods and the proper allocation of resources? And what percentage is effectively gambling, graft, and the like? I am interested in the question, but Christian answers that are completely anti-stock market, which I have heard from friends from basically every stream of Christianity, simply fail to address the question.
My point as a theologian who, in spite of my youth, has been wrestling with the question of Christian civilization for a while, is to indicate that you are tapping in to a stream of Christianity that is larger than just you or the desert Fathers. It is a stream of thought that is ultimately one-sided, giving a primarily negative answer to the question. The Christian hope, however, is for a city from above, paved with gold though - admittedly - not built with human hands. In what ways can our good works now anticipate this ultimate end of human life - life in the city and eternal civilization of God?
I am reminded by the comments about the distinction between Christianity and Culture, and the inbuilt contradictions, of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. In very brief summary: the psycho historian Seldon put in place a plan for humanity which was locked on a time vault which opened a further instalment at future junctures in humankind development. There was an overt group of people who followed the forecast development at each new phase of humankind development. However, as an insurance Seldon also put in place a secret Brotherhood/ Sisterhood to take corrective action if humankind went too off plan. But even this group were flummoxed by the arrival of the “Mule” who through a spanner into Seldon’s carefully constructed plan. But the plan for humankind was eventually brought back into line.
Why do I mention this: first because it came to mind as I read the comments about Christianity vs Culture and the gap which might or might not develop if we cast aside the civilising effect of Christianity. As one commentator suggests it opens the way for dictators and authoritarian regimes. And that is already happening. But it would be comforting to think that there is an underlying innate capacity for goodness in humankind that will eventually break through - or perhaps not!!!!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you remind us that grace perfects and does not destroy nature. Thanks to generations of Protestant readings of Paul, we in the West tend to read the word "Law" as referring only to the commandments given Moses on Sinai, and not the entirety of the Torah. We forget that the Torah includes Genesis. Torah was at work, and is at work, in the birth and movement of planets and the turning of seasons as much as in the moral law: indeed, the latter is a reflection and outworking of the former, in accordance with the Divine nature. The Torah is inescapably social, revealing a cosmos which is ordered, hierarchical, interdependent and thus, in a sense, patent of "civilisation" at every level.
Good thoughts. FYI, you might want to make it clearer that the command to soldiers to forego extortion was given by John the Baptist, though certainly it would be hard to believe that Jesus would have disagreed with John’s practical instructions about what repentance would involve.
Thanks, Stephen! It looks like I was confused about that since writing the same in May: https://joelcarini.substack.com/i/144838920/the-bible-only-case-for-pacifism
I was just pointed towards this critique - a month late, I see. Thanks for engaging.
Unfortunately, quite a lot of words are put into my mouth here. The result is a summary of what I didn't say, and then something of a straw man response.
Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the fact that I am an Orthodox Christian, and am writing from that tradition, within which the spirit (and practice) of the Desert Fathers is still very much alive. This is not the same thing as 'the monastic stream of Catholic Christianity and the radical Reformation stream of Protestantism' and it has nothing to do with 'grace abolishing nature.' I don't even know what that means.
It is, rather, a simple attempt to follow Christ's instructions to die to the passions and live for Him rather than the world. This can be done by monastics, but also, as I said in my talk, but those of us in the world. But it cannot be done by a civilisation; and indeed, civilisation is founded on values inimical to it.
I didn't say that civilisation per se was 'constituted by the seven deadly sins', but rather that current Western cultural values are founded on them.
I didn't say that civilisation was simply about 'wielding power.' I described it as a city-based culture, built on settled agriculture, which produced surplus on which power hierarchies were built, and required continual expansion.
I didn't say that 'nature was relatively untouched by human action', nor did I oppose nature to civilisation.
I didn't say that 'Action must be limited to that of the more peace-loving Native American tribes', nor that 'Man is not a political animal, but something less, a pre-agricultural, and therefore, nomadic and tribal animal.' The last statement makes no sense to me, since it assumes that non-agricultural societies do not engage in 'politics.'
I didn't say anything about being 'missionaries in non-Western countries.'
The notion that 'Christian sacrifice requires material success' is pure Thatcherism: indeed, Mrs Thatcher notoriously used the parable of the good samaritan in this way, arguing that Christ was praising the samaritan for his wealth. An astonishing twisting of his words, and precisely what I was speaking against. These are merely clever attempts to evade what Christ was clearly and repeatedly telling us to do.
My speech was in fact *precisely* about how to be a Christian in the midst of civilisation. My answer was to attempt as far a possible to live as Christ taught us, rather then engaging in political projects designed to defend a culture based on values he explicitly condemned.
All the best,
Paul
I’m listening back through your response to Ryan Anderson, and I hear you distinguish between culture and civilization. That might be an important counter to my argument.
However, I think it lands us in a similar place. You can’t really have hospitals if you don’t have armies. Should Christians engage in occupations from monasticism up through hospitals, but leave government, armies, and new technology to heathens?
Again, I am sympathetic to the idea that there is a distinction between idolatrous and “tower of Babel” civilizational activity, and that which is appropriate to Christians. However, I’m not sure you’re drawing the line at the right place. I think there are civilizational activities Christians must be able to engage in that are protective of the more simply cultural ones.
Paul, I'm honored by your reading and responding. Thanks for clarifying your intent; I did not mean to put words into your mouth.
I did not intend to attribute all these statements to you, for example, about "becoming missionaries in foreign countries." I am trying to point out that your talk is in the stream of what Reinhold Niebuhr called a "Christ Against Culture" approach to the problem of Christ and Culture. That is a stream which includes the Desert Fathers, monasticism, Radical Reformation (Anabaptists), and Tolstoy.
My worry, and Niebuhr's, is that this stream is one-sided. It's answer to culture is only a hearty "No." And every Christian approach to culture needs an aspect of contradiction to existing culture. But it also needs a recognition that culture is partly the fruit of our created nature, and not only the building of the Tower of Babel. Likewise, Christian duty includes acts of culture-building. So a Christian approach to culture also requires a hearty "Yes," in other respects.
The kind of worry I have about your talk was well-stated by Jake Meador: https://mereorthodoxy.com/kingsnorth-erasmus-lecture. An Eastern Orthodox friend of his, not Paul, found in the Desert Fathers the commendation to “move to a desert, adopt strict ascetic practices, and pray all day and you will become holy.’” Jake continues, “Which is fine if that choice is available to you. But what if it isn't? What if you have people depending on you to provide for their livelihood, such that you have to work a regular job, earn a paycheck, keep a home, and all the rest? What then?”
“Does the renunciation of syncretistic attempts at civilization renewal also mean the renunciation of the pursuit of temporal, creaturely goods altogether?”
People like Jake and I raise these concerns because advice like yours has actually been quite common in certain Christian circles, Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical. Jake and I would have both experienced a conservative evangelical form. It takes different forms, many of which you would not endorse - like being a missionary to a foreign country as the ideal of Christian life. But the pattern is perennial, and one that many of us millennial evangelicals have had to escape from. We have had to find a world-affirming and, yes, civilization-affirming brand of Christianity.
I still believe in the need to distinguish between sinful forms of civilization-building, and non-sinful ones. What percentage of the American stock-market is about the production of real economic goods and the proper allocation of resources? And what percentage is effectively gambling, graft, and the like? I am interested in the question, but Christian answers that are completely anti-stock market, which I have heard from friends from basically every stream of Christianity, simply fail to address the question.
My point as a theologian who, in spite of my youth, has been wrestling with the question of Christian civilization for a while, is to indicate that you are tapping in to a stream of Christianity that is larger than just you or the desert Fathers. It is a stream of thought that is ultimately one-sided, giving a primarily negative answer to the question. The Christian hope, however, is for a city from above, paved with gold though - admittedly - not built with human hands. In what ways can our good works now anticipate this ultimate end of human life - life in the city and eternal civilization of God?
I am reminded by the comments about the distinction between Christianity and Culture, and the inbuilt contradictions, of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. In very brief summary: the psycho historian Seldon put in place a plan for humanity which was locked on a time vault which opened a further instalment at future junctures in humankind development. There was an overt group of people who followed the forecast development at each new phase of humankind development. However, as an insurance Seldon also put in place a secret Brotherhood/ Sisterhood to take corrective action if humankind went too off plan. But even this group were flummoxed by the arrival of the “Mule” who through a spanner into Seldon’s carefully constructed plan. But the plan for humankind was eventually brought back into line.
Why do I mention this: first because it came to mind as I read the comments about Christianity vs Culture and the gap which might or might not develop if we cast aside the civilising effect of Christianity. As one commentator suggests it opens the way for dictators and authoritarian regimes. And that is already happening. But it would be comforting to think that there is an underlying innate capacity for goodness in humankind that will eventually break through - or perhaps not!!!!