A Living Text

Rosen summarizes Adorno’s view of America:

The picture of American life that Adorno gives in Minima Moralia is bleak indeed. The functionality of American architecture - the elimination of ornaments, window frames and garden fences - is characterized as mechanistic and dehumanizing; the directness of American manners insensitive and intrusive; and the cult of health and therapy fascistic. America was a haven from the barbarism of Europe, to be sure, and Adorno was grateful for that, but it was what America had in common with what he had fled from that most caught Adorno’s attention: the extension of industrialism to all areas of life and the corresponding alienation of the individual. 

In a review of several books about Theodor Adorno, Michael Rosen wrote the following:

In Adorno’s view, Nazism points towards a horrifying fact about the nature of European civilization itself. European civilization has acted as a cradle for ideals of equality and respect for humanity, ideals that have inspired great social movements as well as Europe’s most profound works of art. And yet it produced in Germany, a nation that had contributed to that culture in the highest degree, a regime in which human being treated their Jewish fellow citizens as so much disposable rubbish.

[Adorno wrote] Auschwitz has irrefutably demonstrated the failure of culture. That it could happen surrounded by the entire tradition of philosophy, art and the sciences-the mind-signifies more than just that they were not able to assert themselves and change human beings. Those very disciplines with their claim to independent validity are the home of the falsehood. All culture after Auschwitz-the radical critique of culture included -is rubbish.

Two things stand out to me: the inability of humanity to understand human nature apart from the doctrine of original sin, and the inability of culture to save man aside from the worship of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The idea of human goodness seems to span all religions and thought forms, and is inherent in modern day messianic beliefs such as that Obama will save America, or that America will save the world. Mankind is evil to its core, and apart from regeneration, is hopelessly bent on evil. But no amount of experience seems to drill this home, so the lesson has to be learned again and again. The current American mantra of “believe in yourself” is the ultimate rejection of original sin. There is nothing in yourself to believe in, cast your hopes upon the risen Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, in order for there to be any hope of progress.

Writing in 1995, James Jordan said:

Now there is a last curious fact. The Book of Acts likewise ends with this same quotation from Isaiah (Acts 28:25-28). Paul applies it to the stubborn and unbelieving Jews, and now tells them he is going to go to those very heathen that Psalms 115 and 135 were written about in the first place, and they will listen. A full circle has been made. This is the third application of these original Psalms to Israel. It has passed through Isaiah, to Jesus, to Paul. In each instance, there are some who are saved and others who are further hardened. This is now a three-fold hardening that has come upon Israel, and God is done with Israel.

Where are we in this cycle? America is surely at least two-fold hardened, and perhaps we are moving toward the third. About this I do not know. But what is clear is that, more than ever, America is Self-Intoxicated, and it is harder than ever to get any hearing for the Gospel. Any man who attempts evangelism with an Arminian theology is bound to be deeply disillusioned in the contemporary world. For men to be saved it is increasingly clear that a purely supernatural miracle is required so that the blind can see, the deaf hear, and the dumb sing for joy. And, it is clear that we are in danger of losing our Gospel privileges. In many places in the third world, the Gospel is heard with great joy. Romans 11:7-8 is very liable to become our legacy:

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.”

For some time I have had a vision, which is the founding of an intentionally Anglican city or community. A place where worship and life are mixed, people live next to one another, and things like a University exist to further a Western, Protestant vision of the Christian life.

Several months ago Professor Stephen Lake contacted me because he shares a version of the same vision. This added to my excitement and we talked about next steps. From these discussions has come a new blog:

Anglican Community Project

This blog is initially being written by Professor Lake and myself, and is open to contributions from other like-minded individuals. Please check it out and contribute your thoughts. Perhaps someday it will lead to the actual creation of such a community - this is my fervent hope.

You can read the horrifying truth here. To sum it up:

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

Unlike Mark, I am going to vote for the man because he is the only hope that the innocent unborn have in this race (and yes, it is a slim one). But yet again, it points out that ‘conservatives’ aren’t very conservative when it comes to preserving the family, western culture, tradition, or much else. Not that Democrats are.If this story were about Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama, we’d be calling for their heads and shaking our heads in disgust.

The GOP needs to quit pointing fingers at the media, the liberals and the courts and start pointing the finger at ourselves. We are in deep need of repentance and a long struggle to live holy lives and restore families, one at a time. That isn’t glamorous or earth-shattering, but without it, we end up with pathetic leadership from men like Gingrich, McCain and company who leave shattered marriages in their wake left and right.

R.J. Rushdoony wrote this some years ago, but it is a timeless truth:

Everything associated with roots and certainty is today despised by the self-styled new elite. Marriage, morality, family, law, order, certainty, and above all, Christianity, are hated with a passion. Man’s freedom is to avoid all certainty except himself; the quest for certainty is seens as the quest for death. Life for these men means uncertainty and rootlessness. One student radical has remarked, “I hate people who know anything.” The hatred of certainty is a major passion of existentialist man.

This hatred of roots and of certainty is basic to revolutionary activity. The revolutionist destroys things of value precisely because they have a value apart from him. Only what he decrees can stand. The revolutionist destroys roots, values, and laws because they speak of certainty, and he is at war with certainty.

This article is chilling, not surprising, but chilling. This may be where we are headed. Having a President Obama won’t help. One excerpt:

What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?

Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.

The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so boldly.

Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

A couple months ago, Barrack Obama issued some theological pronouncements. Speaking on March third he said:

I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them. So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.

Here Senator Obama is practicing what theologians call ‘canon within a canon.’ That is, he is saying that we should view some parts of the Bible as more important than other parts, and read the other parts in light of those more privileged parts. But let us not concede to the Senator the high ground of the Sermon on the Mount. Loving your neighbor as yourself, which is presumably what he was referring to, does not equal accepting their sin. In fact it might mean just the opposite, as in warning one’s neighbor of his sin so that he does not fall into eternal destruction.
(more…)

What is a conservative? The word is tossed around like most words are, without much critical reflection on what the term actually means. Is it conservative to support the United States no matter what? To support any war started by a Republican? Just what is it to be ‘conservative’?

I like to start with the dictionary, and mine defines conservative as:

“holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.”

That seems to be a good definition - but is that what the GOP and modern conservatives mean when they say they are conservative? Is it really about conserving the past and the permanent things? In a happier age, Edmund Burke wrote:

“…in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings: that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree; and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that the stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them.”

So the first principles of true conservative thought are a love for, and healthy embrace of, the past.

Last weekend we watched The Island. I’d like to say it was unbelievable, but unfortunately, it was quite believable. It’s about human beings being raised to be slaughtered for their organs, paid for by the mega-rich of the world. The story is in a similar vein to another recent movie that I liked, Children of Men. Both movies outline grim futures of a different nature, where life is completely devalued. 

I’d like to think that these movies reflect some sort of popular consensus on abortion and eugenics, but I don’t know that they are more than entertainment for a depraved world. After all, Scarlett Johansson, the star of The Island said:

“We’re supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn’t be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn’t be able to have abortions.”

What a horrible world, where babies couldn’t be slaughtered when we don’t want them! And yet she can act in this movie that decries cloning for organs (or at least I hope it does). So it is odd to me that Hollywood is putting out these culture of life films, all the while embracing the culture of death. I guess it’s just marketing to a certain segment. We are so far gone in the world, that we don’t think twice about the horrors occurring around us on a daily basis.

If you think we aren’t that far gone, consider that 40% of women of child-bearing age in America have had an abortion. Professor Peter Singer thinks that it should be just fine to kill young children for their organs. We are now going to be creating human-animal embryos for research. Thousands of British women have had four or more abortions. Down syndrome children are disappearing because they are being aborted out of existence, “About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.” We have a candidate in Barrack Obama who is fine with about any kind of abortion, and is supported by a large number of younger Christians. 

Tell me how we are different from Nazi Germany and its’ eugenics laws? Because to us it is a “choice?” This is evil, murderous and bloody evil that is out of sight, out of mind. We don’t hear the screams of babies being chopped up in the womb or salinated out of existence - so who cares? May God have mercy on this depraved culture of death and change the hearts of those who think life is a commodity.