"I am thinking that there is a throne at the heart of every culture, whether we know it or not, and that if we cast out its previous inhabitant - and the entire worldview that went along with it - we had better understand what we plan to replace it with."
I nominate the Dharma: always at hand; ready to be harmonized with; available to all sentient beings; works well with impermanence.
Thanks so much for responding Kati. What you wrote makes perfect sense.
I do not experience the Dharma as a desert, but can see how a person could. Maybe Jodo Shinshu/True Pure Land is the largest Buddhist lineage in Japan because Amida Buddha is someone to whom people can relate.
It did for a while--so maybe we need a Buddhist monarchy where the power is diffused rather than centered, and authority is not higher, but interpenetrative.
It is a wonderfully conscious, peaceful, compassionate practice that I think works best in a monastic environment. Ask Ashoka, or the Tibetan Buddhist, what happens when a large percentage of society becomes what we spiritually aspire too and your neighbor hasn't.
When the neighbor has violent/imperial/colonial designs, what happens is what happened to the Maurya empire after Ashoka died (who my not have been all that peaceful after his conversion). Desires are hard to resist.
I am in a position to say such a thing - pardon me if I repudiate your use of the loaded word, "judgment" - based on the Word of God. It's astonishing to me that you should make such a reply given the feeling of the day, which must be the most Evangelical day England has had in my lifetime.
It's convenient that you repudiate the use of the word judgment, just as you yourself judge. Surely as a self avowed evangelical you are aware that only God can judge. Avoiding the label does not absolve you of your judgement, no matter how much you wish it does.
I repudiated it because Paul Kingsnorth was using it incorrectly of me, and pejoratively. I was not judging anybody's behavior. I was stating the truth which all Christians are commanded to state. Jesus wasn't a poser. He meant what He said: we who believe in Him are to be witnesses for Him.
I doubt very much that I'll convince you on this point (and I'm not going to derail Paul's comments to start a fruitless debate on it), but just to put on the record for anyone else reading this thread, no the bible does not teach that hell awaits anyone who falls outside of Christianity, and the church fathers do not teach this either. There are spiritually dangerous practices in this world, but it is not for us to start delineating which individual human beings, with their own stories and relationships with God, have rejected him. That's not for us to know until the day of his merciful judgement. St Paul commands us to work out our *own* salvation with fear and trembling. I think the scriptures are quite clear that not all will accept the call of Christ and receive eternal life, but the fathers show us that the correct attitude to that reality is to always hold out hope, in love, for all we meet.
To say that the Bible does not teach that Hell is the destiny of those who die without Christ is to mark oneself as a non Bible reader, or much worse, a hider of truth.
Hi Bobby, I was ejected from the evangelical church of my upbringing over questioning this belief. I sincerely thought as you do and was married to a pastor and actively working to save people from hellfire when my husband and I had a change in convictions.
For me, change came through that respectable man CS Lewis. The Great Divorce, which lead to reading George MacDonald. And also church history about the very early church including Origen and others who were universalists. There is even a very evangelical guy named Edward Fudge who has done extensive biblical study about the scriptures referring to Hell and concluded that there is no eternal conscious torment but instead annihilation. The thing that actually changed my mind wasn't any study, however, though they seeded thoughts. I was perturbed by what I read as I had always been taught that modern Christians discard belief in Hell because they want to be more acceptable to the world and not actually pursue righteousness. But when I began to accept that the nature of God was such that He would go to any length to see us mature and whole, and that even beyond earth He would not leave anything undone that He had the power to do, I felt an inward change in how I viewed people, and the very long and patient process of salvation. I noticed a restful patience that allowed me to see people in a way that aligned more with the heart of God (I felt intuitively), instead of a panicky feeling that if they suddenly died they would fall off an irretrievable cliff into Hell. When I began to rest in God's Fatherliness in this way I knew it was a maturing of my Love and ability to see people where they were at, rather than force things.
I know how it is to feel that you have to speak the unpopular truth about Hell, and how culturally easy it is for people to pile on and mock any talk of Hell or judgement. There is no doubt that Jesus used the strongest language He could to warn of what results from rejecting God's Love. I still take it very seriously. Thanks for being part of the Abbey discussion and sharing your thoughts.
Thank you, Zac, for this comment. I believe as you have written. It is only God (and so also Jesus) who are allowed to judge. The rest of us have to live our lives managing our judgment, being humble, so that we can love everyone we encounter. We love everyone because we want to follow Jesus' teachings and so save ourselves. If someone happens to be converted to Christianity at the moment we loved them, it was not us that changed the person's heart, but God, through the many people that person encountered.
Whichever religion can offer up docile workers, soldiers and trustworthy ministers to the Empire gets the nod. I lived in what might be deemed a Provincial Capital of the Machine for over 20 years. Buddha statues and Tibetan prayer flags abound. Flown even by those who have probably never practiced anything in their lives. Crosses and Virgin Mary statues...not so much. Christianity's day as the Imperial Religion is likely over. Buddhism is a far better look these days.
But this may be, in fact, Buddhism's time. But we all need to be careful for what we wish for. It does seem that the official religion serves to shore up the Imperium, not the other way around.
No doubt I'm asterisk of being banned from this comments section, but **** imperiums. As Flannery O'Connor wrote of herself, "I'm interested in saving my soul." John 14:6 is much more categorical than John 11:25, 26, but God bless the Queen, she had both read at her service.
I wonder if religion and religious practice must always remain countercultural to prevent appropriation by the Imperium.
As a corollary: maybe what can serve as a binding force would be citizens' dedication to ensuring that all religions and their adherents are free to flourish within the bounds of not causing harm (as determined by the citizenry).
Different, unrelated, unplanned conversations I have had lately with people of various backgrounds (none of whom were Buddhist) all eventually landed on the notion that maybe a commitment to not doing harm could serve as a unifying force in a fraying society. I think there is a yearning for order/kindness, and a dissatisfaction with people trying to have it all their own way. Admittedly, some religions and their followers will have an easier time than others in such a situation, and will ardently resist such a reality.
My hunch is that it isn't what the citizen decide that matters. Or that the citizens get to decide on much of anything.
Hasn't the Dalai Lama promoted the "religion of kindness"? There are far worse things that could happen. Do we all agree on what kindness is? It doesn't look like it.
I suspect/hope that there is greater agreement about kindness than may first appear. I think most people can agree on what is harmful. Disagreement arises when the concept of redemptive harm/suffering is introduced. The question is then raised whether a harm should be relieved or endured (with the promise of a later benefit to be received on a different plane of existence).
Again, I suspect/hope that most people believe that if a person wishes to endure suffering in accord with their religious beliefs, they should be allowed to do so. The sticking point is that some people believe that their religious beliefs are binding on all people (whether believers or not), and desire to order society so that it is difficult or injurious for people to pursue paths that their creator deity frowns upon.
For example, a traditional Christian would say that as a gay man I have to bear the cross of being same-sex attracted and refrain from sexual acts with other men. Now, if a person who is gay wants to follow his religion and refrain, I think he should be given all the support he needs, both within his faith tradition and outside of it. But I do not think that same-sex sexual activity should be criminalized in order to try to coerce/prevent people from engaging in it--especially people who do not believe that such activity is wrong.
Other people are going to make choices that an individual disagrees with--often strongly. I witness many actions, which I think are not in keeping with the Eightfold Path, but I do not seek to criminalize such actions. I will bear witness to the Eightfold Path, and happy to chat with anyone about it, but I am not here to force people to walk it.
This is really interesting. I've noticed the same. Westernised Buddhism, along with a vague, syncretic, pick-n-mix 'nature spirituality' (they often merge) are very much the religion of the ruling elite in the West now. You're right: it's about what interests they serve. Christianity could be twisted, somehow, to serve the interests of empire, and Buddhism can be twisted to serve the interests of global capital. Perhaps it's the tendency within it towards nihilism if it is not practiced correctly, or the emphasis on 'no self' which can be used to justify materialism (again, incorrectly I think.) I don't know, but it is certainly happening.
The administrators of the Machine also have to deal with and try to survive bureaucratic tedium and boredom. As well as the ethical questions one might rather avoid. But their livelihood depends on it. There is enough perceived crossover between Buddhism and nihilism that the latter, ironically, could be seen to help one through all the meaninglessness--by accepting it. The nihilism may be a feature rather than a bug. Think that ruthless samurai practiced Zen (and, yes, all sorts of horrible people professed to be Christian). And all this usually with a nice aesthetic as well. Add the occasional weekend meditation retreats on Mexican beaches with fine dining! Voila! A new Imperial religion.
Nihilism is a consequence of striving to fulfill desires in order to achieve pleasure/satisfaction. Eventually, human beings realize that desires can never be fulfilled/quenched, and as a result fall into despair, which opens the door to nihilism.
As I said above to Paul: people cherry-picked aspects of Buddhism when they constructed their new Imperial religion (deep down they wanted it to resemble the one they were raised with).
In one of my weekly services, we chant the Four Bodhisattva Vows (below is one version--there are many):
Sentient beings are numberless: I vow to liberate them all.
Desires are inexhaustible: I vow to end them all.
The Dharma gates are infinite: I vow to master them all.
The Buddha way is unsurpassable: I vow to attain it.
Yes, and the mindfulness aspect of Buddhism also gets badly twisted. I've read mindfulness books with anecdotes like, "Bill hated his meaningless corporate job. Then he learned to practice mindfulness and saw that his thoughts were just thoughts and rather than attach to them, he could simply notice and release them. Now Bill is much happier and even got a promotion." Truly revolting.
Rachel- This is exactly it! The ancient practices of Buddhism reduced to a coping mechanism. A way to survive and therefore better serve the machine. A way to smooth the functioning of that which drains us of life. Without alternative ways of life, however, what other options do most people have? -Jack
The issue is that people often pick up the concept of no-self, but leave behind the truth of interbeing (as if the two were separable--but then they have been taught that things are separable in Western Abrahamic ideology, e.g., the individual soul). No-self then proceeds to be understood through a Western Abrahamic lens, becoming a negative rather than a cornucopia.
Such a strange occasion - strange and impressive. A funeral that combined unapologetic protestant constitutionalism, Christian exclusivity, and lots of commonwealth (even imperial?) symbolism. The only concession to the cultural changes of the last 70 years might have been the participation of women clergy.
But maybe the funeral showed us that the establishment is much stronger than we recognised, and that it resonates even in people (like me) who might have appreciated the late queen, but are not massive fans of royalty. There has been something utterly luxurious in the recent reactionary revival!
That surprised me too. It was like stepping back at least half a century. I also thought at one point, watching the amazing choreography, that the Establishment - the old one - is sitll very much alive. Pretty organised too. It was a side of Britain that was supposed to be dead, but turns out to still be kicking - and surprisingly popular. Food for thought, for sure.
I suspect that the powers that be, the Cathedral, whatever you want to call it, determined that all the pomp and pageantry would be very useful, especially as the winter approaches.
No matter how cynical you think you are, the people who really runs things are way more cynical than that.
Well, the setup has been planned since the 1960s. 'Operation London Bridge', it was called. All practiced and well-oiled over decades, and it snapped into place. I don't think the Cathedral has much to do with the actual cathedrals. Quite the opposite.
I looked up Operation London Bridge. Apparently they had meetings three times a year to revise it. So I have to wonder how much the plan has or has not changed since its inception. That would be interesting to know...
I wonder if part of the public response is evidence of a hunger for embodiment, being tired of the digital, a thirst to see, and identify with, the Real. These days were not just ones of observation, but also of participation.
I also wonder if part of the response is relief in being given permission to grieve in community, as so many of us could not, with family funerals during the pandemic. One of the Queen's last gifts to her people.
Also, as one of the priests implictly noted, the Queen's promise of meeting again, given during the lockdown, is carrying over into a promise of meeting again on the other side of the door of death....another parting gift from her.
I would point out that Anglicans are only protestant in that they are not part of Rome. Apostolic Succession is alive and well in many Anglican Quarters well the one's that have women bishops. I am part of an Anglican diocese that does not ordain women either as that is an innovation and they are no priest in the real sense.
Twenty minutes ago I finished the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov, only to take a break and find this! Who or what made *that* happen?!
You say you think the new King understands that power derives from the spiritual plane. After reading his book, Harmony, this past week, I would say he absolutely does. I was quite surprised by the depth of his holistic spiritual vision.
A big part of my experience of being a lifelong Christian is understanding that death and resurrection are constantly taking place around us. What seems like the final defeat of death turns out to be the seed that falls to the ground and dies so it can be reborn. As the world fragments and things fall apart, I think we will see people turn to older forms of leadership, the kinds our spirits and psyche have been craving. Unfortunately, that means countries will be susceptible to dictatorial strongmen. We're already seeing that happen.
But I think we may also see a rebirth of sacral leadership in a various forms, and Charles may very well be the man (or at least one of the people) who helps to bring that about.
Funnily enough, having written this, I already feel more and more that some sort of resurrection is on the cards. As I said above, the crowds gave the lie to the notion that this is meaningless. That doesn't mean that what we used to call 'Christendom' is coming back, or indeed that the crowd knew what it wanted, if it wanted anything explicable - but it does, perhaps, suggest that some turning point is maybe in view. How much longer can we live with nihilism?
Sep 19, 2022·edited Sep 19, 2022Liked by Paul Kingsnorth
Eight hours of unfiltered Christianity dropped like a brick into the secular pond of Britain, watched avidly by millions. It makes you wonder. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finally got what monarchy is all about from watching this - especially the removal of the instruments of state and the reading from Psalm 103 which really drove home our transience and equality before God.
I only returned to the RC Church a few months ago after many years agnosticism and acedia, and feel I have a slightly better understanding of the faith than I did this morning.
"...which really drove home our transience and equality before God."
But how long will such an understanding remain active in a person's mind, and, more importantly, serve as the ground of her behavior? Soon enough, she will be returning to material pursuits, desire fulfillment, and sorting people by skin color, ethnic background, sexual desires, zip codes (or the British equivalent), and all other manner of various and sundry things in order to prove that she exists and keep the night sweats at bay.
Alas, you're probably right. The politics will start up again today ... but at least for a while there wa a reminder that things can bing us instead of dividing.
Tivoli Park, the third oldest amusement park in the world, was founded in 1843 in Denmark. Apparently the founder of the park pitched it to the Danish King explicitly as a diversion the King would find useful. If people are amused they won't be thinking of politics, or somesuch.
I wonder now if it isn't the reverse. Get us to think about nothing *other* than politics and we won't really be thinking about the politics that matter.
From my Buddhist perspective, we are already together, and this event--the death of a monarch and the elaborate ceremonies undertaken as a result--momentarily cleared away the materialist debris with which people medicate themselves, which usually obscure the truth of interbeing from their consciousness. Rituals completed and queen interred, they will go back to their desiring selves--chasing after orgasms, cars, cocktails, sporting events, latest fashions to help maintain the illusion of a separate self.
The crowds demonstrated a desire for the abandonment of individuality, and the need and enjoyment of dividuality. The question is once this moment dissipates (which it must) will those who participated in it seek other ways to recreate the experience of dividuality--ones not requiring the death of a monarch and state pageantry, but available in ordinary life on a daily basis via often modest efforts.
I remember when I read Dune as a Sci-Fi addled teenager, I was confounded by the idea that anyone would predict that, 10,000 years in the future, the entire galaxy would organize itself into a return to monarchical feudalism. I thought that was absurd.
now I understand what Frank Herbert was communicating.
not that it’s an endorsement, but that it shows a deeper understanding of what makes us humans tick!
Hi Jack, yes, I'm an American living here in NC. The situation is not limited to the UK, it's a recurring phenomenon for mankind, I think. Just as scary here, especially now.
The chances of the British worshipping King Charles are about as remote as the chances of a mouse surviving a tsunami, I can assure you! Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn't spent any time in the country.
A return to Christianity could very much be on the cards.
I don't know if you've read Eric Kaufmann's 'Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?', but he makes a good case for a religious, even fundamentalist future -- simply because the more religious you are, the more children you're likely to have (and the more likely it is that those children will be religious in turn) -- while secular people are barely breeding at all.
I think in the Church of England this will be evident in the imminent post-liberal shift, as a more conservative and biblical consensus replaces the more moderate paradigm.
However we do still face an atheistic couple of decades.
I think that's asbolutely true over the long haul. Machine liberalism will run itself into the ground. Religion will resurface because, however imperfect, it points at the true shape of the universe.
But old British Christendom is nonetheless finally buried today. An inevitable and perhaps necessary death too. Still, a moving moment.
Ed- With all due respect I am skeptical of the numbers argument. A small minority can and often does rule over a large minority. Heck, it always does. If numbers mattered then Africa would reign. Maybe it will. We shall see. -Jack
Very true -- but this is a case of inter-elite competition (i.e. between a post-christian laptop class without children, and an evangelical middle and upper-middle class with lots of children). The latter will win out -- at least if Britain retains its system of representative democracy.
Ed- Interesting. I am here in the States, so the situation is surely different. At the moment it doesn't look like the Evangelical middle class has much say in anything. The whole demonization of the Jan. 6th melee into the worst insurrection of all time is one part of this power struggle. Though that said, that campaign may not be fully working. But the longer game of demonizing Evangelicals continues, and really most Christians with it.
I read the whole woke-ifcation of the Churches as mostly about aligning with power. It is something most people do quitely naturally and without much conscious friction. This also seems to be a major part of this class/worldview struggle.
In the US you have sufficiently high immigration that any demographic shift towards religiosity is cancelled out by unreligious new arrivals -- however it may further cement the mentality of an embattled fundamentalist fringe, who I think would probably win in a hot conflict.
People who go to woke churches don't have a fertility level above replacement, and children of liberal Christians usually abandon Christianity themselves. So those churches will simply cease to exist -- just like moderate/liberal Protestantism in the UK, which is gradually disappearing.
What's perhaps more frightening is the prospect of a Religious Right that then aligns with the Machine, to the extent that it can absorb their resistance as yet another commodified identity -- something we see, I think, with the Prosperity Gospel, and also shades of Pentecostalism.
Your last point is at the heart of it, I think. And a terrifying consideration. On one level the machine doesn't "care" who runs it, only that it continues. Or less anthropomorphically, the machine has a momentum all its own. In the end, Power Politics is still Power Politics whoever might think they run the show--at least they will *think* they benefit from doing so.
If a religious movement got ahold of the reigns, many now who declare their wokeness would be onboard with the new power once it was safe to do so.
I was long a Tolkien skeptic--having only seen the movies I didn't see what the fuss was about. Reading the book makes me realize he told a story that was far more one of elves and dwarves.
It is a deep and eternal question? Can humans give up the urge to dominate, and to dominate entirely?
What has been interesting looking around left-liberal UK Twitter is the lack of understanding of what Christianity is, and why the funeral of a devout Christian was the way it was. A certain prolific commentator (I won't name names) lamented how 'impersonal' the service was - why didn't we get more insight into the Queen 'as a person'? They actually used the term 'erasure of the individual' as a criticism - obviously sensing a theme but unable to process it properly. Outside those circles, however, something is definitely stirring.
“Authority, in this model of society, flows downward, from God, and into the monarch, who then faces outward with that given power and serves - and rules - his or her people.”
Well, don’t assume too quickly that the new age will entirely dispense with this model; the power of the global “elites”, or the symbols of their power, can be elevated to a pseudo-monarchical status, which flows outward through mass narratives and new technologies to convince us of their grandeur and goodness, and to persuade us we are happy and living in the best of all possible worlds.
In fact, it seems to me that such a model will be essential if a Machine society is to take root, and fully dominate our planet, because I think (as you suggest) the model echoes something archetypal in human beings. If the Machine fails to express that model, it will fail ultimately.
Peter- I think this is a necessary point to keep in mind. In many ways it is a PR game and the machine knows how to play that well. I wouldn't count them out. I take hope that it is never *entirely* a PR game. -Jack
What is this talk of "authority", sacred or otherwise :) Should we not rather talk of Love?
Jacques Ellul wrote a wonderful little book making the case that Christianity is fundamentally opposed to monarchy, and that the only true Christian political organization must be some kind of socialist anarchy.
Surely authority and obedience to a higher power is the wrong way to talk about religion - rather, isn't it Love? Not compulsion, but a free desire to follow the Good, the True, the Beautiful?
In other words, a rational being can only freely desire the Good, the valuable as such (God) - animated by Love of the Good, and freely choosing, there is no authority involved, and all metaphors of "sacred authority" are fundamentally misguided!
In fact, the idea of "sacred authority" and "obedience to a higher power" may be one of the stepd towards modern nihilism - in that replacing a rational desire of a free will for the "valuable as such" with mere "obedience" to a higher power, we strip our wills of their natural orientation towards value and meaning "as such".
Did not Jesus came to replace compulsion and authority - the Law - by Love, and did he not replace the image of "sacred authority" with one of the brotherhood of the sons of God?
Surely, Christianity - being opposed to all violence and coercion and power - should never have been joined to political power? And the "compromise" of it's alliance with earthly power and coercion, authority and oppression, was a step towards modern nihilism.
Is not the sublime image Jesus gave us of one who utterly rejects Power - who rejects once and for all coercion, authority, rulership, and replaced it with Love?
Jacques Ellul wrote a wonderful little book making the case that Christianity is fundamentally opposed to monarchy, and that the only true Christian political organization must be some kind of socialist anarchy.
Not, of course, as a top down political program that utilizes coercion and power - we saw the horrors of that last century - but a disposition of the heart in each individual. A spontaneous willing and desiring of a conscience formed in the light of Christianity, to eschew all power, coercion, and authority, and approach our fellow men and women as equals, brothers and sisters, and friends.
He shows how, quite remarkably, all the passages in the Old Testament about kings basically cast them in a negative light - even King David is basically a horrific picture of kingship, according to him - and how the ancient Hebrew ideal was one of anarchy.
He does the same thing even more fully for the New Testament.
Power and authority and compulsion are all different things, though.
Christ doesn't compel, but he does have power. And he is a judge. He explicitly said in fact that he did not come to replace the law; only to reveal its meaningless if it did not guide the heart.
I like Ellul; he always inspires. But I don't think a case can be made that any particular form of government is 'the only true Christian political organisation.' And that case about the Old Testament clearly doesn't stand up
My view really is that political organisations are rather beside the point of Christianity. Living in a monarchy or an anarchy wouldn't make any of us a better or a worse Christian in our hearts.
Christ is clearly the ultimate figure of authority. Only he rules by serving. A king can do this, or a queen, or a president. My point here was not about politics, but about where authority derives from. God - or Man?
"My point here was not about politics, but about where authority derives from. God - or Man?"
Fair enough - but perhaps the idea of "authority " in the spiritual context is seriously misguided? And perhaps it has even been historically pernicious?
If God is understood as the Good, the True, and the Beautiful - then desiring God will be the spontaneous freely willed desire of any rational being. Our natures are built to desire the Good.- we cannot knowingly desire evil, as evil.(and not a perverted attempt to desire to the good)
Talk of obedience and authority is talk of "power", which is ultimately nihilistic (the ability to compel replaces the search for value as such).
You talk of Jesus is a "judge" - but, and this the crucial point, was he "determining" the Good as an act of mere power, or was he recollecting us all to the intrinsically Good, which we as rational beings know in our hearts?
This is a hugely important point upon which hinges the history of nihilism.
In fact, in the West there developed such a concern for God's total and absolute power, that in order to defend it theologians began saying God is not "constrained" to do Good - which means he is no longer the Good as such, the source of all value as such.
He is merely power being exercised for its own sake - which is nihilism, at that point.
This philosophy of "voluntarism" became the basis for the modern idea of free will as the ability to desire anything (nihilism) - in the older conception, free will consists in the ability to desire the Good (value as such). But in modernity for a will to be truly free it must be able to posit it's own desires - not desire the intrinsically good - which means stand over an abyss of nothing, worshipping the "nothing".
(I am indebted to the great David Bentley Hart for these reflections, whose ideas I have no doubt horribly mangled and not done justice to)
In this way, talk of obedience and authority - the language of power - may very well culminate in nihilism.
That is why surely Jesus came to replace such language with that of Love.
And are we not all Sons of God? In the beautiful orthodox tradition which you have joined, Paul, our true vocation is not obedience but as Sons of God to become One with him. This too is not the language of mere obedience - but a far grandee fate for us "mere mortals".
But I can't see Jesus just speaking 'the language of love'. He's also speaking the language of judgement. A lot of it. Matthew 24 and all that.
Orthodoxy of course was the faith of the Byzantine Empire, and teaches that earthly authority derives from God. What you're offering here is a very left-protestant take. I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it. But again, I don't see love and authority as being in any way in conflict. What is God if not the ultimate authority? Authority can be exercised in many ways though. Through tyranny, or lovingly.
Well, I would agree these ideas are more aligned with the "Left" in some ways, although obviously in total opposition to the modern Lefts nihilistic understanding of "free will".as the ability to desire anything.
But then let's remember that the modern Left is itself a perversion of Christianity, and inconceivable in a non-Christian context.
But I utterly deny this is protestant :) Rather, the inspiration is Patristic and Eastern Orthodox.
It's true that Orthodoxy, like Roman Catholicism, did ally itself ultimately with Power - I would only argue this is utterly untrue to the spirit of the Gospels. But then every religion has elements that contradict their fundamental teachings.
Certainly, Jesus speaks the language of judgement and also condemnation - but the question hinges on whether he wants us merely to "obey" him, or does he want to recall us to our knowledge of the intrinsic Good that we already know in our hearts and from which we've deviated, and reminding us of the self-imposed suffering of ignoring this summons.
Is he recalling us to the Way (of life) - or threatening us with punishment if we "disobey."
"What is God if not the ultimate authority?"
He is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful - as such. The source of all being, and Being as such.
God created us for Him - our natures desire him ineluctably. We do not "obey" him - we yearn after being One with him.
Many spiritual traditions concieved of God primarily as the Beloved - not as "authority", but as the Desirable as such, and many mystics even use erotic language.
Isn't seeing God as the Beloved, as the Desirable as such, ultimately truer to our natures than seeing him as an authority to obey?
That is how the case seems to me - perhaps we do not agree at the moment, and I appreciate that you say you see where I'm coming from - as I also appreciate where you're coming from, even if I think you're taking a wrong path here :)
No, I pretty much agree, but I'm not writing here about 'obedience' in the sense in which you're talking about it. I think you're slightly misinterpreting this piece. It's not a defence of Christian empire - I feel much the same about that sort of thing as you and Ellul, and any alliance between the church and power makes me uneasy. And yet - here's the paradox I suppose - since earthly power will always exist, the question is surely where we think it derives from. Would we prefer a state which exercises raw power over us and the Earth purely on the basis of materialism - need and greed? Or would we prefer our leaders to understand that their power is contingent, and try to persuade them to act accordingly?
I think this is a struggle Christians have had for millennia. As I say, my tendency is always to avoid power; but I also understand why, when invited by Constantine to do so, the church took on the task of trying to Christianise the empire.
So yes, I agree, blind ofr fearful obedience is not the story. Maybe the question is: would we prefer a purely secular, materialist head of state, or one whom, as in the case of the late Queen, does seem to have been trying to live this?
The one thing that the Queen had on her side--correct me if I wrong--is that she never really had to play *serious* power politics. Don't get me wrong I am sure she knew how to use her power. But this was of a lower order than staring down people ready to slit your throat--metaphorically or otherwise.
Or more simply, other English Queens may not have always been as nice. Again, I say this as a yank. Correct me if I am wrong. -Jack
This back and forth relates to my morning conversation with my 16yo son and subsequent musings. He declined to answer me and tell the truth about something problematic he is hiding from me and only said, "it's a personal issue. I have to work it out myself." I replied that if he depends on mom and dad for food and shelter he will have to answer to us, because we are still responsible for him.
There is something dreadful about wielding this authority over a budding individual. I can see the attraction of the modern take that my children are just friends and I have no right to impose limits and requirements on them. But yeah, that doesn't align with reality. In reality I give a firm line to my son and then I cry to my Father to help me, to use my authority for Love and to teach my children that there are limits, there are consequences, and to trust those who Love you. I in turn must trust that my Father loves me and that some difficulties I pass through are allowed for reasons I don't fathom.
I think this is why biblical language uses Father, brethren, sons and daughters etc. The son is becoming a man, and will one day be capable of full sympathy with his parents, but there's a process. People are in varying stages of being able to obey because they love the Truth. Of course that is the ideal, but here on earth we have lots of learning to do yet and we need authority.
I apologize if I just stated something way to basic and obvious and mistook it for relevant.
I see your point, but even as a practical matter of politics I think Christians should try to translate the spirit and ethos of Christ as much as possible into reality.
So even if we must have rulers for the time being, the element of coercion and hierarchy should be minimized as much as possible.
I see no reason Christians shouldn't advocate for political forms that are minimalist in this sense - for instance, hunter-gatherers typically have chiefs who have minimum authority and rule entirely by consent. It is more like a band of brothers inspired by the preeminent one among them but not bound by him.
The American colonists had a hard time making treaties with Native Americans because they couldn't understand that the chief simply did not have the power to compel complete assent from all tribe members - he was not their ruler in a European sense.
So instead of mythologizing king and hierarchy and authority, I think Christians might well adopt a different political mythology altogether.
And why not, after all?
Are we really called to compromise, or to constantly advocate for higher things?
I think it's too early to believe that the funeral represents the "Last Post for Christian England." Although, it could be said it is too late for such a post. But in the sense you obviously meant, "Christian" is merely short-hand for the belief in the divine right of the king in England. In that sense, it might very well be the last post. For many agreed with Elizabeth that she represented God's rule for England. As soon as the full realization that Elizabeth's reign is over, that popular belief will also be over.
Indeed, the end of that belief began to fade with the death of Princess Dianna, who was worshipped, perhaps, by more of the public than Elizabeth. As her divinity is fading, so will Elizabeth. It likely won't transfer to Charles. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the end of his life, he were no longer be referred to in the press as King Charles. England has long since not been Christian other than in name. In his time, Freddie Mercury received more worship than did Queen Elizabeth, or for that matter, than Jesus.
The Church of England has also long since ceased to be Christian, if it ever were. After all, King Henry VIII created the Church with himself as its head.
It's very much the symbolic end of a certain vision of English/British 'Christendom.' You are right of course that this has for a long time been a shell. Elizabeth was the last representative of that time.
I don't think you're right about Freddie Mercury though. Not after seeing that queue.
But also I think it is very much not the end of Christianity in England. I have high hopes of a revival. I don't think any of us can imagine the form it will come in. But it might be quite exciting.
Revival seems less unlikely in England than in America. It is not mentioned in the MSM, but revival is taking place in supposedly unlikely place, as in Arab states and in China. But Christianity, worldwide, is representable to the shell of English Royalty.
I come from a two countries that pulled away from monarchy, and while I am nostalgic for it in a sense, I am really a product of countries that reject monarchy and divine right.
As the saying goes, "The King is dead, long live the king."
There's a lot to think about in that sentence. It can't be said in any form of republic.
A while ago, a seller on the market told me that whenever there was a major election in France, buying went down drastically, and the country was put on hold.
Probably because... we don't have "The King is dead, long live the king"...
It figures.
While I firmly believe in the necessity of divine right in the society of the family circle, in the political sphere, I'm not sure...
“there is a throne at the heart of every culture, whether we know it or not, and that if we cast out its previous inhabitant - and the entire worldview that went along with it”
And
“There is something - someone - else beyond it, and if we are silent, in these cathedrals or in these forests, we can hear it still.”
God is still there - whether some chose to cast Him out - He is still there...so what does this mean if the ‘culture’ rejects Him but many people still
I guess I would ask, has the culture rejected Him? Or has the culture only rejected a style of worship of Him? No doubt people wander forests looking for the magical essence of the divine in the same way people pray in the cathedrals . But I think the call, when heard, can break every bone in the body. David Bentley Hart has written a few essays, if we were to truly follow Christ, it would mean giving up all that we have and following him, which may be too high of a price for most all of us. If people are charitable, believe in lifting up the poor and downtrodden, and this is the rhetoric one hears daily, surely the culture is awash in His Truth?
I think it is safe to say--if anything is safe to say--that this is going to a wild ride, if nothing else. All sorts of new and new/old forms will arise and die out. And a thousand years hence whoever comes out on top will have its historians and philosophers to make the case that the new status quo was ever thus. It that sense it will actually be as it was ever thus...
I guess we can all throw our hat into the ring and see how it goes. I suppose that is what we are doing.
Elegant post as always. I will admit, as an American the sheer idea of monarchy eludes me and so all I can reflect upon is its romantic nature wonderfully made real through this Second Elizabethan Age. I've read many essays both on here and others about this subject and the death of Elizabeth is a profound moment either that for the first time for many people a new monarch will be on the British throne, or that a sense of great symbolism has forever been removed.
What is happening here is not just monarchy, but it is as C.S. Lewis spoke about chivalry, monarchy fashioned as art. It is one of the reasons Versailles still intrigues so many people, it is why Catholicism seems to be making a resurgence in the States, when ritual and art can merge, those associated with the moment transcend. No doubt we have many monarchists from Xi to Putin to the various machismo 'kings' of the Americas, but they too can transcend if the art becomes what is important. I was not alive for it, but I wonder often how Mao's funeral was handled by the Chinese or how the Kim family are laid to rest in North Korea. It is out of our culture, but no doubt the transcendence can still occur with the proper performance.
But truly, that's what it all is, performance. What I think is underlying all of this is the issue of death. You said it well, Elizabeth is naked before God now. That is what materialism and capital strive to hide.
To make somewhat of a caveat, though I haven't seen it, apparently in the new Rings of Power, Galadriel is sent to their version of Heaven, but before she is taken up, jumps off of the boat and swims back to shore. There is a great reflection of our own societies. We have to stay here, in the material world, where our money is, where our friends are, where we have power. Elizabeth went with dignity from what I can tell. Quiet, unassuming, humble. How many of us can say the same?
Death holds a great sting over us now. A world that can accept death will learn how to live again.
Another poignant and wonderful pice Paul. Thank you.
For many years, training thousands of Christian educators, many lapsed into the materialist secularism that you delineate, I would speak to them of the Latin precept of 'Capax Dei.'
Capax Dei translates roughly as, "...that which has the capacity for God." I would make the case that the human person is a God-Seeking-Being. We can bury that truth in a million ways, but to paraphrase Churchill, "...in the end there it is!"
All is not lost. Many of us, amidst the frenetic dissociation of modern life, still seek the One who sits upon the throne. I have a young family and a very busy professional life, but each day I steal away to a small local Church and sit before the Eucharist for an hour.
I have made my uneasy peace with the inevitability of the Imperium whether the Machine Imperium falls or not. Wherever it may lie on the spectrum between Sacral Kingship and Raw Power Politics--and however much it slides around on that spectrum. Not that the Imperium needs my permission. Far from it. If requests are being taken, though, I would probably prefer something like the following.
1) The Imperial Religion for most people in the dense population areas of cities, etc.(sorry, this also seems inevitable). 2) A Mount Athos-esque more or less independent Monastic Republic where the serious practitioners of the official religion can avoid the more egregious kinds of imperial interference--some of the time. 3) Purposefully allowed free zones, e.g., deserts, mountains, otherwise uninhabitable land for independent monasteries, hermit poets, solitaries and Sketes of all kinds. For the wilder, earthier forms of spiritual life, etc. The Chinese seemed to be able make this last option work for a good while. From what I hear it still happens a bit to this day. Of course, somehow overt brigandage needs to be curtailed.
"Purposefully allowed free zones, e.g., deserts, mountains, otherwise uninhabitable land for independent monasteries, hermit poets, solitaries and Sketes of all kinds. For the wilder, earthier forms of spiritual life, etc. The Chinese seemed to be able make this last option work for a good while."
This is very good :)
One of the fascinating forms Chinese political power and spirituality has taken is this "right" of people - even the most prestigious and powerful of mandarins - to "opt out" and go into the mountains or the desert to cultivate spirituality - usually later in life but not always.
It's remarkable that the secular political order found this not just acceptable, but even desirable as a kind of ideal - usually after some period of service to the "empire", but as I say, often of a very minimal sort.
Might we not return to such a "accomodation" between the spiritual and secular orders?
Perhaps one of the tragedies of Christianity becoming conflated with the secular political order is this lack of a sense of seperation between the two.
Taoism, which is practically the Chinese version of Christianity (albeit with only the apophatic God), had never become the basis of the state cult - and as an "outside" spirituality always represented an "alternative" to the secular order that nevertheless penetrated and inspired the secular order while never being tamed by it, but - transcending it.
I envision a Christianity that is not "assimilated" to the secular order of political power, as has sadly happened historically - but penetrates it while remaining transcendent of it, inspires those within it with a call to the "beyond".
Jeff- You are absolutely right. I for one am not saying otherwise. In fact, that's *exactly* what I am saying. My question is whether there is any space for people to live outside those confines. It seems to have been allowed at times and in certain places, even that it was mildly encouraged and a respected choice. But that may not be in the cards now. We shall see. I hope you are well. -Jack
Partly this is because different periods Buddhist monasteries accumulated wealth and power, so we're indeed a challenge to the state.
But other times it was simply because spirituality and religion are quite simply a genuine challenge to the secular order, based as it is on greed, ambition, and materialism.
There is no use denying it - true religion is radical and subversive by it's nature, at least until the Kingdom of Heaven is realized.
But you bring up a good point, Jeff that we should all be aware of.
I think that where we might go now, given that historic Western 'Christendom' has collapsed (and probably for the best) is the possibility of new forms of the faith that will not be a 'challenge' to power but simply exist outside it, as Jack envisages. Some kind of new monasticism? I was struck on Mount Athos recently when I learned how much of a revival there has been there just over the last 30 years. In the 1980s, many of the monasteries were run down and inhabited by just a few ageing monks. Now they are thriving and full of monastics, many of them very young. Something is going on out on the edges. Which is where refreshment of the culture always begins.
Yes, I do agree that there is a rising tide of spirituality, if you will, of the kind that is more "opting out" than trying to reshape the power structures.
Here in the US the huge surge in people living in vans in wilderness areas is a fascinating phenomenon - and, I think, mostly a spiritual one even if the people doing it don't always think of it in those terms.
But I also think that the relationship between spirituality and the secular order is always an necessarily an uneasy one - in the end, religion directly challenges everything the secular order stands for. Religion is - and must be - radical.
But until the Kingdom of Heaven, there can only be an uneasy truce, at its best religion penetrating the secular order with spiritual inspiration - for instance, Taoism was hugely inspiring to many among the Chinese elite whose lives were mostly secular, and in the West, Romanticism (which radically challenged the entire basis of the secular order) nevertheless penetrated this order with message in profound ways.
I think every civilization needs an "anti-civilzation" message, as it were, that somehow directly questions it's entire foundation and reminds it of higher things. It's a paradox in a way.
At its worst, the relationship between religion and the secular order becomes one of active hostility on the part of the state, or assimilation and take over - as perhaps happened to Christianity - so that the truly radical call of religion is utterly forgotten.
But in the end, I would caution against too easily assuming the secular order will "tolerate" people "opting out" and being spiritual even if it doesn't directly challenge the power structure - that in itself, is a huge challenge to the primacy of secular values, a stinging rebuke to it's obsession with material things, and almost a radical act of rebellion.
In my own life, I was shocked at the "pushback" I got when I started to become spiritual and genuinely reorient my values - I thought I was taking the most harmless and innocuous of positions, by abandoning ambition - but that was not how it was seen!
I do believe the disintegration of the traditional church might be a good thing, but it brings up the chance for a revival of Christianity in some sense.
instead of trying to influence and control the world, the New Church should be a refuge from it.
we should be a haven for the refugees of modernism and the culture war, not a part if it.
There is a phrase Pope Francis used fairly early in his pontificate if I recall, when he referred to the church as “a field hospital.” That has stuck with me. We are all wounded by something/someone so we must first and foremost have mercy, and bind each other’s wounds.
This is probably the closest to my thoughts of what the future will look like.
The idea that we will all descend to small city-states seems more romantic than realistic.
That said, the only issue people might ruffle at is the aesthetic, whether a more seemingly centralized Imperial system, or a more seemingly decentralized system that is still vibrantly Imperial but with the belief that the people rule. The cosmopolitan zones will be vibrant places of hedonism, music, art, food, and capital...both financial and social. Places like New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and so on, the Imperial Centers. But there will be little stopping anyone from going out into the wilderness to eke out an existence so long as they keep quiet and not disturb the Imperial Centers. All manners of people will be out in the wilderness, the deeply devout, anarcho-primitivists, millenarians of all stripes, and outlaws, all mixing together.
Of course, if you tune your lens in a certain way...this seems to be the case now anyways.
Your first idea though, Jack sounds a lot like Warhammer, haha, not sure if that is purposeful or not.
Yeah, which deals with an Imperial Religion...the Imperium of Man specifically, it's highly influenced between Roman mixed with an almost absurdist Catholic aesthetic.
But the diversion of our spiritual impulses into that which serves our masters is kind of the way of things. Nietzsche was wrong that Christianity was a slave morality. However it may have begun.
Ummm... there's something I don't understand : with all manner of people out in the wilderness looking for something spiritual there, where will there be wilderness, both materially and spiritually ?
This is a good point. A thousand years ago in China the population density was much more sparse. The wilderness could handle it. Probably not so much anymore. But then again as most capitualite to the Imperium, get herded into megacities, to live in their tube apt and eat bug burgers while being on VR all day, and then finally attempt to "liberate" themselves from the horror by trying to download themselves to the cloud...who knows?
Over here in America, watching the millions of everyday people mourn for HRH and everything she represented, it left me with some hope that faith, piety, and restraint can return as culturally relevant values.
The people who live paycheck to paycheck, working their tails off to raise their families and keep them safe--these folks have a common sense and humility that has more truth and virtue than most anything you will see out of our laptop class and cultural overlords who believe they are too smart for God.
As you've said, Paul, religious belief is a more genuine reflection of the natural order of things than alternatives. We all have an innate sense of the sacred because the natural world is sacred. Maybe piety and religious devotion can return to a broader cultural relevance once the competition exhausts itself trying to nourish the human spirit with post-religious ideologies
Thanks for the moving picture you painted of the Queen's funeral, and more generally, for all your valuable insights. In a time of great darkness, I have often found windows of light in your posts. I do, however, have some real questions about your line of thought in this one.
I certainly recognize the catastrophic loss of the sacred in the modern period. That loss can—generally and retrospectively speaking—be linked to the transition from the medieval to the modern era, especially the Enlightenment and its widespread repudiation of (often dogmatic and violently intolerant) forms of traditional authority, including that of the Church and the monarch (or King). I am somewhat distressed, however, at your suggestion that this transformation—so basic to modernity—necessarily bears with it a purely materialistic secularism and repudiation of divine law. To be sure, such has emerged as the dominant world view in the course of the last two centuries, but this represents, in my mind, a betrayal of the real spiritual impulse that catalyzed modernity.
One notable fruit of that impulse was the birth of my nation (yes, I am an American)
and the modern vision of democracy. Recall the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
Your piece contains a more or less explicit criticism of this epochal initiative, at least, insofar as democracy hinges upon the idea articulated in that last phrase. Yes, the democratic vision premises itself upon the principle that government precisely is NOT the locus of sacral authority, but is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
The language of the Declaration itself naturally goes back to the writings of an Englishman—Locke—the first of whose two Treatises on Civil Government consisted entirely of a potent critique of the tradition of the divine right of Kings. Yet Locke was no atheist, and few of the more truly enlightened 18th century thinkers after him (with, of course, notable exceptions) were. As the language of the Declaration itself makes explicit, democracy, in essence, does not predicate itself upon repudiation of godhead or divine law, but sees the seat of that throne—not in the person of a King or Pope, but in the spiritual humanity—the divine nature—inherent in each and every individual.
In this political vision, it is precisely the chief function of government to guarantee those freedoms that enable the individual citizen rightfully to pursue the realization of that spiritual humanity (which, if you wish, you could associate with the Christ force, or divine I AM) by virtue of the school of life; his or her experience of the world as "the vale of soul-making." You find apt representation of this principle of the sacred character of the "I"— which is not merely the personal ego—in the writings of the American Transcendentalists, who give cultural and literary expression to this idea. Two of the most representative, of course, are Emerson and Whitman; the latter the ex-preacher turned prophet of the Oversoul; the former the great singer of the Song of Myself and poet of the Democratic idea.
I believe this recognition of the divine spirit inherent in each and every individual to be the true impulse behind, not only American Romanticism, but European Romanticism as well. It finds its own unique, and uniquely powerful expression, in (among others) Wordsworth.
No, as both a real democrat (I mean spiritually, not the degraded political party carrying the name at present) and real Romantic—and, of course an individual not born into a country with a royalist tradition—I cannot feel any nostalgia for the age of the divine right (or sacral sovereignty) of kings and queens. Is it not rather the mission of the modern age to redeem the broken promise of Romanticism, in all its multiple forms, and realize that the throne of God is no royal seat, but the heart and soul of the individual human being?
Montesquieu said that the principle of monarchy, the true principle, was honor. And Queen Elizabeth, it seems, served her country and her people with great and admirable honor. Yet he likewise said that the principle of democracy was virtue: that it could not function, unless the people themselves aspired to the realization of the spirit of humanity; the logos inherent in each individual. Call the spiritual quest what name you will, and style it after your own fashion; but in one way or another is not that the path toward a more human future, and a recovery of the sacred in everyday life? Is not the real crisis of the present day not the demise of royalty, but the distortion and decay of the true democratic Idea; what one writer called "spiritual democracy," in America, in England, and indeed across the globe?
I'm enjoying the thoughtful American pushback I'm getting on here!
Thanks for this. In reference to your last para in particular: yes, we agree here. As I've said to others, this piece is not especially a defence of monarchy (actually it needs no defence in Britain: it's about the only institution people still respect, for now at least) but a reflection on the once-existing notion that the powerful drew their power from God. You are right that the death of this notion is not confined to the powerful. Looking at America from over here, and talking to American friends, it looks like the decay of your democracy into consumerism, individualism and empire must result precisely from the fact that 'virtue' has virtually disappeared. How could it be otherwise given the pressures? There can be no good society anywhere without that notion of virtue being widely shared. Again, the late Queen seemed to embody it in a very old-fashioned way, which might explain some of the feelings.
If w're going to have spiritual democracy, we need to recover it - right? That has to start within, I think.
Hello Paul: Yes, we certainly agree on both interiority and virtue; they naturally go hand in glove. I know you are a fan of Patrick Deneen's book, which I read, with great profit, after learning of it in one of your columns. I would say, though, that I do not think all the blame for America's rampant consumerism, etc. can be placed on "the pressures"; which themselves must be generated by precisely that same ideological frame. As you say in another of your posts, the air of inevitability is itself a feature of the myth of Progress. We've always had our Emersons and Thoreaus and Snyders and Berrys, as you in England have had your true culture heroes. Is not the critical question how the bearers of genuine (as opposed to mere monetary) value can infiltrate the culture of power, instead of suffering ever greater marginalization? I dare think Covid and all the crises the world faces today may be a pivot point. It must be; otherwise we truly will be devoured by the Machine.
An American like you, Daniel, I was raised to believe that the "truths" of the Declaration are indeed self-evident. But I have had to admit that there is a deep conflict between "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." And perhaps an even deeper conflict (as to the fundamental purpose of the state) between "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" and "he [the ruler] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
I suppose one might dispose of those conflicts by saying, in effect, that is what unenlightened people used to think, but we know better now. That option is not available to an orthodox Christian.
Thanks for these reflections, Christopher. While I confess I am not an orthodox Christian, I must also admit that I do not see the conflict you find so evident here. I understand the core of democracy to include recognition that, indeed, it is the spiritual character of each individual human being—each person's participation in the godhead—that is the divine ground of our mortal existence. The State, on the other hand, is not such an immediately and directly spiritual entity, be it ruled by a king, parliament, or president. A portion of the divine wisdom is the conferring of free will upon the soul, and the necessity of its learning, through joy and suffering, its rightful relation to divine will. I understand democracy and its guarantee of unalienable (God-given) rights—including freedom of speech and religion—as a pledge by government to protect the individual's opportunity to pursue that end in the school of public as well as private life. Theocracy, or a monarchy premised on the sovereignty and even divine right of royalty, is antithetical to that idea because it sees the Church, or State, as the privileged receptacle of divine law and authorized to dictate morality in accordance with that status. Insofar as I understand the essence of Christianity to inhere in the indwelling of the spirit of God in the individual human being, that attribution of sovereignty to a body—political, or ecclesiastical—external to the soul-spiritual constitution of the individual human being could be regarded as itself inconsistent with the spirit of the Christ revelation. It is,however, certainly true that this perspective derives from more of an esoteric than orthodox interpretation of the Christ impulse.
You wrote "it is the spiritual character of each individual human being—each person's participation in the godhead—that is the divine ground of our mortal existence."
If you are not an orthodox Christian, then it appears from this reply that you are perilously close to it. What you call "the divine ground of our mortal existence," we call "the image of God" in which we are made. And I agree with you that what makes democracy morally compelling is its recognition of the sacredness of each human person. Indeed, if (as we believe) God has given every human person the gifts of free will, reason, self-awareness, and moral responsibility, then who but God Himself could legitimately claim sovereignty over any person thus bearing the image of God?
Sadly, however, human beings are capable not only of free will and of reason, but also of great evil. Something has gone wrong with humanity, and the image of God that we bear has been marred and obscured -- not destroyed, but damaged. Left to ourselves, in this damaged condition, we should ultimately destroy ourselves and each other. Our baser instincts must be restrained.
This is the reason that I see the conflict between what the Declaration says, and what the Scriptures say. The Declaration says that governments were instituted among men to secure our rights; the Scriptures say that governments exist to restrain those who do evil. The Declaration that the authorities derive their powers from the consent of the government, and thus act as representatives of the people; the Scriptures say that the authorities receive their powers from God, and act, not as representatives of the people, but as representatives of God, "to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It's a different vision of what government is *for* from what the Declaration says. I find the two difficult to reconcile.
Thanks Paul
Yes
Authority from above is Woven into the Image of God
dominion (sic) Under Dominion
Apart from a visible Sovereign how can we know how to exercise our own?
Without Religio Monarchy? Without the Archos, we have the Anarchos of all being Sovereign without shared focus and this lacking any coherence
Kyrie Eleison
PS Couldn’t help not how the Archbishop subtly called this out in his sermon
Those whom history will remember and those quickly forgotten
"I am thinking that there is a throne at the heart of every culture, whether we know it or not, and that if we cast out its previous inhabitant - and the entire worldview that went along with it - we had better understand what we plan to replace it with."
I nominate the Dharma: always at hand; ready to be harmonized with; available to all sentient beings; works well with impermanence.
If you would not mind, could you expand on what you mean when you say that "the Dharma . . . is not relatable."
I ask because I find the Dharma relatable in that when I look at the world, its operates (to my eyes) along the lines laid out by the Dharma.
Thanks so much for responding Kati. What you wrote makes perfect sense.
I do not experience the Dharma as a desert, but can see how a person could. Maybe Jodo Shinshu/True Pure Land is the largest Buddhist lineage in Japan because Amida Buddha is someone to whom people can relate.
Well, I suppose it worked for King Ashoka.
Until Islam expelled it from the continent.
It did for a while--so maybe we need a Buddhist monarchy where the power is diffused rather than centered, and authority is not higher, but interpenetrative.
Whatever the case--we need something.
It is a wonderfully conscious, peaceful, compassionate practice that I think works best in a monastic environment. Ask Ashoka, or the Tibetan Buddhist, what happens when a large percentage of society becomes what we spiritually aspire too and your neighbor hasn't.
Or the Byzantines.
When the neighbor has violent/imperial/colonial designs, what happens is what happened to the Maurya empire after Ashoka died (who my not have been all that peaceful after his conversion). Desires are hard to resist.
And guarantees you wind up in Hell.
Not sure you're in a position to make that judgement. Also, it rather takes away from the feeling of the day over here, thanks.
I am in a position to say such a thing - pardon me if I repudiate your use of the loaded word, "judgment" - based on the Word of God. It's astonishing to me that you should make such a reply given the feeling of the day, which must be the most Evangelical day England has had in my lifetime.
Are you in England today? I was under the impression you were American.
I am. But I read and immediately became a subscriber to Jonathan's Substack. From its contents I found myself unable to draw any other conclusion.
I thought so. Might be a good day for some humble reflection over where you are. The hellfire is really not hitting the spot over here.
It's convenient that you repudiate the use of the word judgment, just as you yourself judge. Surely as a self avowed evangelical you are aware that only God can judge. Avoiding the label does not absolve you of your judgement, no matter how much you wish it does.
I repudiated it because Paul Kingsnorth was using it incorrectly of me, and pejoratively. I was not judging anybody's behavior. I was stating the truth which all Christians are commanded to state. Jesus wasn't a poser. He meant what He said: we who believe in Him are to be witnesses for Him.
I doubt very much that I'll convince you on this point (and I'm not going to derail Paul's comments to start a fruitless debate on it), but just to put on the record for anyone else reading this thread, no the bible does not teach that hell awaits anyone who falls outside of Christianity, and the church fathers do not teach this either. There are spiritually dangerous practices in this world, but it is not for us to start delineating which individual human beings, with their own stories and relationships with God, have rejected him. That's not for us to know until the day of his merciful judgement. St Paul commands us to work out our *own* salvation with fear and trembling. I think the scriptures are quite clear that not all will accept the call of Christ and receive eternal life, but the fathers show us that the correct attitude to that reality is to always hold out hope, in love, for all we meet.
To say that the Bible does not teach that Hell is the destiny of those who die without Christ is to mark oneself as a non Bible reader, or much worse, a hider of truth.
Hi Bobby, I was ejected from the evangelical church of my upbringing over questioning this belief. I sincerely thought as you do and was married to a pastor and actively working to save people from hellfire when my husband and I had a change in convictions.
For me, change came through that respectable man CS Lewis. The Great Divorce, which lead to reading George MacDonald. And also church history about the very early church including Origen and others who were universalists. There is even a very evangelical guy named Edward Fudge who has done extensive biblical study about the scriptures referring to Hell and concluded that there is no eternal conscious torment but instead annihilation. The thing that actually changed my mind wasn't any study, however, though they seeded thoughts. I was perturbed by what I read as I had always been taught that modern Christians discard belief in Hell because they want to be more acceptable to the world and not actually pursue righteousness. But when I began to accept that the nature of God was such that He would go to any length to see us mature and whole, and that even beyond earth He would not leave anything undone that He had the power to do, I felt an inward change in how I viewed people, and the very long and patient process of salvation. I noticed a restful patience that allowed me to see people in a way that aligned more with the heart of God (I felt intuitively), instead of a panicky feeling that if they suddenly died they would fall off an irretrievable cliff into Hell. When I began to rest in God's Fatherliness in this way I knew it was a maturing of my Love and ability to see people where they were at, rather than force things.
I know how it is to feel that you have to speak the unpopular truth about Hell, and how culturally easy it is for people to pile on and mock any talk of Hell or judgement. There is no doubt that Jesus used the strongest language He could to warn of what results from rejecting God's Love. I still take it very seriously. Thanks for being part of the Abbey discussion and sharing your thoughts.
Clara
Thank you, Zac, for this comment. I believe as you have written. It is only God (and so also Jesus) who are allowed to judge. The rest of us have to live our lives managing our judgment, being humble, so that we can love everyone we encounter. We love everyone because we want to follow Jesus' teachings and so save ourselves. If someone happens to be converted to Christianity at the moment we loved them, it was not us that changed the person's heart, but God, through the many people that person encountered.
Whichever religion can offer up docile workers, soldiers and trustworthy ministers to the Empire gets the nod. I lived in what might be deemed a Provincial Capital of the Machine for over 20 years. Buddha statues and Tibetan prayer flags abound. Flown even by those who have probably never practiced anything in their lives. Crosses and Virgin Mary statues...not so much. Christianity's day as the Imperial Religion is likely over. Buddhism is a far better look these days.
But this may be, in fact, Buddhism's time. But we all need to be careful for what we wish for. It does seem that the official religion serves to shore up the Imperium, not the other way around.
No doubt I'm asterisk of being banned from this comments section, but **** imperiums. As Flannery O'Connor wrote of herself, "I'm interested in saving my soul." John 14:6 is much more categorical than John 11:25, 26, but God bless the Queen, she had both read at her service.
I'm with you. Yet though we might not be interested in the Imperium, the Imperium is definitely interested in us.
Dang! I was so pleased with my pun. And you steal the show with an aphorism.
I wonder if religion and religious practice must always remain countercultural to prevent appropriation by the Imperium.
As a corollary: maybe what can serve as a binding force would be citizens' dedication to ensuring that all religions and their adherents are free to flourish within the bounds of not causing harm (as determined by the citizenry).
Different, unrelated, unplanned conversations I have had lately with people of various backgrounds (none of whom were Buddhist) all eventually landed on the notion that maybe a commitment to not doing harm could serve as a unifying force in a fraying society. I think there is a yearning for order/kindness, and a dissatisfaction with people trying to have it all their own way. Admittedly, some religions and their followers will have an easier time than others in such a situation, and will ardently resist such a reality.
My hunch is that it isn't what the citizen decide that matters. Or that the citizens get to decide on much of anything.
Hasn't the Dalai Lama promoted the "religion of kindness"? There are far worse things that could happen. Do we all agree on what kindness is? It doesn't look like it.
I suspect/hope that there is greater agreement about kindness than may first appear. I think most people can agree on what is harmful. Disagreement arises when the concept of redemptive harm/suffering is introduced. The question is then raised whether a harm should be relieved or endured (with the promise of a later benefit to be received on a different plane of existence).
Again, I suspect/hope that most people believe that if a person wishes to endure suffering in accord with their religious beliefs, they should be allowed to do so. The sticking point is that some people believe that their religious beliefs are binding on all people (whether believers or not), and desire to order society so that it is difficult or injurious for people to pursue paths that their creator deity frowns upon.
For example, a traditional Christian would say that as a gay man I have to bear the cross of being same-sex attracted and refrain from sexual acts with other men. Now, if a person who is gay wants to follow his religion and refrain, I think he should be given all the support he needs, both within his faith tradition and outside of it. But I do not think that same-sex sexual activity should be criminalized in order to try to coerce/prevent people from engaging in it--especially people who do not believe that such activity is wrong.
Other people are going to make choices that an individual disagrees with--often strongly. I witness many actions, which I think are not in keeping with the Eightfold Path, but I do not seek to criminalize such actions. I will bear witness to the Eightfold Path, and happy to chat with anyone about it, but I am not here to force people to walk it.
This is really interesting. I've noticed the same. Westernised Buddhism, along with a vague, syncretic, pick-n-mix 'nature spirituality' (they often merge) are very much the religion of the ruling elite in the West now. You're right: it's about what interests they serve. Christianity could be twisted, somehow, to serve the interests of empire, and Buddhism can be twisted to serve the interests of global capital. Perhaps it's the tendency within it towards nihilism if it is not practiced correctly, or the emphasis on 'no self' which can be used to justify materialism (again, incorrectly I think.) I don't know, but it is certainly happening.
The administrators of the Machine also have to deal with and try to survive bureaucratic tedium and boredom. As well as the ethical questions one might rather avoid. But their livelihood depends on it. There is enough perceived crossover between Buddhism and nihilism that the latter, ironically, could be seen to help one through all the meaninglessness--by accepting it. The nihilism may be a feature rather than a bug. Think that ruthless samurai practiced Zen (and, yes, all sorts of horrible people professed to be Christian). And all this usually with a nice aesthetic as well. Add the occasional weekend meditation retreats on Mexican beaches with fine dining! Voila! A new Imperial religion.
Nihilism is a consequence of striving to fulfill desires in order to achieve pleasure/satisfaction. Eventually, human beings realize that desires can never be fulfilled/quenched, and as a result fall into despair, which opens the door to nihilism.
As I said above to Paul: people cherry-picked aspects of Buddhism when they constructed their new Imperial religion (deep down they wanted it to resemble the one they were raised with).
In one of my weekly services, we chant the Four Bodhisattva Vows (below is one version--there are many):
Sentient beings are numberless: I vow to liberate them all.
Desires are inexhaustible: I vow to end them all.
The Dharma gates are infinite: I vow to master them all.
The Buddha way is unsurpassable: I vow to attain it.
The Imperial Religion is always a corruption. That's why it's probably better to steer clear of the Imperium.
Yes. The Imperium must be given a wide berth, and resisted, no matter how many desire-sating goodies it offers as enticements.
Yes, and the mindfulness aspect of Buddhism also gets badly twisted. I've read mindfulness books with anecdotes like, "Bill hated his meaningless corporate job. Then he learned to practice mindfulness and saw that his thoughts were just thoughts and rather than attach to them, he could simply notice and release them. Now Bill is much happier and even got a promotion." Truly revolting.
Rachel- This is exactly it! The ancient practices of Buddhism reduced to a coping mechanism. A way to survive and therefore better serve the machine. A way to smooth the functioning of that which drains us of life. Without alternative ways of life, however, what other options do most people have? -Jack
The issue is that people often pick up the concept of no-self, but leave behind the truth of interbeing (as if the two were separable--but then they have been taught that things are separable in Western Abrahamic ideology, e.g., the individual soul). No-self then proceeds to be understood through a Western Abrahamic lens, becoming a negative rather than a cornucopia.
Such a strange occasion - strange and impressive. A funeral that combined unapologetic protestant constitutionalism, Christian exclusivity, and lots of commonwealth (even imperial?) symbolism. The only concession to the cultural changes of the last 70 years might have been the participation of women clergy.
But maybe the funeral showed us that the establishment is much stronger than we recognised, and that it resonates even in people (like me) who might have appreciated the late queen, but are not massive fans of royalty. There has been something utterly luxurious in the recent reactionary revival!
That surprised me too. It was like stepping back at least half a century. I also thought at one point, watching the amazing choreography, that the Establishment - the old one - is sitll very much alive. Pretty organised too. It was a side of Britain that was supposed to be dead, but turns out to still be kicking - and surprisingly popular. Food for thought, for sure.
I suspect that the powers that be, the Cathedral, whatever you want to call it, determined that all the pomp and pageantry would be very useful, especially as the winter approaches.
No matter how cynical you think you are, the people who really runs things are way more cynical than that.
Well, the setup has been planned since the 1960s. 'Operation London Bridge', it was called. All practiced and well-oiled over decades, and it snapped into place. I don't think the Cathedral has much to do with the actual cathedrals. Quite the opposite.
I am sure that they have. But would the establishment and MSM response have been the same, had QEII died in 1977?
Based on the street parties we had that year, I'd guess so. But we shall never know ...
I looked up Operation London Bridge. Apparently they had meetings three times a year to revise it. So I have to wonder how much the plan has or has not changed since its inception. That would be interesting to know...
I wonder if part of the public response is evidence of a hunger for embodiment, being tired of the digital, a thirst to see, and identify with, the Real. These days were not just ones of observation, but also of participation.
I also wonder if part of the response is relief in being given permission to grieve in community, as so many of us could not, with family funerals during the pandemic. One of the Queen's last gifts to her people.
Also, as one of the priests implictly noted, the Queen's promise of meeting again, given during the lockdown, is carrying over into a promise of meeting again on the other side of the door of death....another parting gift from her.
I would point out that Anglicans are only protestant in that they are not part of Rome. Apostolic Succession is alive and well in many Anglican Quarters well the one's that have women bishops. I am part of an Anglican diocese that does not ordain women either as that is an innovation and they are no priest in the real sense.
Twenty minutes ago I finished the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov, only to take a break and find this! Who or what made *that* happen?!
You say you think the new King understands that power derives from the spiritual plane. After reading his book, Harmony, this past week, I would say he absolutely does. I was quite surprised by the depth of his holistic spiritual vision.
A big part of my experience of being a lifelong Christian is understanding that death and resurrection are constantly taking place around us. What seems like the final defeat of death turns out to be the seed that falls to the ground and dies so it can be reborn. As the world fragments and things fall apart, I think we will see people turn to older forms of leadership, the kinds our spirits and psyche have been craving. Unfortunately, that means countries will be susceptible to dictatorial strongmen. We're already seeing that happen.
But I think we may also see a rebirth of sacral leadership in a various forms, and Charles may very well be the man (or at least one of the people) who helps to bring that about.
Funnily enough, having written this, I already feel more and more that some sort of resurrection is on the cards. As I said above, the crowds gave the lie to the notion that this is meaningless. That doesn't mean that what we used to call 'Christendom' is coming back, or indeed that the crowd knew what it wanted, if it wanted anything explicable - but it does, perhaps, suggest that some turning point is maybe in view. How much longer can we live with nihilism?
Eight hours of unfiltered Christianity dropped like a brick into the secular pond of Britain, watched avidly by millions. It makes you wonder. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finally got what monarchy is all about from watching this - especially the removal of the instruments of state and the reading from Psalm 103 which really drove home our transience and equality before God.
I only returned to the RC Church a few months ago after many years agnosticism and acedia, and feel I have a slightly better understanding of the faith than I did this morning.
"...which really drove home our transience and equality before God."
But how long will such an understanding remain active in a person's mind, and, more importantly, serve as the ground of her behavior? Soon enough, she will be returning to material pursuits, desire fulfillment, and sorting people by skin color, ethnic background, sexual desires, zip codes (or the British equivalent), and all other manner of various and sundry things in order to prove that she exists and keep the night sweats at bay.
Alas, you're probably right. The politics will start up again today ... but at least for a while there wa a reminder that things can bing us instead of dividing.
Tivoli Park, the third oldest amusement park in the world, was founded in 1843 in Denmark. Apparently the founder of the park pitched it to the Danish King explicitly as a diversion the King would find useful. If people are amused they won't be thinking of politics, or somesuch.
I wonder now if it isn't the reverse. Get us to think about nothing *other* than politics and we won't really be thinking about the politics that matter.
From my Buddhist perspective, we are already together, and this event--the death of a monarch and the elaborate ceremonies undertaken as a result--momentarily cleared away the materialist debris with which people medicate themselves, which usually obscure the truth of interbeing from their consciousness. Rituals completed and queen interred, they will go back to their desiring selves--chasing after orgasms, cars, cocktails, sporting events, latest fashions to help maintain the illusion of a separate self.
The crowds demonstrated a desire for the abandonment of individuality, and the need and enjoyment of dividuality. The question is once this moment dissipates (which it must) will those who participated in it seek other ways to recreate the experience of dividuality--ones not requiring the death of a monarch and state pageantry, but available in ordinary life on a daily basis via often modest efforts.
great point guys!
I remember when I read Dune as a Sci-Fi addled teenager, I was confounded by the idea that anyone would predict that, 10,000 years in the future, the entire galaxy would organize itself into a return to monarchical feudalism. I thought that was absurd.
now I understand what Frank Herbert was communicating.
not that it’s an endorsement, but that it shows a deeper understanding of what makes us humans tick!
I pray you're right. I fear we'll see an unwelcome kind of leader worship.
Dana- Are you here in the US? I ask because I have to wonder if your view, with which I agree, is more about our situation here in the States.
Leaving aside entirely what may or may not happen in the UK. -Jack
Hi Jack, yes, I'm an American living here in NC. The situation is not limited to the UK, it's a recurring phenomenon for mankind, I think. Just as scary here, especially now.
The chances of the British worshipping King Charles are about as remote as the chances of a mouse surviving a tsunami, I can assure you! Anyone who thinks otherwise probably hasn't spent any time in the country.
Yes, precisely. Yet, as you noted in your essay, people (mankind?) are yearning and returning to worship something, and so what will it be?
Fascinating, but, I think, premature.
A return to Christianity could very much be on the cards.
I don't know if you've read Eric Kaufmann's 'Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?', but he makes a good case for a religious, even fundamentalist future -- simply because the more religious you are, the more children you're likely to have (and the more likely it is that those children will be religious in turn) -- while secular people are barely breeding at all.
I think in the Church of England this will be evident in the imminent post-liberal shift, as a more conservative and biblical consensus replaces the more moderate paradigm.
However we do still face an atheistic couple of decades.
I think that's asbolutely true over the long haul. Machine liberalism will run itself into the ground. Religion will resurface because, however imperfect, it points at the true shape of the universe.
But old British Christendom is nonetheless finally buried today. An inevitable and perhaps necessary death too. Still, a moving moment.
Ed- With all due respect I am skeptical of the numbers argument. A small minority can and often does rule over a large minority. Heck, it always does. If numbers mattered then Africa would reign. Maybe it will. We shall see. -Jack
Very true -- but this is a case of inter-elite competition (i.e. between a post-christian laptop class without children, and an evangelical middle and upper-middle class with lots of children). The latter will win out -- at least if Britain retains its system of representative democracy.
Ed- Interesting. I am here in the States, so the situation is surely different. At the moment it doesn't look like the Evangelical middle class has much say in anything. The whole demonization of the Jan. 6th melee into the worst insurrection of all time is one part of this power struggle. Though that said, that campaign may not be fully working. But the longer game of demonizing Evangelicals continues, and really most Christians with it.
I read the whole woke-ifcation of the Churches as mostly about aligning with power. It is something most people do quitely naturally and without much conscious friction. This also seems to be a major part of this class/worldview struggle.
Anyway, I hope you are right. We shall see. -Jack
In the US you have sufficiently high immigration that any demographic shift towards religiosity is cancelled out by unreligious new arrivals -- however it may further cement the mentality of an embattled fundamentalist fringe, who I think would probably win in a hot conflict.
People who go to woke churches don't have a fertility level above replacement, and children of liberal Christians usually abandon Christianity themselves. So those churches will simply cease to exist -- just like moderate/liberal Protestantism in the UK, which is gradually disappearing.
What's perhaps more frightening is the prospect of a Religious Right that then aligns with the Machine, to the extent that it can absorb their resistance as yet another commodified identity -- something we see, I think, with the Prosperity Gospel, and also shades of Pentecostalism.
Your last point is at the heart of it, I think. And a terrifying consideration. On one level the machine doesn't "care" who runs it, only that it continues. Or less anthropomorphically, the machine has a momentum all its own. In the end, Power Politics is still Power Politics whoever might think they run the show--at least they will *think* they benefit from doing so.
If a religious movement got ahold of the reigns, many now who declare their wokeness would be onboard with the new power once it was safe to do so.
I was long a Tolkien skeptic--having only seen the movies I didn't see what the fuss was about. Reading the book makes me realize he told a story that was far more one of elves and dwarves.
It is a deep and eternal question? Can humans give up the urge to dominate, and to dominate entirely?
I dunno, voters can be easily manipulated, especially in a political system dominated by political parties.
What has been interesting looking around left-liberal UK Twitter is the lack of understanding of what Christianity is, and why the funeral of a devout Christian was the way it was. A certain prolific commentator (I won't name names) lamented how 'impersonal' the service was - why didn't we get more insight into the Queen 'as a person'? They actually used the term 'erasure of the individual' as a criticism - obviously sensing a theme but unable to process it properly. Outside those circles, however, something is definitely stirring.
“Authority, in this model of society, flows downward, from God, and into the monarch, who then faces outward with that given power and serves - and rules - his or her people.”
Well, don’t assume too quickly that the new age will entirely dispense with this model; the power of the global “elites”, or the symbols of their power, can be elevated to a pseudo-monarchical status, which flows outward through mass narratives and new technologies to convince us of their grandeur and goodness, and to persuade us we are happy and living in the best of all possible worlds.
In fact, it seems to me that such a model will be essential if a Machine society is to take root, and fully dominate our planet, because I think (as you suggest) the model echoes something archetypal in human beings. If the Machine fails to express that model, it will fail ultimately.
Peter- I think this is a necessary point to keep in mind. In many ways it is a PR game and the machine knows how to play that well. I wouldn't count them out. I take hope that it is never *entirely* a PR game. -Jack
What is this talk of "authority", sacred or otherwise :) Should we not rather talk of Love?
Jacques Ellul wrote a wonderful little book making the case that Christianity is fundamentally opposed to monarchy, and that the only true Christian political organization must be some kind of socialist anarchy.
Surely authority and obedience to a higher power is the wrong way to talk about religion - rather, isn't it Love? Not compulsion, but a free desire to follow the Good, the True, the Beautiful?
In other words, a rational being can only freely desire the Good, the valuable as such (God) - animated by Love of the Good, and freely choosing, there is no authority involved, and all metaphors of "sacred authority" are fundamentally misguided!
In fact, the idea of "sacred authority" and "obedience to a higher power" may be one of the stepd towards modern nihilism - in that replacing a rational desire of a free will for the "valuable as such" with mere "obedience" to a higher power, we strip our wills of their natural orientation towards value and meaning "as such".
Did not Jesus came to replace compulsion and authority - the Law - by Love, and did he not replace the image of "sacred authority" with one of the brotherhood of the sons of God?
Surely, Christianity - being opposed to all violence and coercion and power - should never have been joined to political power? And the "compromise" of it's alliance with earthly power and coercion, authority and oppression, was a step towards modern nihilism.
Is not the sublime image Jesus gave us of one who utterly rejects Power - who rejects once and for all coercion, authority, rulership, and replaced it with Love?
Jacques Ellul wrote a wonderful little book making the case that Christianity is fundamentally opposed to monarchy, and that the only true Christian political organization must be some kind of socialist anarchy.
Not, of course, as a top down political program that utilizes coercion and power - we saw the horrors of that last century - but a disposition of the heart in each individual. A spontaneous willing and desiring of a conscience formed in the light of Christianity, to eschew all power, coercion, and authority, and approach our fellow men and women as equals, brothers and sisters, and friends.
He shows how, quite remarkably, all the passages in the Old Testament about kings basically cast them in a negative light - even King David is basically a horrific picture of kingship, according to him - and how the ancient Hebrew ideal was one of anarchy.
He does the same thing even more fully for the New Testament.
Power and authority and compulsion are all different things, though.
Christ doesn't compel, but he does have power. And he is a judge. He explicitly said in fact that he did not come to replace the law; only to reveal its meaningless if it did not guide the heart.
I like Ellul; he always inspires. But I don't think a case can be made that any particular form of government is 'the only true Christian political organisation.' And that case about the Old Testament clearly doesn't stand up
My view really is that political organisations are rather beside the point of Christianity. Living in a monarchy or an anarchy wouldn't make any of us a better or a worse Christian in our hearts.
Christ is clearly the ultimate figure of authority. Only he rules by serving. A king can do this, or a queen, or a president. My point here was not about politics, but about where authority derives from. God - or Man?
"My point here was not about politics, but about where authority derives from. God - or Man?"
Fair enough - but perhaps the idea of "authority " in the spiritual context is seriously misguided? And perhaps it has even been historically pernicious?
If God is understood as the Good, the True, and the Beautiful - then desiring God will be the spontaneous freely willed desire of any rational being. Our natures are built to desire the Good.- we cannot knowingly desire evil, as evil.(and not a perverted attempt to desire to the good)
Talk of obedience and authority is talk of "power", which is ultimately nihilistic (the ability to compel replaces the search for value as such).
You talk of Jesus is a "judge" - but, and this the crucial point, was he "determining" the Good as an act of mere power, or was he recollecting us all to the intrinsically Good, which we as rational beings know in our hearts?
This is a hugely important point upon which hinges the history of nihilism.
In fact, in the West there developed such a concern for God's total and absolute power, that in order to defend it theologians began saying God is not "constrained" to do Good - which means he is no longer the Good as such, the source of all value as such.
He is merely power being exercised for its own sake - which is nihilism, at that point.
This philosophy of "voluntarism" became the basis for the modern idea of free will as the ability to desire anything (nihilism) - in the older conception, free will consists in the ability to desire the Good (value as such). But in modernity for a will to be truly free it must be able to posit it's own desires - not desire the intrinsically good - which means stand over an abyss of nothing, worshipping the "nothing".
(I am indebted to the great David Bentley Hart for these reflections, whose ideas I have no doubt horribly mangled and not done justice to)
In this way, talk of obedience and authority - the language of power - may very well culminate in nihilism.
That is why surely Jesus came to replace such language with that of Love.
And are we not all Sons of God? In the beautiful orthodox tradition which you have joined, Paul, our true vocation is not obedience but as Sons of God to become One with him. This too is not the language of mere obedience - but a far grandee fate for us "mere mortals".
I can see where you're coming from.
But I can't see Jesus just speaking 'the language of love'. He's also speaking the language of judgement. A lot of it. Matthew 24 and all that.
Orthodoxy of course was the faith of the Byzantine Empire, and teaches that earthly authority derives from God. What you're offering here is a very left-protestant take. I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it. But again, I don't see love and authority as being in any way in conflict. What is God if not the ultimate authority? Authority can be exercised in many ways though. Through tyranny, or lovingly.
Well, I would agree these ideas are more aligned with the "Left" in some ways, although obviously in total opposition to the modern Lefts nihilistic understanding of "free will".as the ability to desire anything.
But then let's remember that the modern Left is itself a perversion of Christianity, and inconceivable in a non-Christian context.
But I utterly deny this is protestant :) Rather, the inspiration is Patristic and Eastern Orthodox.
It's true that Orthodoxy, like Roman Catholicism, did ally itself ultimately with Power - I would only argue this is utterly untrue to the spirit of the Gospels. But then every religion has elements that contradict their fundamental teachings.
Certainly, Jesus speaks the language of judgement and also condemnation - but the question hinges on whether he wants us merely to "obey" him, or does he want to recall us to our knowledge of the intrinsic Good that we already know in our hearts and from which we've deviated, and reminding us of the self-imposed suffering of ignoring this summons.
Is he recalling us to the Way (of life) - or threatening us with punishment if we "disobey."
"What is God if not the ultimate authority?"
He is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful - as such. The source of all being, and Being as such.
God created us for Him - our natures desire him ineluctably. We do not "obey" him - we yearn after being One with him.
Many spiritual traditions concieved of God primarily as the Beloved - not as "authority", but as the Desirable as such, and many mystics even use erotic language.
Isn't seeing God as the Beloved, as the Desirable as such, ultimately truer to our natures than seeing him as an authority to obey?
That is how the case seems to me - perhaps we do not agree at the moment, and I appreciate that you say you see where I'm coming from - as I also appreciate where you're coming from, even if I think you're taking a wrong path here :)
No, I pretty much agree, but I'm not writing here about 'obedience' in the sense in which you're talking about it. I think you're slightly misinterpreting this piece. It's not a defence of Christian empire - I feel much the same about that sort of thing as you and Ellul, and any alliance between the church and power makes me uneasy. And yet - here's the paradox I suppose - since earthly power will always exist, the question is surely where we think it derives from. Would we prefer a state which exercises raw power over us and the Earth purely on the basis of materialism - need and greed? Or would we prefer our leaders to understand that their power is contingent, and try to persuade them to act accordingly?
I think this is a struggle Christians have had for millennia. As I say, my tendency is always to avoid power; but I also understand why, when invited by Constantine to do so, the church took on the task of trying to Christianise the empire.
So yes, I agree, blind ofr fearful obedience is not the story. Maybe the question is: would we prefer a purely secular, materialist head of state, or one whom, as in the case of the late Queen, does seem to have been trying to live this?
The one thing that the Queen had on her side--correct me if I wrong--is that she never really had to play *serious* power politics. Don't get me wrong I am sure she knew how to use her power. But this was of a lower order than staring down people ready to slit your throat--metaphorically or otherwise.
Or more simply, other English Queens may not have always been as nice. Again, I say this as a yank. Correct me if I am wrong. -Jack
This back and forth relates to my morning conversation with my 16yo son and subsequent musings. He declined to answer me and tell the truth about something problematic he is hiding from me and only said, "it's a personal issue. I have to work it out myself." I replied that if he depends on mom and dad for food and shelter he will have to answer to us, because we are still responsible for him.
There is something dreadful about wielding this authority over a budding individual. I can see the attraction of the modern take that my children are just friends and I have no right to impose limits and requirements on them. But yeah, that doesn't align with reality. In reality I give a firm line to my son and then I cry to my Father to help me, to use my authority for Love and to teach my children that there are limits, there are consequences, and to trust those who Love you. I in turn must trust that my Father loves me and that some difficulties I pass through are allowed for reasons I don't fathom.
I think this is why biblical language uses Father, brethren, sons and daughters etc. The son is becoming a man, and will one day be capable of full sympathy with his parents, but there's a process. People are in varying stages of being able to obey because they love the Truth. Of course that is the ideal, but here on earth we have lots of learning to do yet and we need authority.
I apologize if I just stated something way to basic and obvious and mistook it for relevant.
Clara
I see your point, but even as a practical matter of politics I think Christians should try to translate the spirit and ethos of Christ as much as possible into reality.
So even if we must have rulers for the time being, the element of coercion and hierarchy should be minimized as much as possible.
I see no reason Christians shouldn't advocate for political forms that are minimalist in this sense - for instance, hunter-gatherers typically have chiefs who have minimum authority and rule entirely by consent. It is more like a band of brothers inspired by the preeminent one among them but not bound by him.
The American colonists had a hard time making treaties with Native Americans because they couldn't understand that the chief simply did not have the power to compel complete assent from all tribe members - he was not their ruler in a European sense.
So instead of mythologizing king and hierarchy and authority, I think Christians might well adopt a different political mythology altogether.
And why not, after all?
Are we really called to compromise, or to constantly advocate for higher things?
L.N. Tolstoy reached a similar conclusion.
I think it's too early to believe that the funeral represents the "Last Post for Christian England." Although, it could be said it is too late for such a post. But in the sense you obviously meant, "Christian" is merely short-hand for the belief in the divine right of the king in England. In that sense, it might very well be the last post. For many agreed with Elizabeth that she represented God's rule for England. As soon as the full realization that Elizabeth's reign is over, that popular belief will also be over.
Indeed, the end of that belief began to fade with the death of Princess Dianna, who was worshipped, perhaps, by more of the public than Elizabeth. As her divinity is fading, so will Elizabeth. It likely won't transfer to Charles. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the end of his life, he were no longer be referred to in the press as King Charles. England has long since not been Christian other than in name. In his time, Freddie Mercury received more worship than did Queen Elizabeth, or for that matter, than Jesus.
The Church of England has also long since ceased to be Christian, if it ever were. After all, King Henry VIII created the Church with himself as its head.
It's very much the symbolic end of a certain vision of English/British 'Christendom.' You are right of course that this has for a long time been a shell. Elizabeth was the last representative of that time.
I don't think you're right about Freddie Mercury though. Not after seeing that queue.
But also I think it is very much not the end of Christianity in England. I have high hopes of a revival. I don't think any of us can imagine the form it will come in. But it might be quite exciting.
Revival seems less unlikely in England than in America. It is not mentioned in the MSM, but revival is taking place in supposedly unlikely place, as in Arab states and in China. But Christianity, worldwide, is representable to the shell of English Royalty.
Reading this post makes me very ambivalent.
I come from a two countries that pulled away from monarchy, and while I am nostalgic for it in a sense, I am really a product of countries that reject monarchy and divine right.
As the saying goes, "The King is dead, long live the king."
There's a lot to think about in that sentence. It can't be said in any form of republic.
A while ago, a seller on the market told me that whenever there was a major election in France, buying went down drastically, and the country was put on hold.
Probably because... we don't have "The King is dead, long live the king"...
It figures.
While I firmly believe in the necessity of divine right in the society of the family circle, in the political sphere, I'm not sure...
I entirely share your ambivalence. Tension can be creative though ...
This is what confuses me, if
“there is a throne at the heart of every culture, whether we know it or not, and that if we cast out its previous inhabitant - and the entire worldview that went along with it”
And
“There is something - someone - else beyond it, and if we are silent, in these cathedrals or in these forests, we can hear it still.”
God is still there - whether some chose to cast Him out - He is still there...so what does this mean if the ‘culture’ rejects Him but many people still
Know the Truth....
Maybe we are going to find out ...
I guess I would ask, has the culture rejected Him? Or has the culture only rejected a style of worship of Him? No doubt people wander forests looking for the magical essence of the divine in the same way people pray in the cathedrals . But I think the call, when heard, can break every bone in the body. David Bentley Hart has written a few essays, if we were to truly follow Christ, it would mean giving up all that we have and following him, which may be too high of a price for most all of us. If people are charitable, believe in lifting up the poor and downtrodden, and this is the rhetoric one hears daily, surely the culture is awash in His Truth?
I think so. We're all hungry for God, whether we know it or not. But not many of us are hungry for the Church of England. New shapes will emerge.
I think it is safe to say--if anything is safe to say--that this is going to a wild ride, if nothing else. All sorts of new and new/old forms will arise and die out. And a thousand years hence whoever comes out on top will have its historians and philosophers to make the case that the new status quo was ever thus. It that sense it will actually be as it was ever thus...
I guess we can all throw our hat into the ring and see how it goes. I suppose that is what we are doing.
Paul,
Elegant post as always. I will admit, as an American the sheer idea of monarchy eludes me and so all I can reflect upon is its romantic nature wonderfully made real through this Second Elizabethan Age. I've read many essays both on here and others about this subject and the death of Elizabeth is a profound moment either that for the first time for many people a new monarch will be on the British throne, or that a sense of great symbolism has forever been removed.
What is happening here is not just monarchy, but it is as C.S. Lewis spoke about chivalry, monarchy fashioned as art. It is one of the reasons Versailles still intrigues so many people, it is why Catholicism seems to be making a resurgence in the States, when ritual and art can merge, those associated with the moment transcend. No doubt we have many monarchists from Xi to Putin to the various machismo 'kings' of the Americas, but they too can transcend if the art becomes what is important. I was not alive for it, but I wonder often how Mao's funeral was handled by the Chinese or how the Kim family are laid to rest in North Korea. It is out of our culture, but no doubt the transcendence can still occur with the proper performance.
But truly, that's what it all is, performance. What I think is underlying all of this is the issue of death. You said it well, Elizabeth is naked before God now. That is what materialism and capital strive to hide.
To make somewhat of a caveat, though I haven't seen it, apparently in the new Rings of Power, Galadriel is sent to their version of Heaven, but before she is taken up, jumps off of the boat and swims back to shore. There is a great reflection of our own societies. We have to stay here, in the material world, where our money is, where our friends are, where we have power. Elizabeth went with dignity from what I can tell. Quiet, unassuming, humble. How many of us can say the same?
Death holds a great sting over us now. A world that can accept death will learn how to live again.
Another poignant and wonderful pice Paul. Thank you.
For many years, training thousands of Christian educators, many lapsed into the materialist secularism that you delineate, I would speak to them of the Latin precept of 'Capax Dei.'
Capax Dei translates roughly as, "...that which has the capacity for God." I would make the case that the human person is a God-Seeking-Being. We can bury that truth in a million ways, but to paraphrase Churchill, "...in the end there it is!"
All is not lost. Many of us, amidst the frenetic dissociation of modern life, still seek the One who sits upon the throne. I have a young family and a very busy professional life, but each day I steal away to a small local Church and sit before the Eucharist for an hour.
All is not lost. The best is yet to come.
I have made my uneasy peace with the inevitability of the Imperium whether the Machine Imperium falls or not. Wherever it may lie on the spectrum between Sacral Kingship and Raw Power Politics--and however much it slides around on that spectrum. Not that the Imperium needs my permission. Far from it. If requests are being taken, though, I would probably prefer something like the following.
1) The Imperial Religion for most people in the dense population areas of cities, etc.(sorry, this also seems inevitable). 2) A Mount Athos-esque more or less independent Monastic Republic where the serious practitioners of the official religion can avoid the more egregious kinds of imperial interference--some of the time. 3) Purposefully allowed free zones, e.g., deserts, mountains, otherwise uninhabitable land for independent monasteries, hermit poets, solitaries and Sketes of all kinds. For the wilder, earthier forms of spiritual life, etc. The Chinese seemed to be able make this last option work for a good while. From what I hear it still happens a bit to this day. Of course, somehow overt brigandage needs to be curtailed.
That might work.
"Purposefully allowed free zones, e.g., deserts, mountains, otherwise uninhabitable land for independent monasteries, hermit poets, solitaries and Sketes of all kinds. For the wilder, earthier forms of spiritual life, etc. The Chinese seemed to be able make this last option work for a good while."
This is very good :)
One of the fascinating forms Chinese political power and spirituality has taken is this "right" of people - even the most prestigious and powerful of mandarins - to "opt out" and go into the mountains or the desert to cultivate spirituality - usually later in life but not always.
It's remarkable that the secular political order found this not just acceptable, but even desirable as a kind of ideal - usually after some period of service to the "empire", but as I say, often of a very minimal sort.
Might we not return to such a "accomodation" between the spiritual and secular orders?
Perhaps one of the tragedies of Christianity becoming conflated with the secular political order is this lack of a sense of seperation between the two.
Taoism, which is practically the Chinese version of Christianity (albeit with only the apophatic God), had never become the basis of the state cult - and as an "outside" spirituality always represented an "alternative" to the secular order that nevertheless penetrated and inspired the secular order while never being tamed by it, but - transcending it.
I envision a Christianity that is not "assimilated" to the secular order of political power, as has sadly happened historically - but penetrates it while remaining transcendent of it, inspires those within it with a call to the "beyond".
Taoist emperors in China persecuted Buddhism on several occasions. Here is an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Wuzong_of_Tang. A Dalai Lama in the 1600’s suppressed a “heretical” branch of Tibetan Buddhism and confiscated its properties. No tradition Is immune to the blandishments of secular power IMO. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Celestial_Masters
Jeff- You are absolutely right. I for one am not saying otherwise. In fact, that's *exactly* what I am saying. My question is whether there is any space for people to live outside those confines. It seems to have been allowed at times and in certain places, even that it was mildly encouraged and a respected choice. But that may not be in the cards now. We shall see. I hope you are well. -Jack
That is of course correct, Jeff.
Partly this is because different periods Buddhist monasteries accumulated wealth and power, so we're indeed a challenge to the state.
But other times it was simply because spirituality and religion are quite simply a genuine challenge to the secular order, based as it is on greed, ambition, and materialism.
There is no use denying it - true religion is radical and subversive by it's nature, at least until the Kingdom of Heaven is realized.
But you bring up a good point, Jeff that we should all be aware of.
I think that where we might go now, given that historic Western 'Christendom' has collapsed (and probably for the best) is the possibility of new forms of the faith that will not be a 'challenge' to power but simply exist outside it, as Jack envisages. Some kind of new monasticism? I was struck on Mount Athos recently when I learned how much of a revival there has been there just over the last 30 years. In the 1980s, many of the monasteries were run down and inhabited by just a few ageing monks. Now they are thriving and full of monastics, many of them very young. Something is going on out on the edges. Which is where refreshment of the culture always begins.
Yes, I do agree that there is a rising tide of spirituality, if you will, of the kind that is more "opting out" than trying to reshape the power structures.
Here in the US the huge surge in people living in vans in wilderness areas is a fascinating phenomenon - and, I think, mostly a spiritual one even if the people doing it don't always think of it in those terms.
But I also think that the relationship between spirituality and the secular order is always an necessarily an uneasy one - in the end, religion directly challenges everything the secular order stands for. Religion is - and must be - radical.
But until the Kingdom of Heaven, there can only be an uneasy truce, at its best religion penetrating the secular order with spiritual inspiration - for instance, Taoism was hugely inspiring to many among the Chinese elite whose lives were mostly secular, and in the West, Romanticism (which radically challenged the entire basis of the secular order) nevertheless penetrated this order with message in profound ways.
I think every civilization needs an "anti-civilzation" message, as it were, that somehow directly questions it's entire foundation and reminds it of higher things. It's a paradox in a way.
At its worst, the relationship between religion and the secular order becomes one of active hostility on the part of the state, or assimilation and take over - as perhaps happened to Christianity - so that the truly radical call of religion is utterly forgotten.
But in the end, I would caution against too easily assuming the secular order will "tolerate" people "opting out" and being spiritual even if it doesn't directly challenge the power structure - that in itself, is a huge challenge to the primacy of secular values, a stinging rebuke to it's obsession with material things, and almost a radical act of rebellion.
In my own life, I was shocked at the "pushback" I got when I started to become spiritual and genuinely reorient my values - I thought I was taking the most harmless and innocuous of positions, by abandoning ambition - but that was not how it was seen!
I am glad these issues are being addressed here.
I do believe the disintegration of the traditional church might be a good thing, but it brings up the chance for a revival of Christianity in some sense.
instead of trying to influence and control the world, the New Church should be a refuge from it.
we should be a haven for the refugees of modernism and the culture war, not a part if it.
we shall see tho...
There is a phrase Pope Francis used fairly early in his pontificate if I recall, when he referred to the church as “a field hospital.” That has stuck with me. We are all wounded by something/someone so we must first and foremost have mercy, and bind each other’s wounds.
This is probably the closest to my thoughts of what the future will look like.
The idea that we will all descend to small city-states seems more romantic than realistic.
That said, the only issue people might ruffle at is the aesthetic, whether a more seemingly centralized Imperial system, or a more seemingly decentralized system that is still vibrantly Imperial but with the belief that the people rule. The cosmopolitan zones will be vibrant places of hedonism, music, art, food, and capital...both financial and social. Places like New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and so on, the Imperial Centers. But there will be little stopping anyone from going out into the wilderness to eke out an existence so long as they keep quiet and not disturb the Imperial Centers. All manners of people will be out in the wilderness, the deeply devout, anarcho-primitivists, millenarians of all stripes, and outlaws, all mixing together.
Of course, if you tune your lens in a certain way...this seems to be the case now anyways.
Your first idea though, Jack sounds a lot like Warhammer, haha, not sure if that is purposeful or not.
I don't really know what Warhammer is? A video game?
Yeah, which deals with an Imperial Religion...the Imperium of Man specifically, it's highly influenced between Roman mixed with an almost absurdist Catholic aesthetic.
Ah, okay. I had no idea. A coincidence.
But the diversion of our spiritual impulses into that which serves our masters is kind of the way of things. Nietzsche was wrong that Christianity was a slave morality. However it may have begun.
Ummm... there's something I don't understand : with all manner of people out in the wilderness looking for something spiritual there, where will there be wilderness, both materially and spiritually ?
This is a good point. A thousand years ago in China the population density was much more sparse. The wilderness could handle it. Probably not so much anymore. But then again as most capitualite to the Imperium, get herded into megacities, to live in their tube apt and eat bug burgers while being on VR all day, and then finally attempt to "liberate" themselves from the horror by trying to download themselves to the cloud...who knows?
A man can dream...
Enjoyed this very much, Paul.
Over here in America, watching the millions of everyday people mourn for HRH and everything she represented, it left me with some hope that faith, piety, and restraint can return as culturally relevant values.
The people who live paycheck to paycheck, working their tails off to raise their families and keep them safe--these folks have a common sense and humility that has more truth and virtue than most anything you will see out of our laptop class and cultural overlords who believe they are too smart for God.
As you've said, Paul, religious belief is a more genuine reflection of the natural order of things than alternatives. We all have an innate sense of the sacred because the natural world is sacred. Maybe piety and religious devotion can return to a broader cultural relevance once the competition exhausts itself trying to nourish the human spirit with post-religious ideologies
Thanks for the moving picture you painted of the Queen's funeral, and more generally, for all your valuable insights. In a time of great darkness, I have often found windows of light in your posts. I do, however, have some real questions about your line of thought in this one.
I certainly recognize the catastrophic loss of the sacred in the modern period. That loss can—generally and retrospectively speaking—be linked to the transition from the medieval to the modern era, especially the Enlightenment and its widespread repudiation of (often dogmatic and violently intolerant) forms of traditional authority, including that of the Church and the monarch (or King). I am somewhat distressed, however, at your suggestion that this transformation—so basic to modernity—necessarily bears with it a purely materialistic secularism and repudiation of divine law. To be sure, such has emerged as the dominant world view in the course of the last two centuries, but this represents, in my mind, a betrayal of the real spiritual impulse that catalyzed modernity.
One notable fruit of that impulse was the birth of my nation (yes, I am an American)
and the modern vision of democracy. Recall the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
Your piece contains a more or less explicit criticism of this epochal initiative, at least, insofar as democracy hinges upon the idea articulated in that last phrase. Yes, the democratic vision premises itself upon the principle that government precisely is NOT the locus of sacral authority, but is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
The language of the Declaration itself naturally goes back to the writings of an Englishman—Locke—the first of whose two Treatises on Civil Government consisted entirely of a potent critique of the tradition of the divine right of Kings. Yet Locke was no atheist, and few of the more truly enlightened 18th century thinkers after him (with, of course, notable exceptions) were. As the language of the Declaration itself makes explicit, democracy, in essence, does not predicate itself upon repudiation of godhead or divine law, but sees the seat of that throne—not in the person of a King or Pope, but in the spiritual humanity—the divine nature—inherent in each and every individual.
In this political vision, it is precisely the chief function of government to guarantee those freedoms that enable the individual citizen rightfully to pursue the realization of that spiritual humanity (which, if you wish, you could associate with the Christ force, or divine I AM) by virtue of the school of life; his or her experience of the world as "the vale of soul-making." You find apt representation of this principle of the sacred character of the "I"— which is not merely the personal ego—in the writings of the American Transcendentalists, who give cultural and literary expression to this idea. Two of the most representative, of course, are Emerson and Whitman; the latter the ex-preacher turned prophet of the Oversoul; the former the great singer of the Song of Myself and poet of the Democratic idea.
I believe this recognition of the divine spirit inherent in each and every individual to be the true impulse behind, not only American Romanticism, but European Romanticism as well. It finds its own unique, and uniquely powerful expression, in (among others) Wordsworth.
No, as both a real democrat (I mean spiritually, not the degraded political party carrying the name at present) and real Romantic—and, of course an individual not born into a country with a royalist tradition—I cannot feel any nostalgia for the age of the divine right (or sacral sovereignty) of kings and queens. Is it not rather the mission of the modern age to redeem the broken promise of Romanticism, in all its multiple forms, and realize that the throne of God is no royal seat, but the heart and soul of the individual human being?
Montesquieu said that the principle of monarchy, the true principle, was honor. And Queen Elizabeth, it seems, served her country and her people with great and admirable honor. Yet he likewise said that the principle of democracy was virtue: that it could not function, unless the people themselves aspired to the realization of the spirit of humanity; the logos inherent in each individual. Call the spiritual quest what name you will, and style it after your own fashion; but in one way or another is not that the path toward a more human future, and a recovery of the sacred in everyday life? Is not the real crisis of the present day not the demise of royalty, but the distortion and decay of the true democratic Idea; what one writer called "spiritual democracy," in America, in England, and indeed across the globe?
Respectfully yours, Daniel Polikoff
I'm enjoying the thoughtful American pushback I'm getting on here!
Thanks for this. In reference to your last para in particular: yes, we agree here. As I've said to others, this piece is not especially a defence of monarchy (actually it needs no defence in Britain: it's about the only institution people still respect, for now at least) but a reflection on the once-existing notion that the powerful drew their power from God. You are right that the death of this notion is not confined to the powerful. Looking at America from over here, and talking to American friends, it looks like the decay of your democracy into consumerism, individualism and empire must result precisely from the fact that 'virtue' has virtually disappeared. How could it be otherwise given the pressures? There can be no good society anywhere without that notion of virtue being widely shared. Again, the late Queen seemed to embody it in a very old-fashioned way, which might explain some of the feelings.
If w're going to have spiritual democracy, we need to recover it - right? That has to start within, I think.
Hello Paul: Yes, we certainly agree on both interiority and virtue; they naturally go hand in glove. I know you are a fan of Patrick Deneen's book, which I read, with great profit, after learning of it in one of your columns. I would say, though, that I do not think all the blame for America's rampant consumerism, etc. can be placed on "the pressures"; which themselves must be generated by precisely that same ideological frame. As you say in another of your posts, the air of inevitability is itself a feature of the myth of Progress. We've always had our Emersons and Thoreaus and Snyders and Berrys, as you in England have had your true culture heroes. Is not the critical question how the bearers of genuine (as opposed to mere monetary) value can infiltrate the culture of power, instead of suffering ever greater marginalization? I dare think Covid and all the crises the world faces today may be a pivot point. It must be; otherwise we truly will be devoured by the Machine.
An American like you, Daniel, I was raised to believe that the "truths" of the Declaration are indeed self-evident. But I have had to admit that there is a deep conflict between "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." And perhaps an even deeper conflict (as to the fundamental purpose of the state) between "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" and "he [the ruler] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
I suppose one might dispose of those conflicts by saying, in effect, that is what unenlightened people used to think, but we know better now. That option is not available to an orthodox Christian.
Thanks for these reflections, Christopher. While I confess I am not an orthodox Christian, I must also admit that I do not see the conflict you find so evident here. I understand the core of democracy to include recognition that, indeed, it is the spiritual character of each individual human being—each person's participation in the godhead—that is the divine ground of our mortal existence. The State, on the other hand, is not such an immediately and directly spiritual entity, be it ruled by a king, parliament, or president. A portion of the divine wisdom is the conferring of free will upon the soul, and the necessity of its learning, through joy and suffering, its rightful relation to divine will. I understand democracy and its guarantee of unalienable (God-given) rights—including freedom of speech and religion—as a pledge by government to protect the individual's opportunity to pursue that end in the school of public as well as private life. Theocracy, or a monarchy premised on the sovereignty and even divine right of royalty, is antithetical to that idea because it sees the Church, or State, as the privileged receptacle of divine law and authorized to dictate morality in accordance with that status. Insofar as I understand the essence of Christianity to inhere in the indwelling of the spirit of God in the individual human being, that attribution of sovereignty to a body—political, or ecclesiastical—external to the soul-spiritual constitution of the individual human being could be regarded as itself inconsistent with the spirit of the Christ revelation. It is,however, certainly true that this perspective derives from more of an esoteric than orthodox interpretation of the Christ impulse.
Daniel,
You wrote "it is the spiritual character of each individual human being—each person's participation in the godhead—that is the divine ground of our mortal existence."
If you are not an orthodox Christian, then it appears from this reply that you are perilously close to it. What you call "the divine ground of our mortal existence," we call "the image of God" in which we are made. And I agree with you that what makes democracy morally compelling is its recognition of the sacredness of each human person. Indeed, if (as we believe) God has given every human person the gifts of free will, reason, self-awareness, and moral responsibility, then who but God Himself could legitimately claim sovereignty over any person thus bearing the image of God?
Sadly, however, human beings are capable not only of free will and of reason, but also of great evil. Something has gone wrong with humanity, and the image of God that we bear has been marred and obscured -- not destroyed, but damaged. Left to ourselves, in this damaged condition, we should ultimately destroy ourselves and each other. Our baser instincts must be restrained.
This is the reason that I see the conflict between what the Declaration says, and what the Scriptures say. The Declaration says that governments were instituted among men to secure our rights; the Scriptures say that governments exist to restrain those who do evil. The Declaration that the authorities derive their powers from the consent of the government, and thus act as representatives of the people; the Scriptures say that the authorities receive their powers from God, and act, not as representatives of the people, but as representatives of God, "to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
It's a different vision of what government is *for* from what the Declaration says. I find the two difficult to reconcile.