Historical Christian

Some Thoughts on the Purpose of Work, Career, and Business

This is a random thought that crossed my mind the other day, and just crossed it again: what work, jobs, earning a living, doing business, pursuing a career is for.  We live in a world, at least here in the West, where pursuing a career, making money, looking good, succeeding and achieving in a material way is increasingly valued.  But that has actually taken the heart, the life, out of our culture, out of our very lives.

Some years ago I read an interesting critique of feminism by a female lawyer (and not from a religious perspective), Domestic Tranquility: a Brief Against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia, in which she points out that prior to the feminist revolution not even men understood work as a way to self-fulfillment, an end in itself.  Men understood work not as an end, but as a means: a way to have a family, a home, a neighborhood, a place and a community to come home to and be a part of.  Work supported and enabled relationships, and it was in relationships, with family and community, that one found fulfillment.  Graglia thinks that feminists got the wrong idea about work and career as a means of self-fulfillment – and that their widespread ideas have been extremely damaging to culture.

More recently, it happens that my hair stylist for some time was a Russian immigrant who grew up under communism.  Now, this is not a plug for communism.  I’m neither a communist nor a socialist.  But asking him about what living under communism was like, he had a thoughtful reply: “It was corrupt, and no one had very much, but no one had to really worry about how to survive, either.  We had places to live, free education, free health care and transportation.”  And here’s what I found most interesting: “It freed us to focus more interiorly.  Life in communist Russia was very interior, focused on relationships, thinking, feeling, not like here in the US.”

Last year, I gave a talk on the dignity of women in the Church, based largely on the document Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when then-Cardinal Ratzinger was the head, and signed by him (a great document that everyone should read).  Based on the document, here’s one thing I said:

Beyond Individualism

We live in a very individualistic world, where the concept of the person, the individual and individuality, has taken on a meaning far beyond the specific meaning of the word itself.  It has become a philosophy, a way of life, called individualism, which is based on a specific value system: the freedom of the individual person to pursue happiness by pursuing the fulfillment of individual desires and preferences.  It is a way of life that has become dominant in our culture, is unquestioned and taken for granted by culture, and our constitution is constantly invoked in defense of it.

But is it not based on an incomplete, even unreal, view of the person and of the nature of life itself?

On the concept of person, Ratzinger in Introduction to Christianity has this to say:

There is no such thing as person in the categorical singular.  This is already apparent in the words in which the concept of person developed: the Greek word prosopon means literally “look toward”; with the prefix pros (toward), it includes the notion of relatedness as an integral part of itself.  It is the same with the Latin persona = “sounding through”; again, the per = “through . . . to” expresses relatedness, this time in the form of communication through speech. (p. 180)

So, the word person itself means relatedness, means to look toward something, toward the other.  We cannot exist, be conscious, aware, without being aware of something: the other.  Awareness itself, as it gradually emerges in us at the beginning of life, is literally in the context of the other inside of whom we first become aware: the warmth, surrounding tightness, constant movement and heartbeat of our mother’s body.  Once born, we are born dependent, and so in constant relationship with the others on whom we depend. Even growing up, and becoming independent, we are still constantly in relationship with others, and in time others will become dependant on us.  And we may become dependent on others again, due to illness or injury, or old age. 

It is very difficult to live without relationship to others.  Those who live alone tend to have shorter lifespans than those who live with others, even if just a pet, and those who find themselves alone sometimes literally die of loneliness. 

This makes it ironic that, while we pursue increasingly radical individuality, we also have radically increasing loneliness.  More adults today report being lonely than ever before in history.  So maybe radical individualism is not the answer – is not really the key to happiness.

Ratzinger continues,

Iconoclasm: the Suppression of Christianity

In light of my recent posts on the Divine purpose of visible creation and a visible Church, which is to make God Himself visible and knowable, I found the following comment on the Iconoclast heresy very interesting.  It’s from a wonderful little book I’ve just begun reading, The Russian Church and the Papacy, by 19th century Russian Orthodox theologian, intellectual, and mystic Vladimir Soloviev, who in it makes a very penetrating and cogent argument for the reunification of the East and the West, Orthodoxy and Catholicism (toward which he also actively worked in the last decades of his life), under the Pope.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the flesh has proved that bodily existence is not excluded from the union of the human and the divine, and that external and sensible objectivity can and must become the real instrument and visible image of the divine power.  Hence the cult of holy images and relics, hence the legitimate belief in material miracles wrought by these sacred objects.  Thus in declaring war on the these images, the Byzantine emperors were not attacking a religious custom or a mere detail of worship so much as a necessary and infinitely important application of Christian truth itself.  To claim that divinity cannot be sensibly expressed or externally manifested, or that the divine power cannot employ visible and symbolic means of action, is to rob the divine Incarnation of all its reality.  It was more than a compromise; it was the suppression of Christianity [italics mine]. – pp. 27-28

Very interesting.  Protestants have also engaged in iconoclasm, invoking the 1st and 2nd Commandments: “[1] You shall have no other gods before me.  [2] You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Deut 5:7-9)  Protestants read this as a prohibition of images of any kind to be used in worship.

But the Protestant reading is a misunderstanding of the commandment, taking it out of context and misreading its meaning.  The commandment is not about images per se, but about images and worship of false gods, which is a sin and provokes the true God to jealously.

Ratzinger Questions Progress

The Ratzinger quote in the previous post is just one of several arresting quotes from the same chapter in his book A Turning Point for Europe.  Below are a few others.  They just kept jumping out at me as I read; any one of them can stand alone and provoke much food for thought.  He is speaking of Europe, but he could just as easily be speaking of the US.

Belief in progress with absolutized scientific-technical civilization and political messianism . . . now replaces the concept of God and necessarily excludes it, since it takes its place.  This systematic exclusion of the divine from the shaping of history and human life . . . is perhaps the genuinely new and at the same time the truly threatening, element.

Europe will export technical skills without ethos, and ultimately against ethos . . . The spirit of having and making things, along with the escape into the empty promise of a “tomorrow”, will fill the whole world.

Market forces and public opinion dominate man and become the caricature of freedom.

Men cannot really be united by a common interest but only by the truth.

A Culture of Sameness

I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s, a time of upheaval and change for sure, as the whole 20th century was.  But there was still enough of a remnant of former times, of closeness, warmth, individuality, differences in personalities, small things that were yet unique, that gave richness and depth to life, that I notice their absence now in our culture.

Everywhere I go, anywhere in the country, there is sameness.  I go to the suburbs, and the houses are the same; to the malls, the stores are the same; to the cinema, the movies are the same; turn on the TV, the shows are the same.  And I look at people around me, and I see a lot of sameness: of dress, behavior, attitude, outlook.

Pope Benedict has recognized this sameness, too, and written about some of it’s causes (when Cardinal Ratzinger) in his 1994 book A Turning Point for Europe, which has many observations relevant to the whole West, including the US.  He notes the

increasing decline of the European idea into a merely economic arithmetic that did indeed continually increase Europe’s economic power in the world but reduced the great ethical goals more and more to an increase of possessions and lowered them to the level of the mere logic of the market.  The consequence of this [has] been a kind of cultural revolution: a standardization not only of merchandise but also of intellectual expression, which threatens to lead to a flattening of souls and a uniformity in thinking to an extent hitherto unknown. [emphasis mine]

This is one of the readings we’re doing for class this semester.  I agree with it; I see this all around me, and it is distressing.  It leads to a feeling of a kind of intellectual and cultural isolation, desiring richness and rich encounter, but finding instead a market-driven sea of sameness, and a kind of disconnectedness that comes with it.  I think this is part of what drives post-modernism, Emerging Church, and other movements like it: the rejection of the large, the mass, the cold, the same, in favor of the small, the different, the warm, the individual.

It promises to be an interesting semester, this fourth and final semester of my program, in which we finally move into, and study, the modern era, after studying the whole course of Christian history. 

Jurgen Habermas: A Secular Atheist Changes His Mind on Religion in the Public Sphere

Following is a paper I wrote in my graduate program this past term on the new thought of prominent European atheist philosopher Jurgen Habermas on the role of religion in the public sphere.  He's making some surprising proposals, but he's not well-known in this country and I think a few of my readers may be very interested in his perspective. 

What is most startling is his simultaneous assertion of the need for and right of religious discourse in the public sphere, and his criticism of the insufficient use of reason in the public sphere by the secular realm because of its refusal to grant validity to the religious perspective.  Habermas the atheist is proposing no less than a revised concept of citizenship that simultaneously restores freedom of religious speech and reasoning to the public square and elevates the level of secular reasoning, with an equal duty of respect, listening, and reciprocity expected of all citizens.  That is stunning in light of classical Enlightenment and Liberal thought – and very hopeful, coming from such a prominent and respected secular atheist.

In 2004 Habermas had a very interesting debate with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in which they were more in agreement than disagreement on issues.  The second half of my paper discusses the debate.

The paper in it's entirety (edited for this blog) is below.  I apologize for some funky formatting you may discover; Typepad does not translate Word documents well.  Enjoy - if you can get all the way through it!

HABERMAS: A Secular Atheist Changes His Mind on Religion in the Public Sphere

Introduction

In the graduate program that I am studying in, we have been considering through the study of history how to rebuild the civilization of love in our times.  The task is difficult, but in researching and thinking about the question this term, I came across a philosophical development in a surprising quarter of contemporary culture, which may prove hopeful for the future: a fermenting of new ideas in the point of contact between religion and the secular culture of Europe. 

Contemporary culture in Europe, though it has tried, has never quite shaken off its Christian past, and some secular thinkers are beginning to realize that the Christian past cannot be shaken off without shaking off, and possibly destroying, culture itself – and so are re-examining the role of religion in public. The core ideals of the culture, today framed in liberal secular terms, are rooted in Christianity. Without such rootedness, some secular thinkers are beginning to realize that they are being lost, to the detriment of the culture itself. 

In consequence, a new thinking on the role of religion in the public sphere is beginning to emerge, led by the prominent German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, a secular atheist, who is proposing a new model for citizenship and the church-state relationship in culture. 

A Secular Atheist Changes His Mind

Jürgen Habermas, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Frankfurt in Germany, is considered one of the most prominent and influential philosophers of Europe, and is an avowed liberal secular atheist. Described as “a sovereign judge of what is true and what is not, of what is right and what is wrong . . . [the] supreme judge in matters of democratic, progressive, cosmopolitan, and secular constitutionalism,”[1] he is a towering academic figure who designed the system which became the foundation of social democracy in Germany and Europe. Born in 1929, he is a close contemporary of Pope Benedict XVI, grew up in Nazi Germany and was a Hitler Youth, but had an awakening during the Nuremburg trials in which he began to ask questions about “civil rights, democracy, and open discourse.”[2]

Habermas has spent most of his career arguing against the use of “religiously informed moral argument” in the public sphere,[3] but recently has radically revised his thinking. He has become convinced that the ideals of the secular state – of the basic goodness, dignity, and equality of human beings – are derived from Christianity, without which the ideals are being lost. This loss is evidenced in Western culture in violent 20^th century wars, increasing moral decadence, and the rising threat of bioengineering. It is also evidenced in the growing clash between the secular West and more traditional, religious cultures, especially Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, and the growing Christianity of the Global South.[4]

Habermas first went public with his ideas on Oct. 14, 2001, in an acceptance speech for the Peace Prize awarded him by the German book industry. In it, he identified the legal concept of “secularization” as originating in the “forced transference of Church properties to the authority of the secular State.” [5] It later influenced attitudes of the modern age as a whole by setting up an adversarial relationship between religion and secularity, based on the assumption that religion would die away in the face of what was thought to be superior secular rationality.

However, this has not happened, and Habermas, in studying the growing clash in culture between religion and secularity, has concluded that not only has religion not gone away, but it is growing. Furthermore, and most importantly, religious reasoning has much to offer culture that secular reasoning cannot, and so must be taken into consideration in public discourse.

---

[1] Virgil Nemoianu, “The Church and the Secular Establishment: A Philosophical Dialog between Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 9, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 20, 22 [journal online]; Internet; available from http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/logos/volumes/9-2/9-2%20Article.pdf; accessed Dec. 1, 2006.

[2] Peter Rowe, “Spotlight on Public Role of Religion,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, 3 March 2005 [newspaper online], available from http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050303/news_lz1c3role.html; Internet; accessed Dec. 1, 2006.

[3] Christa Case, “Germans Reconsider Religion,” Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 15, 2006 [newspaper online]; available from http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p01s01-woeu.html; Internet; accessed Nov. 6, 2006.

[4] Cf. Rosalind I.J. Hackett, “Rethinking the Role of Religion in Changing Public Spheres: Some Comparative Perspectives,” Brigham Young University Law Review 2005, no. 3 [journal online]; Internet; available from http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2005/3/5HACKETT.FIN.pdf; accessed Dec. 1, 2006.

[5] Jurgen Habermas, “Faith and Knowledge,” Oct. 14, 2001 [speech online]; Internet; available from http://socialpolicy.ucc.ie/Habermas_Faith_and_knowledge_ev07-4_en.htm; accessed Dec. 1, 2006.

_________________________________________________

Christian and Liberal Worldviews: Two Views of Human Nature

In history class yesterday, discussing the difference between the Christian (God-centered) and Liberal (human-centered) worldview, something became clear to me.  The main argument may be about whether or not one believes in God, but there is a more subtle argument underneath: what one believes about the nature of truth, the truth about reality, and how one accesses it.

Which is to say, what one believes about the nature of the human person.

• In the classic Liberal worldview, human reason alone is enough to objectively discover and understand truth, and thus reality.  One does not need God, religion, tradition, or authority; such things are mere superstition and prevent full human development.  Reason alone is sufficient.

• In the Christian worldview, human reason alone is incapable of fully grasping truth, and thus reality.  For that, Revealed Truth is necessary, and Revealed Truth is the real truth about reality, and necessary for full human development.  Without it, the human person can stray into serious error, with bad outcomes.

The main difference between the two is the different concepts of the human nature.  The Liberal view does not admit to the reality of sin, which disorders the human nature and affects the reason.  Faith is a hindrance to reason, and can even oppose reason.  The Christian worldview does admit the reality of sin and its affects on reason (among other things), and realizes that the human person needs both the grace of God to be freed from sin, and the wisdom of God in order to understand reality.  Faith and reason work together: faith enlightens reason, and reason in turn works to properly understand reality, with good outcomes.

These are two opposing and mutually exclusive worldviews, that affect not only how one views the person, but how one views everything, including how to order society.  These two views exist side-by-side in our world today, and are creating heated, constant, and wearying cultural battles that are being carried on even as I type these words.

Where these current battles will end, I don’t know.  But I pray that by the grace of God the Christian worldview will prevail and penetrate the hearts and minds of all people, because in it is the basis of reality, the reason for existence and the hope of mankind.

On Monasticism and Secularism, Part III: Where do we go from Here?

Note: this is the third and final part of an essay on monasticism and secularism.  Apologies for how long it took me to get this written, as I had to think about it for awhile and have been very busy in school. Part I is here, and Part II is here. 

I make special mention of Emerging Church at the end of the article, as I think Emerging Church Christians are playing an important part.  So I hope my Emerging Church friends will persevere and read through to the end.

Introduction

Previously, I wrote about how Christendom grew up around and was formed by the monasteries, reaching its height in the Middle Ages, and how the suppression of monastic life in Northern Europe and England during the Protestant Reformation may have contributed to the subsequent rise of secularism.  In the present era, secularism is now widespread and having effects on a global scale.  In western countries, formerly Christendom, Christianity is being suppressed and a very different way of life is becoming dominant.

Is there a solution?  I suggest that one key is to look back at the world of monasticism, at Benedict’s Rule, and ask: why was it so effective in building Christian culture, and is it something we can reproduce today?  What was the key?

Roughly a fifth of the Rule deals directly with the praying of the Divine Office (called the Liturgy of the Hours in the Catholic world today), and the rest is devoted to ordering communal life around the Divine Office.  The Divine Office is structured, liturgical prayer based on Scripture, which developed as a way of structuring and supporting the constant prayer enjoined by Scripture.  The Rule was written to order life, work and rest, around the constant prayer and worship of God, and so over time this became the center of life for the whole of Christendom.

The Rule is a structure for life.  But it is not an empty or arbitrary framework.  It is structured around something.  We already know that it points to God (see part I of this article).  At the heart of monasticism is the Divine Office, but at the heart of that is something else, something from which the liturgical cycle of prayer itself emerged and developed.  To discover what that is, we must look back to the origins of Christian liturgy.

Secularism and Christianity: a Beginning of a Rapprochement?

Faith and reason are not opposed.  On the contrary, faith give us access to the great Reason of the universe, the Mind of Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, in and through whom the universe came to be, without whom our own thinking is incomplete and inadequate.

Ran into some interesting stuff related to secularism and Christianity this morning.  First, a very interesting article a few days ago in the Christian Science Monitor on the rise of interest in religion in Germany.  CMS reports a change in the thinking of German philosopher and secular atheist Jürgen Habermas:

…the recent shift of Jürgen Habermas, one of Germany's foremost philosophers, as evidence of the potential for a rethinking of the public role of religion. A professed secularist who has spent nearly half a century arguing against religiously informed moral argument, he made some arresting statements in his 2004 essay, "A Time of Transition."

"Christianity, and nothing else," he wrote, "is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [to Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

The Secular West and Islam

My conclusion first, and Pope Benedict's lesson for us: We in the West need to remember that we are not our own, but God’s, who made us.  And Islam needs to discover that the way of the Divine is not violence, but Love.

Apologies for my lack of frequent posting lately.  School has hit like a tidal wave. 

This is not my usual realm, and it’s far from my specialty, but the flap over Pope Benedict’s recent speech has caused a train of thought of my own (by the way, Amy Welborn has tons and tons of great links and discussion about it over at her blog Open Book, if you haven’t seen it already).  It’s a little disconnected as I’ve got to get back to studying, so just throw a bunch of stuff out, plus I’m no expert, but here it is:

If I understand the Pope correctly, he is pointing out that the biggest problem in the world today is that the West has cut faith from reason, and Islam has cut reason from faith.  Both are imbalanced, because reason and faith are inseparable.