Recent objections to papal infallibility should not be read as a reiteration of old forms of anti-catholicism. The old complaints that Roman Catholics could not be good Americans was as silly as it was wrong (and unfortunately missed the point of the real differences between Rome and Protestants).
Consequently, while Old Life questions what seem to be unthinking assertions of papal infallibility, Old Lifers may read popes with great profit. In this spirit, a couple of excerpts from John Paul II’s important encyclical, Centesimus Annus:
36. It would now be helpful to direct our attention to the specific problems and threats emerging within the more advanced economies and which are related to their particular characteristics. In earlier stages of development, man always lived under the weight of necessity. His needs were few and were determined, to a degree, by the objective structures of his physical make-up. Economic activity was directed towards satisfying these needs. It is clear that today the problem is not only one of supplying people with a sufficient quantity of goods, but also of responding to a demand for quality: the quality of the goods to be produced and consumed, the quality of the services to be enjoyed, the quality of the environment and of life in general.
To call for an existence which is qualitatively more satisfying is of itself legitimate, but one cannot fail to draw attention to the new responsibilities and dangers connected with this phase of history. The manner in which new needs arise and are defined is always marked by a more or less appropriate concept of man and of his true good. A given culture reveals its overall understanding of life through the choices it makes in production and consumption. It is here that the phenomenon of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs and new means to meet them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of man which respects all the dimensions of his being and which subordinates his material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and spiritual ones. If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts — while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as intelligent and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and spiritual health. Of itself, an economic system does not possess criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder the formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational and cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers in the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a strong sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the mass media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by public authorities.
A striking example of artificial consumption contrary to the health and dignity of the human person, and certainly not easy to control, is the use of drugs. Widespread drug use is a sign of a serious malfunction in the social system; it also implies a materialistic and, in a certain sense, destructive “reading” of human needs. In this way the innovative capacity of a free economy is brought to a one-sided and inadequate conclusion. Drugs, as well as pornography and other forms of consumerism which exploit the frailty of the weak, tend to fill the resulting spiritual void.
It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards “having” rather than “being”, and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. It is therefore necessary to create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments. In this regard, it is not a matter of the duty of charity alone, that is, the duty to give from one’s “abundance”, and sometimes even out of one’s needs, in order to provide what is essential for the life of a poor person. I am referring to the fact that even the decision to invest in one place rather than another, in one productive sector rather than another, is always a moral and cultural choice. Given the utter necessity of certain economic conditions and of political stability, the decision to invest, that is, to offer people an opportunity to make good use of their own labour, is also determined by an attitude of human sympathy and trust in Providence, which reveal the human quality of the person making such decisions. . . .
39. The first and fundamental structure for “human ecology” is the family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny. But it often happens that people are discouraged from creating the proper conditions for human reproduction and are led to consider themselves and their lives as a series of sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished. The result is a lack of freedom, which causes a person to reject a commitment to enter into a stable relationship with another person and to bring children into the world, or which leads people to consider children as one of the many “things” which an individual can have or not have, according to taste, and which compete with other possibilities.
It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life — the gift of God — can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life.
Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world — than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life. The Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of “absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties involved”, often subject them “to intolerable pressures … in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression”. These policies are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques, to the point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenceless human beings, as if in a form of “chemical warfare”.
These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as against an ethical and cultural system. The economy in fact is only one aspect and one dimension of the whole of human activity. If economic life is absolutized, if the production and consumption of goods become the centre of social life and society’s only value, not subject to any other value, the reason is to be found not so much in the economic system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system, by ignoring the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and ends by limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.
All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that economic freedom is only one element of human freedom. When it becomes autonomous, when man is seen more as a producer or consumer of goods than as a subject who produces and consumes in order to live, then economic freedom loses its necessary relationship to the human person and ends up by alienating and oppressing him.
This is by no means an endorsement of the encyclical. But it is well worth reading for thinking about the triumph of capitalism over socialism and the dangers of baptizing free markets.
Old Life 
There’s been a lot of political support for this encyclical among Mennonites and others who oppose the American empire. Brad Gregory, in his eagerness to dismiss all things Protestant, has written that “The Radical Reformation is the Reformation without political support.” This not only fails to attend to the difference between the soteriology of the Magisterial Reformers and the false gospel of the anabaptists, but also ignores the “political support” taken for granted so long by those who are “sacramentally ordained” by the Roman Catholic institution.
LikeLike
The late Pope’s comments are thought-provoking and worth considering (which I know is the point of your blog — i.e., just because we Prots. don’t buy the pretentious claims of the papacy does not thereby mean we cannot learn from our theological opponents). However, I’m wondering how this particular comment jives with your emphasis on 2K. What you have in the comments above is an ecclesiastical leader commenting on secular topics like economics, consumerism, the problem of illegal drugs, etc.; and doing so in his capacity as a spiritual & ecclesiastical leader. The tone of his comments is moralistic, and the overall focus is political; whereas I thought advocates of 2K are opposed to church leaders using their ecclesiastical office to address topics not spiritual, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. (Seems to me his comments would resonate more with neocalvinists rather than with 2K advocates like yourself.) In any case, I’m just finding it kind of odd to read a staunch 2Ker like yourself commending comments by an ecclesiastical leader which are so moralistic and so lacking in any clear redemptive content.
LikeLike
What I find interesting here isn’t necessarily the insight that is certainly present in JP2’s critique of the socioeconomic incongruities of modern life, but the irony that it comes from the head of Rome, as opposed to a more lowly abbot. The reason I say this, is while it is certainly appropriate to question the excesses of modernism, from an outsider perspective, Rome, the Vatican especially, seems to be smitten with excess itself, with it’s ornate, and even ostentatious visible displays of architecture, it’s complex systems of banking and finance, and even it’s own widespread, and well documented struggles with sexual excess and abuse. I wouldn’t accuse the Papacy of double-speak here, it seems like JP2 is trying to speak truth here, just that to a Protestant it seems ironic.
I remember reading a quote by Cornelius a Lepide (16&17th cent. Jesuit theologian), that said something to the effect that Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent IV were conversing while the Pope was counting a great sum of money. According to Lepide, the Pope said that it could no longer be said of Peter’s church that “silver and gold I have not,” to which Thomas said neither could the church say, “in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk.” This was supposedly his critique that as Rome’s visible power and influence had greatly waxed, so also had its spiritual influence waned. So long as Rome posseses such visible grandeur, I don’t think it can escape the perception of irony when it makes such calls for simplicity.
LikeLike
Nobody much wants to hear what the pope says about salvation and eternal life, But why should we listen to him about culture and economics, even if we agree with his anti-capitalism?
It may be ironic but it seems that the pope cannot be a schizophrenic,who speaks on one hand as a private person and on the other, as a representative of a “church”. To the one with red socks, the world is still his kingdom, so there is no kingdom which is not his kingdom.
So I have a question. Many assume that individual Christians can argue from Scripture for their own private opinions about culture and economics, without anybody thinking they act as representatives of a “church”. I disagree with that assumption, both in the definability of the distinctions, and also in the practical perception by those who don’t profess to be Christians. But my question—to what extent can a Presbyterian pastor “sacramentally ordained” speak in public about culture and politics without being thought of as a representative of a “church”?
I am asking of a “non-ordained” Proteatant can sound more like the pope than a Protestant clergyman can or should.
LikeLike
The irony is that for all the whining and wailing we hear around here about how neo-calvinists want to redeem culture somehow a romanist pope can call for the same thing and be held up as an example for us.
The movement being promoted here isn’t so much about confessionalism as it is traditionalism. The evangelical baby, in the old sense of the term, is thrown out with the bathwater.
So it should come as no surprise when members of this movement who decry the “autonomous individual” eventually find rest in the romanist collective.
LikeLike
He started out sounding like Ralph Nader but then shifted to sounding more like Russell Kirk so I think I can embrace what he is saying. Some of the comments here regarding 2K implications are valid, though. Are we cutting the Pope more slack than we would cut John Frame? Maybe what the Pope is saying is more within the realm of the spiritual though, and therefore appropriate.
LikeLike
“I’m just finding it kind of odd to read a staunch 2Ker like yourself commending comments by an ecclesiastical leader which are so moralistic and so lacking in any clear redemptive content.”
There are times when DGH is overcome with irenic impulses. Pray for him.
LikeLike
Hi, Guys! So glad to find that Brother Darryl has appreciated that some RCs get some things right. i.e. Biblical! Church has some interest in surviving. We ALL get SOME things right. Even Mormons! Even Neo-Calvinists! Even Old Bob, here! I try to remember, in spite of some facts, that some 2Kers get EVERYTHING right! Love, Old Bob
LikeLike
Anyway, what does “the family is sacred” mean? I understand that expression when informally used – the family is really important times two – but is the Pope making precise theological point of some kind?
LikeLike
I got a response to my recent letter to the editor to our two vocal local atheists. What would she think of the Pope’s statement:
Dear Erik: I’m with Hector and Warren. We do not need a Daddy in the Sky to be good on earth. Lots of bad things have happened to and by people who dwelled on the concept, “do this and you’ll have a great after life.” I don’t think so. Now is the only time we have. If we follow the laws of the universe and raise our kids to simply “do unto others as we’d like done to us” (it’s the same in virtually all religions), we’d be good enough. I do not see death as just rotting in the ground, although that’s part of it all. I see death as a continuum that makes us immortal. Each living person got a special deal to spend a generation alive. What good fortune. Then, we “pass away” as newspapers tell us when someone dies. I find the idea of reverting to our place in the universe, atoms all, making up some other aspect of the natural world much more comforting than facing heaven or hell which we only know via myths. We fill the empty spaces around us for a little while binding together our fantastic world, maybe a little like the Higgs boson. That’s amazing, don’t you think?
LikeLike
When Bob checks in I feel as if I have received a visit from Matt Foley, motivational speaker.
LikeLike
My response to the lady:
I don’t agree with your worldview, but I can respect what you are saying because you are upfront and honest about it. I still don’t know why I should be good. You may think it is better to be good than bad but that is just your view. My view may be that it is better to be bad than good during my brief time of being alive. Who can say who is right? No one ultimately if there is no god. It’s all just opinions. My point to Avalos & Blumenfeld is: make your case for your worldview vs. just tearing down opposing worldviews. The problem they face is that atheism is a pretty dismal option to the majority of the population. I think they know this which is why they are always attacking religion (interestingly only the Christan religion that I’ve seen) vs. speaking out about the glories of atheism. Once people reject religion I think the most rational choices are nihilism or hedonism, not atheism mixed with liberal politics. I used to play basketball with your husband. Nice guy.
LikeLike
Geoff, why hold a Pope to a Protestant standard?
MM, maybe it means that the family is the soul of society and not the church (and some theos seem to think)?
LikeLike
Thanks Brother Erik Charter! Maybe if you tried to answer some of my few commets @ OLT, I could become as smart as you. 🙂 Never tried to be a motivational speaker— I just try once in a while to show that I like the music “This Is My Father’s World” better than “This World is Not My Home”. More Biblical! Thanks again Darryl for broadening out a bit! Love, Old Bob PS. Erik, Who is Matt Foley? See how dumb I am?
LikeLike
If this gets off into a 2K debate, then I’m going to go “live in van down by the river!”
Seriously, I had several of the same thoughts. Given the Pope’s supposed “infallibility” and that there is unclarity as to when he is speaking in that voice (especially among the great Catholic unwashed), would raise a red flag when speaking as the Vicar of Christ on common kingdom issues.
Zrim, being that 2K is a biblical doctrine, why confine it to Protestantism? I’m not challenging you, truly wondering. If the Pope speaks about the gospel or the Eucharist in a way that undermines “faith alone in Christ by God’s grace alone” should we give him a pass because he is not a Reformed Protestant?
Even though Pope John Paul is not speaking infallibly here, arguably, he’s speaking authoritatively as the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, and is heard so doing. Though there may be wisdom in his words, they’re just the words of a man when speaking on these matters regardless of his Church authority. Thus confusion in the ear of the hearer. As a result, doesn’t he potentially bind consciences concerning economics and consumerism apart from any Scriptural warrant, just as he would be were he defining justification as “faith working through love” as the means of acceptance before God?
By the way, I don’t think that it follows that Darryl is endorsing common kingdom proclamations from an (the) officer of a church, rather simply commending the thoughtful and well-argued words regarding issues facing modern man.
LikeLike
MikelMann, maybe JP2 letters to families as well as the Wednesday Catechesis, which are grouped under the term theology of the body, explain more precise what “the family is sacred” means.
LikeLike
what does “the family is sacred” mean?
mark: Gibson writes that” God’s covenant promise of righteousness by faith for all those who believe has always been their descendents as well. God made the covenant with Abraham and his seed.”
mark: God made an unconditonal promise (covenant) with Abraham only. It promised Abraham that he would have many children and that his family would be circumcised. This is not the same as saying God made a promise to Abraham’s family about anything.
1. If there had been a promise to Abraham’s family, then it would be a conditional promise, like the land promises of the Mosaic covenant. But perhaps it’s not ony the “federal visionists” who turn a promise into conditions.
2. If the promise is only conditional, why is it restricted to Abraham’s family? If the promise only says “if you believe the gospel of righteousness, then righteousness has been imputed to you
like it was to Abraham”, why is that a promise only for Abraham’s family and not also for those outside his family?
3. Is there a better promise for those “in the family” than for everybody else? If some who don’t believe the gospel are already “family”, what’s the difference between the family and those in society outside that family? if some who are “in the family” are not elect, and some who are not “in the family” are elect, (again) what does “the promise to the family ” amount to?
Yes, in another sense ,Abraham’s children (Christians) are those who believe the gospel. But this does not mean that there is any promise to Abraham’s family (the circumcised) that they will have the righteousness of the Seed imputed to them (be Christians).
Romans 9: 7–“and not all are children of Abraham because they are his seed, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of THE promise are counted as seed. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—”
LikeLike
Jack, I get your point in theory—what’s true is true for even those who don’t subscribe to the rules. But truth doesn’t swallow up the reality of disagreement. And given that we have a hard enough time reminding Protestants that church officers do well to keep their social and political opinions close the chest, holding Popes with zip codes to the spirituality of the church seems like holding socialists to the idea of limited government. Then again, I’m the one who’ll quote approvingly the RCC Catechism on the priority of parents to choose the day school of their conscience against any form of P&R educational legalism.
P.S. Will the van have enough government cheese to go around?
LikeLike
Wow, Mark, the Pope sounds just like a Baptist.
LikeLike
Zrim,
what’s true is true for even those who don’t subscribe to the rules. But truth doesn’t swallow up the reality of disagreement.
Agreed. I just don’t want to be ceding biblical ground for the sake of comity.
LikeLike
Bob – Matt Foley was a Chris Farley character on Saturday Night Live. You can find him on You Tube.
LikeLike
Geoff, I agree. I don’t think church leaders should comment on politics or economics without a thus saith the Lord. But I never expected Rome to be 2k. And just because a church leader speaks on politics, it doesn’t mean he is wrong in what he says.
LikeLike
Jed, well, you have a point.
LikeLike
McMark, here’s a further complication. Machen spoke about lots of social matters, not necessarily as a pastor, but he still spoke. Lots of conference organizers and editors took him as a spokesman — not for the PCUSA but for fundamentalism. No one ever thought he was speaking for his communion.
LikeLike
GAS, I said the pope was worth reading. I also think Christopher Hitchens is worth reading. Are you a fundamentalist such that you can’t recommend something as worthy of consideration without hearing that you’re advocating sin.
LikeLike
Msquared, always pray.
LikeLike
I’m scratching my head on what I should take away from this post. Perhaps the same thing that I took away from reading this essay:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/08/13/120813crat_atlarge_gopnik
The prosperity gospel is alive and kickin strong in America. Success, money and victory still speak the loudest and carry the most weight in the culture- creed, belief and doctrine remain distantly important.
LikeLike
D.G.
I enjoyed reading this post. I wonder how influential the distaste for American consumerism has been in driving some evangelicals (not thinking about Reformed at the moment) towards Orthodoxy or Catholicism. The exponential growth of denominations in the 19th century seemed to parallel the growth of American consumerism. It makes sense; when consumerism becomes the dominant ethos in a culture more of everything is to be expected. Do you see a connection? Have you read Horton’s “Made in America”? I enjoyed it greatly. He has a whole chapter on consumerism in it, but mainly focuses on how consumerism waters down Christianity.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy, you mean consumerism didn’t start with medieval monks who bartered and exchanged goods (like bread and ale) to carry on their institutions?
I do believe that the consumerism of which JPII speaks came later than either the monks or 19th c. denominations. Before 1900, at least as I understand economics, the American economy was a producer rather than a consumer arrangement.
If you are trying to link freedom of choice with consumerism, then the assertions of free will among contemporary Roman Catholics are likely a bigger implicit boon to the economy than Calvinism’s dire rejection of free will.
LikeLike
Darryl:
A bit wide of your wider thesis, but his. I was not and am not happy with my training at WTS-PA or RES-Phila. “Nothing,” in terms of required course work, on Romanist literature, Anglican literature, or Lutheran literature. “Nothing.”
Additionally, there was no required course on “confessions and catechisms.” Even latitudinarian John Frame noted his surprise when this was an issue, the Confession, at his presbyterial inquiry. Duh? John’s courses revealed that too.
And, the worship at WTS was aweful with Frame exfoliating on the organ, just aweful.
Fortunately, I (“it’s all about me”) remedied something of it, no thanks to either school. This included reading Romanist, Anglican, and Lutheran literature. Vat 2 and the RC Catechism, minimally, should be evaluated. But, if the WCF is not evaluated, there was “de nada” on other thinkers. Very poor.
Reading “widely” is essential.
Regards.
LikeLike
There is a connection between the Protestant work ethic, as taught by people like of Johann Kaspar Lavater and Richard Braxter, and the development of capitalism. Max Weber’s observations are not complete and may not always be convincing, but there is a connection.
The Catholic work ethic is based more on the monastic model and does not understand work as a production of goods, but – in the best case – as art.
The reasons for abstention from consumption is – even in Carmelites or Carthusian monasteries- not seen as a limitation, but as a path to greater freedom of the individuals. Look at the Monastic rules, and the comments that were written about them. The works of the Turin Social saints, the publications of Adolf Kolping, Josemaría Escrivá or Dorothy Day.
There are social and economic teaching tradition on both sides, but the Protestant ideas are sometimes incredibly unchristian.
The life span of Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus and John Don Bosco overlaped. Both were aware of living in a time of great social and economic problems. Both took their religion very seriously. Their solutions, however, were very different.
LikeLike
Carl Trueman: “If Weber was right, then the best we can say is (to put it in really broad strokes): (a) Protestantism turbo-charged capitalism; (b) capitalism fuelled consumerism; and (c) consumerism
found unnecessary–if not downright inconvenient as hindrances to growth–the values which fuelled (a) and thus slowly but surely eroded them to nothing.”
LikeLike
Wendell Berry, Jayber Crow,p161
“…this religion that scorned the beauty and goodness of this world was a puzzle to me. To begin with, I didn’t think anybody believed it. I still don’t think so. Those world-condemning sermons were preached to people who, on Sunday mornings, would be wearing their prettiest clothes. Even widows in their dark dresses would be pleasing to look at. By dressing up on the one day when most of them had leisure to do it, they signified their wish to present themselves to one another and to Heaven looking their best. The people who heard those sermons loved good crops, good gardens, good livestock and work animals and dogs; they loved flowers and the shade of trees, and laughter and music; some of them could make you a fair speech on the pleasures of a good drink of water or a patch of wild raspberries….And when church was over they would go home to Heavenly dinners of fried chicken, it might be, and creamed new potatoes and creamed new peas and hot biscuits and butter and cherry pie and sweet milk and buttermilk. And the preacher and his family would always be invited to eat with somebody and they would always go, and the preacher, having just foresworn on behalf of everybody the joys of the flesh, would eat with unconsecrated relish”
LikeLike
I have never heard a polemic against Protestantism based on the differences between Catholic and Protestant economic thought (or work ethic) and the resulting evils in the culture. Catholic work produces “art” whereas Protestant work produces “capitalism.” That seems like a stretch to me. I think it is more of a human nature and depravity thing than a Protestant vrs. Catholic thing. I think that essay on the meaning of Mormonism shows that pretty clearly.
LikeLike
Sabine, I got it. Protestants are wrong and wicked. RC’s are holy and wise. Thanks for keeping it real. But have you thought very hard about your church’s attitude toward Mafia dons? If that’s too below the belt, how about the Kennedys?
LikeLike
But have you heard, John Y, a Protestant case against Rome based on economics?…Well, there is a first time for everything. I do not endorse this from John Robbins, but consider it an example, an exhibit.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=131
I liked that Gopnik essay in the New Yorker as well. For me, talking about the evils of protestant Mormonism means talking about the evils of capitalism. Shape-shifters “reinvent themselves” to meet the demands of the market.
LikeLike
Sabine, Any relation to Sabina in “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”? Now that was a woman…
LikeLike
I would ask how many people here with critiques of capitalism actually make their living in a capitalst enterprise? I do and I can tell you it is no picnic dealing with competition, the government, banks, plaintiffs attorneys, etc. I think too many people benefit from capitalism but don’t really stop and consider what it takes for capitalists to pull it off. Just call me Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”.
LikeLike
Erik, is thinking about Sabina good Sabbath preparation?
LikeLike
Speaking of Mafia dons. I’m with a bunch of other teenage seminarians on a trip to New Orleans to spend some time with father frank at the cathedral, the custom has been over the years that different parishioners sponsor seminarians at their house for the week that we are there. Well, at this time, in nawlins you could drink if you were 18, grandfather clause, which is why we all volunteered to go. (This figuring out celibacy is hard work, we needed to know exactly what we were giving up, and we were certain the combination of hurricanes and the french quarter could help this process). Anyway, one by one, parishioners are coming by the cathedral to pick up their alloted seminarians, before you know it it’s just me and my buddy left out on the stoop with father Frank and Frank is telling us we will really enjoy our time with this couple, they really know Nawlins. So, up pulls a custom mercedes with an obese middle aged man driving and his much younger male friend in the passenger seat. I’m a little wary, but I know Frank and it can’t be what it looks like. So, we get our bags loaded and climb in the backseat and off we go, well about 2 minutes into the car ride the fat man starts talking to us about how things in Nawlins are a little different and we might see things we haven’t seen before and we need to be open-minded. Immediately, I know what’s what and I’m beginning to plot my escape. My buddy appears clueless, not a good sign. Anyway, the fat man is gonna take us to where the cajun folk eat down in the quarter away from the tourist traps. As we’re driving we pass a couple cop cars and they flash their lights at the fat man and give a little honk as we drive by, odd, but what do I know, I’m thinking about how I can manage not to fall asleep. We get to the restaurant, line wrapped around the building, and we just walk right past everyone the maitre de addresses the fat man; ‘your usual table?’ and we are seated. I’ll skip all the details of the next couple nights other than to point out we are treated this way everywhere we go, and I’m not drinking or sleeping. Beautiful place on the wharf, btw, nice boat too. We see things that you don’t wanna see or know about and I’m just trying to figure out how and what and since I’m not sleeping or drinking or meeting girls, except for the one’s he offered to get for us in a fit of pouting after he’d been rejected, I’m doing a lot of praying. Finally the week ends and I have a sit down with father Frank about what we’ve seen, heard and that we were propositioned. Frank’s response; ‘Yeah, we heard he had a little bit of a reputation for ‘that’ , we’ll have to be a little more careful about it next time.’ I sh_ _ you not. So, I get home and start relaying the story to my dad, my dad goes oh yeah, he’s the mafia kingpin down there, I’m surprised they let you stay with him, didn’t they know he has a reputation for boys!!!! I find out later ‘fat man’ had paid for the remodel of the church in Nawlins.
LikeLike
Come on, D.G, do not be so thin-skinned.
More or less the same arguments that John Robbins brings up, I hear continuously for 30 years, now.
The Catholic Church is hostile to free markets and basically the Pope is a socialist who supported the labor movement and undervalues entrepreneurship. And for some people the sheer number of Catholic holidays is a proof that Catholics are inveterate idlers.
But least they are correct in so far as the classical economic theory has been developed in Protestant circles only.
For a long time the Catholic Church limited itself to criticism and the prohibition of interest rates.
Oh and my name, the last time I had visited the bathroom, I was quite clearly a woman. I do not think this will change soon.
My mother liked Roman mythology, so I can be glad, for Proserpina was also on their Liste. Sabine- and e instead of a – I owe to the officer, who refused to write a non-German name into a German Birth Register.
LikeLike
“The Catholic work ethic is based more on the monastic model and does not understand work as a production of goods, but – in the best case – as art.”
Sabine, if this is going to be a Catholic vs. Protestants thing, should we look to heavily Catholic countries as our economic role models? Say, Italy and South America? But I don’t think that dichotomy is very useful.
John Robbins annoys most of us, too.
LikeLike
sean,
We’re thankful the ‘fat man’ didn’t make you an offer you couldn’t refuse!
😉
LikeLike
Sean, here’s a thought: let’s get the CTCers to have a retreat with Father Frank.
LikeLike
Jack,
You and I both. It’s only funny now. Who was I gonna tell, the cops in their white cruisers and crescent badges ‘winking’ at him as he drove by?! I remember lying on the couch listening for the whirring of his electric chair hauling his fat arse down the stairs. My point with it all, and the CTCers conveniently or ignorantly are unaware of, is that Rome is as much a political machine as a church. Bishops are by and large political positions, archbishops even more so. These days it’s more about the politics of ethnicity than anything else, but some shiite has gone down under the supervision of the ‘church’, that makes the Haggard stuff look like some kids playing doctor.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The last thing fr. Frank needs is ‘fresh meat’ for his benefactor. Though I’d buy a ticket to that encounter.
LikeLike
McMark,
Not real clear on your point. It is probably best to stay away from any kind of polemic against a rival theological system of thought using economic thought as your ammunition. Robbins thinks you can develop economic theory from what is written in the Bible and so does Rome. At least that is what I took from what they wrote about in the essays I read. Private property, self-interest, Capitalism and limited government is supported in the scriptures according to Robbins. The Roman Church-State is commited to the fundamental social principles of the “universal destination of goods, the primacy of need and governmental regulation and control of the economy,” according to Robbins. Robbins claimed to prove all this in his essay. After studying ecomomics for 3 years at Calvin I left there not sure what I should think about the whole subject and I was into it just as much as Jed is into it today. I know the professors at Calvin were very much against trying to extract economic theory from the scriptures like the theonomists were doing during the time I was taking classes there (1990-1994). The invisible hand of Providence seems to take pleasure in foiling all the control tactics of its rebellious and fallen creatures. I will trust that God knows what He is doing while working through his creatures and the dynamic of historical forces. Shumpeter’s the creative-destruction of Capitalism is good food for thought. Although I am much more interested in the next life and Gospel issues than I am with social issues these days. I am also all for anyone who can come up with some good ideas of how to deal with the big goverment and big business problems that inflict humanity today.
LikeLike
Sean, buy one for me.
LikeLike
Sean,
That was a great story but I have to believe it was a little bit embellished- please tell me that it was. I was conjuring up images of Chris Farley (not Foley) and down by the river when you were speaking of Frank. I wonder how long Jason Stellman will last amongst the Catholic flock. Perhaps his next stop will be in a rehab or funny farm.
LikeLike
You Catholic guys are wasting your time trying to call the hard-core Calvinists that hang out here to communion. However, the dialog is interesting in my opinion. You have got to come up with something better than an infallible Pope and infallible Magisterium when talking about truth issues and how one comes into a right relationship with a Holy, Just and Merciful God.
LikeLike
John,
I’m not sure how to make that up. I left out most of the story. I was 18 and had lived with the clergy for 5 years at that point. We were 300 boys living under the supervision of 6 priests and some religious. Certainly this wasn’t everyday occurrence, but I grew up pretty quick nonetheless. I’m not damaged in any way and some of them I still regard as friends. But, the reality of the vocational life is a lot more sordid than CTC is even aware of. CtC lives in Narnia as has been pointed out.
LikeLike
Sean,
I know you were a former Catholic but what do you do now? Are you a Pastor at an OPC church? I thought you were a Lutheran for awhile. Perhaps you are a Professor at a university like Hillsdale?
LikeLike
D.G. – I still have 7 hours…
LikeLike
Doggone it. I have a ton of work to do and I can tell these comments are really good. Knock it off for awhile. I have way too much to do.
LikeLike
John,
I’m just a schmoe in the pca these days. I have an affinity for Luther, he hits all the points of tension I’m familiar with as an RC pursuing the vocational life who realizes there’s something rotten in Denmark, or Rome in this case.
LikeLike
mikelmann, the problem, as I said, is that the Catholic Church, could never bring itselves to develop its own economic theory as addition to their teaching and social work ethics. At the Pontifical Universities one can, as far as I know, not even study economics.
Maybe it is not the best moment to promote a more distinct teaching on economy, considering that some politicians here are already hysterical when the Pope speaks about natural law in the Bundestag. On the other hand, I expect that the current financial crisis is a pulse that renews the economy and perhaps even promotes ideas that are more in line with Catholic ethics.
What perhaps had come close to it , is the social market economy, which was worked out by members of both denominations during and after WW2. Some of the ideas were implemented in Germany by Ludwig Erhard and Konrad Adenauer. And … Christian Social parties are not the worst governments as you can see in Germany and Scandinavian countries.
What is interesting in any case, that contemplative monastic communities achieve economic independence in almost any environment. What is truly amazing.
LikeLike
It looks like you are the voice of reason MM. But you already know that. From what I remember of Erhard, Adenauer, and the Christian social parties Sabine knows what she is talking about. They had some good economic ideas that really worked in Germany after WWII. I remember reading about them in Paul Johnson’s MODERN TIMES. Catholic social thought is much more diverse than Robbins or many other Protestants give them credit for. Although I should probably keep my mouth shut because I certainly have not read widely about the differences between Protestant and Catholic social thought.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply back Sean. Having had some experience with the Catholic bureaucracy too I could relate to your story. You do not want to meet the wrath of some powerful and influential Catholics. They tend to be ruthless. I think they learned it from their experiences with the mafia-dons.
LikeLike
Sabine, I just don’t see how we can get much general application from a system in which single men who live in a community don’t get any individual reward for their production. And don’t they often sell goods to outsiders?
BTW, there’s a fun little bakery/restaraunt in Bangor Maine run by two monks. http://asheepinwoolsclothing.typepad.com/a_sheep_in_wools_clothing/2005/11/the_friars_bake.html
A couple quirks – besides having monks behind the counter – include sharing tables with strangers and hymns quietly playing in the background. While I was there “A Mighty Fortress” was one of those hymns. And they understand Maine at least enough to offer Whoopie Pies.
LikeLike
Sean, I’ve asked Bryan and Andrew and now you. Does Rome have an index of all the authoritative teachings, that more or less harmonizes or catalogs all the encyclicals, councils, catechisms, and lets the faithful know what they are supposed to believe (or not)?
LikeLike
Erik, not to go all sabbatarian on you, but Sabbath preparation begins on Monday, right?
LikeLike
Sean – Wow! Do you have a literary agent yet? To echo D.G. Bryan Cross needs to hang out with those New Orleans cats for awhile and see if it changes his Hal-like textbook responses.
LikeLike
I was envisioning The Big Lebowski or that dude who used to manage all of those boy bands as the fat man.
“The Sopranos” had several observations on the relationship between the Mafia and the Church. Tony wasn’t a very good Catholic, though. As Carmela says in the first episode, “The difference between you and me is that you’re going to hell!”.
LikeLike
Sabine – As a German how do you feel about propping up Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. from now until as long as the Euro lasts?
LikeLike
John – “Modern Times” is one of the most influential books I have ever read. I just can’t get into post-WWII european history, though. It’s all so anticlimactic. I remember I took a class called “20th Century European Crisis” in college and there were only about 5 of us in the class. The teacher, James Kennedy, whose mom was Dutch, chided us all because none of us would get our reading done after we got past WWII.
The best post-WWII movies I’ve seen are “Day of the Jackal”, “The Baader-Meinhof Complex”, and “Munich”. I guess I can’t get into it unless there is a terrorist involved. I’ve already brought up “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” today so I won’t go there again.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Not that I’m aware of, that doesn’t mean they don’t. I’d think for those kind of references you’d be looking at canon law works.
Erik,
My wife has been after me about the same thing. It seems like a whole life ago. I’m not sure I even regard it as remarkable anymore. Fat man was a human being who had let go, kind of a pathetic figure as I see it now. What’s unnerving maybe is there’s really not a lot different between he and I. Monsters are for headlines. There’s not much that separates one sinner from another.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeah, I really was deeply influenced by that book too (MODERN TIMES by Paul Johnson). It was captivating reading all the way through. That is saying alot about a history book. One of my favorites ever- I agree.
LikeLike
I would be interested to hear what D.G. thinks of Johnson. Anyone who is as prolific as he is is either brilliant or is cutting some corners. As he’s gotten older I’ve noticed his books are getting shorter which tells me he may be cashing in a bit at this point. You could kind of say the same thing of guys like Stephen Ambrose & Harold Bloom (a literary critic, not a historian). Once these guys get older and more popular the quality of their work may go down.
LikeLike
John, Erik,
Here’s a current article about the Nawlin’s PD. It doesn’t directly address what I mentioned but it gives you a flavor for how things were/are. The whole off duty work is just touched upon, but that’s generally how the relationships would develop between the police and the mob.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/plan-to-reform-new-orleans-police-department.html?pagewanted=all
LikeLike
A lot of people don’t like Johnson- he has had some scandals in his life and some of his writings and books have been less than favorably reviewed. I cannot remember all the criticism but he is a controversial figure. I still liked MODERN TIMES- it held my interest all the way through. I don’t really care what has happened in his personal life.
I have always wanted to read some of Christopher Dawson’s books but have not gotten around to it. Has anyone read anything by him? Any suggestions on what book to start on?
LikeLike
Dear Brother Erik, Thanks for identifying Matt Foley for Old Bob. Long ago I watched a few SatNitLiv programs. It was one of the things that made wife of 60 years and I give up our TV! I think about.
much better things and so do you! BTW, another curiosity question: What else do you do besides write so much @OLT? And read so much of DGH’s almost daily posts? And comments? Not long ago there were 500+ comments on a single posting! WOW! I could tell you how I spend my valuable time but my Buddy (in most ways) Darryl, doesent like my auto bio stuff. He falls into this himself at times 🙂 Love Old Bob
LikeLike
Darryl, John, Jack, Erik
Here’s an article on Fr. Frank;
http://www.satodayscatholic.com/041009_OblateSchool.aspx?print=Y
Some quotes from the article;
“Father Montalbano’s students included many of today’s priests in the former Southern Province of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. He left for New Orleans in 1979 and earned a large following there as he had in San Antonio. He returned to San Antonio in 2007 and has lived at the Oblate Madonna Residence in retirement. Father Montalbano is 86.”
“It was the time of the emergence and development of the HISTORICAL_CRITICAL METHOD in Scripture study; it was the time of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of the proclamation of that landmark encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu,” which led to the Second Vatican Council’s landmark Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum.”
LikeLike
The interplay between good and evil in the sacred and secular spheres is what makes shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Treme,” “The Wire” and “The Dark Knight Rises” interesting to watch. It is also what makes the drama that goes on in the Catholic Church a captivating thing. Unfortunately, it is a reality that you have to be leery of Cops, Judges, Lawyers, the criminal justice system, Pastors, Priests, Parents and School teachers. You also should be leery of yourself. So, it behooves one to develop critical thinking capacities but even that can fool you too. The only thing that can be relied upon is the sufficiency of Christ and his work for elect sinners. It is a troublesome world we live in.
LikeLike
Dawson sounds like a neo-Cal in this essay:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0087.html
LikeLike
I read that essay again and perhaps I should reconsider whether his beliefs were similar to those of neo-Cals in regards to Christ and culture. But I still find social issues much more confusing then Gospel issues. There is a Word of God for Gospel issues, not so with social issues. We have to rely on general revelation and the natural light of reason in determine truth in social issues. So, can any tell me if they think Dawson held similar ideas to the neo-Cals in regards to Christ and culture? He did say that he thought the kingdom of God was found in the church and not in the culture.
LikeLike
Anyone who says that Paul Johnson is not captivating to read or listen to should reconsider after this interview:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5035
I know McMark does not like Johnson because of his “slander” of the Anabaptists. I can’t help to be interested in what he has to say- sorry McMark
LikeLike
The Catholics have produced some worthy historians in Dawson and Johnson. I don’t think anyone can argue against that. Although some may do just that.
LikeLike
JY, I read Johnson’s History of the Christian Church. He writes well, but I always felt like I was reading apologetics.
LikeLike
MM,
That is one of his worst books from what I have heard and read from by others. I never read it. MODERN TIMES was a page turner. I have read that his biography of Churchill and his book on American History is suppossed to be worth reading too. The main themes of his history are structures that support moral religious foundations and the freedom of individuals to pursue their own wealth are the ones which produce the greatest nations. He is also big on nations allowing their citizens to freely dialog with each other and he sees great problems with countries which try to control the free exchange of ideas between its citizens. I thought his take on the founding fathers of America was worth listening to. He admires George Washington greatly in how he handled the warring factions of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams and kept them all together so the nation was not split apart at its founding.
LikeLike
Nobody except MM bit on my inquiries about Johnson and Dawson. Johnson is very optimistic about the role of America in international politics. The post-millenialists seem to gravitate towards his views and they recommend the reading of their books, ie., they like the historical vision they set forth in their writings. Has there been much criticism of their historical perspectives? It seems to me that their writings fit well into a neo-Cal view of culture with the good and moral ultimately being victorious before the return of Christ.
LikeLike
John, where do you get the idea that neo-Cals are post-millennialists? I think you are confusing neo-Calvinists with theonomists/reconstructionists (not an uncommon confusion on this blog).
LikeLike
Terry, but neo-Cals and theonomists both take their cues from Dutch Calvinism, overemphasize the antithesis, and identify the kingdom with common earthly activities. Oh, and both attack 2k.
LikeLike
Bob – I sleep in till noon, then I watch Rocky and Bullwinkle. Then I drive my cab for a couple hours. I come home, I order out food, and then I play Tito Puente albums until two in the morning.
LikeLike
Memo to self:
1. Find those Rocky & Bullwinkle DVD’s.
2. Work them into blog somehow.
3. Check to see if Frostbite Falls is a real town.
4. Dudley v. Boris Badunov = strong antithesis.
4. Isn’t it weird that Sherman is Peabody’s pet?
LikeLike
Erik, you brought up post WWII movies and brought me out of my near perpetual lurking here… I have to recommend Das Leben Van Anderen (The Lives Of Others). It is set in East Germany in the 80s, following the lives of a number of Stasi who are spying on playwrights and actors. It is nearly dystopian, yet it is a quite beautiful film. I imagine that someone who likes Munich, will like this, if you don’t mind subtitles and a bit slower pace. After seeing it on Netflix, I bought it on blu-ray.
LikeLike
My German isn’t so great… Replace van with der, and I think I’ve got it.
LikeLike
Joel – I have seen the “Lives of Others” and liked it. It gives you a picture of how dismal it must have been to live under East German Communism.
I am venturing back into WWII here, but two other very good movies by European directors about Europe are “Soldier of Orange” and “Black Book”, both by Paul Verhoeven. “Black Book” is a lot of fun. “Soldier of Orange” is hard to find but is really good. I rented it from a video store that is out of business.
LikeLike
Darryl, perhaps a logic course would be in order.
LikeLike
Tito Puente is going to be dead and you’re going to say; ‘I’ve been listening to him for years and I think he’s fabulous’
LikeLike
I actually think I have a Tito Puente CD somewhere. There is a Xavier Cugat LP on my turntable as we speak.
LikeLike
Terry, I guess you’re referring to a genetic fallacy, the favorite quip of neo-Cals who don’t like resemblances or theological genes. But lines of descent and historic connections are the stock and trade of historians. You may not like the similarities. I’m not wild for instance about the resemblance between Wesley’s hymns and praise songs. But it’s there.
Deal.
Plus, I’m guessing that when you look at the biological roots of an organism, you’re not pulling out a rule book for logic.
LikeLike
Sean, why are you listening to a cigar?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Cuz it apparently is not the cigar of the ECF, and I don’t want to be declared in schism from St. Peter’s chair. I was worried that smelling would lead to smoking which would cause me to fall into mortal sin, and I figured I was already in dire straits(sultans of swing) having left the nurture of my mother in Rome(Fr. Morrell says; ‘not so much’) but I better not push my luck. As it is, I’m twenty four years behind on my annual rosary schedule and untold number of missed prayers to the saints to say nothing of lighting candles to ‘our lady of (insert name here)’. But Fletch assures me there’s been a lot of changes in (canon)law since then and he’s not sure it’s a crime(sin) any longer. Gotta love Vat II and the maturation of the deposit.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Check out Guitar George. He knows all the chords.
LikeLike
Erik,
They cut off the ending guitar riff. Mortal sin.
LikeLike
The words weren’t synched with the video either. Sacrilege. I’ve seen better versions on You Tube.
LikeLike
You won’t consult a logic book on how one moves from the Centesimus Annus to Father Frank to Bullwinkle and Rocky to Tito Puente and then arrive at Dire Straits and The Sultans of Swing either. Although it does add to the mystery of the minds inner workings. I’m still intrigued by the question often raised at oldlife by how truth is best arrived at, ie., through logic or through intuitive insight. I suppose there has to be a place for both but you don’t find the best novel writers and literary figures or those who write broad and sweeping visions from historical studies to be top notch logicians too. Although you do need the logicians to keep the intuitive insight guys from going off into lala land. So, it makes for interesting discussion I think.
Terry, so I take it you are an amillenial neo-Cal. There is a lot more variety of social and cultural thought then the neo-Cal and 2K variety too. I was just trying to sort out the Catholic perspective which seems to have its best expression in the work of Dawson and Johnson; although Catholics are all over the map in all their thinking. And it seemed to me to be closer to the neo-Cal perspective than the 2K perspective from what I posted in those links. I was probing to see if anyone had read Dawson and Johnson and what they thought about them. But I got no reply so I guess no one has read them or else has no one has strong convinctions about them.
Another theme that Johnson writes often about is his distaste for intellectuals. He defines an intellectual as someone who makes ideas as more important than people. He claims that pure, commited and passionate intellectuals have done much damage to the human race and that they should be resisted with great persuasive force and clarity by others.
LikeLike
John – I’ve read some of Johnson’s “Intellectuals”. The key question he raises is whether people can have true ideas if at the same time they are living like hell. This is one of the ways we attack Rome here (which the CTC guys will never answer).
LikeLike
On the flip side of that Erik is that one can be deluded into believing that they are being infused with agape righteousness and be leading what they believe to be moral and loving lives and yet reject the imputed righteousness of Christ. Who is worse and doing the most damage- the obvious sinner or the deluded sinner who has more infused righteousness then the obvious sinner? Cloaked and semi self-righteousness or thinking that we have more infused righteousness than the other guy is tricky business. Some people struggle and fall into obvious sin for a large variety of complicated reasons that take time and insight to get a handle on and correct. How to handle that in church is also tricky business and not easy to deal with. Do you preach more infused righteousness and discipline (and purgatory afterwards if you still don’t change enough) or do you preach the atonement and the imputed righteousness of Christ until the sinner gets it and changes out of gratitude? And it is my contention, which I realize is a minority view, that “living like hell” can have an obvious sin side to it and a cloaked and moral and loving side too, ie., we can be living like hell without being that aware of it. The obvious sinner gets sent to the Gulag while the cloaked righteousness guy gets off scot free. It seems to me that Christ turned that paradigm around in the Gospels and went directly to where the sinners were congregated. The ones who ran the synagogues did not like that paradigm very much. The ones who knew they were sinners were grateful and became willing to die for what Christ taught and did- even while they still struggled with their besetting sins.
LikeLike
John, Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future would be a typical expression of amillennial neo-Calvinism. Most Dutch Reformed would call themselves amils. I’m guessing Kim Riddlebarger (The Case For Amillennialism) used to call himself a neo-Cal before it became unfashionable among the WSC and WHI crowd.
Although seldom discussed, I think 2K actually weakens the case for amillennialism because it weakens the continuity between the present Creation and the New Heavens and the New Earth. This invites the OT reader to find fulfillment of the prophets in something other than the eschaton, perhaps a pre-millennial kingdom.
LikeLike
Darryl, your response more or less confirms my point. I’m sorry to see you embrace fallacious argumentation as part of your rhetoric.
You are mistaken if you think evolutionary biology, especially as it generates phylogenetic trees from sequence data, is as subjective as you suggest.
LikeLike
John –
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
“And am still inclined to all evil”. We confess that believers are sanctified, but we also confess that progress may be slow in this life.
LikeLike
Terry, you missed the point. History is not logic, just like stories are not rocket science. Now if you think that every thing must be logical (are you a disciple of Gordon Clark), then historical reasoning may be erroneous. But it is hardly subjective, as if anything but logic lacks a form of objectivity. Tracing origins in biology and history can be instructive. But if you don’t care to ponder the common origins of theonomy and neo-Calvinism, it’s a free country.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am inclined to throw the progressive sanctification paradigm out the window, but I am in the minority view on that one too. I think this gets into antithesis thinking which I find hard to define and determine what is a true antithesis, ie., is it an either/or or a both/and. This finds expression in Law/Gospel in arguments related to the Gospel and sacred/secular in arguments related to social thought. So, I am asking the logicians out there to help me define a true antithesis in thought. How do you know you are defining an antithesis properly? John Murray, N.T. Wright and the Federal Visionists don’t think there is a true antithesis in Law/Gospel – they are monocovenantalists. Paul Johnson seems to think that there is antithesis between making ideas more important than people- I’m inclined to think that maybe I interpreted him wrong but that is how he defined intellectuals in this 3 hour long interview with C-Span in 2011: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291969-1
And I think I am making some kind of fallacy in my thinking here. That is why I am asking how you know you have a true antithesis. I am one of those who thinks it can be an obsession and maybe a waste of time if you are inclined to spend too many hours learning and spotting fallacies and then use it as ammunition to bully others and show them how stupid they are. But then again there does seem to be some good uses one can put to logic. Determining true antitheseeze (probably not a word- I added the z for phonetic effect) is one of those good uses among others. Logicians need to more aware of the tone they are taking but they say the same about 2kers so I guess there needs to be some diplomacy taken when making arguments and accepting the fact that intuitive insight can be just as effective as logic when making arguments and truth claims. After all, truth in the end is a Person and His work not some perfectly argued syllogism. So, is there a true antithesis between logic/intuitive insight? Or, is it a both/and?
Terry,
LikeLike
Terry, I hit the post comment accidentally. However, my previous post probably covers what I was going to say. I am aware of Hoekemas book and realize the arguments between 2Kers and neo-Cals is full of subtleties. The Johnson and Dawson visions of history, why study it, and what is most effective in dealing with the culture is also appealing and attractive. I find social issues to be very confusing and hard to get a handle on- kind of like the sacraments and sanctification.
LikeLike
Darryl, seems to me that aspects of theonomy at least go back to pre-1789 Reformed thinking. The common ground between theonomy and neo-Calvinism lies in their common Reformed heritage. Your lumping them together in the present discussion has little to do with history and more to do with some common elements. While I concur that history is more than logic I would hope that you acknowledge that common features may be mere correlations and not do to the two things being the same thing. Sure you can recognize that the claim that “all theonomists are Kuyperian” (even if true) doesn’t imply that “all Kuyperians are theonomists”. I’m just asking that you follow ordinary rules of reasoning, even if you’re a historian.
LikeLike
Terry, little to do with history? Theonomy began when? 1985. Who was its inspiration? Van Til. Was he a neo-Calvinist? Yes.
It’s fine if you don’t like theonomy. But like I’ve tried to say many times, perhaps neo-Cals could provide a little self-correction in the light of either the CRC and GKN or theonomy.
LikeLike
Darryl, working on it, but as always, drifting denominations aren’t necessarily the best expression of neo-Calvinism. There’s enough wrong otherwise with the CRCNA and the former GKN that’s disconnected from neo-Calvinism that you can’t make your argument cogently. Perhaps we can point to the OPC as one of the more faithful neo-Calvinist denominations. The OPC even has argued that on the basis of sphere sovereignty that the seminary or the missionary hospital shouldn’t be run by the church. Some good stuff there.
No theonomy before Rushdoonie and Bahnson? Are you serious? But with that admission at least you are saying that theonomy is distinct from neo-Calvinism which came at least 100 years before. Let’s hold that thought the next time we’re tempted to collapse the two.
I am glad to see you distance yourself from Van Til. I’ve never been able to tell for sure.
LikeLike
John – Thanks for the Johnson link. I fear your questions are over my head.
LikeLike
Terry, you’re still not getting historical development. Just because Jason Stellman was a 2ker doesn’t mean that 2k leads to Rome. Your genetic fallacy slip is showing, not to mention your ahistorical undergarments. The same goes for Van Til. I do have reservations about Reformed epistemology, but I do not believe Van Til was a theonomist.
Theonomy grew up in the shadow or garden or what have you of Van Til’s neo-Calvinism. Your belief that 16th and 17th century Protestants (as in the Westminster or Belgic confessions) were theonomic shows a failure to understand the subtleties. An Erastian is not necessarily a theonomist, though both don’t like 2k. And Constantinianism is not the same as Israel.
If neo-Calvinism is not best understood by denominations, Kuyper might be surprised since the GKN was a big part of his project. But if you want to remain there, fine. It would suggest that the 2k objection about neo-Cals separating the kingdom from the church is not only valid but true.
LikeLike
Darryl, there seems to be a communication problem. I never claimed that 2K leads to Rome. Perhaps that was a Freudian slip. I never claimed that Van Til was a theonomist. You’re the one who made that connection. I think it was you committing the genetic fallacy not me.
I know full well the distinction between Erastianism and theonomy. I do hope you admit that Geneva, Scotland, interregnum England, and New England did have theonomic aspects.
While I have been willing to grant you your narrow definition of kingdom on semantic grounds, I don’t hesitate to embrace the notion that church and kingdom are different things when those narrow semantic constraints are removed. Only believers and their children are members of both, but church is sphere sovereignty limited to spiritual matters (Word, Sacrament, Discipline)–kingdom is all of life/Creation. So there’s no gotcha there. The key word is “part”. GKN was only part of Kuyper’s project. There was also Christian education, Christian journalism, Christian politics, etc.
LikeLike
Erik,
Another Johnson video interview- short but sweet this time. Some sage advice, I think, from a old man nearing death.
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Wisdom-of-the-Masters/Interview-with-Paul-Johnson.html
LikeLike
Terry, so were Roman Catholic nation-states that prohibited Protestants from worshiping (sometimes in 16th c. France) theonomic? Or is theonomy a particular branch of Reformed Protestantism? As I say, Erastianism is one thing, theonomy another. The latter is a modern phenomenon and I have not connected any more dots to Van Til than the theonomists themselves connect. If you don’t think theonomists (and lots of contemporary Reformed) read the rest of the tradition (even its Erastian aspects) through neo-Calvnist lens, you haven’t been paying attention to the influence of neo-Calvinism since 1900 or to its application of the antithesis.
So why are you doing cartwheels to avoid looking at theonomy’s neo-Calvinist roots? It doesn’t mean neo-Calvinism is necessarily wrong. But it could actually reveal a mental tick that you yourself might want to avoid.
And for the kazillioneth time, the narrow idea of kingdom is not mine. The Westminster Divines articulated it and VanDrunen shows how it was there in a lot of Reformed theology in the 16th and 17th centuries. He also shows how neo-Calvinism disregarded or garbled it. If w-w replaces TULIP as what is distinctly Reformed, which was the case in the CRC back in my time there, you actually think I don’t have a point in blaming neo-Calvinism? No Protestants — nay, no westerners — spoke of w-w before the 19th c.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m not sure I’ve ever said that theonomy doesn’t have neo-Calvinist roots (or at least share pieces of a common heritage). All I’m saying is that theonomy isn’t the logical or necessary conclusion of neo-Calvinism. You all seem to find them indistinguishable. That’s my complaint.
I am under the impression that the theonomic urge (the application of Biblical law to the state) is a Reformed urge (I.e. you don’t really see it in Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or Anabaptist traditions). I suspect due in part to covenant theology. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that. That’s not to say the others, except maybe Anabaptists, weren’t Erastian.
As I’ve said before I think you’re reading the Confession too narrowly. The church is the kingdom with respect to membership–that’s what’s being talked about (“kingdom of priests”). But those priests live all of life in all of Creation over which Christ is Lord and King. (You acknowledge that too, that’s God’s second kingdom in Van Drunen’s titles. So one kingdom or two, you still call it kingdom and say that God is king over both (all).)
LikeLike
Darryl, In proper confessional neo-Calvinisn TULIP and worldview are both present. If TULIP is waning I the CRC (not so sure it is–the newly adopted modernized Form of Subscription preserved a very strong commitment to the Canons of Dort), then neo-Calvinism is waning. You can’t have neo-Calvinism without the Reformed confession. It may be neo-something–but it’s not neo-Calvinism. Why do you think I’m not getting jobs in Wesleyan and Nazarene colleges? I articulate the worldview piece just fine, but my commitment to the Reformed confessions strike against their Arminian statements of faith. (Perhaps there are other reasons as well.)
LikeLike