Amos's River of Justice

Category: Mythology and Religion

Tracing mythological meanings of events and ideologies in the United States and the World

  • Finding Joy in the Darkness

    Please see the update at the end of the article

    Considering the pressures that weigh down the inhabitants of Planet Earth this Christmas season, I think it is important to state the good news first rather than at the end of the article.  (My recommendations for a Russian movie, Stalker, and the Grace Cathedral version of Handel’s Messiah can be found at the end of this article.) The following may not be the good news you were hoping for, but it bodes well for the future: It has recently become apparent that our conversation is developing a recognizable character, substance and direction.  In these times when foundations seems to be crumbling, a new foundation has been forming itself right under our feet.

    I came to this realization after a disturbing conversation with a member of my local Democratic Party in which I discovered that she was completely unaware of the term ‘option for the poor’.  Participants in our conversation will have learned this term from Pope Francis–it is a term used in Catholic social teaching, and it means that “God invites us to care in a special way for those who need the most help.”

    As followers of Christ, we are challenged to make a preferential option for the poor, namely, to create conditions for marginalized voices to be heard, to defend the defenseless, and to assess lifestyles, policies and social institutions in terms of their impact on the poor.  The option for the poor does not mean pitting one group against another, but rather, it calls us to strengthen the whole community by assisting those who are most vulnerable.

    Her obliviousness to this key concept of the conversation was doubly disturbing considering that President-elect Joe Biden, a member of her own party, has been using this term in his speeches.  (Biden would have learned this term directly from Catholic social teaching.)

    In addition to his mention of a preferential option for the poor, President-elect Biden has appointed cabinet members that we can at least hope will be willing and able to manage our land and resources for the support of every American.

    For example, he has appointed Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services; Congresswoman Marcia Fudge as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Deb Haaland as Interior Secretary; and Michael Regan as EPA Administrator.  Biden has also created a new cabinet role of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change, appointing John Kerry to this role.  We can discuss these nominees later, as well as others that are not as much to our liking, but in this season we can choose to focus on good news and that is what I want to do.

    Biden’s pick for Chair of Council of Economic Advisers, Cecilia Rouse, spoke in the language of the conversation when she said, “We need to be positioned for the economy of the future so that everyone is able to partake in the growth we hope to have.”  Biden’s pick for US Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, also spoke in the language of the conversation when she said, “[Trade] is a means to create more hope and opportunity for people…And it only succeeds when the humanity and dignity of every American–and of all people–lie at the heart of our approach.”

    In addition to the influence of Catholic social teaching, other crucial influences round out the conversation and give it life.  We have welcomed the wisdom of indigenous people in the fight to protect our resources.  Biden’s nomination of Deb Haaland as Interior Secretary is a clear nod to the importance of the Native American contribution to this effort.

    The conversation has also welcomed the influence of socialists and Marxists in our midst (although with some trepidation on my part, mostly due to the fear that it invites extremism in American politics.)   The socialists have patiently explained the necessity of economic theory going forward as well as the importance of the creation of wealth if we’re going to care for everyone in times of crisis.  For my part, I recognize the need for these knowledgable people who can think outside of the economic box.

    We are also grateful for the voices and activism of Black Lives Matter, and the attention that protesters around the world have brought to the problem of racism and police brutality.

    Of course, Bernie Sanders has been a huge influence in the conversation.  Although Sanders was considered a left-leaning candidate for the presidency this is only true by American standards.  All of his policy proposals have a solid place in American politics.

    We are also aware in this conversation of the importance of agricultural policy and the way it affects food and water security.  This has been a concern of Marcia Fudge, who lobbied for the position of Secretary of Agriculture.  She would have shifted the agency’s focus from farming toward hunger.  Agricultural policy is central to climate policy and job security as well as food security, so it is sure to be of interest to progressives in the years to come.

    For me, the realization of the centrality of agricultural policy in global conflicts was the most exhilarating realization of this conversation.  It is so important that it should have at least been acknowledged by the Democratic establishment in the 2016 election, but Biden may be making up for that omission.  It should motivate an immediate change, not only in domestic policy but in foreign policy as well.  It makes the Empire’s foreign adventures seem futile and ridiculous, and for that reason it inspires the imagination and the confidence to envision a new world.

    But this good news is only a beginning.  Americans who face hunger and eviction continue to suffer this Christmas season, so we ask the incoming Biden administration to make them a priority.

    I’ll finish by sharing a movie and Christmas music that I think you will enjoy.  Speaking of our strange times, there is a 1979 movie called Stalker.  Admittedly, you have to pay $3.99 to rent it and also have an Amazon Prime account.  (It may also be on Netflix, but I don’t have a Netflix account so I can’t say for sure.)  The movie is based on a novel by the Strugatsky brothers, Roadside Picnic, and directed by Andrei Tarkovsy.   According to Adam Curtis it was inspired by a sense of unreality in Soviet Russia.

    Those who are not interested in the movie might like this performance of Handel’s Messiah in Grace Cathedral.

    Or, the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah.

    Merry Christmas everyone.

    Update December 25: I believe that the following articles and videos have some bearing on the movie, Stalker, that I recommended at the end of this article, or some bearing on my article in general.

    The Infirmity of Jesus is a Teaching of Christmas

    The Light of Hope Shines Brightest in Darkness

    Twenty-five of the best films on Amazon Prime

    Reading the Hindu and Christian Classics: Why and How Deep Learning Still Matters

    Aruna Chetana

     

     

  • Melville, Marx and Me

    I criticized some of Loren Goldner’s statements in a previous post, but now I want to praise his ideas for other reasons.  I appreciate his explanation for why American radicalism differs from European radicalism.

    America’s Unique Connection to the Old Testament

    Americans have a different historical perspective than Europeans.  In Goldner’s words,  we have a different “mythical-historical self-understanding.”  ((Herman Melville: Between Charlemagne and the Antemosaic Cosmic Man, Queequeg Publications, New York, New York, 2006)) This has led to misinterpretations of American politics and political figures.

    Analysts have assumed that both American conservatives and radical socialists lack a “pre-capitalist frame of reference.”  This implies that they don’t have an imagined feudal idyll to look back to or a post-capitalist future to look forward to.  According to this interpretation, it is impossible to see the present as a mere transition from one state to another as Marx did.  But Goldner thinks this “misses something fundamental about America’s mytho-historical self-understanding.  Americans do have a pre-capitalist frame of reference, but it’s not feudal. It’s “in the imagery of Old Testament prophecy, in the fundamental myth of the New Covenant in the wilderness.  It’s in the relationship between Egypt and Israel and Babylon, in the perception of the peoples encountered in the New World as Adamic man in Paradise.”

    In other words, America’s founders didn’t recognize the past of the Holy Roman Empire or Greco-Roman antiquity as being relevant to their experience.  Their model was drawn from the Old Testament.  It comes from a deep identification between early American experience and that of the Jews ‘going out of Egypt’.

    This has had both positive and negative consequences.  The most negative consequence has been the tendency to identify peoples of color as representatives of fallen man. The Europeans also projected the Adamic myth on other peoples, but they had no direct dealings with the ‘primitive’ element as the Americans did.

    Europe’s Myth of the Cosmic King

    [The European myth was] first the myth of the ‘cosmic king’ of the feudal and later absolutist state, culminating in the ‘Sun King’ Louis XIV, and then the pseudo-mythical resurrection of the shattered cosmic king, victim of regicide: the Napoleonic myth.  In Europe, the centralist state haunted the ‘poetry of the past’ of the conservative right, but also, through the phenomenon of Bonapartism with its ambiguous legacy, an important part of the left, far more indeed than Marxists at the time or later cared to concede, particularly when, in the twentieth century, Bonapartism fused with the myth of the ‘Third Rome’ and appeared to many American and Western ‘Ishmaels’ to preside over the first ‘socialist’ state in history.  (pp24)

    This focus on the cosmic king is unique to Goldner and will be examined later.  My focus here is the importance of the Old Testament in America’s mytho-historical ideal.

    The Indo-European Myth

    Goldner mentions additional sources and thinkers that I have used in this blog, for example he cites Melville’s mention of Sir William Jones.  Jones is important to Goldner because in 1780 he demonstrated that Sanskrit was an Indo-European language. (pp 49)  Indian scholars have objected to this claim.  In fact they have objected to the entire Marxist view of India.  But Goldner is trying to situate Melville in a broader historical movement of ideas with which he was obviously acquainted.  To accomplish this Goldner sketches the history of what he calls the myth. 

    This is probably a good place to mention my use of Edward Moor’s book, The Hindu Pantheon.  In previous articles I have discussed Hindu deities as described by Moor without providing his controversial background.  Moor is controversial today because he worked with Sir William Jones in India when India was still a colony of the East India Company.  On the other hand America’s understanding of Hinduism has had a Western bias from the beginning.  Hindu symbolism, or an American interpretation of it, influenced American culture in a negative way when the medical profession adopted of the caduceus of Hermes.  Now back to Goldner.

         Georges Dumezil and the Source of Western Literature

    Since the 1930s, figures such as Georges Dumezil have uncovered a remarkable coherence of myth within the Indo-European cultural sphere, and in world mythology generally.  Dumezil’s work on Indo-Iranian, Greek, Roman and Scandinavian mythology have amply confirmed the quip that ‘the first half of the nineteenth century discovered that all of modern English and French literature derived from German and Scandinavian folktales.  The second half of the nineteenth century discovered that all German and Scandinavian folk tales were derived from Indian mythology.

    For Goldner this illustrates the importance of India and Egypt–not just Athens or Jerusalem–for the origins of science, religion and art, (pp 87,88).  For me it represents another source that I have in common with Goldner–Georges Dumezil.

    All things considered, it was probably natural for Marxism to be part of the progressive conversation after all.  Hopefully we can develop the ability to acknowledge our diversity, discover our similarities, and use this knowledge to build something better–something uniquely American.

     

  • Can Numerology Predict War in Syria?

    It’s happening again. The United States and its allies have encircled Syria amidst warnings of a chemical attack by Assad, and the Russians and Syrians are frantically trying to ward off a possible false flag. The video at the end of this article in which the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic carefully and thoroughly explains that Syria has no chemical weapons, should dispense with this excuse. Obviously, the actual presence or absence of chemical weapons is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental problem is the determination to follow a well-known agenda for the Middle East. That’s why this threat keeps coming back. Therefore, it might be helpful to look again at numerology to see if we can find an auspicious day for military action. From what I can tell, there are at least two such days in the coming week, August 31 and September 4. If we assume that the number seven is a crucial number for an American war, September 4 would be more likely. If we include the numbers 9 and 11, it could also be August 31.

    The numerological value of September is 10 or 1 (1+0=1). Add 1+4+2018 (1+4+2+0+1+8) and you get 16, which reduces to 7 (1+6=7).

    The numerological value of August is 12 or 3 (1+2=3). Add 3+3+1+2018 (3+3+1+2+0+1+8) and you get 18, which reduces to 9.

    The nine is more meaningful because in Syria’s case there is an additional correspondence. Eleven is the numerical value for ‘Syria’, and eleven is also the numerical value for ‘war’. Robert Eisler mentions this type of correspondence in his book, Orpheus the Fisher, where he uses this system to identify the bishop at Hieropolis, Aberkios, as a ‘fish’ or baptized Christian.

    “Indeed, first of all, the name Aberkios itself is an isopsêphon or numerical equivalent for ‘fish.’ ΙΧΘΥΣ=9+22+8+20+18=77=1+2+5+17+10+9+15+18=ΑΒΕΡΚΙΟΣ (In other words, the letters may be different but they add up to the same value), implying that—according to the expression of Tertullian…Aberkios himself is a ‘fish’ or baptized Christian after the image of the ‘great Fish’ Jesus.”

    I don’t know if it would be necessary to carry the Syrian calculation further, but if we add eleven (the value of Syria) to the value of August 31, 2018 (9), we get eleven. Furthermore, August 31 is the 243rd day of the year (2+4+3=9).

    If we add eleven to the value of September 4 (7), we get 18, which reduces to 9. September 4 is the 247th day of the year (2+4+7=13).

    Of course these are not just the dates of national disasters. Numerology has a biblical basis. Theologians have recognized numerological meanings in the Bible—positive and negative. Augustine thought the number 11 represented transgression of the law because it exceeded the number of the decalogue. The Hebrews thought 11 was a bad number as well. There are no Hebrew names with eleven letters.

    The fulfillment of the number 11 is 66, the number of evil (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11=66). On the other hand, Joseph was the eleventh son of Jacob and Rachel and although he was betrayed by his brothers he was the rescuer of his tribe.

    The number 9 is also said to derive its meaning from the Bible, but through a diabolical reversal which associates it with destruction. Jesus ‘gave up the ghost’ at the ninth hour.

    Keep in mind, this article is not proof of anything. It is a pitiful attempt at mind reading for the purpose of heading off war. However, the numerological aspect makes it clear that this is not just a battle for worldly supremacy.

    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

    https://youtu.be/8bfmayadkhI

  • Gratitude

    I seem to have implied in an earlier article that the story of Adam and Eve had ulterior motives. This is a big problem, and I don’t want to leave my readers with the wrong impression. Fortunately religion doesn’t work like a math problem or a history lesson where you can take one part of it and trace its cause and effect. Each part fits into the whole, and its meaning is not necessarily literal. And in light of the previous article, it didn’t really prove my point.

    If religion were the cause of U.S. tax policy, Germany as a majority Christian nation should have similar policies to the United States. But Germany has generous social benefits. The problem seems to be unique to the United States. It would probably make more sense to blame Ayn Rand than Adam and Eve.

    So although we still have the cruel tax bill things don’t seem quite as dark as they might have been. Good will and decency are alive in our religion. This will pass.

    See also: The Reserve Currency and Globalization

  • Bernie Sanders and Jonah

    I realize now the false claim that Senator Sanders is an atheist has contributed to a major blind spot regarding the meaning of his campaign—at least for me. In fact, it could be argued that the Sanders campaign has been making a religious statement about the nature of our times—a statement that has not been articulated for two thousand years.

    When he spoke at Liberty University Bernie quoted the prophet Amos:

    “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5: 24)

    Perhaps this association between Sanders and Amos can explain how Sanders could wage such a devastating battle against his opponents and yet accept his losses with equanimity. Perhaps his desire to win is not mutually exclusive of the focus on getting his message out.

    According to Robert Eisler, this verse in Amos refers to the Messianic water of life in its original spiritual sense. ((Orpheus the Fisher: Comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism. Rare Mystical Imprints, Kessinger Publishing)) However it has also been interpreted literally. Eisler says this tug-of-war between the mystical and the literal is a characteristic of religious experience.

    Many of you will be aware that the last person to be influenced politically by verses like this one from Amos was John the Baptist, and this may not seem like the most encouraging of associations for Senator Sanders.  But I would argue that we are not re-enacting that old drama. While scriptural verses might give us clues about its nature and meaning, the phenomenon itself is fresh and new for our time.

    Some might also be concerned that this view is in conflict with the views of one of our friends in this conversation, Pope Francis. But it is not at all. These ideas represent the meeting of all religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, among others.

    Eisler speculates that Ezekiel 47: 9-10 is another passage that influenced the doctrine of the Baptist and he presents this passage as an example of the way in which literal interpretations compete with allegorical interpretations.

    The Jewish exegesis of the scriptures haven’t been handed down to us, but Eisler thinks it’s possible to reconstruct them from the commentaries of the Christian Fathers by eliminating the specially Christian features of their symbolism and retaining those elements which clearly correspond to Jewish ideas. He begins with Theodoret’s Commentary on Ezekiel:

    “The Church Father refers the prophecy about the mystic stream to the sacrament of baptism, by saying ‘all those that are washed in the redeeming waters will reach salvation’. He means of course the Christian baptism, but the words could quite as well be used by a disciple of John, since the latter’s baptism is intended to save the repentant and regenerate new Israel from the ‘wrath to come’.”

    And he provides a direct quote from Theodoret:

    Ezekiel says also that the water will be full of fish and frequented by many fishermen: for many are they who through these waters will be fished for redemption, and numerous are they to whom the catching of this booty is entrusted…And Ezekiel says also that the multitude of fish will not resemble the number contained in a river but in the largest ocean; for the new people will not be equal in number to the old, but similar to the ocean of the nations, and it will fill the habitable world.

    Also, Jerome identified the mystic stream running down from the threshold of Ezekiel’s temple to the desert with the pure water of regeneration, which God Promises to sprinkle over Israel in Ezekiel 36:24.

    This water signifies, as he says several times, the grace of God to be obtained through baptism. By the fishermen, however, that stand on the river’s banks the same fishers are meant, to whom the Lord Jesus said, “I will make you to become fishers of men,” of whom we also find written in Jeremiah [16:16] ‘Behold I shall send many fishers that shall fish you’.

    Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis seem to be carrying on the tradition of John the Baptist with the content of their teachings as well. Jesus said of John that he came in the way of righteousness. (Matt. 21:32) And Josephus put it this way:  “[H]e taught the Jews to practice virtue both as to justice towards one another and piety to God.”

    According to Eisler this means that John’s ideal was the old Jewish ṣedākah, the legal principle of justice, a religious ‘suum cuique’ involving faithfulness to our duties both towards God and our fellow-men. Eisler cites Luke for single examples of his moral teachings:

    “The publicans shall exact no more than that which is due to them; the soldiers shall be content with their wages and not abuse their function as police by doing violence to people or bringing false denunciations against them; whoever has the least superabundance of clothing or meat, shall give of it to his brother in need.”

    I think it is important in the context of this election, to also mention important differences of opinion that exist in Judaism regarding the proper approach of said fishermen. First, there is the conviction that men could accelerate the coming of the Kingdom and force it down immediately by certain actions, either of obedience or of disobedience to the commandments of God. John thought fervent repentance would be strong enough to bring the kingdom of heaven down by force, and Jesus indicated that he thought God approved of this when he said of John:

    “But from the days of Jonah—the Baptist—until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being stormed and the violent appropriate it by force.” (Matt. 11:12 and Luke 16:16)

    In the notes on page 158 Eisler explains the second approach.  Speaking of taking the kingdom by force he says:

    “That such an apparent violation of the Divine plans of Providence was not always considered as sinful…may be seen from the repeated saying in the Talmud, that God loves to be conquered by a sinner through repentance. For the contrary view, cp. the Rabbinic comments on Canticles 2:7: ‘I conjure you…do not stir up, do not awake love, until He pleases.’ This double entreaty is said on the one hand to charge the Israelites not to cast off the yoke of the secular powers by force and not to return by means of a revolution into the promised land, on the other hand to warn the Gentiles against making the yoke of Israel unbearable. For in both cases the wrongdoers would be guilty of forcing the Messianic Day to dawn before its time.”

    This is from the chapter in which Eisler compares John the Baptist to Jonah, who ‘quarrels with Jahvé because He defers again and again in His forbearance the foretold Day of Judgment’. We know Jonah was punished. In addition, Eisler cites Rabbi Oniah’s statement that ‘four generations have already perished, because they tried to invade the kingdom’. Rabbi Oniah specifically mentions the generation of Bar-Kokhba.

    Speaking of literal interpretations, some of Sanders’ followers think he should have strong-armed his way to the presidency.   I would argue that this background suggest the importance of balance at the Democratic Convention.

    I don’t know if Sanders would agree with the associations I’ve made in this article.  I think they are reasonable based on the evidence, but either way I’m content to let things unfold however they will.  I’m confidant that the ultimate meaning of this campaign will not be decided by the hard facts of this election.

  • Religion and Politics in the Age of Trump

    Religion and politics in the age of Trump have become more intertwined than usual. When someone asked Pope Francis if a good Catholic could vote for a man who wants to build a wall between Mexico and the United States, he answered that a person who wants to build walls rather than bridges is not a Christian.

    Trump was outraged at this statement. However he claims he wasn’t mad at the Pope. He was mad at the Mexicans for telling the Pope lies about him.

    Questions US Politicians Must Answer Before Rejecting the Pope’s Comments

    Some might doubt my impartiality on this issue for the reason that I’m not only a supporter of Bernie Sanders, I’ve argued for the importance of dialogue with the pope. However this touches on an issue that I was having problems with before the presidential race began. I’ll list the main points in no particular order.

    1. There is nothing more confusing to an observer than a secular system in which politicians are expected to prove themselves to religious voters.

    2. Politicians insist the pope has no right to comment on their behavior in office, even Catholic politicians.

    3. Religion has had an enormous influence in America’s secular system.

    4. Politicians who claim to be religious also claim autonomy from religious authority.

    5. It seems that politicians violate the principle of the separation of church and state when they use their religion to win votes.

    6. The behavior that was said to be un-Christian was the plan to build a wall to keep out migrants. Trump defended this plan on grounds that the Pope was unaware of its importance. However its importance hinges on the unproven assumption that migrants are dangerous and therefore not deserving of our help.

    7. Even if we accept the claim that the pope has no authority in politics and that his role is limited to spiritual matters, wouldn’t the definition of Christian behavior fall within his purview over spiritual matters?

  • Kim Davis and the Vagaries of Conscience

    I agree with Pope Francis that Kim Davis has a right to follow her conscience. However, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the Davis affair that I’m having a very hard time with, the main one being that she, personally, risks nothing by her actions. All the costs will fall to the residents of the county.

    Since she is an elected official the only way she can be removed is to be impeached, and this isn’t likely to happen in Kentucky. In addition, she won’t face another election until 2019. You can bet she took stock of this before she chose to defy the court. She’s far too accustomed to that nice salary of hers, not to mention the salary that her office now pays to her son.

    I myself don’t think that same-sex marriage makes sense on a policy level, but I accept it as the law. At the same time I couldn’t agree more that it’s important to follow one’s conscience. In my opinion, it’s now up to the people of Kentucky to make an honest woman of Kim Davis by impeaching her for breaking the law.

  • What Does Theology Have to do with Life?

    There is an old conversation about art that took place in early twentieth century France. The important question that I derived from that conversation is What does theology have to do with life? In contrast to such questions, I find our current conversation rather depressing. 

    Theology and Art

    French cubist Albert Gleizes ventured into Christian theology to the dismay of his Catholic friends. Gleizes, a convert to the Catholic Church, unwittingly brought up an old debate pitting St. Augustine against Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Gleizes argued that the ascendence of Aristotle and Aquinas in the 12th century had been detrimental to Christian art. In this he was influenced by René Guénon. 1 We will see that it may not have been entirely unwitting on Gleizes’s part. 

    I don’t have a position on this debate but I’m more sympathetic to Gleize’s Catholic friends. I have my doubts about the influence of Rene Guénon, as they did. But how did the Catholic Church get involved in this debate?

    The Worker Priest Movement

    After the Second World War, many in the Catholic Church wanted to change the way the Church was presented to the world. They also desired greater openness and relevance to the conditions of modern life. The ‘worker priest’ movement in France was the most radical expression of this desire. The priests in this movement often engaged in the political struggles of the class led by the Communist Party.

    In art, they were willing to use well-known sometimes controversial artists, and these artists were given considerable freedom, regardless of their religious beliefs. Fathers Marie-Alain Courtier and Pie Raymond Régamey were the two most prominent names associated with this movement. They were both Dominicans. 

    Jacques Maritain

    Jacques Maritain had already worked out a theory of modern art based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. In his Art et Scolastique, he argued that in the Middle Ages the artist and the theologian worked together. The artist had represented beauty and the theologian had represented truth. However, the Renaissance set the artist free from the theologian. This sent him out on his own to search after beauty in its own right, independent of theological truth. 

    According to Maritain, there is a clear distinction between beauty and truth. Beauty is still a ‘transcendental’ and belongs to the divine order. However, under the utilitarian mindset, the artist longs for beauty as an absolute end in itself. In this way, he has become as superfluous and ridiculous as the theologian or saint.

     Baudelaire

    In the nineteenth century Baudelaire tried to reassert the transcendental nature of his art. In Maritain’s telling, Baudelaire shared common ground with a wide range of artists, especially those interested in religious art. A painted figure should look like a painted figure and not like a real figure. It is deceitful for a painting to give the illusion of nature. 

    This view was shared by many schools of art in Europe and Britain in Baudelaire’s time. It could even have been written by Albert Gleizes, especially before 1920. However, Maritain continued with what was probably a criticism of Gleizes’s and Metzinger’s du ‘Cubisme’. 

    Does Cubism in our day, despite its tremendous deficiencies, represent the still stumbling, screaming childhood of an art once more pure? The barbarous dogmatism of its theorists compels the strongest doubts and an apprehension that the new school may be endeavouring to set itself absolutely free from naturalist imitation only to become immoveably fixed in stultae quaestiones…(as quoted by Brooke p, 246)

    Thomas took ‘Stultae quaestiones’ from Paul’s Epistle to Titus 3:9. They are questions that ‘if raised in any science or discipline, would run contrary to the first conditions implied by that very same discipline.’ 

    The Dominicans would raise the same objection against Gleizes in the late 1940s. They would say he was bothering his head with questions that did not concern him and should be left to professional philosophers and theologians. 

    For Gleizes’s part the mistrust was mutual. In his view, the Dominicans would take the easy road of the urban university, ‘where Aristotle’s philosophy rules supreme’. The ‘real door’ will open on the order of St Benedict, exclusively theological. 

    Gleizes believed that Thomas was of the thirteenth century, the period when the theological view of the world associated with the Benedictines was giving way to a more intellectual and philosophical view of the world, associated with the Dominicans. 

    What Does Theology Have to do With Life?

    How are we to understand the relationship between theology and the physical world? Traditionalists such as Guenon believe the physical world should be organized according to the theology of a past historical era. Guenon, his disciple Albert Gleizes, and their followers, believed the modern age had caused a deviation that can be seen in art and architecture, and that the world must return to that past way of thinking. However, there were disagreements even among the Traditionalists.

    Rene Guenon dated the modern deviation from the beginning of the fourteenth century while Albert Gleizes traced it back a century earlier. According to Peter Brooke this indicates a ‘profound difference in approach’. 

    Between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a play of lines and colours that put the eye in movement had given way to a play of lines and colours that evoke the appearances of the natural world. The folds of the garments in the paintings and sculptures which had been organised in such a way as to contribute to the unifying rythm of the whole painted or sculpted area became an imitation of the folds of the garments agitated by the wind or evoking the shape of the body underneath. For Geizes this change was much more fundamental than any change in intellectual ideas. (But) For Guenon, the intellectual idea, the metaphysical structure, was the foundation stone of all the rest. Thus it is sufficient that a correct understanding of his traditional doctrine is conveyed in the symbols and numerical proportions used by the artists. For Gleizes by contrast, it is the ‘cast of mind’ that counts, and this is expressed at a much more fundamental level in the act of the artist than in anything – symbolism, metaphysical argument or whatever – that can be expressed in words. (Brooke p. 254)

    There had previously been a rupture between Gleize and his friends Dom Angelico Surchamp and Robert Pouyaud over the question of the similarities or lack thereof between Gleizes and Guenon. There had also been a post-war disagreement between Gleizes and Père Raymond Régamey. These arguments are quite complex, but a brief mention is necessary in order to have some idea of the schools of thought.

    The Art Journal, Art Sacré

    Régamey and Couturier ran the art journal, Art Sacré. (It had been founded in 1935 as Cahiers de l’ art sacré.) In June 1945, Gleizes submitted an article to the journal, L’arc en ciel,cle de l’art Chretien Medieval.

    Régamey answered politely but declined to publish it. He specifically objected to one of Gleizes’s ideas. He said he agreed with Gleizes’s statement that experience is an intimate participation with the living object, and observation is a distant, subjective appreciation. However, he disagreed that everything produced with the combination proposed by observation is damned.

    In a lecture in Brussels in 1947, Régamey was more critical, and he included Gleizes, Bazaine, and Manessier in his critique.

    A Doctrine of Two Kingdoms

    Subsequently Gleizes wrote what seemed to be a challenge to Régamey’s program. He spoke of a ‘doctrine of two kingdoms–the kingdom of this world and the kingdom that is not of this world.

    Brooke interprets this to mean that Gleizes has abandoned all hope in the establishment of a spiritual authority on earth.

    For Gleizes, the kingdom of this world is the kingdom of space and time. The kingdom that is not of this world is the kingdom of eternity. The ambition of the Christian is supposedly to bring the two into harmony. But Gleizes believes the disharmony between them is total. Harmony can only be achieved with the reestablishment of a religious state of mind.

    Furthermore, Gleizes’s piece in Art Sacré implied that the Church is implicated in the general deviation. The Church’s own idea of itself is wrong according to Gleizes, and it must die to be reborn.

    This comment reminded Brooke of the annoyance of Père Jérôme when Gleizes told him ‘the whole of theology has to be taken up again’.

    Régamey Started to Question Whether Gleizes Was a Christian

    One reason for Régamey’s hostility to Gleizes was his suspicion that Gleizes was not a Christian (Brooke p. 253). He had begun to think the ‘tradition’ which Gleizes hoped to renew was the ‘tradition’ of Rene Guenon.

    Guenon’s tradition was a metaphysical system of thought which was the real foundation behind all the major religions. In this view, the system is transmitted from one generation to the next through a secret process of initiation. The question of Gleizes’s allegiance to Guenon led to a ‘serious rupture’ among Gleizes’s followers.

    Gleizes’s Ideas of Society and Culture Were Typically Right-Wing

    Gleizes appreciated Guenon’s critique of modern civilization in his Crise du monde moderne, and Orient et occident. They both believed society was at the end of a short period of religious chaos and heading for destruction. The task of those who were aware of the situation was to rediscover and reaffirm the principles on which a new religious culture could evolve.

    Gleizes Knew What He Was Doing

    Gleizes knew he was renewing the old case made by the Augustinians against Aquinas. Over time, his friends and Church allies were shut out. Some of the themes that came up repeatedly in the debates with Père Jérôme and others were Gleizes’s distrust of Thomism, his insistence on a cyclical view of history, his sympathy for Guenon, and a tendency to emphasize the universal reality of Christ rather than the historical individual (p. 223).

  • Personal Mother Versus Archetypal Mother

    My criticism of Christianity has nothing to do with the beliefs or the theology. It has to do with its economic effects on communities. Of course these effects didn’t originate with Christianity. They originated with the Greek philosophers who remain influential in Christianity. Recently the Pope has made it clear that the Greeks are staying. I assume this is due to their importance in the Church’s theological structure. Greek philosophy has influenced the way Christians think about God and so it’s possible that their contribution can’t be removed without dire consequences. In any case theology is a touchy business and I’m happy to leave it to the theologians.

    But the Pope has also called for a new theology of the woman. If you were an optimist, you could interpret this as a willingness to reject Greek misogyny. Since Greek misogyny has been the justification for the West’s political and economic organization, rejecting it would be consistent with the Pope’s call for a new economy. My objection is to the premise that the place of women in society can be defined through theology.

    The definition of theology is:

    1 the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
    1.1 religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/theology

    With the Church’s focus on Mary the mother of Jesus the ‘woman’ is being presented as synonymous with women. This is a problem because women are merely human. ‘The woman’ on the other hand is the archetypal mother. The archetypal mother is not the same thing as the personal mother. Economically, the archetypal mother is the rival of the personal mother.

     

  • Female Ordination as Strategy

    I think I’d better explain my position on female ordination. First, I know there are Christian Churches that ordain women. At this time, the most I can say about them is that they seem to represent a fundamental change in thinking. But for the most part, the world’s religions speak with a masculine voice. This might sound strange coming from me since I obviously have sympathy for what Pope Francis is trying to do, but I’ve come to think of churches in general as representing the other gender. At the same time, I realize that nothing is that black and white. I know women who are devoted to their church. Many of them would probably tell me they consider their church to be their own. I assume this is why female ordination makes sense to some women as a strategy. They feel the church belongs to them as much as it does to their pastor. Unfortunately, the problem extends beyond any particular church. For this reason among others, I don’t think female ordination makes sense as a strategy.

    Maybe sometime in the distant future our society will decide to give up the social structure that goes along with a male priesthood, but I doubt it. Our culture is hierarchical. Religion reinforces this hierarchical structure and has done so for thousands of years. However, these assumptions are not confined to religious believers.

    It’s no coincidence that our communities work the way they do. The general organization was carefully constructed and is supported by foundational myths that imply there is something vaguely suspicious or even wicked about the female gender. I think it’s easy to forget in the context of one’s own church that the world is saturated with these assumptions. In church we deal with the fathers or brothers or husbands, of our friends, so it’s easy to assume that any misogynistic attitudes are specific to a few misguided individuals or to one particular religion. However, I’ve found that there are countless men—complete strangers to me—who are more than willing to remind me of the way things are. Who knows, maybe the Church will surprise me and decide to ordain women after all, but I think it would have to completely change its nature to do so. On the other hand, I’ve come to suspect that women already play a big part in the Church. Conservative Catholic men certainly think they do, judging from recent comments.

    The thing that is most important about the female ordination issue in my view is its effect on the conversation. My concern has to do with the presentation of this issue as an ultimatum. There are so many things to talk about that I can’t even figure out what to talk about next, and yet suddenly we have this agenda, which is not even held by all women, and which threatens to turn the conversation into a confrontation.

    Here’s my take on the conversation. At this time we’re talking to a specific person—Pope Francis. We don’t know yet what his vision is and so we’re exploring the possibilities—given reality as we know it. Previously I’ve written confrontational things in this blog about Christianity, but now that we are speaking to an actual person that no longer seems appropriate. For one thing, that style has never been my understanding of a conversation. I’m not saying that we have to accept everything that the Church tells us. Personally I’ve had to come to terms with the story about the ACLU’s law suit, but I’m willing to do so, for now, because there is the hope that the Church can address our political and economic problems, and also because I have questions that I can’t get answered if I ban myself from the conversation.

    However there are other approaches to this conversation that make sense to me. I’m still in the process of working them out and I’m aware that anything I say will need the agreement of a large number of women before they take on any real meaning, but I’ll explain my current direction.

    In my opinion, an effective solution to society’s problems would require women to organize independently of the Church—but hopefully with the support of the Church—to address specific issues in the community. I’m not talking about leaving the Church or even taking the Church less seriously, which I’m sure would be offensive even to supporters of female ordination. I’m talking about developing a plan of action in the real world. What we need to be asking ourselves is whether the Church can help us with our goals once we decide what they are. Then the next question would have to do with how we might go about deciding on our goals.

    In order for women to create a structure that would allow them to agree on goals, they would have to address the fact that they rarely agree with one another. Generally, women’s first loyalties are to their families, religion, children, political party, their immediate social circle, and perhaps their sports team. This is a priceless tendency when it comes to community building, but I think there is one specific kind of loyalty that has the potential to correct the world’s social ills, and that is loyalty to the maternal family. If you agree with me on this, this is a principle that we can build on. On the other hand, female relationships in the wider community, while they have their good points, represent a more shaky foundation for community building since there is more potential for rivalry and disagreement.

    Assuming we’re able to agree on this principle, next we would need to discover the factors that work against strong maternal bonds. Only then, if we find that our attempts to remedy these factors meet resistance from the Church, would we be justified in reconsidering our participation in the conversation.

    I’ll list two of these factors: The tendency of family courts to take children from their mothers in the case of divorce; and the policy of turning single girls who become pregnant into pariahs, causing them to lose social support and often their children. Throughout history these policies have been given teeth by the legal system. It was one of the factors that led to the incarceration of so many young women in Ireland’s Magdalene laundries. However, this phenomenon isn’t unique to the Catholic Church. The Poor Laws that were in effect in England during the reign of Queen Victoria led to the phenomenon of ‘baby farming’.

    For more than a hundred years, single women in England who became pregnant were systematically deprived of the support of their families. This situation was assured by the fact that a girl’s family members would share in her punishment unless they disowned her. Employment opportunities for single mothers were limited, pay was low, and there was no one to care for a new baby while its mother worked except for this diabolical institution of the baby farm. In this system, single mothers paid other people to house and feed their babies, not realizing that the children would be systematically starved while providing the baby farmer with a tidy sum. It’s damning enough that Victoria and her consort, Albert, the real power behind the throne, failed to address this travesty for so long, but the poor laws actually went into effect before Victoria became queen. It’s been argued that the responsible party was the Methodist, John Wesley. If there is any validity behind my theory of the central importance to society of the maternal bond, we would have to conclude that these kinds of policies destroy the very thing they claim to protect—the community.

    That said, we seem to be back where we started, trying to convince our all-powerful leaders to change their policies. Not necessarily. The important thing to begin with would be our ability to interpret policies in terms of the danger they pose to our community, and to be able to agree among ourselves on this interpretation. Any action we take should be done with the purpose of eliminating threats to the good of the community. (There are ways to do this that don’t involve major policy changes, non-violent ways, but we can talk about this later.) Anyway, this implies that we have to be able to define what the good of the community is. I’ve argued here that the maternal bond should take precedence over legalistic or ideological priorities—in other words, over appearances.

error: Content is protected !!