Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Reflective Musings from Behind the House

It was about 10PM last Friday evening when I laid supine surrendering myself to any force that would take me to the Land of Nod (don’t think Genesis); however, the Sandman was not having office hours.


The illuminating declarations of the Anointed Generation walking past my (is using this possessive pronoun against the Front Porch Format?) university-owned townhouse could be heard through the windows as they staggered to and from the administration-sponsored youthful debauches of the evening. But it wasn’t only the external obstacles that prevented me from meeting my slumber – the existential questions which plague the mind had kept me restless as well. What should I wear tomorrow? Will I be able to charge my blackberry? Why am I not asleep yet?


After giving it some thought, I finally had some answers – at least to the first two. Overalls. And I’ll never know, because if I asked someone at the event, the response would probably be, “What do you mean ‘charge’ your fruit?”…… and then I finally found myself in the arms of Morpheus.


Cue Saturday, the day of the Mt. St. Mary’s/ISI/Front Porch Republic Conference on Human Scale and the Human Good.


We woke up at 6AM so we would have enough time to reap the Autumn harvest before we left for the bucolic countryside of Emmitsburg, MD. Tucked away in Frederick County, the location was central: it was decently close for Washingtonians, not too far from those who call themselves Northeasterners, and south of the Mason-Dixon line, just so we can say it was.


Once we arrived on the beautiful Mount St. Mary’s campus (as their university President tactfully pointed out, “the oldest Catholic college in the 50 states”), we were given the pleasure of listening to stimulating lectures warning us of the dangers of globalization, worldly liberal education, and the impending socio-political effects of technology. I would be remiss to not at least name a few of the speakers; Mark Mitchell, Patrick Deneen, Bill Kaufman, Jason Peters, John Schwenkler, and Josh Hochschild all offered great theses. I would love to summarize the lectures of the day, but let’s just say brevity isn’t an Aristotelian virtue.


However, I had an interesting thought throughout the entire day.


WWWD?


What would Mr. Berry (according to the Official Count, his name was invoked 20 times in non-Q&A sections of the day) say about the day?


For some odd reason, I have this vision of him descending the stairs of the Knott Auditorium confounded at the presence of iPads and Powerpoint presentations. The vision continues: as he ironically tosses to the ground “The Peace of the Wild Things” and Jayber Crow, Mr. Berry chastising the Golden Calf of the Windows logo prominently displayed and trivializing the Crucifix hidden in the shadows of the projector (the last addition is my own).


Well, maybe I’m just a purist.


Or, maybe our hallowed prophets just believe in fighting fire with fire. Coming to the realization that small town communities are not going to organically manifest themselves is a difficult recognition, but a truth nonetheless. The audiences are on our Facebooks and our FourSquares. The audiences are “updating,” “checking in,” and finishing the sentence “Nathan Coulter is…”. In order to reach out, we must become. In order to have a conversation, we must be speaking the same language.


Granted, the task is much easier when a community is considered “too big” at 75 citizens.

___________________

Apart from my musings, I would just like to thank those at MSM, ISI, and FPR for hosting such a conference. It has certainly continued the conversation. My prayers are with each of you.


“We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.” Hebrews 10:25

Friday, September 23, 2011

The Sour Grapes of the Fathers


“Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath
done, and considereth, and doeth not such like…he shall not die for the
iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.” -Ezekiel 18

As a member of the recent-college-graduate club, I take personal interest in a spate of recently published articles analyzing the dire straights of today’s graduates and forecasting for them a continuation of these trends over several years to come. The catalyst for these articles is the economic recession which, devoid of all courtesy, slogs along well past its time, and the gist of these articles is that the current crop of college graduates faces the most foreboding future of any generation since WWII. The causes for this widespread hesitancy toward the future are numerous: the increasingly unavoidable suspicion that the west really is in decline, the international misadventures of an unreflectively hubristic political class, the resigned acceptance of the fact that globalization might have pernicious side-effects after all, and the inability of the federal bureaucracy to convince the moneyed class that investment in government debt is anything but throwing money into a pit are a few of them.

All of these diagnoses have one noteworthy characteristic in common: they are all beyond the control of the generation in question. This observation made by myself, a 20-something, ought not be read merely as an attempt by excuse my generation from our responsibility. On the contrary, more profound minds than my own have insisted that my generation is too serious and too focused on our careers. Rather, these diagnoses resound with the recognition of an uncomfortable truth virtually anathema in the modern west: the social order is decidedly not as individualistic as we proudly claim. As a consequence, this generation is inheriting a system that we did little to create and reaping the harvest of decisions we did not make. At the center of a culture that exalts individual merit and rejects as outdated notions of family, lineage, and heredity, the ancient maxim is beginning to resonate: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

It is a common mantra for politicians to identify the problems plaguing their administration as “inherited” problems. The problem of Al-Qaeda is inherited; the recession is inherited; the failing War on Terror is inherited. The “inherited” nature of problems is often fingered as a scapegoat for the current administration’s inability to resolve the issues as they—irrespective of party—so patronizingly promised during their campaigns. So is it at all surprising when a series of “inherited” problems eventually becomes too much for posterity to handle? This is exactly the trend observable today. For some time now, politicians have used posterity as leverage to guilt their opponents into submission (“I will not force our children to foot the bill for our wasteful expenditures”). Such vapid assertions are the anthems heralding the rise of another heirloom with which we have been gifted, namely, the most banal and frivolous political class in memory.

As the Baby Boomers and the Therapy Generation temporarily abate their flitting between impassioned allegiance to sitcoms to choose the leaders of the free world based upon the unspeakably asinine criterion of “looking presidential” (has nobody else noted that Sarah Palin’s exorbitant shopping sprees are as much an indictment of the American polity’s vapidity and materialism as it is a revelation of her need to substitute style for substance?), an unexpected reality occurred: “posterity” has come of age. We’re paying attention to our ruling class. And the titanic expenditures that are fritted away by business-suit-bedecked adolescents in elected office make our occasional jaunts to the mall with daddy’s credit card look paltry. We know that only a hallow shadow of the system of social safety nets that we are financing (if we are currently lucky enough to have a job and pay income taxes) will be in place for us when we come calling for it. It is impossible to read about the stunted progress and stalled careers of today’s graduates without realizing that it is a direct result of decisions made when those students were diligently studying the wee hours away in artificially lit libraries under the assumption that their diligence would be rewarded vocationally. We were wrong. Our fathers’ sour grapes are expensive.

Almost as if in support of the thesis that this phenomenon has a much more salient generational explanation than individualist explanation, almost all of the students interviewed for the NYT article hold degrees from prestigious universities, but their current occupations do not reflect their qualifications. These are not slackers, but they are relegated to menial positions that have precious little to do with what they had studied at their Ivy League schools. And all the talk of “fulfilling artistic goals” in lieu of real employment ought not obscure the fact that this phenomenon is symptomatic of a deeper problem. The tacit bargain that has characterized the relationship between generations for decades in America is that if you stay focused and play by the rules for the first few decades of life, you will be generously rewarded with consistent employment and financial prosperity commensurate with the effort exerted to get there. Hard work and wise choices will result in a more prosperous future than that enjoyed by your parents. Such runs the credo of meritocratic individualism. Yet for all the tugging that our bootstraps are enduring, this credo is increasingly dissonant with reality. The fabric of the tacit bargain between generations is beginning to fray. Instead of the meritocratic ethos that we had assumed would be passed down the generations, our inheritance is nothing more than the discarded refuse of a pandemic of midlife crises.

The generation whose last wills and testaments we are now reading was more surreptitiously hostile to notions of family and community than any other in recent memory. The landmark accomplishments of our fathers and forefathers are triumphal arches commemorating the sacrifice of responsibility to the sacred god of individualism; no-fault divorce eviscerated the vigor of romantic commitment, abortion on demand undermined the link to the next generation by making posterity a matter of preference, and the inconvenience of elderly parents was comfortably outsourced to nursing homes while suburbs devoid of backyards and front porches swelled with newly liberated individualists desperate to avoid even the most passing interaction with their neighbors. This is the world bequeathed to us.

And if it is not enough that the rising generation has been poorly equipped socially, a growing body of literature suggests that we are similarly unprepared to make even the most quotidian of moral choices. The Economist magazine, in a review of Lost in Translation: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood by Christian Smith, laments that “[i]n the guise, often, of teaching tolerance, we are failing to ensure that our children understand how to frame moral issues and make judgments about right conduct and what is good in life. The reason for this, Mr. Smith suggests, is that we are not so sure ourselves.” This omission represents a failure in parenting and education, both of which thoughtlessly parrot the mantras of relativism and the self-expression of the individual. These sacred cows of relativism and self-expression were to signify liberation from the strictures of hoary, antiquated moral dogmatism. Instead they represent an institutionalized agnosticism toward what is good and worthwhile in life. David Brooks is right to observe http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/opinion/if-it-feels-right.html?ref=davidbrooks “[The youth] have not been given the resources—by schools, institutions and families—to cultivate their moral intuitions, to think more broadly about moral obligations, to check behaviors that may be degrading. In this way, the study says more about adult America than youthful America.” For decades the institutionalization of laissez-faire parenting theories assumed that children were sufficiently capable of choosing the Good for themselves. How unexpected it was, then, when to the question of what is the Good, the virtuous, and the worthwhile, the answer came back univocally: nothing.

Yet lest the unpleasant factuality of our empty inheritance give way to bitterness or despondency, we ought to gain solace and resolve from the cyclicality of history. The parents of the boomers are still known as the Greatest Generation for good reason. Theirs was a generation that saw world wars, the reorganization of the international political landscape, and a Great Depression. All of these events awakened their vigorous virtues, the exercise of which earned that generation the title Greatest. The social and political landscape today more closely mirrors the virtue-arousing disturbances of 1930-1945 than the stultifying ease of 1965-1995. Consequently though not necessarily, to us belongs the somber honor and responsibility of steeling our virtues and challenging the Greatest Generation for their title. Wartime service, though hellish, tragic and arguably unnecessary, has exposed to a tranche of our generation the triviality of the west compared with the harsh exigencies of life in the developing world, and impressed upon them the importance of dignity and honor—both foreign, antiquated concepts to many Americans. For the rest of us, recession and austerity will highlight the importance of frugality and the insufficiency of materialism. The erosion of other social safety nets will highlight the importance of the family and local community as agents of informed and altruistic care.

Though on the whole our parents have failed to give us the moral categories required to fulfill the vision described above, I have little doubt that our generation is capable of supplying our deficiencies, albeit over time, through great difficulty, and with abundant error. Yet even if we can muster these virtues, our work will still not be done. It was the delinquency of the WWII generation that spawned the most self-centered generation of progeny in American history. We cannot repeat their mistake. After we have made Virtue our guide and Wisdom out counselor, we must introduce them to our children in order not to repeat the errors of the Greatest Generation. All of these things will be costly. But the purchase of another stock of sour grapes for ourselves and our posterity would be costlier still.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Mental Foolishness and Marital Faithlessness

“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;

When he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”

-Proverbs 17:28

It may surprise you, gentle reader, to hear my confession that I am breathlessly thrilled at the reaction to the most recent manifestation of Pat Robertson’s chronic inability to keep his mouth shut. That is to say, I am honestly, truly thrilled that the false prophet has an almost pathological inability to critically and rationally engage with the world around him, that his opinions are nothing less than monumental pillars to the human ability to evacuate words of logic, and that his heretical idiocy has achieved such a stentorious level as to make glib dismissal an impossibility.

The first reason I rejoice is that Pat Robertson’s egregious ignorance about the intricate beauty of the Christian faith has been exposed once again. His unilateral insistence that a man is doctrinally justified in abandoning his Alzheimer’s-laden wife is merely another point in Robertson’s already expansive resume of gaffes. Neither is he alone in his paucity of doctrinal perspicuity. On the contrary, he takes his place among a voluminous company who are similarly infected. The unlikely marriage of Jesus Christ and the Hallmark Greeting Card Co. have saturated America with a fluffy, cotton-candy Christianity whose primary potency is the peddling of trinkets emblazoned with Bible verses taken out of context to be placed on toilets, refrigerators, and sofa pillows. Such bland spiritualism is the diuretic of discipleship; its vapidity ensures the ejection of all weighty doctrinal and experiential Truths of the revered faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” This is the spiritual junk food that Pat Robertson has shoveled down the gullet of nominal American Christians for decades, but before we unsheathe the rightfully accusatory finger against him, Confessional, Biblical Christians ought to observe an opportunity to repent for making his travesty possible.

That Pat Robertson is a peddler of plastic platitudes (theology is far too noble a word for what it is that he casts to the four winds) is his sin; that blood is on his head. But that that the nominal believers that comprise his audience do not know better is an abject failure of the churches to stress discipleship and doctrine. Upon leaving the elders at Ephesus, Paul was able to boldly declare “I am innocent of the blood of you all for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 22:26-27). I shudder to think how few pastors and teachers in our churches today would be able justly to echo these words. Pat Robertson is only one of a host of radio preachers and TV evangelists filled with personality and devoid of charisma (in the 1 Corinthians sense), and though his abrasive stupidity is tending progressively to relegate him to a mere amusement, it would be naïve to fail to recognize the hosts of gospel-peddlers who, with toll-free number in hand, would rise up to replace him.

The second reason for my joy at his comments is the reaction it has sparked among Christians. The dominant effect of him airing his heretical opinions about marriage have kindled fires of righteous indignation in Christians for whom I often feared such sentiments were beyond their range of feeling. Robertson’s cruelty and his “repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ”, as Russell Moore categorized it with equal parts fervency and accuracy, is deserving of the harshest censure that can be roused from the depths of our souls. The anger of the Christian ought to blaze as a forest fire between the firelines of our humble pleading for his repentance and our longsuffering willingness to embrace him as a brother in Christ should he turn from his sin and become a Christian. If Robertson’s comments have exposed the insufficiency of our tepidity and passivity, then it is an evidence of grace. The time has not only for Christians to regain the intellectual rigor of our great Faith, but also to learn deep, righteous, passionate, godly feeling that is nonplussed by the junk-food of bumper stickers and cultural Christianity because we are frequent diners at the deep, rich, satisfying banqueting table of the Lamb. Public proclamations of unabashed heresy and theological distortions of the type that Pat Robertson has so recently modeled ought to elicit a righteous indignation that will not be satiated until the injustice is corrected as well as humble prayers that we will be spared from the same error.

And finally, I am pleased that the reaction to his comments has revealed the lines of demarcation between the Christian philosophy of marriage and the secular surrogate for the same. Robertson’s comments did arouse censure from many liberal individualists, but those voices were at least matched by Ph.D.s and other “experts” who filled the morning talk shows with reiterations of an individualist, Lockean-based consent theory of marriage. “Let us not so quickly excuse Robertson’s comments,” they counseled. “This decision ought to be made after careful consideration of the well-being and lifestyle choices of the healthy spouse.” In contrast to that are the reaffirmations of marriage and self-sacrificial commitment by many Christians such as Robert McQuilken. These contrasting responses make it clear that the distinction between a consensual, contractual version of marriage and a Biblical, self-sacrificing view of marriage is a weighty one. For the Christian, marriage is always an allegory of Christ’s relationship with the Church, a relationship not based upon convenience and self-interest. Consequently, in his advocacy of disposable marriage, Pat Robertson tells lies about Christ. There are few sins as weighty as that.