Thesis: We cannot separate cult (the Church) from culture; obversely, neither can we conflate the Church and the State.
Byrthnoth, I see where you're going with this. I'm not sure I agree, and not sure if I disagree, but I think I know where you're going.
You're talking about that "Republic of Letters" that we talked about in IDS 300 with Dr. Birzer. You're describing a culture which understands and appreciates the Christian influence in Western Culture, whether or not it confesses Christ as Lord. That way Matthew Arnold, Joseph Wood Krutch, Jakob Burkhardt and other modern noble pagans could come play in our sandbox.
I agree with you when you say that this a good thing. A lesser good, obviously, than that which the Church administers. It is, in fact, the good which we all hope to attain in some part through studying the liberal arts -- the good of Christian culture, whose watering streams are knowledge and virtue. Yup, I'm going to call out Aristotle on this one and say that the servile is higher than the liberal. Jesus Christ, the foot-washing King, beats the Magnanimous Man six ways before Sunday, and on Sunday...man he REALLY beats him on Sunday...but I digress.
It seems to me that Christian culture, churchly culture, is an epiphenomena of the Church. A vigorous, thriving Church which confesses Christ and defends pure doctrine produces in and through its members the artifacts of culture that we know and love so well, that we pine for: beautiful architecture, stirring literature, honest politics, humane commerce. Who does not desire to live in a place where these things exist in abundance?
As much as this is true, mark well a truth of the human condition (I said it) that makes these cultural goods nothing more than withering grass and fading flowers. And I say this as one who likes flowers and grass just as much as the next guy. But, people...original sin. Byrthnoth, there's a section in the Apology you might want to review. The Church of Christ is comprised of men who are at once saints and sinners, and Her works are not always those befitting the bride of a righteous King. In the Old Testament, God tells Hosea to marry a prostitute in order to say, in effect, "see how YOU like it!" Because that's what He did. Christ wed himself to prostitute, forgiving her sins, which were as scarlet, making them white as snow. Yet like the woman whom He tells "go and sin no more," we, the Church, go, and sin more. As I have said before, the Church is an unfaithful bride. Yet Christ's love abounds, and His forgiveness abounds all the more. This is mystery which no philosophy can penetrate.
How important, then, is it that we have a nice monolithic Christian culture in which to dabble? Not as important as it is to take every thought captive to Christ, that in all things He might have the supremacy; to consider all things loss for His sake. The world is fallen, and the line through good and evil runs through every human heart. You want culture? Again, you will never find it separate from the Church. The Church is culture. The family is culture. These are the seats of religious life -- not the state; not the market. The latter are the seats of secular life. Never expect them to exhibit the consistency of character which even the Bride of Christ cannot attain to by her own merits.
The problem here is not that we don't have Christian culture. The problem is that we -- the participants of this conversation included -- seem to be begging the question of "How should we change the world?" and then having a discussion over ways and means, with the general assumption in place that of course we can and should. As if that's what our good works are supposed to do. No, your good works will probably not change the world. But they may serve your neighbor.
I'm not exactly sure why this one feels directed towards me, or why you recommended that I read that particular article of the confession again.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that one can be a member of Christ's church without being a member of what you've called the Republic of Letters, what I called Christendom. One can also be part of that same Republic of Letters without being part of Christ's church. There is also the possibility that one may choose to be part of both of those bodies. All I was saying in my post was that we should be clear and perhaps agree on some terms to describe each. I, of course, like mine best of all, but yours are pretty good :).
Also, simply because all earthly things will pass away does not mean that some should not be defended vigorously. If one is a soldier, than one's vocation would be to physically defend the Patria. If one is a school teacher, perhaps, one defends the Republic of Letters (I'll play nice and use your term)? Of course, one's chief responsibility is always to Mother Church ("behold thy mother"), but we all have other vocations.
I suppose a good question would then be: is one's vocation as teacher different in a Parochial school than in a public or non-sectarian private school?
Also, my thesis was not that the cult cannot be separate from the culture. Was that your thesis?
ReplyDeleteI'm not the Kirk-guy in the room, promise.