tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post1838780446394379549..comments2023-10-25T09:45:40.318-04:00Comments on The Politics of the Cross Resurrected: Lazy, Self-indulgent Moralism: That is What it Means to Be Left-wing TodayCraig Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-20794399534250207992011-10-12T21:36:29.581-04:002011-10-12T21:36:29.581-04:00Sorry for being offline for about a week.
To answ...Sorry for being offline for about a week.<br /><br />To answer your question, the original anarchist(s) were obviously Jesus and Paul who organized a transnational grassroots movement amongst poor folks and did such foolish things like talk about love or grace being stronger than the law... which of course got them killed as terrorists.<br /><br />That said, I find your rejection of dialogue interesting given the rhetoric coming from your camp about loving enemies and being willing to dialogue with them in an academic setting (I guess that applies to George Bush, but not to yours truly... shoot). But, really, let's keep things in perspective, eh? I'm not nearly significant enough to be considered the friend or enemy of anything so large as "civilization and ordered liberty."<br /><br />That said, to be blunt myself, I think you're afraid of a debate because I actually know what I'm talking about (how many Marxists, post-Marxists, anarchists, social theorists have you actually read??) whereas you only know second hand information and labels that you can use to fool first-year college students into thinking you know what you are talking about when, in fact, you don't.<br /><br />But, look, we don't have to post the debate on your blog. We can do it on mine (which, let's continue to be blunt, would probably be a favour to you and bring you a larger and wider audience than you have now).<br /><br />Your brother yet still an anarchist (like Jesus and Paul),<br /><br />DanDanOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948067607178483096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-61170715804091147642011-10-05T19:53:45.257-04:002011-10-05T19:53:45.257-04:00Dan,
Let me be bluntly honest. I'm not really...Dan,<br />Let me be bluntly honest. I'm not really interested in giving you a platform on my blog to spout your propaganda. I don't see how we could have any sort of meaningful dialogue. We don't agree on the goal and we don't begin with the same philosophical or theological assumptions. <br /><br />You want to tear down traditional morality, social structures and institutions like Tyndale in the name of some crazy, romantic Utopian revolution. I want to protect the church, capitalism, the middle class lifestyle, the traditional family and civil society from people like you. As far as I'm concerned, you are the enemy of civilization and ordered liberty. I don't see what there is to talk about. I just want to make sure you don't brainwash any more impressionable Tyndale students if I can help it. <br /><br />By the way, anarchists are not my brothers and sisters. They are children of their father the original anarchist. Saul Alinsky knew who that was and I'll bet you do too.Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-53404048709024228972011-10-04T23:41:53.423-04:002011-10-04T23:41:53.423-04:00Only a social order that takes account of original...<i>Only a social order that takes account of original sin and seeks to discipline the individual through civilizing social institutions in civil society... can make a tolerably good society out of bad people.</i><br /><br />Ah, but here our anarchist brothers and sisters do a far better job than the law-and-order types. Only somebody with an hopelessly utopian view of human nature would ever think it was a good idea to give guns to some people and ask them to discipline other people (and only be accountable to themselves while doing so!).<br /><br />That said, Craig, if you actually wanted to have a conversation about the sort of issues that you rant about in this post (what members of the 99% are trying to accomplish in NYC and elsewhere), I would be open to debating that with you. First, though, you have to agree to talk like an adult and in a manner that doesn't shame the institution where you work.DanOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06948067607178483096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-27252870014111800762011-10-04T21:20:14.495-04:002011-10-04T21:20:14.495-04:00I don't think you will regret it. I'll be ...I don't think you will regret it. I'll be curious to hear your thoughts on it. <br /><br />I agree with you on the culture/tradition vs. ideology distinction.Gordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333579592619201830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-85173116761495337212011-10-04T20:36:00.807-04:002011-10-04T20:36:00.807-04:00Gordon,
I will order this book; it sounds worthwhi...Gordon,<br />I will order this book; it sounds worthwhile. I especially like the distinction between culture/tradition one the one hand and ideology on the other.Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-53952483327558822842011-10-04T19:57:35.323-04:002011-10-04T19:57:35.323-04:00Dr. Carter,
I like the book very much. For some t...Dr. Carter,<br /><br />I like the book very much. For some time, I have been intuitively drawn to the notion that beauty has an important role to play in the Christian life and in the Christian response to modernity, for lack of a better way to put it. The title comes from a quote of Dostoyevsky, which was later re-quoted by Solzhenitsyn. <br /><br />I like that Wolfe is a conservative who sees some problems with contemporary conservatism and is willing to point them out in a constructive and charitable way. I find his discussion of conservative responses to modern culture and the arts to be particularly enlightening. He argues that many contemporary conservatives have given up on contemporary western culture and that this has lead to a kind of philistinism and capitulation to the politicization of life. He also argues that they have become overly enamored of means and political power and have lost an understanding of the importance of ends. He sees the culture wars as having degenerated into a shouting match between two extremes that have both become overly ideological and have lost touch with the nourishing sources of culture. I feel like I've seen this too. <br /><br />He argues that much of modern art, literature, and music still wrestle with the perennial questions of human existence as well as with God and the Christian faith in ways that can be illuminating if we will take the time to look. <br /><br />Wolfe mistrust abstractions and argues for what he calls "Christian Humanism," which he sees embodied in figures like Sir Thomas More and Erasmus. He roots it in the incarnation in that it holds in creative tension the distinct realities of the spiritual and the earthly. He sees this as a humane and living alternative to the fortress mentality of much of contemporary conservatism and the secularism of much of contemporary liberalism. <br /><br />He also has chapters highlighting several writers, artists, and thinkers who he believes embody this humane, non-ideological vision such as Wendell Berry, Russell Kirk, Evelyn Waugh and Malcolm Muggeridge. I could have been drawn to the book for the chapter on Muggeridge alone, as he is one of my heroes. <br /><br />Don't know if anything I've articulated here is helpful, but I hope it is. I'm out of time to write more.Gordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333579592619201830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-43091512767993967442011-10-03T22:51:15.060-04:002011-10-03T22:51:15.060-04:00Gordon,
That book sounds interesting. I looked it...Gordon,<br />That book sounds interesting. I looked it up on Amazon and the description sounds fascinating. The title is so Augustinian. And the contrast between ideology and culture/tradition sounds intriguing. Do you like the book? Assuming the answer is yes, what stood out about it to you?Craig Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10209954891388905090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5328993133397649838.post-38407481922638561682011-10-03T19:19:18.940-04:002011-10-03T19:19:18.940-04:00"What makes the Augustinian Christian vision ..."What makes the Augustinian Christian vision of the world superior is that, unlike the shallow, unrealistic Marxist view, it sees the problem of sin in every individual heart as the root cause of injustice."<br /><br />Agreed. The truth of this was recently brought home to me in part while discussing the issue of cynicism with my sister, and in part due to reading Gregory Wolfe's recent book "Beauty Will Save the World: Recovering the Human in an Ideological Age." It struck me that all ideologically driven points of view, on both the left and the right, always see the problem with the world as "those people over there," or "the system," or some other external condition. The fundamental problem is outside the self and if it could just be changed, then everything would be ok.<br /><br />The Christian view, by contrast, understands that the problem with the world is the sin that is within me, as well as others. This should not only lead me to distrust utopian solutions to the world's problems, but also to mistrust my own tendency to see others as the problem while exempting myself.<br /><br />I am reminded of G. K. Chesterton's profound two word response when he was asked by The Times newspaper to write an answer to the question "What's wrong with the world?" <br /><br />Dear Sirs,<br /><br />I am. <br /><br />Yours Truly,<br /><br />G. K. ChesteronGordon Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333579592619201830noreply@blogger.com