“The people swarmed on the public square
And pointed laughingly at me,
And I was filled with shame and fear.”
— Alexander Pushkin, Boris Godunov
“The people swarmed on the public square
And pointed laughingly at me,
And I was filled with shame and fear.”
— Alexander Pushkin, Boris Godunov
“All works are good which are done within the law of God, in faith, and with thanksgiving to God; and understand that thou in doing them pleasest God, whatsoever thou doest within the law of God, as when thou makest water.”— William Tyndale, The Parable of the Wicked Mammon
It has been a time of trial since my last essay in these pages, and I have been called to account by many, both high and low. Two months past, the Almighty determined to visit me with a reminder of his inscrutable and mysterious ways. For I dreamed that I was back Crim Tartary attending class as a young Seminarian only to discover that my rather oversized codpiece had been left off my garb to my great humiliation. And to add both insult and injury, my fellow classmates were flinging hot balls of wax from the vestry candles towards my exposed sub-regions.
Father Jape’s Codpiece
I awoke clutching myself in agony realizing that though the wax was as inchoate as the doctrines of Mother Church, the searing pain in my member was quite real. I was at first struck with the certainty that I was suffering from the clap, the result of some depredarious sin of the flesh—may God assoil me—and I resolved at once to seek out a sentence of penance and absolution, until it was recalled to me that I am celibate, a Prince of the Church dedicated to spiritual rather than earthly pleasures. Yet somehow it was my misfortune to learn the truth of William Tyndale’s argument that the proper operation of one’s waterworks is a good work. “Trust me,” says master Tyndale, “if either wind or water stopped, thou shouldest feel what a precious thing it were to do either of both and what thanks ought to be given God therefore.”
Father Jape’s codpiece worn during the Sack of Rome.
Seeing her husband wearing his armor / But not his codpiece, and ready for war, / She said, ‘My love, it might be harmed: / Protect it: I love it the best by far!’ –the last lament of the Knight’s wife, Gargantua and Pantagruel
Though medical men deemed it only an infection of the flesh, my physician could not heal me, and it occurred to me then that this fire burning in my urethra must surely be diagnosed as a kind of spiritual clap; the righteous revenge of a jealous God for my philosophical whoring. And the certainty of this judgment came upon me then with such force that I resolved perforce to return immediately to the Cathedral of the Day Before Yesterday on pilgrimage to seek once again the true path.
On my arrival I was, I admit, in a state of mind not given over to clear thinking, wretched and wracked as I was with the pain of the spirit-clap. In one of my fits of delirium, I went so far as to inquire of the Theologian of Yesterday, Father Hippothadeus, “Father, in your vast learning, have you seen any evidence that a man’s soul might have a penis?”
“Good God, no, man!” answered Hippothadeus.
“But if such a soul-penis did exist,” I persisted, “might it be wise to undergo a castration of some kind, an excision? Anything to cool the unholy urging and concomitant fire of hell!”
“Certainly not! You have lost your mind Jape, I suggest you devote yourself to fasting and prayer.”
“Will I be healed?” I cried.
“If God wills it.” Hippothadeus brushed past me muttering Latin oaths against the insane under his breath and I was left in great distress.
“Damnable theologians!” I shouted after him, my voice cracking, “O I am beset by these possible maybes and maybe-nots that add up to an inviolable confidence. The quagmire of your arts are such that the peace of God is usurped by man’s hypotheticals! All contradictions are subsumed within the certainty of God’s will which serves only to hide your ignorance! If God willed that I should fly, I should grow wings I suppose! These circumlocutions of false certainty greatly vex the common man!”
But he had not heard. In such a desperate and mentally shaken state one might be able to understand how I developed the notion, seemingly reasonable in my confused and pain-ridden mind, that my only hope for cure was to somehow baptize the offending member in the Cathedral’s cistern of blessed holy water. In this grip of madness and folly I was discovered by the Abbess, codpiece askew, standing astride two pews and leaning precariously over in the attempt to administer my theologically addled cure.
Needless to say, I’m sure, the ensuing scandal that rocked Crim Tartary will likely be told in lore for centuries to come. I was promptly charged with desecration and perfidy and many other nefarious outrages, all, I cringe to say, true. And I despaired, for after my Doctors had failed my body, and the Theologians abandoned my soul, I found all that I had left, my property and my name, was now entrusted to the blackest villains of them all—the Lawyers. Surely Job could not have suffered so!
I expected the worst from the Ecclesial courts, for Crim Tartary is not known for a maternal sense of justice. But Mother Mary would yet smile on me, for my case had gone so far as to attract the attention of the Holy See; Papal Legatees were sent o n my behalf, and among them, a legal physiachologist of some note. On the appointed day, this Legal Doctor of the Soul, as his official letter of introduction bespoke him, rose with a flourished oratory and defended my actions to the court as excused on the grounds of insanity.
Though he certainly convinced me, those who were masters of my fate remained impassive. As the questioning descended into the vagaries of a certain Council’s teaching on the legal permissibility of the torture of the insane, I felt it—the cool touch of an angel, and the fire was gone. Immediately a torrent of relief poured forth from my offending self, and I was lost to ecstasy as a deep wet stain spread its soft warmth across my thighs and down my robes. The prelates watched in horror, no longer intent on the doctrinal sparring with my defenders, and as I reflect back, I can see that they no doubt mistook this divine grant of salvific grace as instead, a sure sign of my mortal fear. And so by this happy error, they took pity upon me and passed light sentence.
I, never heedless of the ways of the Almighty, learned that to pass water on oneself is oft times a surer token of grace demanding that praises be rendered to our Father than all the pronouncements of wisdom that pass as gas from the mouths (or otherwise) of the learned men of many orders.
After this ordeal, and with a newfound zeal for the true experiences of the transcendent ground of my existence, I returned only to find my mailbag overflowing with calls to account of a wholly different nature.
A Jesuit caught trying to infiltrate a Protestant institution before ecumenism was fashionable.
For example, inexplicably, several readers have written to inquire as to whether I know anything about the recent fire in the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. One suggested a Jesuit plot; another cited recusant faculty members; and another suspected that papists had once again infiltrated the janitorial staff due to insufficient doctrinal and worldview screening. Anything is possible, but why people think I might know is beyond me. There are three things even God does not know: how many congregations of religious women there are, how much money the Franciscans have stashed away, and what the Jesuits are going to do next.
Besides, I wasn’t in the country.
Now here is the most common complaint: a perception that this column is “sneering” and characterized by an “unremitting and self-satisfied moral smugness.” Who would have guessed? I do find it hard to believe, however, that the same readers are not entertained and even enlightened. It’s not as if Martin Luther, or, say, a Lutheran convert to neoconservative Catholicism, ever recoiled from the occasional sneer. It seems to me that objections regarding “tone,” especially in Evangelical circles, have become a standard excuse to dismiss any strong criticism that one does not “appreciate,” regardless of its accuracy. There is something alarming about a person—particularly a person who is neither ignorant nor a relativist—who asks “is it nice?” ahead of “is it true?” What can explain this phenomenon other than the encroaching liberal order as it tightens its grip on the Evangelical soul thus transforming what are supposed to be hardy Christians into nancy-boys or “men without chests?”
This brings to mind an old story: An Evangelical pastor and a Jesuit were out playing golf one day. They were moving along the course quite well, until they got stuck behind a group of golfers who were taking quite a long time and weren’t letting anyone else play through. Feeling a little frustrated, the two went up to the head of the group and asked him what was going on. He told the Jesuit and the Evangelical that his party was part of a special program that allowed the blind to play golf. Each blind person was paired off with a sighted player who would help him line up the shot and give him advice on what else to do.
Fr. Jape, former Lutheran Philosophe and Jacobin.
The Evangelical was deeply edified by this display of generosity. He apologized for being so pushy, and announced that he was so impressed by this example that he intended to use this display of service in his preaching, and help others to work with those in need around them.
The Jesuit, too, felt a deep moving in his gut. He took the fellow aside and encouraged him with this friendly word of advice: “It’s wonderful what you are doing, but don’t you think that if you must play golf blind, it would be a whole lot easier for everyone if you played at night?”
Just to show that I don’t believe all Evangelicals are nancy-boys, I dug around and found this example of one not being nice. In Allen C. Guelzo’s “Durable Contempt: Why Anti-Americanism Thrives” in Books & Culture (July/August 2004), Guelzo is decidedly not-nice, though he is decidedly inaccurate as well. To make his equation of anti-Americanism with anti-George Bushism clear (though this may have been an editorial decision), the leading photos show an Asian man posting a sign that reads “AMERICANS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE” above another image of a child carrying a “Down Bush” placard. For his own part, Guelzo is really quite beside himself that “Europeans” and “intellectuals” are “anti-American.” He makes no effort to separate criticism of particular American policies and practices, and he derides “the infantile Left and the Calhounite Right who belabor themselves with self-torture over whether commercial culture and popular democracy have sucked the juice out of our lives.” Apparently this is just a dumb question, perhaps because it is simply “old.” To ask it is to be an “enemy of reason” and freedom.
Father Jape’s Monastic Kvass. Click here to see how even his refrigerator is bracingly stocked with convivial spirit.
Surely I get some credit for nicely mustering at least one cheer for a not-nice Evangelical. Whenever Guelzo feels like it, he can come over and we can be not-nice together over bracing shots of Serbian liqueur, or, if the man is a teetotaller, monastic kvass. This may answer my prayer: grant that my kingdom not be lost for want of a worthy nemesis!
But here is the most fascinating item from the mail bag. You have heard, no doubt, about the draft statement from the National Association of Evangelicals on Christian civic action called: “For the Health of the Nation.” The NAE went so far as to invite scrutiny and comment from “one-hundred denominational executives, seminary presidents, and other parachurch officials.” Now I have received this: “an underground draft—being called the ‘basement draft’—being circulated by a small but growing group of evangelical leaders dissatisfied with the business-as-usual version already in existence which sounds high principle and lets everyone off of the hook.” The author of these hushed conspiratorial tones attached the Basement Draft of the NAE statement for my review.
I can say first off that I was a bit disappointed. From the tone of my correspondent I had expected something more wildly controversial. But, some parts were indeed stirring, offering a glimpse of health in an otherwise sick “church,” if I may use that term.
The most riveting changes, and in fact the only ones worth mentioning, came in the section titled “The Method of Civic Christian Engagement.” The section was originally an insipid plea from Evangelical leaders to their laity to “do detailed social, economic, historical, jurisprudential, and political analysis” based on the objective data available. More “discernment” clap-trap, and readers are by now familiar with my not-nice feelings on that subject.
But lo, the Basement Draft offers a radical improvement:
Every political judgment requires both a normative vision and factual analysis, but the analysis of facts and what one includes or excludes as a usable “fact” is based on the prior assumption of certain norms. Therefore, however carefully and precisely Christians think about the complex facts and details of a political issue, their thinking will be marked by distinctive norms and values that can be explained but seldom accepted by others who do not share them. Disagreements of this nature are unlikely to be overcome and may in fact become harmful when carried out primarily in the arenas of civic and academic discourse apart from Christian communities that bear practical witness to truth and justice through their actions.
However, neither a publicly engaged Christian discourse nor a practically engaged community of practice is a substitute for the much less idealistic but equally important affairs of political power-broking and deal-making. While it must stand as a political ideal, unfortunately, it is seldom possible to be perfectly innocent as a dove and as wise as a serpent (Matt. 10:16). These activities often require a less than intimate and transparent relationship with the public and political leaders. Political pressuring and compromises undertaken for the realization of mere power and influence without any reference to higher ends and values are wholly immoral, yet we are keenly aware that political ends may justify the means by which they are achieved. As in the case, for example, of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, the values and goals motivating a political decision may be vindicated only by actions that in themselves are dishonorable and to some extent immoral. These actions therefore require justification through the values they serve to realize, but these values will never be realized without taking the risks and bearing the burdens of the inevitably less than pure means by which they must often be pursued. David was unfit to build God’s temple, but before the temple could be built, David had to clear the land of Philistines (1 Kings 5:3).
Now this is bracing stuff! Unfortunately, much of the rot to follow is left in the Basement Draft, and we find paragraphs like this that stick in the craw of the document, threatening to choke it: “We know that society is altered as a result of both personal decisions and structural changes. Thus Christian civic engagement must seek to transform both individuals and institutions. While individuals transformed by the gospel change surrounding society, social institutions also shape individuals. While good laws encourage good behavior, bad laws and systems foster destructive action.” The NAE statement goes on to list the “wellbeing of marriage” as the first thing likely to be destroyed.
The basement conspirators should have stricken this sickly paragraph of wishy-washy mush out and added something along these lines instead:
History repeatedly shows that societies are only radically altered by structural changes effected by a minority of people who are well-placed to promote (and to an extent impose) their vision on a generally ambivalent, if not hostile majority.
Here I think of the Reformation as well as a biting Domincan joke that explains the “difference” between Dominicans and Jesuits. The Dominicans were given the task of eliminating the Albigenses and Jesuits the Protestants. The punchline, of course, is “How many Albigenses do you see today?” A common (and inaccurate) Jesuit retort nowadays is “Well we didn’t use swords!” I believe that is the point precisely.
The ideal Basement Draft would continue thusly:
While individuals transformed by the gospel change the surrounding society, social institutions also shape individuals. Good laws encourage good behavior; bad laws and systems foster destructive action. Lasting social change does require personal conversion, but our emphasis ought to be on institutional renewal and reform since most individuals derive their personal beliefs and practices from dominant social institutions. Therefore, Christian civic engagement should take a root and branch approach to extirpating the prevailing anti-religious materialisms and autonomy-worshipping, rights-fetishizing individualisms that presently dominate the leading national political parties, much of the government and political discourse in general.
Of course even this does not go far enough. We might extend the purge to Evangelical churches as well, where materialism flourishes quite well, and not just in the purpose-driven (or is it “circus-driven?”) Mega-Lo-Mart Christianity that takes shopping malls for cathedrals.
There ought to be a recognition, if not in public statements like this one, at least in the minds of the drafters, that the laws and customs surrounding any social institution—marriage, war, schooling, growing food, &c.—as those institutions have been traditionally understood, are part of a widely-cast net which forms a public mythos, a symbolic representation of how we understand reality in terms of the ebb and flow of life; the cycle of birth, decay, and death; and the transcendent.
Because the given reality of Nature as it is in bare human experience is amoral and disordering—the evil flourish while good men suffer, as the Psalmist laments—our public myths exist to restrain the disordering violence and apparent randomness of Nature without denigrating it. For in the Abrahamic traditions, we do not represent Nature as evil and wholly without order. Nationhood and its borders (war), men and women working the land (toil), the marital bond and its natural procreative, child- and community-nourishing role (sex and learning): around these experiences accrue the fundamental structural myths of a civilized society, thereby constructing a true, but mediated and therefore protected, second reality. This is the “spiritual” or “ideational” basis for all that we name as and associate with “culture” and “civilization.” Marriage and the family in particular have formed a basic unit and enshrine particular “mystical” truths about God, man, and nature.
The laws that lawyers and judges concern themselves with are derived from and take their original form out of these myths, and so laws too are potent expressions of our experience of reality. To the extent that this articulation or “social construction” of reality is faithful to the reality of more direct and immediate human experience, we can say that the second reality of law and convention illuminates and preserves the truth of reality itself while also insulating us from the terrifyingly massive depth, width, openness, and darkness of the universe.
To try to deconstruct and rearticulate the symbols of our civilization—which represent the fundamental experiences of man and existence—in terms of a philosophy of rights (i.e., liberalism) will destroy the ordering truths that tradition has protected. If a society united in name and by law fails to maintain a general consensus on the order of its most basic structures—but rival factions keep pushing for a forced consensus on their terms—woe to those unprepared for the calamitous fighting to come!
Unfortunately, this recognition will likely never come to a group as large and influential as the NAE because many if not most of its members have already accepted the premises of liberalism and indulge the pursuit and exercise of “individual rights” in an effort to maximize one’s “personal choice.” The phrase, “the right to choose,” expresses what almost everyone wants and how we have come to think of all relationships. The “nuclear” family of the mid-twentieth century is itself a piece of deranged pathology rather than a repository of “traditional values,” as is the idea that it is responsible to organize one’s life and “family planning” around one’s ability to “afford” children. Likewise, the modern pathologies of “work” (a 20 minute morning commute to a nowhere place miles from home where nothing of substance is done) and “war” (a precision strike seen from one’s living room executed by volunteer soldiers who are not supposed to die) and “education” (a necessary sacrifice to the Moloch of institutional schooling and higher education which is intended to put the next generation on track to be equally sybaritic and automated members of the wasteful middle class) have taken a stranglehold on most everyone’s imaginations and have eliminated the ability to see the deep truths which are at stake as Evangelicals nicely tip-toe into the Public Square to dutifully perform their duties of Christian Civic Responsibility!
Finally, an astute member of the New Pantagruel discussion forum has alerted us to a shocking situation in Britain. Apparently Prince Charles is close to converting to Greek Orthodoxy. In the event that he is crowned king one day, what will he do about the Protestants-only Succession Rule that was established in large part because of an earlier, papistical Charles? Here are some insightful possibilities that the folk have come up with:
Something to ponder while you wait for my next authentic narrative of immense perplexion.
Copyright 2004-2005 :: The New Pantagruel 1.3.