A portion of the problem is that some people simply don't see or believe the level of cruelty that is taking place. I've followed the Center for Biblical Unity because of the moderating stand they've taken on racial justice issues. Their statement on deportation generally says Christians must follow the laws that don't directly conflict with Biblical principles. But then they seem to downplay the level at which those principles are being violated.
It's a hard balance. I'll be talking about this a bit in this week's post too. There's always the danger that calling out abuses will simply allow the other side to dig in even deeper. It's a serious problem of the post-truth internet that it's easier and easier for people to dismiss even video evidence as truthy. And of course as deep-fakes and other AI generated images and videos become more common it will be harder and harder for anyone to agree on what's going on.
As a random aside, I do find it interesting that Trump has deported fewer people than Obama did in the same amount of time, but Obama managed to do it (as far as I know, and I could be wrong) without obvious and public cruelty and without serious violations of people's rights (again, as far as I know and I'm willing to be proven wrong). But it certainly doesn't seem to be the case that cruelty is necessary for more efficiency since we're not even getting efficiency out of it. <deep sigh>
Well put. It reminds me of a hat I saw the other day that said: Lions, Not Lambs. This was a Christian demonstrating their faith with a slogan rejecting one of Bible’s most frequent descriptions of Jesus (invariably the Lamb of God, a sacrificial lamb, etc.) in favor of another Biblical analogy (Christ as a lion). How can a loud and out Christian wear a hat that explicitly rejects the central role Jesus plays in the Gospel in favor of the image of a kingly predator? I don’t think some of these people really believe in the faith they proclaim, but bend their faith to their politics.
I hadn't seen that hat before, but goodness. Perfect example of completely missing the point.
I also agree that for many people Christianity (or any faith, for that matter) is more a cultural or political signal than a comprehensive belief system. I'd be interested in research on how many religious believers regularly read their religion's founding documents, for example. I'm guessing it's a relatively low percentage. Not necessarily lower than in the past, but lower than perhaps we think generally.
If this posts finds the reformists, you will be inundated with scriptural quotes and certainties! Last year I toured most of the Texas border with Mexico. I had an exhibition of my work at UT Brownsville, which is a border town and also now the SpaceX headquarters, and also where the last battle of the civil war was, and also many things, including a large number of Mexican students who cross the border each day. The border and the way it was patrolled was surprising to me - agents and check points even 100 miles into the state. I noticed that many of those borber towns, like Loredo and the smaller municipalities between were filled with churches. Largely, these are Christians crossing the border. I did learn however from locals that among these crossings are also many others, for instance Russians having defected and escaping military service and others, so even many of the dual citizens, Christians too, were not for the open borders and supported Trump. I wondered why the reformists (here I mean any non-Orthodox church) weren't hopeful about mass migrations of Christians, if nothing else. I then learned and carry with me Mark10:18 which leads to the parable of the rich man entering heaven but I like the line when Jesus replies to a wealthy follower with "Why do you call me good? Only God alone is good." That's the son of God, on earth, warning that any man, including himself at that moment in flesh, should not be called "good", and that all we can do is aim for God through the commandments, the two greatest of which you wrote about here. My thesis is, people, especially reformist Christians, but also all people aligning to God, or even a highest principle like the Buddhists, conceive themselves as "good". None are good (taken in context of his scripture) and we fail each other constantly. And when priests fail, because we hope their status makes them good, it is an amplified disappointment because we learn again, no one is good. During that Texas trip I realized I had never been to Mexico before so I crossed illegally (technically) briefly in the dry bed of the Rio Grande at the southern end of Big Bend National Park and made an artwork of it (just this video): https://youtu.be/Z3BtfC3HNdo?si=DNop9Hee8xyjgUTJ. I'll never do anything more with it but liked the metaphor of these "crossings" which is what you are doing now with this substack. I like your writing because I struggle with similar issues, relatively personal and painful and present and real, and it makes me feel less alone to hear your thoughts because the personal is generously shared. Next year I start a new journey in a tenure track as an associate professor of art at a Jesuit University (which I will reveal later). The first semester I have mandatory study (course release) of St. Ignatius, the Jesuits order (the society of Jesus), and the model of education practiced (Cura Personalis), across Jesuit institutions. I'm hoping this is where I may finally find my people, God willing. Apologies for the long reply though I have many thoughts and look forward to more like these and others, if you know of any, writing from a similar perspective.
First, thanks for the affirmation on my writing, Daniel. It means a lot. Sharing more personal stuff has been a bit of a learning curve for me, particularly as a scholar.
To your broader comment about goodness, this is a great point. There's actually some really interesting research that people who identify as "ethical" are more likely to engage in unethical behavior. I talk a lot about humility here and maybe a corollary to that is fallibility.
Since you'll be reading St. Ignatius, one tool that more people should think about is the Examen prayer. There are secular versions too, but the Examen is essentially an accountability and fallibility tracker. It helps us be honest with ourselves when we're failing and helps us see - visibly and in the moment - when our actions fail to align with our values. I haven't done one in a while, but this was a good reminder to get back into it.
And congrats on the new position! That's great news, especially given the challenges of the job market in academia.
Thank you. There's so much to your endeavor that keeps me thinking. In my spiritual journey I was seduced (or comforted, ironically) for a time by nihilism but I couldn't quite let go of the comfort of my faith either, so I invented the phrase "hopeful nihilism" and described my belief as this for a time. It's somewhat paradoxical, like Radical Moderate as a term. Besides the artists and the postmodern (post structuralist) philosophers that drew me to nihilism, I read theologians like JD Crossen and the related historical Jesus scholars. These gave me just enough of a buffer to dispel the act of belief while holding on to a tradition. I like this idea of fallibility as a corollary to humility. Many Catholics and defectors struggle with the complex doctrine of "papal infallibility". In the political realm, in governing, whether we recognize it or not, the doctrine of "infallibility" is always at play in relationship to power, as is humility, but not in obvious ways, as far as I am concerned. The "Examen" I haven't gotten to yet, in faith, but look forward to it.
For my interests, I can't read every published substack from authors I like, but I do pick by topic and like the in-depth length personally (maybe 2 a week). I would be interested in some spoken essays or readings from you or collaborators on topics, like those you hear from voices like Sam Harris or Bari Weiss (to pick a few at random). This is because during commutes or in studio practice, I can listen for longer than I can read.
You've asked in some other posts regarding topics for future posts, so I add one here: Academia (Academics) and social media - Do academics have an imperative to explain in long form political views expressed as rants on social media because of status and position? Here I've taken the position that it IS imperative and if one is a University Professor and taken to a public forum you are morally and ethically obliged to do so though perhaps I am wrong and would like to hear some debate about this.
This is super helpful, Daniel. Thanks! I was actually just talking to my podcast co-host about whether spoken essays would be worth the time and it sounds like for at least some readers they would be. I might try one or two out and see how it goes.
I like that question about professors too. I think my thinking would be the same as yours: we have an obligation to communicate truthfully, which also means taking the time to uncover the complexity of whatever topic we're talking about. I'll think about this more as a longer post.
A portion of the problem is that some people simply don't see or believe the level of cruelty that is taking place. I've followed the Center for Biblical Unity because of the moderating stand they've taken on racial justice issues. Their statement on deportation generally says Christians must follow the laws that don't directly conflict with Biblical principles. But then they seem to downplay the level at which those principles are being violated.
"Christians can certainly civilly discuss and debate what qualifies as humane treatment for illegal immigrants as they are in the process of being deported, but that discussion needs to be based on solid evidence confirmed by multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19) not social media memes and internet rumors." https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/post/8-things-christians-can-say-and-do-concerning-the-illegal-immigration-and-deportation-situation
Sounds like work for radical moderates--for all of us as witnesses.
It's a hard balance. I'll be talking about this a bit in this week's post too. There's always the danger that calling out abuses will simply allow the other side to dig in even deeper. It's a serious problem of the post-truth internet that it's easier and easier for people to dismiss even video evidence as truthy. And of course as deep-fakes and other AI generated images and videos become more common it will be harder and harder for anyone to agree on what's going on.
As a random aside, I do find it interesting that Trump has deported fewer people than Obama did in the same amount of time, but Obama managed to do it (as far as I know, and I could be wrong) without obvious and public cruelty and without serious violations of people's rights (again, as far as I know and I'm willing to be proven wrong). But it certainly doesn't seem to be the case that cruelty is necessary for more efficiency since we're not even getting efficiency out of it. <deep sigh>
Well put. It reminds me of a hat I saw the other day that said: Lions, Not Lambs. This was a Christian demonstrating their faith with a slogan rejecting one of Bible’s most frequent descriptions of Jesus (invariably the Lamb of God, a sacrificial lamb, etc.) in favor of another Biblical analogy (Christ as a lion). How can a loud and out Christian wear a hat that explicitly rejects the central role Jesus plays in the Gospel in favor of the image of a kingly predator? I don’t think some of these people really believe in the faith they proclaim, but bend their faith to their politics.
I hadn't seen that hat before, but goodness. Perfect example of completely missing the point.
I also agree that for many people Christianity (or any faith, for that matter) is more a cultural or political signal than a comprehensive belief system. I'd be interested in research on how many religious believers regularly read their religion's founding documents, for example. I'm guessing it's a relatively low percentage. Not necessarily lower than in the past, but lower than perhaps we think generally.
Amen. We’ll put.
If this posts finds the reformists, you will be inundated with scriptural quotes and certainties! Last year I toured most of the Texas border with Mexico. I had an exhibition of my work at UT Brownsville, which is a border town and also now the SpaceX headquarters, and also where the last battle of the civil war was, and also many things, including a large number of Mexican students who cross the border each day. The border and the way it was patrolled was surprising to me - agents and check points even 100 miles into the state. I noticed that many of those borber towns, like Loredo and the smaller municipalities between were filled with churches. Largely, these are Christians crossing the border. I did learn however from locals that among these crossings are also many others, for instance Russians having defected and escaping military service and others, so even many of the dual citizens, Christians too, were not for the open borders and supported Trump. I wondered why the reformists (here I mean any non-Orthodox church) weren't hopeful about mass migrations of Christians, if nothing else. I then learned and carry with me Mark10:18 which leads to the parable of the rich man entering heaven but I like the line when Jesus replies to a wealthy follower with "Why do you call me good? Only God alone is good." That's the son of God, on earth, warning that any man, including himself at that moment in flesh, should not be called "good", and that all we can do is aim for God through the commandments, the two greatest of which you wrote about here. My thesis is, people, especially reformist Christians, but also all people aligning to God, or even a highest principle like the Buddhists, conceive themselves as "good". None are good (taken in context of his scripture) and we fail each other constantly. And when priests fail, because we hope their status makes them good, it is an amplified disappointment because we learn again, no one is good. During that Texas trip I realized I had never been to Mexico before so I crossed illegally (technically) briefly in the dry bed of the Rio Grande at the southern end of Big Bend National Park and made an artwork of it (just this video): https://youtu.be/Z3BtfC3HNdo?si=DNop9Hee8xyjgUTJ. I'll never do anything more with it but liked the metaphor of these "crossings" which is what you are doing now with this substack. I like your writing because I struggle with similar issues, relatively personal and painful and present and real, and it makes me feel less alone to hear your thoughts because the personal is generously shared. Next year I start a new journey in a tenure track as an associate professor of art at a Jesuit University (which I will reveal later). The first semester I have mandatory study (course release) of St. Ignatius, the Jesuits order (the society of Jesus), and the model of education practiced (Cura Personalis), across Jesuit institutions. I'm hoping this is where I may finally find my people, God willing. Apologies for the long reply though I have many thoughts and look forward to more like these and others, if you know of any, writing from a similar perspective.
First, thanks for the affirmation on my writing, Daniel. It means a lot. Sharing more personal stuff has been a bit of a learning curve for me, particularly as a scholar.
To your broader comment about goodness, this is a great point. There's actually some really interesting research that people who identify as "ethical" are more likely to engage in unethical behavior. I talk a lot about humility here and maybe a corollary to that is fallibility.
Since you'll be reading St. Ignatius, one tool that more people should think about is the Examen prayer. There are secular versions too, but the Examen is essentially an accountability and fallibility tracker. It helps us be honest with ourselves when we're failing and helps us see - visibly and in the moment - when our actions fail to align with our values. I haven't done one in a while, but this was a good reminder to get back into it.
And congrats on the new position! That's great news, especially given the challenges of the job market in academia.
Thank you. There's so much to your endeavor that keeps me thinking. In my spiritual journey I was seduced (or comforted, ironically) for a time by nihilism but I couldn't quite let go of the comfort of my faith either, so I invented the phrase "hopeful nihilism" and described my belief as this for a time. It's somewhat paradoxical, like Radical Moderate as a term. Besides the artists and the postmodern (post structuralist) philosophers that drew me to nihilism, I read theologians like JD Crossen and the related historical Jesus scholars. These gave me just enough of a buffer to dispel the act of belief while holding on to a tradition. I like this idea of fallibility as a corollary to humility. Many Catholics and defectors struggle with the complex doctrine of "papal infallibility". In the political realm, in governing, whether we recognize it or not, the doctrine of "infallibility" is always at play in relationship to power, as is humility, but not in obvious ways, as far as I am concerned. The "Examen" I haven't gotten to yet, in faith, but look forward to it.
For my interests, I can't read every published substack from authors I like, but I do pick by topic and like the in-depth length personally (maybe 2 a week). I would be interested in some spoken essays or readings from you or collaborators on topics, like those you hear from voices like Sam Harris or Bari Weiss (to pick a few at random). This is because during commutes or in studio practice, I can listen for longer than I can read.
You've asked in some other posts regarding topics for future posts, so I add one here: Academia (Academics) and social media - Do academics have an imperative to explain in long form political views expressed as rants on social media because of status and position? Here I've taken the position that it IS imperative and if one is a University Professor and taken to a public forum you are morally and ethically obliged to do so though perhaps I am wrong and would like to hear some debate about this.
Thanks for the dialog. Good stuff.
This is super helpful, Daniel. Thanks! I was actually just talking to my podcast co-host about whether spoken essays would be worth the time and it sounds like for at least some readers they would be. I might try one or two out and see how it goes.
I like that question about professors too. I think my thinking would be the same as yours: we have an obligation to communicate truthfully, which also means taking the time to uncover the complexity of whatever topic we're talking about. I'll think about this more as a longer post.