In which Bill Eerdmans dashes my hopes and corrects my grammar (click here for context).
Dear D.J.:
Thanks for your blog. We don’t need to make any more money. Think of what we’ve saved eschewing the Footnotes, which could be unprofitable anyway, given their incoherence. We’d have sent you off on a goose chase, or, herding cats. Maybe the main text has unwittingly embodied the notes of note, eliding any necessity of vain scholarly pursuit.
This is something I have been thinking of submitting to the Huffington Post for a while. If you have ever paid attention to the comments on any article in the religion section, you probably already know that it is regularly trolled by New Atheists who have too much free time. “New Atheism” refers to a particular school of atheism that has cropped up in recent years. It has roots in evolutionary scientists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet, possibly as a reaction to some of the unsavory elements of Christian neo-Fundamentalism (i.e. anti-Darwinian Evangelicalism). I don’t have a problem with atheism. I rather respect the atheism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, but New Atheism lacks the philosophical gravitas of those thinkers. New Atheism argues that religion is dangerous, and therefore the path to world peace and enlightenment necessitates moving away from God. That’s its position in a nutshell. I normally don’t like talking about whole “schools” of thought because there can be a lot of variety among New Atheist thinkers, but when one blogs, one must often settle for conceptual shorthand.
Let me start off by saying that it is not entirely accurate for me to say that Augustine mysteriously disappears from Bulgakov’s theology. He is more like a ghost, occasionally manifesting himself in the open, but most of the time he lurks in the dark corners of Bulgakov’s books, leaving his slimy ectoplasm between esoteric lines of prose. But “Mysterious Disappearance” sounds more intriguing than “the Invisible Augustine,” and I cannot resist the opportunity to plagiarize the wit of Tony Baker (who crafted possibly the best title for any paper I have ever heard presented anywhere).[1]
I’ve noticed something disturbing on certain blogs and Facebook profiles lately. Some of my sisters and brothers in the Orthodox Church seem wedded to Christendom. They describe themselves variously as monarchists, supporters of the imperium, and advocates for “symphonia.” Symphonia means “harmony.” Typically it is taken to mean that Orthodox politics promotes a harmony between church and state. This ethos is best captured in the image of the two headed eagle, wielding a cross in one talon and a sword in the other (the symbols vary). For Orthodox Christians like Stanley Harakas, symphonia should guide our involvement in a democratic society, but I get the impression that some would prefer we get our empire back.
I am struck by how unwilling people are to identify with feminism. The other day I posted this video to my Facebook timeline stating, “For me, 2:55 says it all. If you don’t “get” feminism, watch this, and lose your misconceptions.” I was surprised at how many of my Facebook friends said, in effect, “I don’t get it.” Some blamed the girl’s family. Others said that it’s just common sense that women can do anything men can do (I pointed out that it wasn’t common sense 100 years ago). Many were reluctant to cast blame on “the system.”
I could go on and give examples of ways the system seems obviously tilted in a male direction, but it occurs to me that, were I to do that, I would be talking more about women than letting women speak for themselves. So I simply want to ask a question of all the female readers out there. When you look at this video, can you relate?
Preface: I wrote this post in July, but I never published it. I was worried what black readers would think about me, that liberal readers would think I did not share their disgust, that conservative readers would say things that would evoke visceral reactions from me, and that critics would have ample ammunition for future screeds. I meant to publish this post eventually, but negligence gave the victory to cowardice.
I choose not to let that victory stand. Such a bald confession as I am about to make feels like an act of self-sacrifice, but it is one I should have made months ago. When one has failed the test of martyrdom, St. Cyprian says the best remedy is to go back into the arena. It is never too late. Truth does not care about news cycles.
There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all. Whereas by shifting your own laziness and powerlessness onto others, you will end by sharing in Satan’s pride and murmuring against God.
– Fr. Zossima in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov
It is too easy for me to be incensed about the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. It is not that I do not have a lot to be incensed about. I am angry. I am angry at the jury that let Zimmerman go free. I am angry at the Florida law for appealing to the Schwarzeneggeresque fantasies of vigilantes, encouraging them to ignore the advice of 911 operators, provoke an attack, and then shoot the attacker. But anger demands an appropriate response. How should I respond? I am tempted to say something on Facebook. Maybe I will post a picture of me in a hoodie, thereby assuring myself that I stand against the institutional racism of our society. Continue reading “I Shot Trayvon Martin”
Dear D.J.:
