The Rejection of the Ancients

I am currently reading through Jacques Barzun's magnum on Western culture, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. Barzun, the polymath who passed away in October just shy of his 105th birthday wrote this bestselling history in 2000, at the age of 93. After hearing about him on NPR following his death I bought the book from Amazon and starting listening to his favorite composer, Hector Berlioz, the nineteenth century French Romantic.

The book is great. I could try to come up with a more laudatory adjective, but great covers it. It is hard to imagine a mind reared in contemporary academia writing a book like this, so broad ranging and comprehensive. And Barzun refuses to buy into all of the prejudices of current thought. For example, on Christopher Columbus, the now universally loathed explorer, Barzun has this to say:

"The Spanish colonists committed atrocities from greed and racist contempt that nothing can palliate or excuse. But to blame Columbus is a piece of retrospective lynching; he was not the master criminal inspiring all the rest. It is moreover a mistake to think that because the native peoples were the sufferers, all of them were peaceable innocents. The Caribs whom Columbus first encountered had fought and displaced the Anawaks who occupied the islands. . . In short, what happened on the newfound hemisphere in early modern times continued the practice of the old. . . Everywhere the story is one of invasion, killing, rape, and plunder and occupation of the land that belonged to the vanquished. Today, this fusion or dispersion of peoples and cultures by means of death and destruction is abhorred in principle but flourishing in fact. Africa, the Middle and Far East, and South Central Europe are still theaters of conquest and massacre. And Columbus is not the responsible party." (100-101)

Columbus or white Europeans or Catholicism or Christianity more broadly or plain old avarice are nice to have as convenient scapegoats, transcending, as we imagine ourselves to be, all of these old shackles currently, but Barzun notes that the same things we blame on the evils we are casting aside are propagated by non-white, non-Christians all over this planet at this very moment. It reminds me of that great episode of South Park where Cartman goes to the future and witnesses the interstellar war between various atheist alliances, fighting it out over who best understands unbelief.

There is a sort of fatalism to Barzun's observations that call to mind the chastened Milton at the end of his career in the dark days of the Restoration, blind and worldly defeated, when he voices through the archangel Michael the following: "So shall the world go on/ To good malignant, to bad men benign/ Under her own weight groaning, till the day/ Appear of respiration to the just/ And vengeance to the wicked." Milton's vision had an apocalyptic bent to it, but his point is largely the same as Barzun's, namely that we aren't getting better. It may look like it for a time, but then the hope fails and the vision dies.

What our demonizing of figures from the past underscores, and the subject of Barzun's next chapter on the rise of utopian fantasy in the sixteenth century, is the way in which we have inherited from this Renaissance era a sort of disdain for the past, the curious belief that somehow as a species we have made dramatic improvements in all metrics and are now free to banish our ancestors. I would argue that this progressivity applies to both right and left, though each would cite different data to prove their claim.

Barzun and Milton both recognize the fallacy of progressive thought. History is cyclical, in a number of important ways, not linear. A culture develops through barbarism to a level of gentility, imagines itself enlightened, and then sloughs into decay to be either defeated by an opposing civilization or to rot from within (or both). Such was the fate for great cultures of the past; such is the fate of the West. So shall the world go on.

Why I Love John Piper

I am reading Bloodlines by John Piper right now, a fantastic little book about race, that I plan to write a post about very soon (for books with one controlling thesis such as this one I find it best to wait until I have finished in order to say much about it). But that is not the purpose of this post; the purpose of this post is to use Piper's own words here to talk about why I enjoy him so much and see in him a great blessing to the church.

The first two chapters of the book are autobiographical and this excerpt comes from the first chapter:

"If any of this sounds valiant, don't be too impressed. I am not a good example of an urban pastor. Because of the way I believe God calls me to use my time, I don't have any significant relationships with most of my neighbors. Nor does our church reflect the diversity of this neighborhood. There is diversity, but nothing like the statistics above [Piper's church is in the most ethnically diverse region of the Twin Cities].

Probably I could have been far more effective in immediate urban impact in this neighborhood if I had not written books or carried on a wider speaking ministry. Some thank me for this ministry, and others think I have made a mistake. Again, you may see why I cherish and cling to the gospel of Jesus.

The Lord will be my judge someday. I will give an account to him of how I served him. I expect that as he goes down the list of the choices I have made, none will have a perfectly pure motivation, and many will appear as unwise in the bright light of his holiness. I hope I have been a good steward of my gifts and time. But my confidence in the judgment is not in that. It's in the perfection of Jesus that God has credited to me through faith and in the punishment Jesus endured for me. . ." (39-40)

What I appreciated so much with this, given that it had little to do with the main topic of the book is that Piper is addressing the rise of the so-called celebrity pastor and the backlash it has created.

There are two main criticisms that I have encountered of the celebrity pastor, one comical, the other uncharitable. The comical one is that the critic of the pastors could become famous if they wanted, but humble-hearted servant that they are, they choose to toil in anonymity in a small congregation. These men view fame as a matter of will, apart from talent or the work of God. Focusing on "ordinary pastors" is a great thing*, but the dismissive "well, I don't want to be a celebrity pastor" thing is laughable. If you have to say that, you really do. But, good, you will probably never have that problem.

The uncharitable criticism is one that removes any sense of agency from these celebrity pastors. What I mean by this is it treats these men as if they are not aware that there are other ways of doing their vocation and as if they have not thought deeply and prayed fervently over the ministry decisions they have made. That they sort of fell into this and now they don't know what to do. Piper here shows the care with which he makes his decisions, as well as the omnipresent awareness that there will come a day when he will give an account for his actions to his Lord.

For better or for worse, podcasts and the internet have shrunk our world to where it is not uncommon for a spiritually hungry person to take in more content (audio, video, or written) from a celebrity pastor in a faraway locale than their local pastor in their local church. Of course this can be a dangerous thing, both for celebrity pastor and for spiritually hungry person judging his pastor against the speaking/writing ability of this celebrity pastor, but it is not wholly bad. It can be very good. I thank God for John Piper and Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler and others like them, because even when I disagree with them I can appreciate their passion for the gospel and the church. Pastors who write books aren't out there actively encouraging people to be dissatisfied with their local church and move to Minneapolis or Seattle.

Piper loves the Church, the whole Church, and feels called to use his gifts in a specific way. Has he made wrong decisions? Yep. Will he make more? Sure. But the purpose of life isn't to wait for perfection and then act, to continually weight every decision to the point of inaction, or to sit back and criticize someone who is working night and day to bless God and his church. Celebrity pastors make mistakes; so do ordinary ones. Ultimately, it is between them and the Lord. Piper is very cognizant of this fact; I hope his critics will remember the same thing.

*One of the ironies to me of publicizing the ordinary pastor movement, if one can be said to exist, is that it tries to popularize the ordinary. An uncharitable view of this, which of course I would never take, could see this as trying to make being ordinary famous. Plus, no one starts a blog and puts their stuff out on the internet in the hope that no one ever will read it. I wonder how often these ordinary pastors check their web traffic?

Guns, Again

I have a few more thoughts on the topic before I leave it for good, hopefully.

First, the Second Amendment absolutists remind me a lot of pro-choicers in the degree of their refusal to compromise. I made this point to Clara on the drive to Colorado for Christmas and my dad said the same thing in conversation there. Both pro-choicers and gun rights advocates seem to believe that the smallest concession will mean their entire undoing. For the pro-choice side this at least seems intellectually responsible. After all, once concessions are made lending humanity to the infant in utero the whole pro-choice project seems to collapse on itself. What in reality is the difference between a fetus at six months and one at six weeks, except that it looks grosser to kill it? Murky questions. Difficult to answer. Therefore, an absolutist case is consistent.

But there doesn't seem to be the same need for absolutism towards guns. It is intellectually tenable to be both pro-gun and pro-gun restriction. Second Amendment absolutists don't see it this way. You are either entirely for them, or entirely against them. Those who are lukewarm shall be spat out in disgust. I didn't see anyone arguing in the wake of Newtown or Aurora that we ought to round up all firearms, toss them into the ocean (think of the effect on the environment!), and head to Colorado to smoke some unprohibited weed and make dreamcatchers. Gun control advocates seemed to be advocating for. . . wait for it. . . gun control. Restrictions on sales of assault weapons, tougher licensing on all firearms, mandatory background checks. No one thinks that will be the panacea to end gun violence, but its at least good policy.

But Second Amendment absolutists double down. Their solution: more guns! And--this idea coming from an organization comprised largely of members of a party that thinks ever fewer teachers should make even less than they do now--an armed guard greeting our children in the morning. Dobroye utro, comrade! Modest restrictions on gun rights are an insane emotional response to a tragedy, but putting an armed individual at taxpayer expense in each of our nation's schools is coherent, cool-headed, and necessary.

Secondly, I saw a lot of commentary on facebook and elsewhere about how gun ownership keeps the government in check. The argument is that no government would dare go against an armed citizenry. And it was a valid argument in 1789 when the average farmer and the average British soldier carried the same gun. But can we really use this argument today? It is not as if in a possible uprising the government troops will don red coats and march to the beat of the little drummer boy. The government sees your high powered rifle and raises you a Predator Drone. Good luck in that battle. I am not saying this means guns should not be owned, but with the increasing gulf between military weaponry and that available to citizens it is hard to see mass gun ownership as being a deterrent to the government. My generation struggles to find the energy to move out of their parents' homes; can you really imagine us rising in armed rebellion? And over what?

Finally, I understand that there is no simple solution to this problem. Gun violence is an absolutely unwieldy topic. Most homicides in this country are committed with handguns, disproportionately by minorities in urban areas. An assault weapons ban would have no effect on that. I don't think that any proponent of gun control thinks that it would. Nor do I think that this is merely a matter of freedom. We exchange freedoms all of the time to live as members of a civilized society. I am not free to marry multiple people, drive without license and registration, walk around naked, and any other type of socially or legally restricted behavior. We accept these in return for the stability and ability to flourish that the social contract offers. Are unfettered gun rights an indispensable part of the social contract?

Last week on facebook there waged what I like to call The Battle of the Founding Fathers. Who could find the best quote by a venerable old revolutionary about gun rights and show people that this is a part of our national fabric. And so I saw a lot of quotes about armed citizens keeping the government in check and such things. Another friend posted a quote by John Adams, excerpted from Charles Murray's recent book Coming Apart: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." My friend asked whether since we are no longer either a moral or religious people can we really expect these freedoms to have their intended effect? It is a valid question and one to be mulled over in this debate in which it often seems that conservative Christians are the strongest voice in the pro-gun lobby.

Jesus told us that it was the meek who would inherit the earth. I guess he forgot to mention that they would only do so well-armed.

Guns

It was predictable that in the immediate aftermath of the horrifying event at Newtown people who have long wished for stricter gun control laws capitalized on the event to argue that now was the time to make that happen. And, I have to say that I agree with them.

Now, to anticipate some objections. First of all, I know that it was a severely deranged young man who killed all of those people and people just kill people. I get it. There were murders before guns, murders would still happen if guns were outlawed. But the fact is, a 20 year old kid had access to an AR15, which pretty much no one ever needs to have. I know, I know, zombie apocalypse, Red Dawn style Soviet invasion, nuclear war, governmental collapse and all of those extremely likely scenarios when individuals would benefit from assault weapons seem right around the corner, but let's be honest, when the founders wrote the second amendment, did they have an AR15 with quick reload in mind? Besides, my dystopian vision of the future, not to mention the real direction of our culture, is more Brave New World than 1984.

People are evil. I agree. I'm a Calvinist for goodness sakes. But shouldn't we work to mitigate evil where at all possible? Perhaps a short accounting style question: is there more net good from allowing individuals to buy assault weapons or net bad? Dudes having fun on a Saturday afternoon versus kids dying in a school. Let's put that on the moral scales. 

A second objection, the real issue here is with identifying mental disease and being able to get people the treatment that they need. I agree. Let's do that, too. This isn't a zero sum game, where we can only do one thing. Why can't we restrict guns and give teachers better training in dealing with depressed and otherwise troubled students? I read a blog post by a university professor who has attended mandatory faculty-wide training in disaster response but has never received any training in dealing with troubled students. What is more likely to happen: massive tragedy on campus or having depressed students in your class?

A third objection: tragedies are not good times to make far-reaching policy decisions. I totally agree again (as I cough under my breath, "Iraq"). But I'm not saying that we should ban guns altogether, but that we should make it a bit harder to buy them. One suggestion I have heard is to treat gun ownership like vehicle ownership and driver's licensing: have training, take a test, register with the state. Close the gun show loophole that allows guns to be purchased without background checks. I don't understand why restrictions would be a bad thing. I am generally in favor of the free market, but guess what, it sucks here. The free market cares about one thing only: making money. Moral calculations have to be made by human minds, not invisible hands.

I own a gun and plan on getting into hunting next year which will necessitate the purchase of another. Would I be offended if I had to register my new 308 with the state? Are you kidding me? I can't believe I don't have to. When my brother gave me a shotgun for my wedding (there is a joke there somewhere) I looked up the laws about registering and realized that I didn't have to register my gun. How crazy is that? If he had given me a scooter, you're damn right the government would know about it, but registering guns encroaches on freedom. I have yet to read the conservative case against license plates.

When people used to complain about the Patriot Act and the wide use of surveillance it granted the government I joked that that's only a bad thing if you have something to hide. The government can listen in on all of my phone conversations if they want to, but they would be mostly bored. I don't care if they know I think turning The Hobbit into three movies is an abomination and that I drive back to Colorado for Christmas on Friday. My point is, the Patriot Act was a problem if you already had something to hide. I didn't, so it didn't make me nervous. On the contrary, it made me feel quite sorry at the idea of some poor governmental operative tasked with sorting through my text messages. Gun restriction works in the same way: the good gunowners have nothing to fear and the bad ones will be stopped at the door. (Note: It is a tad ironic that the same party who pushed through the Patriot Act and defends it as a necessary policy, finds it completely within the pale for the government to have extreme liberty in surveillance of communication but no liberty at all in telling us how many high powered guns we can own. We are all selective in our big government beliefs.) (Another note: yes, I have heard of the black market and know that bad people can buy guns through illegal means. However, none of the people who have carried out the recent mass killings procured these weapons through the black market. Secondly, so what? What is the point here? You would rather the blood money for the gun sales to maniacal killers go through a legitimate dealer with a booth at a gun show than a black market dealer with the trunk of a Chrysler?)

At some point we have to ask ourselves what we are trading in exchange for our freedom. And is it worth it. Is a world with ever more guns the world we want our kids to grow up in? (Read Alan Jacobs's excellent post on the idea of arming teachers, which, like most everything he says, I agree with wholeheartedly.) I am not a gun guy, but I have no aversion to them. I own one and will probably own a few others here in the next few years. But I don't and won't own them because I am afraid. In any crazy post-apocalyptic scenario, I just hope I am already dead. I don't want to fight other people for oil or troop across the South killing zombies. If someone breaks into my house to steal they can have it. If they break in to hurt my family I will be glad to have a gun, but the chances of that happening are infinitesimally small.

I believe in the Second Amendment (I also think we are likelier to see the First overturned before we are the Second). But a right to bear arms is not an absolute right. It is not a first principle right, like the right to life and liberty. And when it starts to infringe on those first principle rights, it needs to be reconsidered.