Archive for the ‘Grim’s Hall’ Tag
Shattering and Binding
Two days. Forty-eight hours it’s taken me to articulate my reaction to Obama’s election. So many calls for conservatives to be adults, to put country first, to look at the bright side.
Wordless rage. Obama won through deception, dishonesty, and with the full-knowing falseness of the media and academy. Much of the journalistic and intellectual realms have betrayed America. They know what they have done; they know they hid inconvenient truths and propagated harmful lies.
Why should I stand up and be a good citizen? I will only be destroyed, my voice ripped out, my character fed into the industrial shredder should I dare speak out for my beliefs. Why should I continue to guard and feed those who have slammed the picks and axes of irrational hatreds between my shoulder blades? Please explain how Obama was duly elected in the midst of possibly hundreds of millions in illegal campaign cash, voter fraud, the dumping of military ballots, and so many other attacks on election integrity? Please explain how an America who was intentionally blinded to the truth about her candidates made a legitimate choice of leader?
Again I had to ask: Why should I stand up and be a good citizen when America has so grandly rewarded being a bad one?
I was trying to study, deciding my own victory lay in what I could achieve, what I could do. I am becoming part of the academy, and just like the Left took it, I will be part of the next revolution. I had to stop to sift through events and bodies of sense. I wandered into the next room where CNN was showing reactions to the election.
There was singing and dancing in Harlem, a sea of black faces in bright garb, drums, and joyous voices. A black man was front and center saying he could now tell his children they really could be anything. A black woman said “Obama isn’t just a black president, he’s the president of whites and everyone.” The scene shifted to champaign corks popping in France, to the people of the city of Obama, Japan, singing their silly “Obama” song.
Confucians believe that ceremony is an inherent part of being human. Rituals mean something, symbols carry power, and acting in accordance with those ceremonies brings us into harmony with those meanings, that power. Ritual allows that power to use us for righteousness and us to use it for strength and direction.
The elation on the faces of my fellow Americans, my brothers and sisters who have for so long been estranged in spirit from this country I love, brought salt water to my face. I think Michelle Obama was wrong for never being proud of her country before her husband was raised up before it, but I understand, and I can’t hold that against her. I hope all these people, from Harlem to Paris to Obama City, have felt the power and meaning of the rituals we are enacting. I hope their joy brings their spirits into harmony with ours, because we need that. It is most difficult to fight a brutal enemy while divided from those who are your family.
In Classical meanings, the meanings of function and reason, America lost this election. In Romantic meanings, the meanings of symbol and ritual, America won.
As my heart has wandered these brick canyons and alternate realities of the academy, it had no choice but to align with the force field of Love. Not some dewy-eyed emotionalism that weakens knees and spine, no, not that hippy toke trip. Rather, Love as the righteous and terrible twin of Hate: unifying love for the One who Drew us all in breath and dirt, compassionate love for the good-hearted soil of humanity, proud love for my nation — the tribe of the free, sensuous love for this glorious Created world in which we are all given merely a few brief moments to shudder in Awe at the Divine incarnate, and violent love for all-consuming combat against Evil and its demon horde of injustices. This is why I must be a good citizen, not only now, but until my last breath, until I can no longer wear the armor and swing the sword and shout the battle cry of freedom.
warriors, pacifists, enchanters and Christianity
Grim has an interesting post up today on the breadth of the Christian faith. I cut this bit out to discuss:
The interesting thing about Christianity is the degree to which it accepts men as they are: the Christian law is not the Ten Commandments, but the Great Commandment: “Love each other as you love yourself; forgive everything.” If I am to love a man, I must love him as he is; yet if I am to love him as I love myself, then I may fight with him to the degree that I would fight myself. I may even kill him, if there are things I would rather kill myself than be guilty of having done.
If I can but forgive his soul, I am doing all that is asked in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” If I can do that, then we may fight each other as hard as needs be — and we may even love the chance to strike a blow for what is right, best, just. Even the most wicked man is therefore lovable, insofar as he gives us the greatest opportunity to create good in the world. Even our own capacity for sin is lovable, for the same reason.
This is quite a new idea to me, or rather, a sharp twist on some old ideas, and I need some time to mull it over. But, first thoughts (very bloggish of me, eh? shoot first, think later . . .):
1. Are Christians called to forgive everything? If so, then we must forgive even those things we would kill someone for? That seems a bit contradictory, but let’s see. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity says this about loving one’s neighbor as oneself:
In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. . . .
The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true . . . Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible?
. . .
Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment — even to death. . . .
If I didn’t know better (and, well, actually I don’t), I’d say Grim had been reading CS Lewis.
2. Then, the idea that we may kill for those things we would wish to be killed for is a brainbender. However, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say I flipped out, bought guns and ammo, and was on my way to a place to kill a bunch of people. My sane self would certainly hope someone stopped me, and given the choice between my insane self carrying out that act and some armed citizen or police officer killing me, I would choose to be killed. That is true; I would rather be killed than commit an act like that.
What about an immoral war? I presume Grim’s rule would mean that soldiers should only participate in wars they believe are moral, and should only kill enemies who are doing things, or working towards aims, that the moral soldier himself would rather be killed than accomplish. We have faced this in Iraq, with Watada and others refusing to go for moral reasons.
CS Lewis (MC again) had this to say about the Christian warrior:
All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major — what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight — the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause — is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage — a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.
I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the First World War, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it.
3. I certainly agree that Christianity is much more broad and open than it is often portrayed, and that it has often accommodated itself to the peoples and times it finds itself among. Some see this as a weakness, but I see it as a strength. There is always the danger of bending so far the branch breaks and one particular effort is no longer part of the tree of Christianity, but I think we can bend quite a bit before we reach that point.
4. Oh, I have more to say, particularly about Grim’s choice of poem for his post, but I suspect this post is long enough. I’ll save “The Last Hero” for later days.