May 24, 2012
All these profound matters must be suggested in short and imperfect phrases; and the shortest statement of one aspect of this illumination is to say that it is the discovery of an infinite debt. It may seem a paradox to say that a man may be transported with joy to discover that he is in debt. But this is only because in commercial cases the creditor does not generally share the transports of joy; especially when the debt is by hypothesis infinite and therefore unrecoverable. But here again the parallel of a natural love-story of the nobler sort disposes of the difficulty in a flash. There the infinite creditor does share the joy of the infinite debtor; for indeed they are both debtors and both creditors. In other words debt and dependence do become pleasures in the presence of unspoilt love; the word is used too loosely and luxuriously in popular simplifications like the present; but here the word is really the key. It is the key of all the problems of Franciscan morality which puzzle the merely modern mind; but above all it is the key of asceticism. It is the highest and holiest of the paradoxes that the man who really knows he cannot pay his debt will be for ever paying it. He will be for ever giving back what he cannot give back, and cannot be expected to give back. He will be always throwing things away into a bottomless pit of unfathomable thanks. Men who think they are too modern to understand this are in fact too mean to understand it; we are most of us too mean to practise it. We are not generous enough to be ascetics; one might almost say not genial enough to be ascetics. A man must have magnanimity of surrender, of which he commonly only catches a glimpse in first love, like a glimpse of our lost Eden. But whether he sees it or not, the truth is in that riddle; that the whole world has, or is, only one good thing; and it is a bad debt.

— G.K. Chesterton, Saint Francis of Assisi Chapter V

(Source: saints.sqpn.com)

April 25, 2011
… For when we approach the utterances and activities of an alien culture with a well-established classification of genres in our mind and ask of a given rite or other practice “Is it a piece of applied science? Or a piece of symbolic and dramatic activity? Or a piece of theology?” we may in fact be asking a set of questions to which any answer may be misleading … For the utterances and practices in question may belong, as it were, to all and to none of the genres that we have in mind. For those who engage in the given practice the question of how their utterances are to be interpreted—in the sense of “interpretation” in which to allocate a practice or an utterance to a genre is to interpret it, as a prediction, say, rather than as a symbolic expression of desire, or vice versa—may never have arisen. If we question them as to how their utterances are to be interpreted, we may therefore receive an answer which is sincere and yet we may still be deceived. For we may, by the very act of asking these questions, have brought them to the point where they cannot avoid beginning to construe their own utterances in one way rather than another. But perhaps this was not so until we asked the question. Perhaps before that time their utterances were poised in ambiguity … Myths would then be seen as perhaps potentially science and as literature and theology; but to understand them as myths would be to understand them as actually yet none of these. Hence the absurdity involved in speaking of myths as misrepresenting reality; the myth is at most a possible misrepresentation of reality, for it does not aspire, while still only a myth, to be a representation.

— Alasdair MacIntyre, “Rationality,” pp. 252-53
quoted in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action Volume One, pp. 62-63

December 25, 2010
Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are? - By Shankar Vedantam - Slate Magazine

Brenner found that the United States and Canada were outliers—not in religious attendance, but in overreporting religious attendance. Americans attended services about as often as Italians and Slovenians and slightly more than Brits and Germans. The significant difference between the two North American countries and other industrialized nations was the enormous gap between poll responses and time-use studies in those two countries.

Why do Americans and Canadians feel the need to overreport their religious attendance? You could say that religiosity for Americans is tied to their identity in a way that it is not for the Germans, the French, and the British. But that only restates the mystery. Why is religiosity tied to American identity?

November 10, 2010

I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result ( and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining admirably. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.

The settlers of New England were at the same time ardent sectarians and daring innovators. Narrow as the limits of some of their religious opinions were, they were free from all political prejudices.

Hence arose two tendencies, distinct but not opposite, which are everywhere discernible in the manners as well as the laws of the country.

Men sacrifice for a religious opinion their friends, their family, and their country; one can consider them devoted to the pursuit of intellectual goals which they came to purchase at so high a price. One sees them, however, seeking with almost equal eagerness material wealth and moral satisfaction; heaven in the world beyond, and well-being and liberty in this one.

Under their hand, political principles, laws, and human institutions seem malleable, capable of being shaped and combined at will. As they go forward, the barriers which imprisoned society and behind which they were born are lowered; old opinions, which for centuries had been controlling the world, vanish; a course almost without limits, a field without horizon, is revealed: the human spirit rushes forward and traverses them in every direction. But having reached the limits of the political world, the human spirit stops of itself; in fear it relinquishes the need of exploration; it even abstains from lifting the veil of the sanctuary; it bows with respect before truths which it accepts without discussion.

Thus in the moral world everything is classified, systematized, foreseen, and decided beforehand; in the political world . everything is agitated, disputed, and uncertain. In the one is a passive though a voluntary obedience; in the other, an independence scornful of experience, and jealous of all authority. These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far from conflicting; they advance together and support each other.

Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of mind. Free and powerful in its own sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for it, religion never more surely establishes its empire than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength.

Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs, as the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.

— Alexander Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pp.42-43

October 1, 2010
Uvdal Stave Church, Norway

Uvdal Stave Church, Norway

Interior of Uvdal Stave Church, Norway (c.17 century?)

Interior of Uvdal Stave Church, Norway (c.17 century?)

Andrei Rublev, Icon of the Trinity (1411 or 1425-27)

Andrei Rublev, Icon of the Trinity (1411 or 1425-27)

Andrei Rublev, St. John the Theologian (1408)

Andrei Rublev, St. John the Theologian (1408)

September 30, 2010
Lindisfarne Gospels (7th-8th Century)

Lindisfarne Gospels (7th-8th Century)

Book of John, Book of Kells (ca. 800)

Book of John, Book of Kells (ca. 800)

Chi Rho monogram, Book of Kells (ca. 800)

Chi Rho monogram, Book of Kells (ca. 800)

The Lindisfarne Gospels: Gospel of St Matthew the Evangelist (late 7th - early 8th century)

The Lindisfarne Gospels: Gospel of St Matthew the Evangelist (late 7th - early 8th century)

September 25, 2010
The dominant feature in creating a common culture between peoples, each of which has its own distinct culture, is religion…. I am talking about the common tradition of Christianity which has made Europe what it is, and about the common cultural elements which this common Christianity has brought with it….It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe—until recently—have been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true; and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all…depend on [the Christian heritage] for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith.

— T.S. Eliot, “The Unity of European Culture” from appendix to Notes towards the Definition of Culture, quoted in Norman Davies’ Europe: A History

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »