Proof in the Poor

We must again see Christ in the poor. Jesus Christ could’ve come as a king or an emperor, but instead he came as a person of little status, of lowly means. Again and again, he commends care for the poor, and damns injustice toward them. None of this is a coincidence. It was, in fact, revolutionary: It overturned an ancient mode of organizing society and introduced as meaningful and urgent the station of the poorest members of our society. It extended dignity and value to people otherwise invisible. It charged generations of Christians, present company not excluded, with the holy task of finding the face of Christ the Lord of all things in the pain and suffering of those with nothing. Christ is with the lonely and hungry people who wander city streets in need of money and medical care. Christ is with the families fleeing ruined, flooded homes in Puerto Rico, who have no recourse, no food, no medicine for their injuries. Christ is with the refugees who find themselves in foreign lands, leaving their lives and families and communities behind in blood-soaked, war-torn places. In our modern world we struggle with faith; we want tangible proof, evidence we can see and touch for ourselves. Here is your chance: Christ comes to us as the poorest of the poor, and in touching them, you touch his wounds like Thomas, and drive away the shadow of doubt.

the conclusion to Liz Bruenig’s recent talk on Christ and the Poor

Gesturing Beyond

Penitent Saint Peter / Jusepe de Ribera / Oil on canvas / 1628

I’ve just learned that Francis Spufford has a new collection of essays out. I loved his novel, the weird and wonderful Golden Hill, so I look forward to reading the essays. One of them, though, is up now at the Christian Century. Here’s what Spufford has to say about a certain kind of novel:

“[It] tries to realize, on the page, with the verbal tools of the novelist, the orientation to the world that results when somebody holds that, feels that, behaves as if the particular rooms they are in always have another unnumerated door or window, opening onto a different and overwhelming domain. The kind where the particular light of one morning is held to be a manifestation of a general light. The kind where part of the point of what is being carefully reported about everyday experience is that it faces onto something else. That something else, of course, not being a verbal fabric at all. Being made of the Word, that is, not of our vocabulary.

As the Reverend John Ames says in Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead, “you must not judge of what I know by what I find words for”—except of course that the readers of novels do judge, exactly, by what the writer has found words for. The task of finding expressible language for the inexpressible is inherently impossible. The effort begins in the admission of inevitable defeat.”

He goes on to say that Robinson’s novels do this better than almost any contemporary writers’. I am, as you may have guessed, sympathetic. Like this great painting of the St. Peter, each of Robinson’s novels gesture to what is beyond ordinary experience without leaving that realm.

I wish, though, that Spufford had mentioned Robinson’s first novel, Housekeeping. It’s even less explicitly concerned with religion than its successors, but it is, I think, more evocative for the absence. To borrow Spufford’s metaphor, if GileadHome, and Lila have windows opening onto another domain, Housekeeping is a room without windows. The absence of an exterior light, though, makes her first novel numinous in a way its successors are not.

A small quibble, really. Do read the rest. And then go register for Wheaton College’s conference on the work of Robinson and theology.

Drafting with Strangers

On Monday morning I biked from Pilsen to Hyde Park. It was a pleasant ride. The return journey was taxing, though, since my legs were tired and—thanks to a late lunch—were competing with my stomach for oxygen. About halfway through the ride, on one of the Lake Shore Path’s many curves, I glanced over my shoulder: Not three feet behind me was another cyclist! Perhaps he’s about to pass me, I thought. But when I looked at the ground a minute later I saw a shadow in the grass, immediately behind my own. Another minute, another glance; I was beginning to feel unsettled. Just then the biker pulled ahead. But not far ahead. Did he mean for me to draft behind him? Was he returning the favor? I decided to see. As soon as I’d entered the pocket of air behind the stranger’s bike I felt the difference. I hardly needed to pedal. I breezed behind him for a mile and then we switched positions again. A little later on we switched once more. Each time I led I wasn’t sure if the stranger was still there. The only sign of his presence, when I cared to sneak a glance, was the shadow gliding beside me in the grass.

We biked like that for a few miles. The situation reminded me of biology class and of the symbiotic relationships that occasionally spring up between organisms of different species. As my turn off approached I turned to say goodbye to the stranger, to make this a human interaction, but there was no one there.

Assuming You Don’t Want To Be A Heretic

Here’s the beginning of Ben Myers’ series “Tweeting the Trinity.” More here. 

I.  HOW TO AVOID TRINITARIAN HERESY

#1. Start by abolishing Trinity Sunday, that fateful day on which preachers think they have to explain the Trinity

#2. Teach children to make the sign of the cross when they say the words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”

#3. When someone offers to tell you the practical implications of the doctrine, just smile and move along

#4. Have you come up with a really helpful analogy of the trinity? Well done! Now please don’t tell anyone about it, ever

#5. The doctrine is not a mystery. It is simple & precise. The reality it points to is the mystery

#6. Don’t try to get rid of the biblical words. Don’t try to stick to them exclusively either

#7. In this doctrine every word is used in a very limited way. Even the numbers 1 and 3 can’t be taken literally

#8. Don’t partake in meaningless debates about whether “oneness” or “threeness” is more important (see #7)
 

Fidget Spinners of The Soul

Here are eight unusually perceptive theses on media from Michael Sacasas

1. Social media are the fidget spinners of the soul.

2. Each social media platform is a drug we self-prescribe and consume in order to regulate our emotional life, and we are constantly experimenting with the cocktail.

3. Law of Digital Relativity: Perception of space and time is relative to the digital density of the observer’s experience.

4. Affect overload is a more serious problem than information overload. The product of both is moral apathy and mental exhaustion.

5. While text and image flourish online, the psycho-dynamics of digital culture are most akin to those of oral cultures (per Walter Ong).

6. Just as the consumer economy was boundless in its power to commodify, so the attention economy is boundless in its power to render reality standing reserve for the project of identity construction/performance. The two processes, of course, are not unrelated.

7. In the attention economy, strategic silence is power. But, because of the above, it is also a deeply demanding practice of self-denial.

8. Virtue is self-forgetting. The structures of social media make it impossible to forget yourself.

God In The Dark

 

I know the darkness is appalling sometimes;—but it is the only way of learning that we depend entirely on God, that we have nothing from ourselves, that even our loves and desire of Him tends to be selfish. The “royal way of the Holy Cross” is the only way. But you will find out that the darkness is God Himself; the suffering is His nearness.

— John Chapman

From Abbot John Chapman’s extraordinary collection of letters on prayer. I hope to write more about this. 

Alien Virtues

 

The New Testament not only praises virtues of which Aristotle knows nothing—faith, hope and love—and says nothing about virtues such as phronesis which are crucial for Aristotle, but it praises at least one quality as a virtue which Aristotle seems to count as one of the vices relative to magnanimity, namely humility.

— Alasdair MacIntyre