Seeing To It

As a quick side note, I have created another blog entitled Seeing To It.

The purposes of this blog are explained in it, but basically it serves as a space for reviews of books I am currently reading.

You can find it by clicking the title above.

Some Clarifications on Marx

Lately, I have been having a lot of conversations involving capitalism and its detractors. Most questions involve how I feel about Karl Marx and "Communist nations." Many people have identified me as a communist (and reasonably so, I suppose, all things considered). What I aim to do in this post is to briefly flesh out some of my current thoughts on Marxism, clarifying some issues that I have been dealing with a bit irresponsibly thus far.

First thing's first: I have already written a paper on Karl Marx and Christianity which I posted here earlier. Allow me to explain this paper a bit. The prompt involved expressing where Marx and Christianity can find amicability and where they necessarily diverge. Due to space limitations of 1,000 words, however, I chose to focus only on where the two can find common ground, as it seems this is the position that requires the most explanation and provocation (considering it is largely ignored). Some have misread this thinking I have completely bought into Marx and all that comes with him. While I don't think this necessarily flows from my paper, I can see how the one might get this impression. Hopefully this post will bring more clarity to the subject.

Let's start with a basic statement: I hate capitalism.

Let me be quick to point out, however, that this hatred did not in fact stem from Marx. As early as high school, reading the Gospels has hinted to me that money is, as Paul says, the root of all kinds of evil. Though I lacked the language and skill to fully articulate why this was so, it was clear to me that Christ advocated equality and brotherhood, the opposite of division and competition. A system that celebrates the latter, therefore, clearly cannot be the preferred "system" (if there is one) of the Prince of Peace. What Karl Marx did was articulate more specific rationality (to use his terms, an approach that was more "scientific") that targeted the root evils of capitalism which I was then able to view through the lens of Christianity.

Reading Marx, it is incredibly difficult to deny his especially intricate treatment of the subject. (Of course, taking on the economic system encouraged by the entire "developed" world requires no less.) Thus far I have heard many arguments defending capitalism, but none of their promoters seem to be aware of the debate. Marxism has been around for quite a while, and it didn't end with the death of Marx. It has survived in the minds of many philosophers throughout the last hundred years. In fact, due to the work of many contemporary philosophers (notably Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Slovoj Žižek, and Alain Badiou) Marxist scholarship has been renewed with great vigor. Though I wish I had the time and talent to respond here to every objection I have dealt with thus far in my conversations with others I can at least say this -- I have yet to be convinced that capitalism is a system that affirms the teachings of God. In fact, the more I talk, think, and read about the subject, the more I learn capitalism is necessarily opposed to the values of Christianity.

That being said, there are a few specific objections to Marxism that must be immediately answered, as they demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

1) What about Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and various other revolutions? Surely they do not affirm Christian values!

This is correct. However, the aforementioned and often-cited examples are not examples of communism. They are examples of totalitarian dictatorships. Though they have undeniably sprouted from communist roots, they are not manifestations of Marx's idea. Leninism, Maoism, etc. are not Marxism. This would be like saying the Crusades prove Christianity is a violent and terrible effort.

2) The communists are atheists! How can you advocate a philosophy pioneered by an atheist?

Well, in a certain sense you have me here. I am not allowed to be a communist. They have kicked me out. However, I have not claimed to be communist. I have only claimed to be against capitalism. As far as I have considered economic philosophy, the solution is still to be determined.

3) Jesus didn't offer a system of economics. Capitalism, though flawed, is the best we have.

This position is correct in saying Jesus offered no system of economics. However, Jesus (and other Biblical writers) did offer many words about money, materialism, and attitudes contrary to capitalism. Furthermore, this position demonstrates a lack of understanding as far as the real destruction caused by capitalism as well as a passive acceptance of the status quo, typically (at least in my experience) a result of scholastic laziness or apathy on the subject.

So to summarize and conclude, I will say this.

I am against capitalism. I also find Marx's critiques to be incredibly helpful in articulating the evils of the system. If this makes me a Marxist, then so be it. But my hatred for capitalism is not rooted in Karl Marx. It is rooted in the Scriptures, and it seems to me to fit the Biblical narrative best -- much better than exploitative economics. I am not a communist. I have yet to determine what exactly I am. I am interested in socialism, distributism, and anarchism, all of which have very prominent members of the Christian community involved from both Protestant and Catholic traditions (in fact distributism was developed primarily by Catholics).

Ultimately, I would hope I deserve the title "Christian." I seek to find out what Christian economics really is, and thus far that entails helping your neighbor, not being concerned with material things, and thinking of others before yourself.

In other words, not capitalism.

Moving Mountains: Wendell Berry, Christianity, and a Critique of Ecological Ignorance

I recently wrote this paper for a class called quantitative reasoning and thought it might be interesting to the few of you who care to read this. I don't have much of an introduction for it other than to say it's not my best work, and let's be honest -- for a class called quantitative reasoning there sure isn't a lot of that going on here (For good reason!). But it did lead me to some interesting thoughts that I hope to pursue in greater detail later. For those of you who aren't aware, my philosophy professor (Matthew Bonzo) is a Wendell Berry scholar and has published a book on him with another professor here at Cornerstone (Michael Stevens).

A few quick notes: one of the footnotes mentions a table in the appendix. That didn't translate well into the blog, so I just left it out. It's not really that necessary, and it simply fulfilled a requirement in the class.

Moving Mountains: Wendell Berry, Christianity, and a Critique of Ecological Ignorance

          When one thinks of environmental activism, many images come to mind, often in the form of parody. It is a cause picked up by hippies and college kids, a trendy avenue for teenage angst. One might not expect, however, and elderly Kentucky farmer, a former university professor of English, to throw in his lot. Wendell Berry has spent the last several decades writing about the importance of the land we live on. In his collection of essays entitled The Way of Ignorance, Berry deals with the concept of ignorance in many ways, both negative and positive, and its relationship to the land, humanity, and community. In this essay I will discuss Berry’s understanding of ignorance, humanity’s connection to the land using Berry and the Scriptures, and his comments concerning the defense of the land.

Ignorance and Arrogance

          Typically when one thinks of ignorance, one assumes a lack of knowledge. Indeed, this is the definition of the term. The way Berry uses this term exposes an irony—the assumption of endless knowledge is actually the proof of a severe lack of knowledge. Ignorance in modern America is “the predominance of supposition, in a time of great technological power, that humans either know enough already, or can learn enough soon enough, to foresee and forestall any bad consequences of their use of that power.”[1] Our advances in the areas of technology, society, etc. have given us a feeling of arrogance and invincibility. We treat the world as though we know everything about how it works in every capacity and therefore are free to exercise whatever power we like over it. This is precisely the attitude that leads to negative effects on the environment. “We have often been a destructive species, we are more destructive now than we have ever been, and this, in perfect accordance with ancient warnings, is because of our ignorant and arrogant use of knowledge.”[2] We destroy because we are not concerned with consequences or repercussions but with our own success, whatever form that may take.

Forget Mustard Seeds—Use Dynamite

          Americans are told from childhood that we are all destined for success, so long as we take hold of it and work our hardest to prosper. What we are not told is that this often requires a lot of shady practices. To succeed, we have to beat everyone and dominate anything that stands in our way, lest someone else gets our position or profit first—it is a system based on competition. This haste to rise to the top often overlooks many consequences. The American dream is an environmental nightmare. In a very blunt essay entitled “Compromise, Hell!” Berry states “Most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so, and we reward them for it. We reward them so well, in fact, that those who piss in our cistern are wealthier than the rest of us.”[3] Such allowance leads to dangerous and deadly results. We are seeing this devastation tangibly, and posterity will have to make up for it.
          Though many examples could be drawn to illustrate this (and surely at this point some have already come to mind), there is one that is of particular interest to both Berry and America. America is a large consumer of coal. Prior to the 1960s, this coal was received by underground mining involving hundreds of workers. It was soon discovered, however, that it was much easier (and more cost-effective) to simply blow up the tops of mountains and sift through the debris to find coal.[4] This process is called mountaintop removal mining (MTR), and it has been going on in Kentucky for quite some time.
          Though this process is highly efficient in economic terms, its effects on local communities and ecosystems are tremendously devastating. MTR has spread so quickly that it is difficult to even track its growth. Surface-mining in general has affected over 1,600 hectares of land in the Appalachian region, and if the trend continues the amount of land affected will be greater than the mass of Rhode Island.[5] The process affects everything. Forests are cut, streams are filled in, and cracks in the earth are made that descend to massive depths.[6] This creates a dangerous place for wildlife as well as citizens who live in such chaotic environments—what used to be a haven for natural beauty has become a dangerous blast zone. The reckless pursuit of coal-oriented profit has led to the irreplaceable loss of whole mountains. Such is the result of arrogant ignorance.
          In April 2005, Wendell Berry invited writers to visit the sites where mountaintops had been removed. This helped to bring the issue to a larger audience and resulted in a book called Missing Mountains that contains an afterword by Berry. In “Compromise, Hell!” Berry writes

We are now permitting the destruction of entire mountains and entire watersheds. No war, so far, has done such extensive or such permanent damage. If we know that coal is an exhaustible resource, whereas the forests over it are with proper use inexhaustible, and that strip mining destroys the forest virtually forever, how can we permit this destruction? If we honor at all that fragile creature the topsoil, so long in the making, so miraculously made, so indispensable to all life, how can we destroy it? If we believe, as so many of us profess to do, that the Earth is God’s property and is full of His glory, how can we do harm to any part of it?[7]

This profit-hungry and environmentally apathetic attitude is not only detrimental to our own physical health and well-being but is directly spoken against in the Scriptures.
          As early as Genesis 1:26-28, we find humanity being given dominion over the earth.[8] Some Christians have interpreted this to say we have a right to do whatever we wish with the land, but, as we shall see, not only does this interpretation fail to respect the natural order of things defined by God (identified by Berry), it is repeatedly denounced in the Old and New Testaments. Although we are in charge of the earth, Psalm 24:1 (also Psalm 50:10-11) explains that the things in it belong to God. We are therefore not masters of the planet but rather stewards of it. Proverbs 12:10 and 27:23 both indicate a responsibility to care for animals, and Psalm 104:24-25 praise God for the diversity and particularity of his creation, something heavily disrespected by MTR and other environmental atrocities (it seems that this is not simply because of their usefulness to humanity). His care is not limited to animals; God’s care for plants is shown in Psalm 104:16 and Matthew 6:30. God’s creation is initially labeled “good” in Genesis, and Romans 8:22 states that creation groans and waits for its restoration. The prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk both condemn the Israelites for neglecting the land (2:7 and 2:17, respectively). II Chronicles 36:21 highlights this by explaining the Israelites spent 70 years in captivity for neglecting the land.
          Leviticus 25 also explains the land is to have a Sabbath and be given rest. And if all this is not enough, the most compelling reason resides in Romans 1:20, wherein it is said that God reveals himself through his creation. When we destroy parts of that creation, we are destroying vehicles through which God communicates and reveals himself to us, and this is highly tragic. Truly no full understanding of the Scriptures can condone a reckless assault on the land, especially (to use Berry’s phrase) “economic aggression.”[9] Mountaintop removal (among many other destructive processes) is clearly a direct transgression not only of the Law of God but also a destruction of intimate ways of knowing him. A culture that allows this to occur is a culture that is largely uninterested in understanding the living God.
          Because America unarguably falls into this category, Christians cannot simply stand by and allow this to occur without raising questions. Indeed, our faith tradition includes the likes of the prophets of the Old Testament, individuals committed to calling into question the societies of their time through an understanding of Yahweh. Though this all sounds well and good in theory, it is certainly difficult to know where to begin to tackle the heavy and multi-faced issue of destructive ignorance. Berry has suggested several things to combat the prevailing ignorance of our time, and all are rooted in an understanding of local community.

Ignorance and Community

          The beginning of the solution lies in the preface of The Way of Ignorance. Up until now, we have dealt with the dangerous sort of ignorance—one that fails to acknowledge itself as ignorance. Berry suggests there is a healthy ignorance, however; an ignorance that does acknowledge itself and proceeds with caution. This is going in “the way” of ignorance (positively, not negatively). His message is one of humility. Knowledge is provisional—never complete (but also never empty). As he says in the preface to the book, “the way of ignorance…is to be careful, to know the limits and efficacy of our knowledge.”[10] This does not mean we are unable to act or progress or that we should revert to a primitive mode of human existence (clearly evidenced by Berry’s agrarian life). Rather, it means that in our progress and our action we must admit our connection to the land and act accordingly.
          Connectedness does not stop at the land, however. Berry promotes an understanding of our connectedness to other human beings as well. One lone, idealistic voice does not often hold much sway. Berry critiques certain environmental movements as being too negative. The movement he suggests is one concerned with the well-being of everyone.

…in so destructive an age as ours, it is possible for our sense of wrong to become an affliction...Mere opposition…blinds us to the good of the things we are trying to save. And it divides us hopelessly from our opponents who no doubt are caricaturing us while we are demonizing them. We lose, in short, the sense
of shared humanity that would permit us to say even to our worst enemies, “We are working, after all, in your interest and your children’s. Ours is a common effort for the common good. Come and join us.”[11]

It is precisely this sort of approach to ecology that advocates a Christ-centered response; a response that does not continue the competition it has spoken against but rather offers an entirely new paradigm—brotherhood and cooperation. Is not salvation offered to all, even the worst of us sinners?
          True communities understand their connectedness to each other and, by proxy, to their environments. When the actions of economic aggression effect the surrounding area of many individuals (especially noticeable in mountaintop removal which creates deep fissures on citizen-inhabited land and produces heavy noise pollution—not to mention the destruction of aesthetic, God-created beauty), it does not take long to rally the effected individuals to the resistance. Berry gives special attention to this in “Compromise, Hell!” when he explains the need to hold politicians accountable and denounce corporate arrogance.

It appears that we have fallen into the habit of compromising on issues that should not, and in fact cannot, be compromised. I have an idea that a large number of us, including even a large number of politicians, believe that it is wrong to destroy the Earth. But we have powerful political opponents who insist that an Earth-destroying economy is justified by freedom and profit. And so we compromise by agreeing to permit the destruction only of parts of the Earth, or to permit the Earth to be destroyed a little at a time – like the famous three-legged pig that was too well loved to be eaten all at once.[12]

          As Christians, we are called to be informed about the injustice done to the land we find ourselves on and respond. Not simply out of principle, but because this injustice directly correlates to our own well-being and the health of our children. We must do away with silly factional lines that color ecology blue. God has mandated our stewardship, and Wendell Berry has offered many valuable critiques and solutions that the Church would do well to listen to. It is about time we get off the couch, forget compromising, and remember our spiritual forefathers, the prophets. It is about time we call the status quo into question and hold corporations accountable for their irreverence and violence. It is about time we took the Scriptures seriously and called for something more than regular church attendance and tithing. The Christ was crucified for much more than comfortable passivity.


[1] Wendell Berry. “The Way of Ignorance.” In The Way of Ignorance. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint Press, 2005. 53.
[2] Ibid. 59.
[3]Wendell Berry. “Compromise, Hell!” In The Way of Ignorance. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint Press, 2005. 22.
[4] See table included in Apendix A.
[5]John G. Mitchell. "When Mountains Move" In National Geographic. March, 2006,.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Berry. “Compromise, Hell!” 22.
[8] The verses throughout this paragraph have been identified and commented on by former Southern Wesleyan University professor Martin LaBar in his blog Sun and Shield. http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2006/04/environmental-stewardship-in-bible.html. (accessed April 29, 2010).
[9] Berry. “Compromise, Hell!” 24.
[10] Wendell Berry. “Preface.” In The Way of Ignorance. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint Press, 2005. x.
[11] Wendell Berry. “The Purpose of a Coherent Community.” In The Way of Ignorance. Berkeley, California: Counterpoint Press, 2005. 74.
[12] Berry. “Compromise, Hell!” 25.
[13] "Most Requested Statistics - U.S. Coal Industry" (PDF). National Mining Association. http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_most_requested.pdf. Retrieved April 29, 2010.

A Quick Kierkegaardian Supplement

I was reading the "mad dane" today and came across a phenomenal quote I wish I would have known about earlier when writing my paper.

In context, Kierkegaard is talking about the dangers of over-complicating the Scriptures, particularly through "Christian scholarship" -- essentially, for him, something that aims to assert and defend human constructions instead of understanding the often straightforward (albeit provocative and challenging) message of Christ. He's upset with the taming of God.

"I open the New Testament and read: 'If you want to be perfect, then sell all your goods and give to the poor and come follow me.' Good God, if we were to actually do this, all the capitalists, the officeholders, and the entrepreneurs, the whole society in fact, would be almost beggars! We would be sunk if it were not for Christian scholarship! Praise be to everyone who works to consolidate the reputation of Christian scholarship, which helps to restrain the New Testament, this confounded book which would one, two, three, run us all down if it got loose (that is, if Christian scholarship did not restrain it)...We lock it up but argue that we are doing the opposite, that we are busily engaged in helping it gain clarity and control. But then, of course, no insane person, no prisoner of the state, would ever be as dangerous to us as the New Testament would be if it were set free."

Marx and a Christian Critique of Capitalism

As promised, here is my paper on Marx and Christianity. The prompt for the paper told us to limit it to 1,000 words. Mine ended up somewhere around 1,300. Due to space I didn't get a chance to say everything I wanted to, but the paper was overdue, so I figure I should just call it done. However, that said, I'm still happy with how it turned out. Consider it a brief introduction to my thoughts on Marxism.

You'll notice that all of my quotations come from one volume of essays and the manifesto (except the first one, so feel free to not click any of the numbers beyond the first endnote). Perhaps my opinion will change as I continue to read Marx, but as of now I feel familiar enough to make these basic assertions (I received a high A, so apparently my professor thinks it's good.). Hopefully I've done justice to the subject matter. It has just been graded, and I took some suggestions into account.

Marx and a Christian Critique of Capitalism

            In America, Karl Marx has been demonized quite heavily throughout the last century. Many of his critics, especially today, come from the politically conservative “Christian” right. The terms “communism” and “socialism” have been equated with oppression and dictatorships and have served as buzz words to point out the enemies of freedom, famously by Joseph McCarthy and more recently by Glenn Beck. As a clear proponent of communism and one who is often seen as its figurehead, Marx has also been equated with the aforementioned things. In this essay, I will attempt to show a more appropriate relationship between Marx and Christianity by highlighting a few areas of alliance.[1]

            Despite his staunch atheism, Marx has several things to offer a Christian critique of capitalist society. Capitalism has been understood as a Christian system of economics for two centuries. It is often held up as something encouraging hard work and earning what one has (Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic comes to mind) as opposed to lazily going about life. It is also hailed as a harbinger of freedom, especially in America. Although Marx points out several issues and consequences regarding the reigning system, this paper will focus primarily on class struggle and materialism.

            In Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the authors explain the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They state “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”[2] They describe the bourgeoisie as an unchecked juggernaut able to subjugate any and all under its thumb; something that respects neither tradition nor humanity. “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers.”[3] This class, a collection of capitalists (those owning the means of production, or “capital”), seeks only one goal as capitalists: increased capital. This it accomplishes independent of a concern for humanity. Indeed, to make the truly greatest profit one must separate oneself from humanity and morality. The bourgeoisie existing in the minority, however, requires the proletariat to provide its labor as a means of production.
The proletariat exists to serve the bourgeoisie. Engels and Marx describe the class as:

“a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all fluctuations of the market.”[4]

In capitalism, men are treated like property – traded, bought, sold. The proletarian must work hard and sell his labor to secure a wage determined by the bourgeois employer and thus relies solely on the bourgeoisie. This wage is then used to purchase goods – an action which supports the bourgeoisie by providing it money. In this way, the bourgeoisie has subjugated a whole section of humanity – all that is other to it – in order to sustain itself (both as a class and as a way of life).

            What Marx has in mind is the liberation and humanization of the worker. In an essay called “Wages of Labor,” Marx describes the state of the relationship between the worker and the capitalist in the context of wages. The worker relies heavily on the capitalist and the capitalist on the worker. However, as Marx clearly points out, “the worker need not necessarily gain when the capitalist does, but he necessarily loses when the latter does.”[5] Furthermore, the worker is commodified and used by the capitalist as such. This is large-scale dehumanization. Human beings are reduced to objects to be used for nothing but increasing capital. As Marx points out, in a wage-based system, the worker becomes subject to the laws of supply and demand – a demand depending entirely on the “whim of the rich and the capitalists.”[6] This leads to competition among the workers. If the surplus of workers exceeds the demand for workers, the surplus must die out. “The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity.”[7] Though many Christian capitalists deny that capitalists are inhuman enough to forget about the worker, this has been exemplified in history, notably in the public mind in the Industrial Revolution in Europe (the context of Marx) and more familiarly the early 1900s in America (excellently illustrated by novels like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle), though it has happened every day for the last two hundred years.

            Marx often explains the negative effects of capitalism on society. “The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are avarice and war among the avarice – competition.”[8] Is competition what humanity was ideally created for? The Biblical narrative promotes cooperation and brotherhood, not separation and rivalry. And does not the capitalist system praise and require competition? Furthermore, Marx describes the silliness of money and its powers to nullify the natural and make things absurd. Money affords power, despite any natural limitations. “I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honored, and therefore so is its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good.”[9] Capital makes absurd things equal – equal costs create equal things (groceries and apparel, workers and machines, etc. – as far as the market is concerned, these are the same items).

            Marx has a lot to offer Christianity, particularly the modern American manifestation of it. Marx highlights over and over that humanity’s relationships are material. I do not think this is incongruent with the Biblical narrative. Too often American Christianity finds itself wrapped up completely in a transcendent reality apart from where we live. Jesus Christ was heavily interested in the material relationships of humanity, particularly the poor. Even Christ’s own mother delivers a famous passage regarding God’s exalting of the lower class and sending the rich away empty-handed (Luke 1:46-55). Repeatedly we find Scripture identifying with the poor and lowly and advocating equality and classless society. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). In terms of communism itself, a lot of parallels can be drawn directly from social practices in both the Old and New Testament. In Leviticus 25:35-37, God commands the Israelites to take care of the poor man and sustain him and warns against imposing usurious interest. Likewise Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 describe the early church living communally and taking care of one another sharing material possessions and teaching. The early church was not interested in capitalism by any means. The early church was interested in taking care of people in this world having been inspired by the Harbinger of the next. Capitalism is necessarily selfish, aiming to fulfill the wants of those on the top of society. Christianity is necessarily selfless, aiming to fulfill the needs of those on the bottom.

            Much of Christianity is often concerned primarily with theoretical theology and not material needs. Marx has taken the responsibility of opposing the currently accepted economic system in a scientific and rational way. Instead of denying his usefulness because of the failure and perversion of his intellectual heirs, Christians ought to embrace his often correct analysis of the oppression and injustices inherent in the system – injustices that do not promote a Scriptural understanding of sacrifice and cooperation but instead promote selfish gain and competition. We owe a debt to Marx for showing us where Christ is needed. It seems incongruent to say that a homeless man who was followed around by a group of working-class disciples and spent most of his time living with and healing the underbelly of Rome would promote capitalism as we know it. What sort of Christianity endorses exploitation?

[1] Much could be said about Marxism and Christianity necessarily diverging, but I have decided to forego that for the sake of length.
[2] Frederick Engels and Karl Marx. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1988. 209.
[3] Engels and Marx. Manifesto. 212.
[4] Ibid. 216.
[5] Karl Marx. “Wages of Labor” in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1988. 21.
[6] Karl Marx. “Wages of Labor” in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1988. 20.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Karl Marx. “Estranged Labor” in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1988. 70.
[9] Karl Marx. “The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society” in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1988. 138.

Shadows of Things to Come

I realize I haven't posted on this in quite a while. In retrospect perhaps I should have come out swinging with outrageous political or theological commentary or something. Hopefully I haven't lost your interest. If it's any consolation, I have to write an essay regarding Marxism and Christianity for a class soon -- expect to see something related to that here in the near future.

Until then, I'll share two songs I've been listening to lately. They seem to be a good, down to earth representation of my recent thought process (though I don't know that I would necessarily say everything the way these bards have).

What Did You Learn in School Today by Pete Seeger

Jesus Christ by Woody Guthrie

Sunday Morning Geese

For a long time I have been resistant to the blogosphere.

This is partly due to the fact that I find myself resistant by nature, and for a long time I considered the world of blogs a dichotomized one: either (1) the authors express great and formidable displays of intelligence, artistic talent, etc. or (2) the authors are narcissistic, angst-ridden young people. In the first league, I don't feel qualified to be counted among the ranks. In the second, I don't want to be counted among the ranks (however qualified I might already be).

I've been finding recently that this may not be the case (though if it is, I'm not quite sure which end of the continuum I'll be closest to). A few blogs have caught my interest in the last year or so, which I find myself reading quite regularly. Inspired by their ability to share with the world the experiences they have had navigating through life (often in admirable humility) and having a means of connecting with others, I have decided to join the blogosphere.

As a first post, I figure I ought to explain a bit about my purpose and the reason for the title, "Sunday Morning Geese."

I am, first and foremost, a Christian. This is, sadly, a highly ambiguous term, one that I hope will become more clear both to me and anyone interested throughout this blog and my lifetime. I could list several foundational truth statements and perhaps a few thinkers or theologians I admire, maybe a favorite verse or two, but I have increasingly found that this often seems to do more damage than good. There is, however, one statement I can make: Christianity is holistic. It ought to permeate all aspects of life. It ought to drive the believer.

I am also a philosopher. This, too, is a highly ambiguous term. Coupling my reading of philosophy and the truths of my faith has been an interesting journey, one I hope will be worth reading to someone else. This combination has led to the discovery of some beautiful individuals, which has yielded the title of this blog.

Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher of the mid-19th century, made it his task to find the true meaning of Christianity. He is often called the father of existentialism and a forerunner to postmodernism. Often playful with his words, he habitually explains concepts through parables and stories. The following is such a parable

             "Imagine that geese could talk -- and that they had planned things in such a way that they, too, had their divine worship services. Every Sunday they gathered together and a goose preached. The gist of the sermon was as follows: What a high destiny geese have, to what a high goal the creator -- and every time this word was mentioned the geese curtsied and the ganders bowed their heads -- had appointed geese. With the help of their wings they could fly away to distant regions, blessed regions, where they really had their homes, for they were but alien sojourners.
      It was this way every Sunday. Afterwards, the assembly dispersed and each one waddled home to his family. And so to church again next Sunday, and then home again -- and that was the end of it. They flourished and grew fat, became plump and delicate, were eaten on St. Martin's Eve -- and that was the end of it.
            Yes, that was the end of it. Although the Sunday discourse was so very lofty, on Monday the geese would discuss with each other what had happened to the goose who had wanted really to use his wings according to the high goal set before it -- what happened to it, what horrors it had to endure. Of course the geese would not talk about it on Sunday; that, after all, was not appropriate. Such talk would make a fool of God and of themselves.
            Still, there were a few individual geese among them who looked poorly and grew thin. The other geese said among themselves: There you see what happens when you take seriously this business of wanting to fly. Because they harbor the idea of wanting to fly, they get thin, and do not prosper, do not have God's grace as we have it, and become plump, fat, and delicate. For by the grace of God one becomes plump, fat, and delicate.
            So it is with our Christian worship services. We, too, have wings, we have imagination, intended to help us actually rise aloft. But we play, allow our imagination to amuse itself in an hour of Sunday daydreaming. In reality, however, we stay right where we are -- and on Monday regard it as a proof that God's grace gets us plump, fat, delicate. That is, we accumulate money, get to be a somebody in the world, beget children, become successful, and so forth. And those who actually get involved with God and who therefore suffer and have torments, troubles, and grief, of these we say: Here is proof that they do not have the grace of God."

The issue of Sunday morning geese is what I plan to address. Kierkegaard's parable has so much in it, but I'll focus on just a few points. Many Christians, particularly in America, often go to church on Sunday to hear the Word of God which so frequently demands the impossible. And yet they act as though we simply hear unattractive, implausible words honking from the pulpit (though I might make the case that this is not only the truth, but the inherent beauty of the faith).

Are we really called to success, falling in line, being "a somebody in the world" when our Savior died as a rebel on a cross? How exactly are we to become the skinny, suffering goose who is in fact dumb enough to fly? Can we avoid becoming plump enough to be eaten on St. Martin's Eve? How does our imagination in our understanding of the resurrected Christ go beyond Sunday daydreaming?

It is my hope that answers to questions like these will be made more clear as this blog progresses. I humbly invite you to follow my intellectual, spiritual, and holistic journey through this world. I promise no profound wisdom nor prophetic truth. To borrow once again from Kierkegaard, "I am not a Christian severity as opposed to a Christian leniency. By no means. I am neither leniency nor severity: I am -- a human honesty."

Honesty. That I can offer.

(By the grace of God, at least.)