A new history of Christianity traces its transformation over a thousand years from an enormous diversity of beliefs and practices to Catholic uniformity…
Peter Heather’s Christendom is a colossal book written by a colossus in the field. Aptly subtitled “The Triumph of a Religion,” it covers a millennium, from the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine in 312 to the baptism of Grand Duke Mindaugas of Lithuania, the last pagan ruler in Europe, around 1250.
Heather resolutely rejects the romantic notion that Christianity rose to the top of late Roman society by its intrinsic merits alone, without the help of the powerful. His attitude is close to that of J.B. Bury, who argued that “it must never be forgotten that Constantine’s revolution was perhaps the most audacious act ever committed by an autocrat in disregard and defiance of the vast majority of his subjects.”
To justify this view, Heather offers a cogent analysis of the structure of Roman upper-class society and its relation to the Roman state—a relation that made elites peculiarly vulnerable to pressure from a Christian court. If pressure was exercised by Constantine and his Christian successors on the wider population, it was the gentle violence of a state that lacked the strength and organizational capacity of modern dictatorships. The late Roman state was not “a decadent Leviathan,” as many scholars from the 1930s onward deemed it to be. These scholars saw the later empire as a warning for their own society, faced with the rise of totalitarian states in Europe and with what struck some of them as the ominous expansion of government associated in America with the New Deal. As a result, they greatly exaggerated the Roman Empire’s coercive powers.
Heather points out that the late Roman state could not enforce an ideology; it was too “rickety.” But it could seduce. Its immense ambitions depended on networks of friends and clients that stretched from the court to the lower reaches of the gentry in a never-ceasing waterfall of favors asked and favors received. If one wanted to get anything done, one had to please someone. And ideally this was someone who had pleased the emperor and those around him.
Once the emperor made plain that he was an orthodox Christian and that he would shut the “divine ears” to the petitions of heretics, Jews, and pagans, the message trickled down with surprising speed. A confessional state was born.
Posted inChristianity|Comments Off on The Workings of the Spirit
All religious autobiography hinges on a drama of escape. The convert speaks from a vantage of liberation, having been freed from the shackles of sin, looking back on the years he lived in bondage, a “prisoner of my own violence and my own selfishness,” as Thomas Merton puts it in The Seven Storey Mountain (1948), his celebrated memoir about becoming a Trappist monk. The deconversion narrative relies on the same arc, but in reverse. The apostate wins her freedom by fleeing the prison of institutional religion. Each narrative is, of course, a lie. The believer, even after he has glimpsed eternity, must continue to live in the world with other fallen humans and his own wayward flesh. Anyone who has left the church finds, inevitably, that secular life has plenty of constraints and disappointments of its own. What drives the narrative impulse is that first, ecstatic taste of freedom—of having borne witness to something as formless and vast as the night sky…
In her mid-twenties she was living in Paris and writing scores for a music publisher when her father died, a trauma that hit with seismic force. Although she and her siblings had not been raised religious—neither parent was a churchgoer—her grief succeeded in convincing her that she had (so to speak) a father in heaven….
Conversion experiences are always the least convincing part of a faith narrative. It would be easy to chalk this up to secularization, our loss of faith in the reality of faith itself, but the problem, I think, is broader than that. (“And then I realized—” the poet Robert Haas once observed, is “the part of stories one never quite believes.”) Epiphanies, those watermarks of shifting internal states, consist of pure, untested potentiality. Coldstream’s passages about her contact with the divine during those early years of prayer are, fittingly, vague to the point of meaninglessness…
…few things are more disappointing to the new convert than religious laxity. But Coldstream makes little effort to put these complaints in perspective, to see them as the follies of youthful purity, or to consider why her aloofness and superiority are so alienating to the other nuns, most of whom are cradle Catholics. Recalling how she was often chided for her “convert’s enthusiasm”…
…As I read page after page of schoolyard bullying and mean-girl snubs, I could not help but long for a different storyline, one in which Coldstream fully embraces her prophetic megalomania and does what so many saints have done—disappearing into the desert, climbing to the top of some ragged mountain, calling on a complacent church to find its way back to its pioneering ideals..
Lucy is one of many nuns who over the years succumb to mental illness and are forced to leave the convent, a fact that Coldstream attributes to prolonged repression. The religious call to “self-immolation,” the tireless effort to conquer temptation and suppress one’s true feelings, is unnatural, she writes, because “the shadow side of the psyche…cannot be kept down for ever.” This is an odd about-face, given her original complaints about religious laxity. She was the one who wanted more self-immolation. But in trying to account for the growing tension she experienced—her attempts to suppress her artistic, solitary, and prophetic nature—and the array of personal dysfunction she witnessed at the convent, she ends up concluding that the problem is the unnatural discipline of monasticism itself. The ascetic life that survived two millennia of Christianity had finally, at the dawn of the third, become untenable.
Posted inConversion|Comments Off on Leaving The Fold
Podnotes AI summary: I am curious if you have a special room for watching the show or wear specific clothes like your Sunday best. Ever thought of writing to me about why you watch or what you do during it? Maybe there’s art or drinks you prefer while viewing? I imagine a dedicated space and attire that honors our soul connection.
I’m reading David Sanger’s book on new cold wars, China’s rise, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and America defending the West. It mentions Biden’s involvement in Ukraine in 2014 – classic Biden overstepping his abilities unlike Obama who was cautious with foreign policy.
Obama resisted war with Russia over Crimea to avoid dire consequences for the U.S., adhering to “Don’t do stupid shit” as his motto. He knew Ukraine wasn’t vital to US security just as current conflicts don’t affect American welfare directly.
Biden is framing his reelection around defending democracy globally but Americans aren’t interested in overseas conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza – they want domestic focus instead.
Ukrainian morale is low; Putin seeks ceasefire; Europe and the U.S. support negotiations but Biden pushes forward. The U.S.’s role should be checking China rather than meddling elsewhere.
In other news, debates rage on political retribution and Trump accuses opponents of plotting jail time against him – claims without basis stirring media frenzy.
Decoding gurus discussed Zizek, noting how some figures use dramatic language for attention which can be tiring despite occasional necessity for radical change highlighted by historical revolutions like Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement succeeding partly due to more extreme threats behind it.
In the 1979 Super Bowl, The Cowboys started strong against the Steelers, dominating with their run game in a single drive before a fumble turned the tide. Tom Landry’s call for a double reverse led to disaster, and Pittsburgh recovered, ultimately winning.
Mandela’s revolutionary stance is often criticized as mere attention-seeking, but violence and populist uprisings can be essential for change. Revolutions are complex; France swung between republics and monarchies until finding its current state.
A friend chose silence over confronting middle-aged men discussing Israel and Gaza—a wise move considering how heated such debates can get. Ideals can lead to either positive change or disaster; they’re not inherently good or bad.
Steroid use has surged as people seek external solutions to internal problems—whether it’s radical politics, religion, or physical enhancement through performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). The risks include health issues like kidney damage and mood disorders. Education around PEDs is lacking among users and medical professionals alike.
Rituals that seem transgressive may actually reinforce social bonds within certain ideologies or institutions—inversion of status during rituals releases social tension. Nation-states sometimes engage in hypocritical actions contrary to their stated values out of perceived necessity or practicality.
Philosophers like Zizek challenge us with thought experiments rather than empirical evidence—valuable for provoking thought but not always grounded in scientific rigor. While philosophers’ interpretations vary widely, they serve an important role in questioning societal norms.
He’s a guy with strong opinions, commenting on social and political issues. He thinks he’s not liked but sees himself as an iconoclast. Despite claiming to be unpopular, his ideas are widely discussed, even in major publications that warn against taking him lightly.
Talking about critical race theory (CRT), Richard Delgado is criticized for suggesting aggressive solutions to racial injustice. His work implies violence might be necessary, which the author finds dangerous and irresponsible. The author renews their subscription to insightful essays that explore different ideologies.
Alfred Adler’s personal experiences led him to create psychotherapy as a distinct form of mental health treatment from Freudian psychoanalysis. Psychotherapy has since evolved into various approaches still used today.
The Canadian Association of Black Lawyers criticizes proposed auto theft amendments for being ineffective and disproportionately affecting minority communities. Meanwhile, misinformation about Hunter Biden’s laptop was spread by politicians and media before the 2020 election.
Ideological commitments have both rational arguments and emotional resonance; great novelists like Conrad and Mann understood this dual nature well. Political analysis should consider both aspects rather than seeking “gotcha moments” that dismiss people’s stated reasons for their beliefs.
A skilled psychoanalyst views us in two ways: as truth-seekers and self-deceivers. This dual analysis applies to current ideological movements too. For the New York Review of Books author, a key conservative strand is Catholic post-liberalism, which values community over individual rights and aims for the common good.
This perspective challenges liberal individualism and prioritizes national well-being. It envisions democratic institutions serving specific peoples rather than abstract principles. The author argues that people seeking meaning through dramatic ideological shifts may actually be filling voids from lacking personal connections.
In discussing critical race theory (CRT), there’s debate on whether its extreme ideas permeate K-12 education. Some claim CRT isn’t taught at this level, but foundational concepts are often introduced early on in other subjects like math without controversy.
The essay also touches on right-wing strategies to influence U.S institutions and criticizes post-liberals for not focusing enough on transforming society through Christian teachings from the ground up. Instead, they seem drawn to cultural wars which could lead to disappointment in secular America.
Ultimately, the writer suggests that young people attracted to these ideologies might be better off nurturing their minds and souls instead of getting entangled in political struggles – implying that inner peace comes from self-contentment rather than external battles or historical narratives.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Decoding Joe Biden (6-5-24)
It was classic Biden: He inserted himself into a complex dispute half a world away, convinced that his long experience in diplomacy and personal touch could make a difference. Like a hostage negotiator, Biden was trying to build a rapport with Yanukovich even as he tried to talk him down, to convince him to take a deal that the European Union — along with the Russians — had brokered to guarantee elections by the end of 2014 and end the crisis. Under that plan, Yanukovich would have stayed in power in the interim..
For President Obama, the urgent question was how to respond to Russia’s move into Crimea. It was a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Biden and Victoria “Toria” Nuland, the Russia hawk who was serving as Obama’s assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, were pressing him to act. Biden himself was eager to make Moscow “ pay in blood and money,” as my colleagues Glenn Thrush and Ken Vogel later reported.
Obama resisted the effort. Don’t get me into a war with Russia, he warned his aides repeatedly. That, first and foremost, was his goal. Such a war would not only be a new conflict with potentially unimaginable consequences for the United States — it’s a different calculus taking on a nuclear – armed state — it would, Obama believed, believed, become a fundamentally losing battle. Obama told his aides that Russia would always care more about the Ukrainians than Americans would. Intervention, in Obama’s view, would have been a violation of the guiding principle of foreign policy that he once boiled down for reporters on Air Force One into one pithy phrase: “Don’t do stupid shit.”
The fate of Crimea, Obama determined, was important but hardly a core U.S. security interest. In public, he sought to downplay both the geopolitical significance and the impact that U.S. involvement would have. “ The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non – NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he later said.
In Belgium, less than a week after the annexation, Obama had already made up his mind. “ This is not another Cold War that we’re entering into,” he said. “Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology.”
…IN THE END, Washington’s response to the Russian incursion into Crimea was typically tepid. Obama spun out a handful of executive orders sanctioning individuals and organizations for their roles in Ukrainian corruption or the Russian annexation. The U.S. military conducted exercises with European allies and shored up its presence on the continent. There was nothing that would ruin Putin’s day.
Mild as the American moves seemed, the Europeans did even less. What they were mostly interested in, they were quick to emphasize, was the opportunity to stabilize the situation and allow cooler heads to prevail…
For much of his political career, Joe Biden had played the role of the hard – liner when it came to Russia. He had pushed for NATO expansion, despite Putin’s protests. So it wasn’t a surprise when he sided with the relatively small group of Obama aides seeking a harder line and real weapons for the Ukrainians. At the same time, he was careful not to be caught publicly disagreeing with Obama, recalled Toria Nuland.
Biden used his weekly lunches with Obama to press for the kind of lethal aid that might make a difference in the war for the Donbas. “Biden was the pit bull for defensive weapons,” Nuland told me. “He especially wanted Javelins sent,” she said, referring to the powerful American anti – tank missiles that Obama declined to ship, for fear they would be provocative…
Part of this drive stemmed from the deep ties Biden had built with people in the region, stretching back decades. It was why he led the American support for anticorruption reforms in Ukraine — including his support, now infamous, in accordance with established U.S. policy at the time, for firing the corrupt chief Ukrainian prosecutor.
What tainted Biden’s initiative were the activities of his troubled younger son, Hunter Biden, a lawyer and lobbyist with a long record of addiction problems and poor judgment. Hunter appeared to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars — starting in 2014 — to sit on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma that was also under investigation for corruption. But when Obama aides broached the potential conflict of interest with Biden during their first presidential campaign, he lit into them — the blind spot Biden has often had when issues touch his family — and told them to back off. Biden maintained that his son was an independent adult and that there was no crossover between their work.
Later, Biden’s aides would cite his early work in Ukraine to make the case that he was always a Russia hawk — and that his support for Kyiv was the product of years of scar tissue as he tried to aid a country that often undercut its own interests.
Posted inChina|Comments Off on New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion, and America’s Struggle to Defend the West
In A Marvelous Solitude, her new book on Renaissance humanists’ romance with reading, the Italian scholar Lina Bolzoni channels the allure, for Petrarch and those who came after him, of a life in books, its pleasures “more intimate and more intense than the satisfaction afforded by other worldly goods.” But such intimacy came at a cost: “A sense of being unsuited to one’s times, a feeling, almost, of extraneousness and alienation.”
There is often a whiff of misanthropy about Petrarch’s passion for books. In the fourteenth century, before the invention of movable type, books were artisanal objects, and even the simplest were inscribed and bound by hand. But once acquired, Petrarch observes, they asked little of their possessors; with books, unlike houseguests, “there is no tedium, no expense, no complaints, no murmurs, no envy, no deceit…. They are satisfied with the smallest room in your house and a modest robe, they require no drink or food.”
…Occasionally, one senses some strain in the narrative—a hint of how the self-flattering mythology of reading might compensate, or fail to compensate, for the inability to find other sources of purpose and fulfillment.
Posted inBooks|Comments Off on NYRB: In the Renaissance, reading became both a passion and a pose of detachment
Catholic postliberal thinkers opposed to modern liberal individualism are less interested in transforming people’s unhappy lives through the power of the gospel than in jockeying for political power as the vanguard of a conservative revolution…
It has always been more difficult to make sense of the radical right than the radical left. Back when there were serious left-wing bookstores catering to active socialists rather than leisured graduate students, those, too, were a little helter-skelter. Utopian authors rubbed shoulders with Stalinists, anarchists with Trotskyists, interpreters of the wisdom of Chairman Mao with interpreters of the wisdom of the Albanian leader Enver Hoxha (a Seventies thing). Shelves were devoted to each and every postcolonial liberation movement then active, with many manifestos written by obscure revolutionaries destined to become infamous tyrants. Yet despite the intellectual and geographical variety, one always had the sense that the authors imagined they were aiming at the same abstract goal: a future of human emancipation into a state of freedom and equality.
But what ultimate goal do those on the radical right share? That’s harder to discern, since when addressing the present they almost always speak in the past tense. Contemporary life is compared to a half-imagined lost world that inspires and limits reflection about possible futures. Since there are many pasts that could conceivably provoke a militant nostalgia, one might think that the political right would therefore be hopelessly fractious. This turns out not to be true. It is possible to attend right-wing conferences whose speakers include national conservatives enamored of the Peace of Westphalia, secular populists enamored of Andrew Jackson, Protestant evangelicals enamored of the Wailing Wall, paleo-Catholics enamored of the fifth-century Church, gun lovers enamored of the nineteenth-century Wild West, hawks enamored of the twentieth-century cold war, isolationists enamored of the 1940s America First Committee, and acned young men waving around thick manifestos by a preposterous figure known as the Bronze Age Pervert. And they all get along.
Posted inCatholics|Comments Off on The Tower and the Sewer
My article on Joe Biden as he was about to run for president 33 years ago, in which I told him he’s a “windbag.” He took that with good humor. I think it’s a balanced piece, though the editor promoted it on the cover with the line: “Shut up Senator Biden.”
I remember that essay. It shook me up that a national political correspondent for ABC News could write something so lively. It left an indelible profession. I never forgot the headline. It has been the primary prism through which I understand Joe Biden and it has never been refuted.
Another TNR article that stick in my memory from this time was on the idiocy of urban life and then a rejoinder on the idiocy of rural life.
the rhetorical fervor of his stump speeches and debating style have earned him the reputation of a man whose mouth often runs—and runs, and runs—well ahead of his mind.
Indeed, Biden gives the impression of utter spontaneity. It is an uncommon and in some ways charming quality, but it frequently gets him into trouble in the Senate.
… when he first learned this article had been commissioned, to a reporter not known, as his longtime press secretary Pete Smith put it, “as one of Biden’s greatest fans,” the senator telephoned the editor in chief of this magazine and tried to have the assignment called off. When that failed, he at first refused to sit for an interview, agreeing only to a preliminary informal chat over coffee, after which he would decide whether to cooperate. “I just want to find out why you don’t like me,” he said at the beginning of that chat in the Senate dining room. It was an awkward and extraordinary conversation, in which Biden finally asked if the reporter harbored any “deep personal antipathy.” He was assured that there was none. “Then what is it you don’t like?” he asked. “Senator,” came the reluctant reply, “I think you’re a windbag.” Biden seemed greatly relieved, laughed, and said he thought there was truth to that. He agreed to cooperate fully.
Biden has long had a considerable reputation among Capitol Hill reporters for enjoying the sound of his own voice. On the first day of the highly publicized confirmation hearing of Alexander Haig as secretary of state, for example, Biden took his entire first turn—ten minutes—to ask a single question, and when he was finished it was unclear what the question was. Everyone laughed, Biden included. In another Foreign Relations hearing a year later, he went on at such length late in a long session that broadcast correspondents at the press table fashioned a white flag from a napkin and a microphone pole and waved it in the air. The chairman, Charles Percy, howled with laughter, as did Democrat Alan Cranston. Biden seemed not to notice. Reminded of the incident, Biden said he knew he had a tendency to go on too long but had now curbed it.
… the impression of Biden as a man who does much of his thinking out loud and sometimes has difficulty figuring out what he thinks. And that, ultimately, is the most enduring impression Biden leaves. It suggests that a Biden campaign for the presidency would be colorful, newsworthy, and, unlike his oratory, brief.
Posted inJoe Biden|Comments Off on From 1986 TNR: Shut Up Senator Biden!
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
