St. Maximos' Hut

Andy has successfully provoked me into posting, but since I begin to teach today, I don't have the leisure to work myself up into a fine lather of a response. A quick one will have to do.

With regard to the story of the Gadarene demoniac & the herd of swine, Andy is correct that the demons prefer the pigs to deportation. However, he is not correct that the demons wanted to destroy the herd. They didn't. They just wanted a place to hang out, since their human host was no longer an option. The pigs, however, were unable to bear the demonic presence, and went mad, running blindly over the cliff to their deaths. Where the legion of demons went next isn't told in the story, but we we all have our ideas about that.

I've opined here before on the implications of reality for moral duties - when we have religious arguments for the minimum wage, for example, we ought to be critical of them for harming the people the policies purport to be helping. Don Boudreaux has a very clear statement of the role of the "real world" in law in response to Sen. Joseph Biden's pontificating on the need for judges to pay attention to the "real world" during the Alito hearings. Well worth reading;

Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today did a very nice analysis of Judge Alito's testimony yesterday, focusing on a particular point he made in discussing his education in the 1960s and 1970s:

This was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.

After a fascinating parsing of the some of the web commentary on this passage, commentary which suggested that Alito was not a real man because he didn't either (a) protest the war in Vietnam or (b) take part in the war in Vietnam, James Taranto of BOTWT made the following comment:

May we suggest an alternative definition? A real man is a faithful, loving husband and father who provides for his family and contributes to society by working diligently and conscientiously in his chosen field. We know of no reason to think that Alito falls anywhere short of this masculine ideal.

A group of us at St. Innocent read John Eldredge's Wild at Heart under the guidance of Fr. M, who took one of Eldredge's seminars. (If he can't be lured out to comment on the swine, this topic may drawn him out....) The book has a lot of interesting things to say about men's hearts and made quite a difference for many of us. Taranto's definition of a real man comes pretty close in some respect to Eldredge's -- and refocusing discussions of maleness on an appropriate definition of manhood would be an important step forward for our society. Eldredge makes a convincing case that false ideas about what men are have devastating consequences both individually and collectively.

My family is attempting the "read the New Testament in a year" program in the back of the Orthodox Study Bible. Tomorrow we get to the part of Matthew's Gospel (8:28-34) with the demons sent into the swine. I know this is one of Fr. Michael's absolute favorite topics to preach on when it comes around in the cycle of readings at church - perhaps I can goad him into reflecting on it here.

A puzzle to me is why the demons wanted to be in the swine in the first place, particularly since they just rushed off and drowned themselves after entering the swine. I could see a demon prefering life as a pig to being "deported" (see, e.g., Constantine) back to hell - maybe pigs have a rich life of sensation that compares favorably to being a demon in hell. But why go into a pig just to drown oneself?

The recent posts by Andy on the subjects of whining young people and hypocrisy have put me in mind of a part of Cleon's speech to the Athenians in the Mytilenian debate, as reported by Thucydides. The problem he brings up is that people find it easier to talk than to act, and to listen to others talk than to think for themselves. This is unfortunately timely at many colleges, where it is the time for students to appeal academic sanctions that resulted from actions or inactions during the previous semester. It can also be applied in a depressingly broad range of current policy areas, which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

“… You have become regular speech-goers, and as for action, you merely listen to account of it; if something is to be done in the future you estimate the possibilities by hearing a good speech on the subject, and as for the past you rely not so much on the facts which you have seen with your own eyes as on what you have heard about them in some clever piece of verbal criticism. Any novelty in an argument deceives you at once, but when the argument is tried and proved you become unwilling to follow it; you look with suspicion on what is normal and are the slaves of every paradox that comes your way. The chief wish of each one of you is to be able to make a speech himself, and, if you cannot do that, the next best thing is to compete with those who can make this sort of speech by not looking as though you were at all out of your depth while you listen to the views put forward, by applauding a good point even before it is made, and by being as quick at seeing how an argument is going to be developed as you are slow at understanding what in the end it will lead to. What you are looking for all the time is something that is, I should say, outside the range of ordinary experience, and yet you cannot even think straight about the facts of life that are before you. You are simply victims of your own pleasure in listening, and are more like an audience sitting at the feet of a professional lecturer than a parliament discussing matters of state.” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, translated by Rex Warner, 1954, New York, Penguin Books, p. 214)

Slate has a marvelous column on the travails of being a young person today, what with the economy and all. Daniel Gross reviews a passle of whiny books by young people complaining about how tough they have it, and then asks "why are these books - Generation Debt in particular - annoying?"

It's not that the authors misdiagnose ills that affect our society. It's just that they lack the perspective to add any great insight. Writing in the New York Times this weekend, economics reporter David Leonhardt called Strapped, "a grim tale of one-sided generational warfare." Draut argues that "with the possible exception of having a larger array of entertainment and other goods to purchase, members of Generation X appear to be worse off by every measure" than prior generations. Huh? How about the Internet and Starbucks coffee and Lipitor and not having to worry so much about AIDS or crime or Mutual Assured Destruction or getting drafted into the Army and getting sent to Vietnam?

Maybe one place to get perspective would be from a spiritual life? Just a thought.

Jef Jacoby has a nice column reflecting on the Abramoff scandal from a religious perspective. After enumerating Abramoff's troubling behaviors, Jacoby concludes that none of the behaviors themsevles are the worst things Abramoff did. Instead:

The worst is that Abramoff is a Jew. Not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew -- someone who claims to be committed to strictly observing Jewish law and faithfully adhering to the Torah's ethical standards. But instead of upholding those ethical standards Abramoff trampled on them, and a ''religious" Jew who behaves so corruptly disgraces not only himself but all religious Jews. He brings his faith into contempt. He is guilty of what Jewish tradition calls, with disgust, ''chillul ha-Shem" -- a desecration of God's name.

For me -- also an observant Jew -- that is the worst thing of all.

Coincidentally, my family had just read Matthew 6:1-8 as part of the "read the New Testament in a year" program we are following from the Orthodox Study Bible. Matthew gives Christ's injunction:

[1] Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
[2] Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[3] But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
[4] That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
[5] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
[6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
[7] But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
[8] Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Not surprisingly, we find a concern with hypocrisy in both the Jewish tradition and Jesus' teaching. (The more Scripturally adept among the Hut can undoubtedly add additional references denouncing hypocrites.)

What is so offensive about hypocrisy? One reason is surely the "externality" that such behavior creates for the rest of the group of believers. As Jacoby notes, the public proclamation of faith by someone who is actively undermining the values of the faith tend to bring the faith into public disrepute. This discourages the faithful and undoubtedly hinders evangelizing - thus not only does the hypocrite harm himself but he serves as a snare for others as well.