The Summer Saint: Reflections on St. Augustine

St. Augustine of Hippo was a very intelligent man, and his Confessions offers insights into this intelligence. His book is a rather enjoyable read, for both diction and ideas. After reading chapters 2-3 of Confessions, there are a couple of points that stand out. Specifically, his explanation of the vices was very interesting. More generally, his view on education also give cause for reflection.

At the bottom of page 38, and the top of page 39, Augustine begins describing how, “Vice always fall short of its aim” (Augustine 38). Augustine makes a very viable claim here. He displays, through glorious diction, that every vice seeks to make man something that only God can truly embody. For example, he states that “Ambition seeks nothing but honours and glory, whereas you alone are worthy of honour above all things, and your glory endures for ever” (Augustine 38). Men with ambition want prestige, but they often forget that any “honors” they acquire are insignificant and meaningless compared to the infinite glory of God. This is a wonderful truth, and yet so easy to forget. So are the truths described by Augustine in this section. Although these truths are easy to forget, Augustine’s method of describing these truths causes them to become profound again. His diction calls attention to the glory of God, by first describing the “vice” and then contrasting it to the Godly equivalent.

              In Book 2 of his Confessions, St. Augustine describes his descent into immorality during his adolescence. He explains that his education focused on making him intelligent rather than encouraging his morals. He describes how he began to enjoy sin for the sake of sin, and recalls an instance of stealing pears for the pleasure of doing something wrong. The implications here are that a classical education alone does not provide morals. This is in contrast to Plato’s proposition that good philosopher-kings simply require education. Plato believes that education instills morals, while Augustine asserts that his education damaged his soul more than corrected it. How are these views to be reconciled?

              Perhaps Augustine’s education did not follow the format prescribed by Plato. It is possible that Augustine’s teachers were themselves immoral, and this influenced Augustine to take a bad turn. That is not to say that Augustine was unintelligent and incapable of deciding his own views, but the influence of teachers and peers should not be discounted. C.S. Lewis says something that may shed some light on this subject. He says that, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil” (Lewis, The Abolition of Man). Thus, education can be either good or bad depending on if values are instilled. So when Plato says that education makes a man good, the education process must teach good values as well as mathematics and astronomy. Therefore, Augustine’s education must have been education without virtue, for he certainly describes himself as simply a ‘more clever devil’ as a result of his education. According to Augustine, his teachers did not care what he was arguing for, so long as he argued well. To some extent, it is good for teachers to allow students to think what they want so long as they express it well. However, as Aristotle says, this must not go to the extreme. Education can be good if it teaches how to care for your fellow man, as well as how to debate him.

Serious Stuff

In The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, St. Benedict makes remarks on laughter. In Chapter IV, he says, “. . . not to speak useless words and such as provoke laughter” (Benedict 8). Words that “provoke laughter” are typically jokes. So, Benedict here appears to be banning humor. Any person that enjoys a good laugh likely disagrees with this rule. However, after pausing to think about it, there are several potential reasons for its existence.

The grounds for the establishment of this rule are hazy compared to the other rules in the book. Many maxims are supported with a corresponding scripture, while this order to not joke appears to be in opposition to scripture. It is written in Proverbs, “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine” (Proverbs 17:22 KJV), and humor tends to either produce or be a by-product of a cheerful heart. If a merry heart is good, then why does St. Benedict veto the jokes? It is unlikely that St. Benedict made this rule arbitrarily; there was most likely a reason.

This rule was presumably enforced in some monasteries, if only the monastery of which St. Benedict was abbot. This is purely guesswork, but perhaps in St. Benedict’s monastery there were problems related to joking. Therefore, St. Benedict found it best to abstain from joking altogether. However, this is only guesswork.

Even if there was not a specific issue with joking in the monastery, there are certain types of joking that are not necessarily beneficial. For example, the Bible warns against coarse joking. (Ephesians 5:4). Furthermore, laughter can easily become slanderous. An illustration of this occurs in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. In the book, after Mr. Darcy comments on the beauty of Elizabeth’s eyes, a jealous Miss Bingley responds with “. . . witticisms on fine eyes” (Austen, Chapter 9). This is an example of humor being used the wrong way. In this example, Miss Bingley attempts to use her wit to conceal her jealousy. Obviously, humor of this sort has no place in a society dedicated to God.

Humor can be used to disguise many things, not just the jealousy of a certain Miss Bingley. The Proverbs say that, “Even in laughter the heart may ache, and rejoicing may end in grief.” (Proverbs 14:13, NIV). Laughter cannot fix a broken heart, but can perhaps disguise it. Humor can then be used to distract the mind from serious problems. This may not be a bad thing, but in excess can pose some issues. Using laughter to artificially prop up mood, rather than having a cheerful heart stemming from God, is not good. A person can become accustomed to being fed humorous anecdotes like a morphine drip.

One of the main points of being in a monastery is to reflect. So it is understandable that something distracting- even a good joke- is eliminated. Later in the text Benedict says that “a monk (should not be) easily moved and quick for laughter” (Benedict 14). He then quotes something called the Sirach, which says that, “The fool exalteth his voice in laughter” (Sirach 21:23). This may be a bit on the extreme end. There is nothing wrong with a good joke. However, it is wise to remember that not all humor is good, and as it is written in Lamentations, there is a time for everything, even a time to laugh (Ecclesiastes 3:4).

Much of what St. Benedict says is good stuff. However, it is boring to listen to a list of things I agree with, so I will now turn to a passage that I did not agree with. In Chapter LXIX, there is a short rule that says “that on no occasion (should) one monk try to defend another in the monastery, or to take his part,” (Benedict 77). This raises the question: why? Obviously, as mentioned earlier, there was presumable a reason for this rule. It is possible that monks could band together and cause various sorts of strife between brethren. However, if person A is giving false testimony against person B, and person C is a witness, why can person C not give a defense of person B? Did not Moses plead before God for the Israelites? Why, then, can a monk not plead for his fellow monk before the abbot? Hopefully there were not murder mysteries happening in the monastery, but regardless this rule is still bothersome. It would be helpful if Benedict had penned more than just a paragraph on the subject. More explanation would have been helpful for understanding this rule.

THE QUR'AN!

In the 57^th surah of the Qu’ran, many of the moral teachings present are comparable to the teachings of the Bible. For example, the first six verses describe the sovereignty and all-knowingness of God.  Although the exact wording may be different from that of the Bible, the idea is the same. God is all-knowing, God is sovereign. Another instance of similarity is when it says, “. . . but then it withers, and thou canst see it turn yellow; and in the end it crumbles into dust” (Surah 57). This is very similar to the verse in Genesis, when God says, “To dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). Again, the metaphor is similar. Man is mortal, and eventually decomposes. However, not every piece of the Qur’an directly relates to the Bible, and many portions are in direct contrast.

In the 58^th surah, there is a portion that warns against befriending those “people whom God has condemned” (Surah 58). The text explains that those who reject God are the condemned ones. Let us now examine how this compares to the Bible. The second main assertion, that rejecting God in life leads to condemnation is certainly present in the Bible. The first point is more difficult to find. Something similar is said in the Old Testament, where God commands the Israelite not to “. . . intermarry with them (other nations) because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods” (1 Kings 11:2). This is similar to what is described in the Qur’an; though marriage and friendship are slightly different relationships. The main reason for the Israelites to avoid non-Israelites is to avoid temptation. This may not be the reasoning the Qur’an uses, so an examination of the context shall be required. Although only a relatively small sample of the book is available to provide said context, there is likely enough for accurate conclusions to be drawn.

In the passage in question (Surah 58:14-22), it is important to note that the main idea is a description of God’s coming wrath to those condemned. The last paragraph describes he coming glory for God’s followers, but otherwise the passage centers on wrath. There is no mention of the temptation that comes with befriending such people, it is instead implied (as far as I can tell) that because a person rejects God, it is a defilement to associate with them. This implication is strongly disputed by the Bible, which teaches to love neighbors and enemies (Mark 12:31, Matthew 5:44). There are no conditions given for this love, while the Qur’an indicates conditional love. Therefore, there is only a slight convergence here between the Qur’an and the Bible. For different reasons, and at different times, the followers of either texts are to avoid familiar relationships for those who reject God.

There are many elements of the Qur’an that display Bible-esque qualities. However not every aspect is comparable to the Bible. One instance of this occurs in the 60^th surah, which says that it is not forbidden to show kindness to unbelievers that do not persecute members of Islam, because God loves people that behave fairly (Surah 60). This instance implies several points that are contrary to biblical tradition. One of the large differences is that kindness to unbelievers is only ‘not forbidden’ when the unbeliever is not an enemy to the believer. This is contrary to the aforementioned biblical teaching of loving enemies (Matthew 5:44). The other main difference is that there is an implied limit to God’s love. God appears to love believers and those that behave nicely towards them. This indicates that God is out of patience with evil people, and that God’s love can be earned. This is in contrast to the classic go-to of John 3:16 as well as Romans 5:8. Both indicate that God loved the entirety of fallen humanity (no decency required) and therefore made salvation an option for anyone so desiring it. This portion of the surah is in clear contrast to biblical principles.

NOTE: I wasn’t sure how to cite the Qur’an, so for specific verses I used the Surah number, colon, and then the number given in the squiggly parentheses things.

Herbal Essences: A Response to St. Basil

In his work, “Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature,” St. Basil explains that the reader should study Greek works that extol virtue. One of the reasons for this is that we “. . . first accustom ourselves to the sun’s reflection in the water, and then become able to turn our eyes upon the very sun itself” (Basil.) Basil believes that people can learn virtue and how to think deeply through Pagan literature. This then enhances the spiritual life of the Christian. I find that the reasons for this are twofold. First, there is the practical reason extolled by standardized tests: reading works of literature improves general reading comprehension. This enables the educated Christian to read scripture and understand what it says. Obviously, it is difficult to get around to doing what the scriptures say if a person is unable to tackle figurative language, paragraph-long sentences, and large words.

The next reason Pagan literature is beneficial to the Christian is that it oftentimes displays Christian virtue. If a myth displays instances of courage, honor, and other noble causes, then it is beneficial to read. Furthermore, while teaching virtue, Greek literature naturally reflects Christianity. C.S. Lewis explains that Christianity is in many ways a “true myth” and that, “. . . the pagan stories are God expressing himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He formed there, while Christianity is God expressing himself through what we call ‘real things’” (Lewis). When the pagan writers wish to write something truly beautiful, they perhaps unavoidably instill virtue. Lewis indicates that not only do pagan writers instill virtue, but they also echo Christian themes. It makes sense that anything beautiful humankind creates is a reflection of the beauty of humankind’s Creator. In in his letter to the Colossians, Paul writes that religious festivals and rituals were, “. . . a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:17.) Although Paul is here speaking of Jewish traditions, is it not possible that certain Greek writings can also be reminiscent of Christian themes? If pagan writings remind the reader of Christianity, then they may naturally also aid in better understanding Christianity. Therefore, Pagan literature that reminds of Christianity is beneficial.

Later in the text, St. Basil makes some comments on health. He says that, “. . . I have even heard physicians say that over-healthiness is dangerous” (Basil.) This is to emphasize his point that being overly healthy can be just as bad as being over-indulgent. Though his exact phrasing is questionable, (over-healthiness is dangerous to health?) he is quite right in insinuating that obsession with physical health can harm spiritual health and the ability to think deeply. By becoming especially fit, a person is in danger of idolizing their body. (Recall the myth of Narcissus.) The person obsessed with fitness begins to place more value in the physical world, and has another reason to be prideful. Next, the person becomes so mired in the physical world that they can begin to forget that they are mortal. They can become so obsessed that their entire life revolves around training, and they spend excessive amounts of time and energy devoted to the perfect diet. That’s not to say that washboard abs are the root of all evil. In general, though, it is not beneficial to spend every waking thought devoted to health, just as it is frowned upon to spend hours a day eating twinkies. Six-pack obsessions, whether of the consumable or abdominal variety, are not the best way to spend the majority of time.

Sources:

The Bible (NIV)

C.S. Lewis “Letter to Arthur Greeves on the myth of Christianity”

Row, man!

             In Romans, Paul spends a large portion of the book discussing aspects of Jews and Jewish history. Why does Paul do this in a letter to a Roman church? There must have been a reason; the most obvious explanation is that the Romans needed to hear it. One indication that the Romans could make use of information on Jews comes from the Brown reading, which explains that most religions’ understanding of other religions was “. . . partial, inaccurate, and even prejudiced” (Brown 1). Perhaps one of Paul’s purposes here is to address any misinformation about Judaism that may have been present in Rome. Another clue comes from Paul’s repeated admonishment of Jewish superiority. Paul explains in chapter two that inward understanding and observance of God’s law is greater than observing various religious laws and customs. Based on this, perhaps Paul was also addressing Jewish-Christians that were in danger of being prideful because of their Jewish heritage. The initial question of why Paul writes at length about Judaism leads to a further examination of these passages. This more in-depth look reveals further quandaries about the precise meaning of what Paul says.

              Many parts of Paul’s writings on the Jewish/gentile matter are easy to understand and rather comforting to the gentile reader. For example, one of Paul’s main ideas is that anyone who confesses and believes will be saved because God does not show favoritism. Any gentile, Roman or not, is very happy to hear that. However, Paul also makes statements that are seemingly contradictory to the idea of God’s unbiased love and mercy. One of the biggest statements is a reference to Exodus, where Paul explains that God hardens some (like Pharaoh) and shows mercy to others. The idea that God causes some to harden their hearts against him was bothersome at the beginning of the semester, and is still bothersome when revisited now.

Although there is no obvious, new revelation on the troublesome Pharaoh incident here, it is interesting to note that Paul specifically says that the Pharaoh incident is proof of God’s justice. The remainder of chapter nine is troublesome as well. Paul says that humans are dependent on God’s mercy, and have no right to complain because God is the creator and the humans were created. Therefore, God has the right to make “. . .some. . . for noble purposes and some for common use” (Romans 9:21). This alone is not particularly troublesome; it could just be a reference to the ‘body of Christ’ metaphor. However, it is immediately followed with, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath- prepared for destruction?” (Romans 9:22). Now, since Paul wrote this as a question, perhaps this statement can be disregarded. However, Paul was also a God-inspired author and should not just be brushed aside because he says something that is hard to understand. 

              It would seem that God chooses to show mercy to some, and some he chooses to use to show his wrath. However, many other portions of the bible emphasize God’s great love for humanity, like in II Peter when it says, “Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9). This shows a different side of God’s patience that contrasts with the patience described in Romans 9. Perhaps, based on this, God is patient with the objects of his wrath so that they may eventually be saved. Furthermore, God created each with different personalities. Therefore, perhaps it is easier for some to accept Christ than others. This would not mean that God shows favoritism, but rather that God is creative and makes everybody different. So when those that are stubborn or more naturally rejecting of God decide to follow him, his glory is shown.

              To be honest, I have no idea what I’m talking about here. In conclusion, I know that God is ultimately good and loves humans. The scriptures back this time and again. So although I do not have all of the answers, and some things about the bible are hard to understand, I am alright with that. That’s not to say I will not think about these things though.

LET'S GET READY TO CONFUCIUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

One of the largest differences between Confucius and the Greek philosophers is the approach to relationships. Confucius’ ethics are deeply rooted in family and having proper relationships. According to Confucius, understanding oneself leads to having proper relationships with family, friends, and authority. The governor of the people, then, must have the proper relationships between a governor, his subjects, and other princes. This contrasts to Aristotle, who sees a good family solely as one of the contributors to happiness. He does emphasize proper relationships to others, rather morality stems from proper actions towards the fellow man. However, Aristotle may argue that living an ethical life between the two extremes produces proper relationships as a by-product. Regardless, Aristotle does not emphasize relationship and does not see proper relationships as something to be pursued. In further contrast to Confucius, Plato’s ethics are almost entirely individualistic and knowledge based.  He sees governing as the duty of the educated man rather than a relationship between ruler and people.

Confucius’ focus on having the proper relationships seems confining at times. For example, he praises the son that finishes his father’s work. He also supports paying homage to ancestors and the elderly. First, for the difficulties with finishing the work of the father. I believe in the context of the passage, he means this mostly in the sense of a prince completing the work of the previous king. Practically speaking, by continuing the father’s work is much more efficient than scrapping everything and starting over. Otherwise, there would be halfway finished public works all over the place. Confucius then goes even further, saying that the traditions of the ancestors should be kept by the younger generation. This is very from modern Western culture, which has seen a cultural transformation in the last 100 years. I am uncertain here if Confucius meant that the inheriting leader should keep the traditions of his father, or if the common man should keep traditions in order to keep proper relationships with their elders and ancestors. If this is meant for the leader of the people, it is again very practical teaching. Attempting to change beloved traditions of a people is not the best way to gain their support.

However, he may also be speaking to people in a general sense when he says that the well-bred man keeps the traditions of this father. If that is the case, then Confucius believes proper relationships with elders and ancestors means to keep the traditions of the past, even to the extent of listening to the same music. (For real: see XIX 5). Obviously, this is very different than the predominant culture of modern America, where music only two years old is obsolete and considered a throwback. Western culture values individualism and freedom, chafing at the attempts of tradition to constrain things.

However, since everything we are is built on the past, perhaps Confucius’ points should not be immediately dismissed. For example, in the study of mathematics, it is highly improbable (pun intended) that a person would be able to invent the real number system, arithmetic, algebra, probability, geometry, and calculus in a single lifetime. (There is probably a limit to our singular knowledge even if given infinite time.) Math began with the counting numbers, and each generation of mathematicians has built on the foundation of their predecessors. Similarly, what we are is a direct result of our past, our family’s past, and the whole of the human history. How can people build if they do not know what they are building on? How can people employ sine and cosine functions if they do not know what angles are?

This is why understanding the past is so important. We pay homage to our ancestors by understanding them. Although I may not go to the extent recommended by Confucius, having a proper relationship with the past is vital to building a future. Perhaps Confucius believes that keeping the traditions of our ancestors is how the past is best understood and respected. As aforesaid, this is in contrast to American individualism. In my opinion, neither should be completely disregarded; there should instead be a relationship between tradition and innovation. Aristotle would probably be pleased if we avoided the extremes of tradition vs. change, and Confucius would probably like having a proper relationship between the two. Plato, however, would just be annoyed that we are not discussing mathematics.

Analyzing Aristotle: An Examination of his Ethics

In Books I and II of his work, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as the ultimate end to good. His next step is to define happiness. Interestingly, he does not consider happiness a mere emotion. Rather, Aristotle believes it comes after a lifetime of living virtuously and being lucky. He does admit, however, that happiness means different things to different people. Though according to his main definition, children cannot be happy. This is a strange thing to say, considering the modern belief that children are happier than adults. Although the modern definition of happiness varies with Aristotle’s, modern thought is not entirely wrong here. Happiness is not limited to people that have lived long, virtuous, and fortunate lives. In older people, happiness can stem from these qualities. In children, happiness is more dependent on mood and parental love. That does not mean children cannot be happy; children are very capable of virtue. How many times have children been heard to say, “That’s not fair!”? Furthermore, Aristotle stresses the importance of understanding the underlying spirit of virtue. Therefore, although many children may not understand an in-depth analysis of right and wrong, it does not follow that they are incapable of perceiving the spirit of right and wrong, and therefore the spirit of virtue.

Aristotle’s talk of happiness raises a question for Christians: is happiness possible without God? Well, it is possible to be fairly virtuous and to have a clear conscience, which Aristotle says is the main precursor. Then, after that, if a person is fortunate they will have friends and family that they care about. After all of this, maybe the person will be happy. However, even when everything is right in a person’s world, and the world of their closest friends, there is still a void that only God can fill. One of the reasons for this is because if a person is virtuous, which Aristotle says results in happiness, that person would realize the disparity in the world and would be bothered by it. Aristotle lists justice as a virtue, so a just person would be pained by injustice in the world. How, then, is the pain felt as a result of virtue transformed into happiness? Is the righteous person supposed to care just enough to be virtuous, but not so much that their happiness is unaffected? Aristotle suggests that happiness is not an emotion. Logic, though, insists that the emotions must be at peace in order for happiness to occur. Perhaps Aristotle believes that by being virtuous people will be ‘doing their part’ for the poor, friendless, less fortunate, etc. After doing this, perhaps their compassion is reconciled.

Furthermore, the weight of the entire world is not our burden to bear. Without God, virtue demands that the virtuous person behave like God, because there are serious problems in the world that need to be fixed. This is an impossible task that will only lead to discouragement. For this reason, God is necessary for happiness. However, for the Christian happiness is probably not the main goal in life. Though in selfishness, it may be pursued occasionally. Happiness tends to be the side effect of pursuing God wholeheartedly. Which Aristotle would describe as virtue, but let us now return to my original point. God does not intend for humans to worry about the entire world’s welfare. That may sound harsh, but hear me out. He calls us to compassion and caring for the downtrodden, as stated in Exodus and elsewhere throughout the Bible. This probably does not mean we moan and groan about how awful the world is and live in despair. God calls us to live joyfully, and Jesus says to let tomorrow’s problems stay in tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). Recall that the entirety of the world is God’s responsibility, because only he is big enough to understand the thing in its entirety. This does not imply that Christians should disregard other people’s problems, but to be compassionate, help where we are able, but not to worry excessively and fall into despair.

With all of this talk of happiness, virtue, and compassion, there is a trap. God calls people to action, and they ought to act. Wholeheartedly, if possible. Aristotle is very blunt about people that are all talk: they are very foolish. Talking about goodness and happiness does not therefore make a person good or happy. George MacDonald wrote something similar in an unspoken sermon on justice. He says, “Oh the folly of any mind that would explain God before obeying Him! That would map out the character of God instead of crying, Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?” (Lewis 104). Most of the time, people know what right and wrong actions are. This may be why Aristotle spends little time explicitly defining the virtues, and why MacDonald disapproves of theorizing instead of doing. It is important to actually live virtuously, and have compassion in deed and not simply in word.

MacDonald quote pulled from George MacDonald, a collection of his quotations compiled by C.S. Lewis.

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian.