Out of Revolution: 1. Post-War Preface

eugen_rosenstock-huessyI began reading Out of Revolution without much awareness of its context or why Eugen Rosenstock-Hussey (after, ERH) was motivated to write it. As I realized ERH is writing soon after his leaving Nazi Germany for America, and is looking at a post-war world from the perspective of his own time, but a pre-war time from the perspective of hindsight, knowing that world conflagrations was around the corner for him, provide a sense of foreboding as well as sympathy. And it means I have to be careful when I read him say, in chapter 2, that the time of national war is over. He is specifying that no one nation will go to war with another nation. And in fact, that is the case.

Chapter one begins as I cited in my earlier post “Our passions give life to the world, our collective passions constitute the history of mankind.” That is to say, for a collective action like war or co-operation, a particular human passion must be highlighted that there is unanimity and coherence to human action. We won’t get together unless there is a collective passion impelling us. ERH goes on to say that the differing passions stimulated in different societies produce different kinds of people.

ERH says you might think that every kind of passion and belief is being tried and abandoned, if we look at history in the near and far. But his book will actually make a different claim, that the next passion of a society is a logical outflow of the passion that is waning or loosing its hold. ERH is very aphoristic in this chapter, and loves analogies to love and marriage

“The heart of man either falls in love with somebody or something, or it falls ill”

“When and were we love or fear, we are willing to pay”

ERH explains that the idea of the book  comes out of his (and others) experiences of the trenches of WWI. The experience is his motivation for founding a new future for Europe, and to “provide a new history for mankind.” The Great War, for ERH can’t just be fit into the history of man’s wars, as a sequel to the Napoleonic Wars. Instead, it changes how we understand that past history because a new future comes from it. “A new love, a new home, a new conviction” changes our regard for our past.

ERH allows that persons might quibble with some aspects of this revision of the past, but its impossible to truly find a stance from which the World War is not a new epoch. All contemporaries will agree with his stance: all who do not, reveal themselves to not even be contemporaries. ERH admits that ‘to the people at home’ the war could be a different thing than to the soldiers, but

…all these niceties of a spectacular world history have lost their meaning since the solidarity of twenty million men has nailed all the surviving soldiers to the same cross of reality. The world’s history is our own history

ERH comes then, to the subtitle of Out of Revolution: “An Autobiography of Western Man”. In reading the current moment as a central date that changes the past, he says we will center equally on the future, the present and the past (and ERH will set WWI in the context of the last 1000 years of European history. As a side note, the methodology seems reminiscent of what is called ‘whiggish history’ where ever-greater freedom naturally arises. I think ERH instead sees constant revolutions occurring that provide changes, but it may not be as if the goal is knowable)

In a typical ERH move, he puts forth the idea of a calendar and holiday as reflecting the epochal changes of a society. Marking a new holiday is a political act, always, and ERH will pay attention is his history to such holidays both secular and churchly. Rather than retreat into abstract ideas or statistics, ERH will focus on events that have marked “more than one generation,” and in the quote below, expounds on why:

Guy Fawke’s Day, the Wedding of Figaro, a holiday like All Souls’, and the sun-song of St. Francis are better illustrations of history than our reasoning. I have tried as much as I could to let them speak for themselves. Every human being is endowed with the wonderful gift of speech. He can express his own secret better than anybody else. We rarely reveal our true selves in the market place of life. Words often seem to be made to hide our thoughts. But the more we try to avoid emphasis or even truth in our speech, the more the few moments stand out in which language has the full weight of self-expression. A bride speaking her decisive “Yes” or “No” before the altar uses speech in its old sense of revelation, because her answer establishes a new identity between two separate offsprings of the race and may found a new race, a new nation. We are so dull that we rarely realize how much history lies hidden in marriage, and how the one word spoken by the bride makes all the difference between cattle-raising and a nation’s good breeding.

(I include this extended section because it exemplifies ERH’s writings and interests in speech and its relation to new beginnings for history, as the coming together through fruitful marriage)

ERH spends the rest of the preface laying out two sections of his work. He distinguishes the American revolution from the French and Russian, German and English secular revolutions made by the ‘temporal power’ He is going to cover 900 years of history as “a very short story” of “not more than twenty-seven generations”

He invites the reader to collaborate, to add what he knows of French or Italian history to “round out our draft”. He says he is slow of thought, with only one big idea, and and his slowness means that the last 20 years of time have brought changes faster than he can manage. He is aware of this crime in pointing back at the war, but he will ‘boast of his sins” nonetheless.

A last quote

My predecessors in the field of political thought have poured the strong wine of progress into the water of human traditions, lest their generation miss its opportunities. I wish to pour the water of patience into the strong wine of revolutionary excitement, so that my contemporaries may not waste their time in feverish and fruitless efforts.

 

 

Posted in Revolution, Rosenstock-Hussey | Leave a comment

Blogging Out of Revolution

“Our passions give life to the world, our collective passions constitute the history of mankind”

out_of_revolutionThe quote above begins Eugen Rosenstock-Hussey’s mammoth “Autobiography of western man” Out of Revolution. I’ve had it sitting on my shelf for about 10 years since my interest in Rosenstock-Hussey (hereafter, ERH) was piqued and I picked up a number of books. I’ve read his shorter works, “Speech and Reality” and (another one whose name escapes me). What I believed about the book, Out of Revolution, coming to it cold was that this was a book where ERH gave a historical overview of revolutionary periods of western history, including the French and Russian, coming at them as someone who doesn’t think the idea of “revolutions as such” were all necessarily bad. Since ERH was a professing Christian, and my understanding of him was mediated though conservative appreciation,  I wondered how he would possibly square that circle.

Since we now live in “interesting times” politically, I was moved to get this nearly 800 page monstrosity down from my shelf and take it and read. Were I reading it on Kindle, I’d highlight and share, and my impure thoughts and mental experiences would be transmitted—and stored—lest I die. Since starting I realize if i’m going to share this socially, I need to blog. I like blogging. As my friend Alastair has discovered, long form writing and slower thinking is an important discipline against some of the hazards of more immediate social media.

I hope to so at least one summary of each chapter, supplemented with quotations from ERH, hopefully one chapter each week. ERH writes in a very readable style, and has a tendency to generate aphoristic and quotable sections with great frequency.

Who was Eugen Rosenstock-Hussey? A Jewish convert to Christianity, who fled Nazi Germany in 1933 to come to America. He was an academic professor at Harvard and Dartmouth. A man with great interest in speech, speakers, and the spoken-to, and how these categories are crucial to understanding society and the problems of society. He was friend and correspondent of Jewish theologian and philosopher Franz Rosenzweig. He gave FDR the basic idea for the Peace Corps. By opening the book I learned he served in the First World War as an officer, stationed for 18 months at Verdun. (wikipedia tells me “During this period he organized courses for the troops, replacing the limited instruction in patriotism with broader topics.” I am not really surprised)

Out of Revolution first three chapters form a general preface to the main body of the work. Here he lays out a general preface of how WWI has changed Europe, and warfare in Europe in a way that has made old war obsolete, and he describes the stakes that the world is dealing with with these changes.

The meat of the book is divided into two major parts. The first covers the history and social philosophy behind the Russian and French Revolutions, as well as revolution in England and Germany. Part II is titled “From the Roman Empire to America: The Clerical Revolutions”. Lastly is an epilogue.

 

Posted in Revolution, Rosenstock-Hussey | 1 Comment

Response to Mika Edmondson

Mika Edmondson writes a well written and moving post on Black Lives Matter for TGC. Below is a response I sent to the comments.

Thank you for this. As a Presbyterian, I take to heart your exhortations from the Catechism, and agree with them. And arguing that way is sadly something that there is less of in Presbyterianism than there ought to be.

On the other hand, I can’t escape what my own ‘careful study’ brings me to. And people may arrive at different conclusions after careful study, or the results may still be disputable. I recall an argument in my OPC Sunday School over whether motorcycle driving violated the 6th commandment. Clearly they are riskier than cars. The owners of motorcycles in our congregation seemed disturbed that this was even a debate. Clearly matters of criminal and civil justice are more weighty though.

My ‘knee jerk” reaction, if I can even call it that, to my awareness of the news of Trayvon Martin’s killing were actually towards solidarity, and that this perhaps would be good evidence that a seemingly well intentioned law like Stand Your Ground was actually causing mayhem. To imagine a man killed for carrying skittles and tea, as it was framed heavily with activists for Martin displaying skittles and tea far and wide.

I stayed aware of the case, and followed discussions from both advocates for Martin and detractors. I wanted ‘solidarity’ with the oppressed to give me the right answer, as was implied by the advocates of solidarity. But I could not shake the turn, what was eventually found to be the case at the trial: that Zimmerman’s use of force was justified. Martin’s death remains tragic, and mournable, and mourned though. Is that wildly inconsistent? Have I not studied enough? Have I put aside my ‘passions’ sufficiently? Perhaps I have, particularly a passion for solidarity.

I have differing reactions to different cases: Rice and Garner are very sad and unjust cases. I want police to be held accountable. Brown? perhaps not.

I’m moved by your remarks about the risks you face going to Walmart at night. But I wonder how one might go about evaluating and deciding (what careful study) would be required to determine if your evaluation of your risk is accurate. My wife often perceives risks at a higher threshold that i do. Sometimes she’s right. sometimes she’s amazingly off-kilter. Her situation may have something to do with it: she knew a kid growing up who drowned. Her evaluation of hazards relating to water is shaped by her experiences, but even she would admit it doesn’t give her special insight into the actual level of risk she faces.

This is not to undermine or dismiss your point. I would guess your evaluation of risk is accurate. But careful study may lead to different conclusions. What then?

Posted in blacklivesmatter, race | Tagged | Leave a comment

POEM: Fungal Females

The mushrooms of Plath
Push out from the lath
Emerge from domestic walls
And trouble the mighty in halls
Of power

The fungi of Dickinson
Amuse and tickle some.
But the fairly odd plant
She describes in her chant
As a creature unloved and unwanted
By Nature — and nature’s God —
In whose presence she’s eerily haunted.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

POEM: Tomorrow’s Work Undone

I. Tomorrow’s Work Undone

Over Appalachian hills of devonian coal

     Spread glowing beams of dusklight,

A fading glow on the half-harvested valley,

     Westward light lingers.

Her fingers ache; her hands leave work

     incomplete

She returns home for the night.

 

Anna drifts in dreams to the sheep:

     rams, ewes, lambs long grown

past shearing days and rooing times;

     Dreams to a young son’s spring sadness

The town boys taking, cutting short

     his lamb’s life, rocks mocking

Stones of wanton wreckage.

     It was slain down by the old foundation

Behind the new school.

 

Awoken, alone, Anna rises in darkness,

     halts past her sleeping child’s room

And passes to the porch and outside under

     A black sky aglow with stars

Spread as bright seed in firm earth.

 

How long,

     How long this night?

Fast fallen now,

     or are these deeper middle hours,

     or will an unseen horizon

Promise dawn?

 

II. On a Day after Tomorrow.

 

We walk together through

Fruits strewn on the orchard floor,

Autumn flesh split open

     Revealing the seed reserved

     For days yet to come

But I see the tree with one

     Left aloft and pick it for Anna

     since it is for the present time.

 

Stand again

     Axe-felled trees

Lift up again,

     age-worn mountains laid low,

Sprout again,

     fruitful grains of frost-burned wheat

Rise again,

     you who lie in the dust of the death.

Rise, for your maker is risen again.

Posted in Poetry | Leave a comment

All over again

I’ve enjoyed Mark Jones work since I heard about his Antinomianism book. He’s now posting on Reformation21, and making the case for two things that re old bugaboo debates: the faith of Christ, the graciousness of the Adamic covenant, and confessional language.

I have some thoughts, mostly leftover questions from the last rounds of these debates that I feel never were competently addressed.

1. Adam, Moses, and Christ: I think a compelling case has been made that the confession portrays that mosaic covenant as part of the covenant of grace, one where legality is emphasized, but still part of grace. The presentation of an absolute contrast between Moses and Christ in some scriptures is a rhetorical highlighting of an actual relative contrast. Moses and Christ present the same way of salvation, even if Paul says the Jews of his day misunderstood it.

But Kline & Co have made a compelling comparison of Adam’s situation (placed in a garden, and loss of the garden and life though sin) and Israel’s under Moses (placed in a land, and loss of the land through sin). While deploying the term ‘typological’ to stay ‘confessional’ sometimes the similarity is made to seem substantial.

Can we acknowledge the analogy Kline has pointed to? If we do, does that change our understanding of the WCFs assertion that the Mosaic is the one covenant of grace? It has seemed to me the FV is an attempt to follow Kline in seeing the analogy, but also the WCF, and then saying the analogy means there is more strong analogy that disanalogy between the covenant of grace and “covenant of works/creation/initiation/immaturity”

2. Since nobody claims to like neonomianism, but neonomianism as I understand, arose withing the confessional church really quickly, and anti-neonomians were found by presbyteries to be unconfessional, is it possible the confessions contains irreconcilable conflicts that will not be resolvable by the confessions? Are there loopholes in the confession that a Shepherd could drive a flock of sheep through? Two suggested loopholes below.

a. Faith in Christ as Savior being a commanded duty under the first commandment. Thus, faith in Jesus is obedience to one of the commands of Moses. (though with the caveat that it is not the character of faith as a dutiful obedience that renders it useful in justification, but it’s extraspective character of dependence on Christ. Make the prior point though and “everyone looses their minds”

b. though some define ‘works covenants’ as any of those with specified consequences for obedience and disobedience, we find WCF 19 stating that working to keep the law (imperfectly) because the law promises rewards and threatens punishments sweetly complies with the gospel.

c. The well documented fact (at this point) that the confession was written to conform to the scruples of a few divines who favored the imputation of passive obedience only in justification.

3. The emphasis on Christ’s performance of the law as our substitute is true and good. But when we emphasize the equally true and good points of Christ as chief moral example (particularly in terms of humility, not glory-seeking) and Christ as exemplar of faith (depending on his Father to raise him from his obedience unto death, even when the law was cursing him for hanging on a tree, and made no promise of resurrection) is there a risk of undermining the latter?

3a. Lack of faith in God’s word was at the root of Adam’s disobedience and his curse of death. Faith in God’s word to raise Jesus from the dead was at the root of Jesus obedience unto death and his justifying resurrection. Faith in God’s word that Jesus life, death, and resurrection is for the sinner is justifying and at the root of our obedience. Is noting this is something all three have in common dangerous?

4. Is the crucial distinction of the Adamic covenant and the Covenant of grace not that Jesus is the surety of the covenant of grace, and Adam had none. Is that more crucial a bicovenantal distinction than the role of works? If that is affirmed can we still go wrong?

5. How should Adam’s status as ‘son of God’ color our understanding of his state? If he had a duty to obey God, is it a servile duty where any reward is counted as his due? Or is it a filial duty where any reward is subservient to the ongoing status of sonship? Why is the filial nature of Adam’s situation seemingly obscured by the works principle.

6. Claiming that Adam and believers stand by faith and obedience in the exact same way is disconcerting because Adam fell from his position, which threatens believers assurance. But since lack of faith was the root of Adam’s disobedience, is this actually a feature, not a bug, since we stand by faith in Christ as well? Also, since Adam had no surety but believers do, the analogy between them still stands mutatis mutandis (I love saying mutatis mutandis)

7. Why is it so hard to get people to consider analogies between Adam and believers and Christ and believers that are admitted to contain bicovenantal disanalogies. Why does anyone making any such analogy get accused on monocovenantalism?

8. If there were loopholes as I ask in 1) above, and we live post-Shepherd, is it necessary to clarify or revise the confession to rule out that which the reformed have virtually all taught, that there was grace in Adam’s situation? What would we loose with such a revision? How could it be accomplished?

9. Augustine expresses the place of a person dependent on grace thusly “give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt”. Was adam in such a place, or would he not need such a dependent expression of faith?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Revising my Peter and The Amils post

New version

“And Peter answered them “the sons of this period of broken history know churches are pure and less pure but those that are considered worthy to attain to the Future Reformed Catholic unity and the to the Resurrection of the church neither unchurch less pure churches or assume that unity is impossible for God. They fear not the end of the direct application of the protestant confessions anymore because they are Sons of God, being sons of the father of the risen Christ, and also daughters of heavenly Jerusalem, which comes down to us from above not merely and only at the end of history, but rather is a present reality that men may even now enter into it But that future unity is possible, even Ezekiel showed, in the passage about the two sticks of israel and judah being rejoined.””

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment