Where to Go From Here?

http://anglicanrose.wordpress.com/about/

And this from "somewhere else"....

O God of Kirk and Clan
provide now in our want
Holy Worship in this land
And children for your font
Our sacraments are ashes
Our families are torn
And Christendom now crashes
In the justice of thy scorn

From all that ‘clever’ teaches,
From all the ‘truth’ so close,
Wrapped all in shallow speeches
That excite the shallow hosts,
From trust in the Molech god,
of circus, bread and sword,
who rules us with an iron rod,
Deliver us, Oh Lord

Breathe a Reformation
On Kirk, and King, and Clan
Awaken now a nation
One weapon in your hand
A single sword, all for thee
Your purpose as our end
Aglow with zeal, and free,
Your Kingdom to extend."

As a thought meditation, imagine that the "traditional world" that the Evangelicals are in the process of rapidly rejecting or "transcending" (Love, not doubt, is divine...), was really what it purported to be. Imagine a world in which the State is not hostile to religion, but is rather an extension of it. Imagine a world in which your kids can play in the neighborhood, or where you can venture down your street after dark. Imagine an economy in which Christianity (rather than money) is the lifeblood, and where virtue is rewarded, rather than punished. Imagine a world in which family, church & local community are the focal points, rather than something we need to "get away from".

Now, ask yourself, why can't we have this world? Is it written in the stars that magisterial Protestantism, ethical States, and peaceful ethnicities are doomed in the face of a gigantic global quant-State which promises a utopia with no pain, and delivers more & more of the exact opposite, all the while touting that more of the same will prove the cure? Is Christ's kingdom really only "spiritual"? Ask any "conservative" today, and you will find that they are either indifferent (they are economically conservative) or else they believe that a continued slow-martyrdom for Protestant polities and peoples (read, Anglos) is the price we must pay to experience the "sweetness" of Christ spiritually.

It is one thing to believe that we can all live in the 1950s and pretend that that is "real Christianity". It is quite another to believe that Christ's kingdom is so invisible and spiritual that we will need electron microscopes to see it in the near future. And it is still another (and the contention of a growing body of Christians) to believe that nature and super-nature are meant to operate in tandem, that in fact Christ does have a visible kingdom. This visible kingdom is not the kingdom-Babel-kaleidoscope shown by Satan to Christ in the desert, but is rather the kingdom of antique Europe, the kingdom where a cathedral is a beautiful, sacred place, where neighborhoods are safe & friendly, and where those who believe in culturated Christianity (incarnated Christ) can find sanctuary.

Man, without this, and specifically and more so European man, is utterly homeless. Our bodies are temples, and so are the bodies of our kith and kin (who are often both physical and spiritual parents). In this world, unless we are hermits (which is what the Evangelicals are calling us to be - rootless, wandering, secularized hermits), there is no other home than our own bodies and the bodies of our family, and the habitations which we make and sanctify.

If we wish to end psychological alienation, rootlessness & mental instability (not to mention spiritual problems, which build on these), we will hasten to rebuild (not Christian ghettoes) but Christian polities and nations and clans which will provide a "shelter" from the cold winds blowing over the modern world. The fear which is palpable now, hovering like a death shroud over the planet, will not be dispelled until we reclaim the haunts and firesides and hearths of our ancient homelands, which lives still in the law of the deeds of the dead.

Until Europe breaths again, in the resurrection...
We live still in the law by which we were born....
And so do those ancient hosts, which surround us.

Hatred for Europe

What is it about Europe (or Europeans) that excites such hatred?

Here is Anthony Bradley, a Reformed, African-American theologian (associated with King's College):

"Reformed Christianity remains as safe haven for racists because few Reformed Christians have the fortitude to challenge racism in their churches and denominations it seems. If you are Reformed and racist you can just about guarantee that most Calvinist churches in America won't even address the issue so you get off pretty easy. Oh well....."

"Racism" by the way is a term coined by Trotsky.

When poster Ryan tells him to relax, that these Kinist bloggers aren't representative, Bradley goes postal and verbally assaults his would-be comforter:

"Ryan, I'm completely ignoring your comments because you obviously must be new. This has been going on "repeatedly and consistently" for 6 years (including harassing phone calls to my employers attempting to get me fired and calls to one of my schools, while I was a student, attempting to get me kicked out of grad school). You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and your ignorance of this 6 year context renders your comments vapor..."

I'm sure Christ would have replied in the same manner, and I'm also sure that Ryan now understands that one must not only prove one's anti-racism, but prove it in a worthy manner.

This man is being feted (not "fetid") by Joel Belz and other big name Reformed priests. One of the posters I even went to school with! I need to call him...If you can stand to read the entire white-hating, racist, pity-fest for Anthony Bradley (if things are this bad, why stay?), help yourself. The impression I get is that blacks (and other non-Anglos of color) desperately want to belong, but to keep their color too. The only way that this can happen (obviously) is race-mixing. It never seems to occur to them that the price of this might be anything more than removing the splinter from their brother's eye, that white people are giving up anything but "racism". It is not that what they say has no merit at all (Satan has some good points at times too, however, so I am not sure where this gets them). It is that it is centered upon themselves, and in an utterly mundane way that they exalt to the heavens. They have no transcendent cultural identity, and they wish us to have none as well. That is the price (for us) of slavery (with which we had nothing to do). I think this has more to do with indiscriminate racial mixing in a late-capitalist, secular Empire. The answer to the problem is not more of the same. People need a chance to regroup. But Progress calls us forward! Racism is the last enemy to be conquered!

This from the Orthodox:

"Our hopes were soon to be dashed on the hard rocks of European cultural parochialism. In response to my presidential remarks, a friend of mine, a Norwegian Lutheran bishop, asked me, ‘in what sense does the Chairman find the revelation in Jesus Christ so insufficient that he has to go the non-Christians to learn the truth?”

I was offended, but being in the chair, could not retort in my usual rude manner. so I responded, ‘In this sense that the Chairman is not as fortunate as his friend the bishop from Norway, who seems to have so mastered the revelation in Jesus Christ, that he is so totally self-satisfied and does not feel any need to learn from others.’ I doubt that the barb got through. But my non-Christian friends saw for themselves the shameful narrow mindedness of European Christianity. They were hurt. But kept their cool and continued to be polite."
Source

Hatred of Europe is reaching it's peak. There is no doubt that Europe had many faults. Most of the criticism leveled against "her" is true. There is one truth, however, that those who speak against her would have you not notice, and that is this: that their attacks against Europe usually depend upon Europe's forbearance, patience, & grace for their hearing. That is, no one asks why the Hindus burned their women on funeral pyres before the English came, or why Muslim nations routinely slaughter minority religious elements on their borders, or why Orthodox Greece needs Protestant Germany to bail it out of bankruptcy. No, there are no questions for those in the accuser's box. Rather, the only question is aimed, rhetorically, at those in Europe who still stand for cultural & ethnic norms. Are traditional European churches welcome in Greece or Russia? No. Are white people recruited to fill up immigration quotas in India? No. What matters is that white people cannot have any prejudice. This is the only "burning issue" of the time. They must not be allowed to allow themselves the same luxury which they must allow to everyone else. And these questions are put to them in a whining, passive-aggressive manner, exemplified everywhere but paragonized in America. I can assure the Third World that the bankers and white elite that are ruining their countries are not the ones who wish to keep their own color and culture. And vice versa. Those who stand for older Anglo ways are not the ones who are raping the newest failed economies or states of the global fiefdom. The "We" in America are reduced to Second World status, on our way down to Third. The plains folk of America are not the ones who wish global empire, nor do they benefit from it, but they are the ones who serve on the front lines in the midst of violence.

Give me the Gottingen Goose Girl, and I'll take my chances from there. And to Hades with the New World Order, and anything that goes with it. Millinerd links a PD James quote:

"In A Taste for Death, the novelist P.D. James placed the following words on the lips of a secular woman trying to make sense of religion. To do so, the character reaches back to her college years:

Annecroft Comprehensive certainly had a religion all right, fashionable and, in a school with twenty different nationalities, expedient. It was anti-racism. You soon learned you could get a way with any amount of insubordination, indolence or stupidity if you were sound on this essential doctrine. It struck her that it was like any other religion: it meant what you wanted it to mean; it was easy to learn, a few platitudes, myths and slogans; it was intolerant, it gave you the excuse for occasional selective aggression, and you could make a moral virtue out of despising the people you disliked. Best of all, it cost nothing... If you had to have a school ethos to give the illusion of togetherness, then for her money anti-racism was as good as any. And whatever she might think about its more absurd manifestations, it wasn't likely to lead you to see visions in a dusty church."


Thanks to Trotsky, and modern Gnostics who believe that spirit to be spirit must unchain itself from flesh (except for exotic southern dancing), now you too can get a taste of what the new world religion will offer, and how it will mask its call for absolute genetic equality with a self-righteous slinging of its own mud in the term "racist". Maybe Bradley can write his next book defining for us exactly what racism is.

As so often, someone else says it much better than I could possibly. Here is Quodlibeta:

"This is pretty speculative on her part, but leaving that aside, translation from one system to another can only be done if both are coherent. If one of them is not, then translation would be impossible, there being either nothing to translate from or nothing to translate to. Since the eliminativist's claim is that the old system is entirely corrupt, to talk about translating it into another superior system is simply incoherent."



This is what I call a coup de force de main de grace. Or, one shot/one kill. Or, flawless victory. The religion of Progress cannot possibly work in that it operates on this basic irrationality. Or rather, it cannot possibly work well, or for long, or in a truly rational mode. For what it claims is not to be a fulfillment, or perfection, of what has gone before, but an entire transcending. But, for that transcending, it must borrow the geneaology of morals from the "older narrative(s)". Every uber-mensch, from Nietzsche to Rawls to Zizek, falls afoul of this cursed necessity: they cannot dispense with the older categories, until they have "made their argument". This is to strap themselves to the ships anchor in a hurricane, and expect to float.

No Church?

Posted at OneCosmosBlogspot:
(Quoting von Ur von Balthasar)
"God's purpose after all was not merely to redeem the Church, but to save the world; the grace he has bestowed upon the world in Jesus Christ must of necessity flood over the boundaries of the visible Church, even though the Church continues to be seen as a kind of focal point of grace....

"For centuries now, theology has spoken of a 'baptism by desire,' that is, a baptism received by those who according to their limited insights have resolutely involved themselves in the kind of activity that contributes most to the welfare of their fellow men and of the world as a whole. These men are received and sustained by God's grace and are made invisible members of the visible Church....

"God's grace is bestowed in every part of the world because the 'whole Christ' fills the world with his presence.... [A]ll men who struggle for the salvation and advancement of the human race in the spirit of self-sacrificing activity are united together in a living, quasi-religious union."

St. Kildan

Musical interlude. Also, this. And this.

Sacrifice

Modern people, by definition, are those who can be killed or slaughtered by the State, but must not be sacrificed.

http://www.dunedain.net/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=648

The sacral dimension is gone. In ancient times, a citizen could be slaughtered OR sacrificed. During the Christian epoch, an individual could be sacrificed, but could not be slaughtered (at least, not by ethos, and not with impunity): the Shire and the reeves of the Shire would rise against the King himself, if he slaughtered innocents or prohibited beer. The modern state is moving back towards doing both, but allowing sacrifice as a kind of hidden black magic. This is undoubtedly behind a great many unexplicable events (on political terms). Hitler, of course, did both.

The ideal of Christianity was a world in which neither would happen:

From the Celtic Sacramentary:

The Litany of the Holy Apostles and Martyrs and of the Virgins begins.

O God, make speed to save us.

We have sinned, O Lord, we have sinned, spare our sins, and save us; thou who guidedst Noah over the flood waves, hear us; who with thy word recalledst Jonah from the abyss; deliver us; who stretchedst forth thy hand to Peter as he sank, help us, O Christ.

Son of God, thou didst the marvellous things of the Lord with our fathers, be favourable in our days.

I implore thee, most high God of Sabaoth, Holy Father, that thou wouldest deign to gird me with the tunic of love, and to encompass my loins with the belt of thy love, and to burn up the reins of my heart with the fire of thy love, so that I may be able to intercede for my sins and to cam pardon for the sins of the people here present, and to sacrifice a peace offering for each one; Me also, when with boldness I fall before thee, let not thou perish, but vouchsafe to wash, to adorn, and to raise up gently; Through our Lord.

The Lorra Stowe Missal

So does the way forward lie backwards? Yes, in a sense, for we must recover the sanctity of the individual in both senses, rather than reacting against the imperfect realization of Christ in the traditional world. In addition, once the individual is recovered, and in order to do so, we must recover the sense of the sacred in society.