NOTE: It appears to me that people can not current post comments on blogger. Not sure why. Hopefully that will get fixed.
We lost a giant this week, in a week long blitz of great people passing.
Rest in peace, St Wendell. Join the beloved community, the membership of saints, along with Dolly, Tim and Gloria.
But do the Lords of War in fact hate the world?
That would be easy to bear, if so.
If they hated their children and
the flowers that grow in the warming light,
that would be easy to bear.
For then we could hate the haters and be right.
What is hard is to imagine the Lords of War may
love the things that they destroy.
As I have read the Gospels over the years,
the belief has grown in me that Christ did not come to found an organized religion
but came instead to found an unorganized one.
He seems to have come to carry religion out of the temples
into the fields and sheep pastures, onto the roadsides and the banks of the rivers,
into the houses of sinners and publicans,
into the town and the wilderness,
toward the membership of all that is here.
Well, you can read and see what you think.
As I have read the Gospels over the years,
the belief has grown in me that Christ did not come to found an organized religion
but came instead to found an unorganized one.
He seems to have come to carry religion out of the temples
into the fields and sheep pastures, onto the roadsides and the banks of the rivers,
into the houses of sinners and publicans,
into the town and the wilderness,
toward the membership of all that is here.
Well, you can read and see what you think.
Protest that endures, I think, is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success:
namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be
destroyed by acquiescence.
namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be
destroyed by acquiescence.
The only true and effective "operator's manual for spaceship earth"
is not a book that any human will ever write;
it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures.
is not a book that any human will ever write;
it is hundreds of thousands of local cultures.
Rats and roaches live by competition under the law of supply and demand;
it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.
It is impossible not to notice how little the proponents of
the ideal of competition have to say about honesty,
which is the fundamental economic virtue,
and how very little they have to say about
community, compassion, and mutual help.
it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.
It is impossible not to notice how little the proponents of
the ideal of competition have to say about honesty,
which is the fundamental economic virtue,
and how very little they have to say about
community, compassion, and mutual help.
And having returned from the woods,
we remember with regret its restfulness.
For all creatures there are in place, hence at rest.
In their most strenuous striving, sleeping and waking, dead and living,
they are at rest.
In the circle of the human we are weary with striving, and are without rest.
we remember with regret its restfulness.
For all creatures there are in place, hence at rest.
In their most strenuous striving, sleeping and waking, dead and living,
they are at rest.
In the circle of the human we are weary with striving, and are without rest.
A good community, in other words, is a good local economy.
36 comments:
Dear Brother Dan, I know that you strive to answer all questions about God as truthfully as you are able. So if you do not mind me posting this message here, may I ask you how you understand salvation? Is a man justified without good works, or does he have to contribute in some measure to it? Is grace alone sufficient, or does man cooperate with grace to be made right with God? Must we do good works to be delivered from our sins?
I believe in grace. Period.
I believe our salvation is in love and grace and welcome and forgiveness, beginning with the poor, the marginalized, the so-called "least of these."
Good works do not justify a person. When we start talking about good works and enumerating which good works might save us (or not), we're no longer living in grace. Are we?
For instance, I'm giving the grace of an answer to a complete stranger (or maybe not even a person but a bot)..., a reasonable and sincere answer to a question posted by them anonymously. Grace. This answer costs me nothing and it gives me a chance to answer a fair question.
Why? What do you think? And if you want to continue the conversation, please do me the courtesy of giving me your name.
Dan
We are saved by God’s love. John 3:16.
We choose to enter into that love by loving God back. 1 John 4:19
Living in this loving relationship, where intimacy with God is experienced in real time, graces us with the capacity to will to participate with God in the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:4
Such mutuality that we “add to our faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.” 2 Peter 1:5-7
By this agency of our communion within the communion of the Holy Trinity, the whole cosmos is saved. Romans 8:21
___
Faith vs/and Works is a regressive 17th century dead letter. Way beneath divine and human nature. Faith works by its nature. Work is faithfulness by its hope.
No one stands who doesn’t walk. Anyone walking is standing in motion.
God is not static being. God has not been nor will be. God is being. Eternally acting. Believing in God is not static: it is entering into eternal being. Believing is already an act of entering, already working.
Dan, you dodged the actual soteriology question so hard you left skid marks. I asked you a clear, doctrinal question about justification, not for a sentimental monologue about grace, not for a social justice detour, and definitely not for a self congratulatory pat on the back about how noble you are for replying to me. I asked how salvation works. You responded with a mood.
Saying “I believe in grace. Period.” is not a theological position, Dan. It is a bumper sticker. It does not answer whether justification is monergistic or synergistic, whether works are necessary in any sense, whether grace operates alone or cooperatively, or whether sanctification is instrumental or evidential. It is just your usual trick. Avoid the hard categories and retreat into vague, feel good abstractions.
Your claim that discussing good works means we are no longer living in grace is just another escape hatch. It is a way to dodge the question without admitting you are dodging it. Convenient, but transparent.
You did not give a soteriology. You gave a fog machine.
And the little flourish about how your reply itself was an act of grace. Dan, that is not theology. That is you polishing your own halo. The question was not “Dan, please describe how gracious you feel today.” It was “Dan, what is your doctrine of salvation?” You did not even come close to answering it.
If you actually have a position, state it plainly. If you do not, just say so. But do not pretend that a soft, content free ramble about kindness is a response to a precise theological question. It is not. It is evasion dressed up as piety.
Doctrine: A doctrine is a formal set of teachings, principles, or beliefs that are adopted and taught by a group, organization, or field of study.
Perhaps the problem is the term "doctrine." My "doctrine of salvation," so far as it goes, is Grace. Love. That's it. You see I'm more of the Wendell Berry type of Christian who affirms that we don't think Jesus came to create an organized religion but an unorganized one.
As someone who loves the Bible and the teachings therein, and specifically the teachings of Jesus, I don't think he gave us a set of doctrines. To the degree that he did give us a doctrine, it is this: love. Grace. It is in love and grace that we have our salvation. That is my answer, whether you like it or not. Fair enough?
Thanks for providing your name. Is it safe to assume you're a real person and not a bot of some sort?
Dan
Doug...
"Saying “I believe in grace. Period.” is not a theological position, Dan."
Theology: Theology is the systematic study of God, religion, and divine things.
What if the sum total conclusion of my systemic study of God, conducted over the last 50 years of my studying life, IS precisely and specifically Grace, Love? How is that NOT a theological position?
Can you concede the reality that many of us HAVE simplified our beliefs down to Love, Grace?
Thanks for your opinions.
Dan
The living God is the living God. Not a doctrine. Such small, blasphemous thinking. We are justified by the grace of the living God. Not a doctrine.
Doug...
"You dodged the soteriological [study of salvation] question..."
And, lest I miss one of your religious-y words...
Again, what if my entire theory of salvation IS Grace? Or, to spell it out further, what if I believe that in living into ways and acceptance/embrace of love, grace, forgiveness, welcome and justice, THAT is where we find God, wholeness, salvation?
Is it unacceptable to have simpler, less organized theories of religion than others might?
Did Jesus teach that? (No.)
Does grace or salvation demand it?
I had 30+ years of systemic theology. I am unimpressed. But you're welcome to it, if you want.
Dan
Indeed.
Dan
I kept saying Doug, instead of Tom! Sorry!
Dan
Marshal, this is a post honoring the sainted Wendell Berry, his writings and ideals. Do you have anything on topic to say?
I allowed "Tom" a slight pass because I was/am giving him some benefit of doubt. More later.
Dan, the issue is not that your answer is simple. The issue is that it does not actually answer anything. You keep repeating “Grace. Love.” as if saying two pleasant words magically resolves a doctrinal question. It does not. It only tells me you prefer soft language over clear thinking.
You were asked how salvation works. Not how you feel about kindness. Not how much you enjoy Wendell Berry. Not whether you think organized religion is tacky. The question was about justification, cooperation, works, and the mechanics of salvation. You did not touch any of that. You just kept chanting “Grace” like it was a spell.
You insist that your entire theology after fifty years of study is “Grace, Love.” If that is really the sum total of your system, then your system is not a theology. It is a slogan. A theological position requires you to explain what grace does, how it saves, what it changes, what it requires, and how it relates to human action. You have not done any of that. You have only repeated the same two words and acted like repetition creates depth.
You say Jesus did not teach doctrines. That is simply incorrect. Jesus taught about repentance, judgment, obedience, righteousness, forgiveness, and the nature of the kingdom. Those are doctrines. Pretending Jesus was anti‑doctrinal is just a convenient way to avoid being pinned down.
Your claim that talking about good works means we are “no longer living in grace” is not profound. It is just a way to avoid answering the question. You do not want to say whether works matter, so you declare the entire category off limits. That is not simplicity. That is evasion.
You also keep congratulating yourself for answering anonymously, as if your reply itself is some heroic act of grace. It is not. It is a paragraph. And it did not answer the question.
Your final move is to redefine salvation as “living into love, grace, forgiveness, welcome and justice.” That is not a doctrine of salvation. That is a description of your preferred moral posture. It does not explain justification, regeneration, sanctification, or the relationship between divine action and human response. It is just another way of avoiding the categories you do not want to engage.
So no, Dan. The problem is not that your view is simple. The problem is that it is vague. You did not simplify the doctrine. You sidestepped it. You replaced a theological question with a mood and then acted surprised when someone noticed.
Who knew the Incarnation of God needed a curriculum?
Repentance: pluck out your eye lest you sin.
Judgement: judge not lest you be judged
Obedience: the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath
Righteousness: if you have faith the size of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you
Forgiveness: 70 X 7
The nature of the kingdom: The windblows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
___
These bible idolators insist on containing the Triune God on paper with ink. They want control of doctrine so they don’t have to change themselves in the presence of God. But, then, they reject the surface that is in them.
Prone to inhuman brutality via “christian” bureaucratic rules. They are empty of spirituality. They’re sick in the head.
Yes, Feodor. It would seem that some miss the point.
Let me briefly recap:
1. An anonymous stranger unknown to me comes here with (frankly, a rather smarmy and suspicious greeting -
Dear Brother Dan, I know that you strive to answer all questions about God as truthfully as you are able.
The sort of thing that raises "Eddie Haskell" (ask your mother if you're too young) red flags right away.
2. Additionally, he came asking questions off the topic of the post, at least not directly tied to the post. Another red flag.
3. Nonetheless, I gave this stranger the benefit of the doubt and gave a direct and honest answer to his question.
He asked:
A. I ask you how you understand salvation?
B. Is a man justified without good works, or does he have to contribute in some measure to it?
C. Is grace alone sufficient, or does man cooperate with grace to be made right with God?
D. Must we do good works to be delivered from our sins?
I answered these questions directly and honestly and quite clearly.
A. I understand salvation as being saved by God's grace, due to God's love. We are saved and being saved by God's grace. THAT is literally how I understand salvation.
B. No.
C. Grace alone is sufficient. Period.
D. No, it is not by good works that we are saved. It is by Grace.
Those are my direct and clear answers to those questions, and I answered them directly and respectfully, again, giving this stranger the benefit of the doubt that he was sincere. I didn't even point out the sexist "what must a MAN do to be saved" sort of language. I just answered the questions directly and clearly.
More...
4. I then, respectfully and graciously (even though it's off topic to the post) the reasonable questions:
Why? What do you think?
And I asked him to please use his name if he's going to comment here.
5. "Tom" (IF that's his actual name and IF he is a "he" and not a bot - I of course, do not know who he is.) responded by giving his name (or A name, at least) and then choosing to NOT answer my reasonable questions. Instead "Tom" said (leaving behind all the flowery smug-sounding "brother dan" pretense):
6. you dodged the actual soteriology question so hard you left skid marks. I asked you a clear, doctrinal question about justification
No, Tom, I didn't. I answered it directly. You asked "How do you understand salvation?"
My DIRECT answer to that is that I think Salvation comes by grace. You didn't ask me to use $10 religiousy words and precepts to talk about salvation. I don't believe in religious doctrines, by and large or, at the very least, I don't find most of them very helpful or rational or biblical or Godly or Grace-full. I gave a direct answer to the question you asked.
Do you see that now?
IF it's the case you wanted me to answer it in a specific way, you could have politely came back and said, "Yeah, I get that much, that you think salvation comes by grace, but I'm looking for something more, I don't know, religious-y sounding or doctrinal..." and asked for whatever it is you want me to ADD TO the notion of salvation by Grace. Period. You could have asked me about various doctrinal theories or human traditions or stuff one might learn in catechism class or at a B-grade seminary. But you didn't. You didn't answer the questions I respectfully and reasonably asked and instead, you came back with, ironically, a rather graceless attack on my actual answers to the actual questions you asked (off the topic of the post.)
Do you see the problem your graceless, rude and crude approach is causing you? (And to be clear: It's not causing ME any problems. I like thinking through a wide variety of questions and giving my opinions and answers in response, even if it wasn't a good-faith question.)
Now, I do not hold this against you. Feel free to try again. Ask me about some specific Calvinist or Armenian or Catholic doctrine that you're actually wanting me to address, if you want. Or whatever it is you WANT me to answer. But do so after you answer my question to you (the very question you asked me).
But perhaps, maybe, by now, you're seeing that I don't have much use for human "theologies" and a wide range of theories about virgin maries or dancing angels or even human blood sacrifice to "pay" for "sins" to "atone" and "appease" an everlasting angry and eternally graceless "god." I find many of those theories a waste of time, at best, and blasphemous and an assault on morality and common sense and the teachings of Jesus, at worst.
Just understand that just because I didn't answer a question the way you WISHED I would answer or dealt with theories and conspiracies you had hoped I would bring up (or whatever!), doesn't mean I didn't answer the question. I did. Directly and honestly.
I'm dealing with "tom's" comments even though they're off topic to a post on Wendell Berry and his passing precisely because I DO ultimately think they are a good testimony to Berry's notion (and mine) of an "Unorganized Religion" as opposed to an organized one. I think it would appeal to Berry's sense of Grace and the Beloved Membership of a given place and people.
If you haven't read Berry, starting with a search term of "Wendell Berry on the Membership" in the googles.
So, with that said, dealing with more of the off topic comments (which frankly, don't bother me too much as long as it leads to a reasoned, good faith conversation that is also interesting):
You were asked how salvation works. Not how you feel about kindness.
Once again, I was NOT asked "how salvation works." I was asked, and I quote:
may I ask you how you understand salvation?
My answer to THAT question is that I understand salvation as coming from Grace. Grace and Love.
Now, here's a question for "Tom" if he's an actual person wanting an actual good faith conversation:
DO you now understand that this is literally my answer to that question... that this is actually what I believe?
Do you disagree with my understanding? Do you think that salvation does NOT "come from Grace. Grace and Love."?
"Tom..."
You insist that your entire theology after fifty years of study is “Grace, Love.” If that is really the sum total of your system, then your system is not a theology. It is a slogan. A theological position requires you to explain what grace does, how it saves, what it changes, what it requires, and how it relates to human action.
Theology: the systematic study of God, religion, and divine things
The systematic study of GOD. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about Theology (literally, "the study of God"). I'm much less interested in religion. I had enough of that in the first ~40 years of my life.
And yes, I've studied God (continue to study God) for ~50 years and my grand conclusion would fit on a bumper sticker. That IS my theology. I'm fine with that assessment. I mean, I can offer a lot more, but in a blog post with an off-topic question from an anonymous stranger, I am quite satisfied with a bumper sticker response. Again, if you want MORE of an answer, ask more of a question.
But to the rest of your personal "requirements" that you personally "require" a theology:
"A theological position
requires
you to explain
what grace does,
how it saves,
what it changes,
what it requires, and
how it relates to human action"
I would say that, first of all, I reject your personal requirements you personally would require of a theology and "theological positions." Is that okay with you? It's going to have to be.
But beyond that, I am interested, for now, in addressing your points.
More...
"Tom:"
explain
what grace does,
how it saves,
what it changes,
what it requires, and
how it relates to human action"
i. What does grace "do..."? Well, I would say that grace expresses love. Do you disagree?
The Greek word for grace is charis. Its basic idea is simply
“non-meritorious or unearned favor, an unearned gift, a favor or blessings"
Thus, in the best sense of the word, I would Grace DOES express favor, even to one who might be considered unworthy. It is an unearned gift or favor.
In our lives, grace is making room for a swerving car to move in front of you to get to exit off the highway... and maybe even following them down the road to make sure they're okay.
Grace is reaching out to your sibling who has cut you off because of your politics and inviting them over for dinner.
Grace is just rather obvious kindness and love expressed in our lives and actions and attitudes. That is what grace "does" for us and for those around us.
Do you disagree?
ii. You also asked, "How does it save..."
Now, before I continue, you should know about me that I don't believe in a Dantean "hell" and I'm an agnostic about heaven. Ultimately, I DO believe in an afterlife of some sort in the presence of grace and God, but I (nor anyone) can prove even ONE single thing about it and it's beyond any positive "knowing..."
SO, if you're asking about being "saved" from hell, well, I believe the modern, more Dantean notion of hell is not rational, moral or biblical.
If you're asking about being "saved" to "heaven," I have no objective data to address on that point. I believe in a glorious loving afterlife, but none of us can prove it one way or the other and so I'm not very interested in that.
But, having said all of that, I DO believe in the "hell" that some people make in this world - the murders, the rapes, the oppression, the slavery, the racism, the sexism, the hate - there is SO much awful that people do to cause harm and hurt in this world that I have no choice but to recognize that.
And thus, I thing accepting, living into, believing in, affirming and following God and the teachings of Jesus into ways of grace (See the former point i), into kindness to the undeserving, into love for our neighbors, especially the poor and marginalized, into love for even our enemies... that Grace IS how we are saved.
As we welcome the refugee or immigrant or unhoused persons into our homes, our churches, our neighborhoods, our cities... as we love those we've been taught to fear or even hate... as we do unto the least of these, as we embrace that WAY of Grace, we ARE being saved, here, now. AND the world around us - the foreigners, the abused children, the environment and polluted air and waters, the LGBTQ friends and us, ourselves, we're ALL being made more whole, more like Jesus (who identified with the poor and marginalized), healthier, happier... we ARE being saved. I know THAT because I see it regularly.
Have you ever known the joy of a formerly unhoused person finally getting a key to a safe home? That IS salvation. Have you ever known the joy of a disabled person finally getting their first job, their first chance to earn their own money and contribute back to society/the Membership? That IS salvation. Have you ever seen an LGBTQ friend who has been abused, beaten and told their whole lives that, in various ways, God and decent people don't want them to be that way, that God HATES their orientation and it's demonic... have you seen such a person welcomed with open arms at a church or Drag Show event? That IS salvation.
I know because I've seen it. THAT is how grace saves. I've SEEN the salvific power of a clean stream of water and a healthier ecosystem growing around it.
Do you disagree?
And, at the very least, those are my answers to those questions. You don't have to like my answers but you can't deny they ARE answers.
That's enough for now.
Since it's on the topic here's Wendell Berry's thoughts at one point on grace as it relates to the sanctity of marriage but it's not just about marriage. It's about the beloved community, that membership which we are or can be part of.
Do you see the elegance and beauty, common sense, and practicality of this way of grace, as Berry describes it?
"It was as though grace and peace were bestowed on them out of the sanctity of marriage itself, which simply furnished them to one another, free and sufficient as rain to leaf. It was as if they were not making marriage but being made by it, and, while it held them, time and their lives flowed over them, like swift water over stones, rubbing them together, grinding off their edges, making them fit together, fit to be together, in the only way that fragments can be rejoined. And though Andy did not understand this, and though he suffered from it, he trusted it and rejoiced in it."
Dan
And in case poetry is not your "thing," THAT. THAT is how grace saves us.
I get that it's a mystery and such things may be at times beyond our easy understanding. Give it some time. Meditate upon it. Pray without ceasing.
Here are some more poetic/figurative words on that Grace which saves. This time, from Norman MacLean:
“Eventually, all things merge into one,
and a river runs through it.
The river was cut by the world's great flood and
runs over rocks from the basement of time.
On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops.
Under the rocks are the words, and
some of the words are theirs.
I am haunted by waters.”
Ah! Such beauty, such grace!
Dan, your recap does not rescue your answer. It just makes the dodge longer. You keep insisting you “answered directly,” but repeating “Grace, Love” over and over is not a doctrinal answer. It is a mood. It is a slogan. It is not an explanation of salvation, and pretending otherwise does not make it true.
You say you answered the questions clearly. Let’s look at what you actually did. You were asked how salvation works. You replied with “Grace.” That is not an explanation. It is a label. Saying “Grace alone is sufficient. Period.” does not tell anyone what grace does, how it saves, what it changes, or how it relates to human action. You did not answer the question. You just declared the conversation finished.
You also claim you do not believe in doctrines, and then immediately insist your two-word slogan is your doctrine. That is convenient, but it is not serious. A doctrine is not whatever you decide it is. A doctrine is an account of what something is and how it works. You did not provide that. You provided a bumper sticker and acted like it was a dissertation.
Your attempt to redefine grace as “letting a swerving car merge” or “inviting your sibling to dinner” is touching, but it is not soteriology. It is not even theology. It is just a list of nice behaviors. You are describing politeness and calling it salvation. That is not profound. It is sentimental moralism dressed up as revelation.
Your explanation of “how grace saves” boils down to “people feel better when others are kind.” That is not salvation. That is not justification. That is not regeneration. It is not anything the question was about. It is just your preferred social ethic. You are free to hold that view, but it does not answer the question you were asked.
You also accuse me of being rude for pointing out that you dodged the question. But you did dodge it. You replaced a theological question with a lifestyle description and then congratulated yourself for doing so. That is not grace. It is avoidance with a halo glued on top.
You keep saying “I answered directly.” No, Dan. You answered minimally, vaguely, and in a way that avoids any structure, clarity, or commitment. You answered in a way that ensures you can never be wrong because you never say anything specific enough to evaluate. That is not simplicity. It is evasiveness.
You insist your theology fits on a bumper sticker. Fine. But then do not pretend that a bumper sticker is a full answer to a doctrinal question. It is not. It is a slogan. It is a summary. It is not an explanation.
You accuse me of wanting “religious-y words.” No. I wanted an actual answer. You did not give one. You gave a vibe.
If you want to reject soteriology entirely, just say so. If you want to say salvation has no mechanics, say that. But do not pretend that repeating “Grace, Love” is a coherent theological position. It is not. It is a sentiment dressed up as an answer.
And we see that you did not answer the questions asked of you and you make more unsubstantiated claims. "Tom," unless you answer the questions, you're done. If you are, "Tom."
Tom...
"You were asked how salvation works"
As pointed out the question I was asked is
"How do you understand salvation?"
I answered the question that I was asked. Literally. You are a liar if you change the question after the fact. Are you a liar? Answer the questions or you're done.
Dan
Yes, Dan, we are done here. But before I leave you to your poetry readings and highway‑merging metaphors, I’m going to make one thing perfectly clear.
You keep shouting “liar” as if volume will fix the fact that your answer had no substance. Yes, the literal wording was “How do you understand salvation.” And yes, you replied with “Grace. Love.” The problem is not that you failed to repeat the sentence back. The problem is that your “answer” was nothing more than two abstract nouns with zero explanation behind them.
When someone asks how you understand salvation, they are not asking for your favorite two words. They are asking for an account of what salvation is, what it does, how it works, and what you believe it involves. You refused to give any of that. You hid behind a slogan and then acted offended when someone noticed the emptiness of it.
You keep pretending that pointing out the vagueness of your answer is “changing the question.” It is not. It is exposing that your response did not actually explain anything. You can call me a liar all you want, but it does not magically turn your bumper‑sticker theology into a real answer.
You say I did not answer your questions. I did. I showed exactly why “Grace, Love” is not a sufficient theological position unless you explain what grace does, how it saves, what it changes, and how it relates to human action. You still have not done that. You just repeat “Grace” and accuse anyone who asks for clarity of being graceless.
If you want to end the conversation because you do not like being pressed for specifics, just say that. But do not pretend that calling me a liar somehow transforms your vague slogan into a coherent doctrine. It does not.
And with that, yes, we are done here.
This is just pathetic. Seek mental health help.
Do you think cowering behind a fake name, ignoring that I literally DID answer the questions you asked, NOT answering the questions you were asked, etc, etc, makes you sound anything but deranged?
Wow.
You've officially just creeped me out with this pathetic bit of intellectual cowardice and gradeschool play acting, and whatever you thought this would accomplish.
Get help.
AND referring to yourself in the royal/deranged We doesn't help.
Get all of "you" to professional mental health agencies!
Dan
Here's an idea....turn the question around and ask Dough...Tom... uh...Jesse, the same question he asked you and note the difference.
? I did that in my very first response to the cowardly liar. He opted not to answer that question or any of my questions. That speaks of both grace and the lack thereof.
One problem in doing a public blog with conversations with complete strangers is that one is never sure of the other participants. Are they actually human? Do they just want to be a troll? Are they someone with mental illness or just limited intellectual capacity? It's why I strive to reply with some patience and grace to even obtuse responders.
I suspect that's what we may have here in some of our "commenters."
Marshal:
I admit, I've not read much of Berry's stuff, but as I said, my cursory research suggests, with some caveats, he's not the lefty you want him to be.
I've been reading Berry for 35 years or so. I have the majority of his books of poetry, essays and fiction on my shelves and regularly read and re-read them. They are such a delight and especially important in these more fascist-leaning days. I've listened to Berry speak in person and in recordings. I'm well-familiar with Berry, Marshal, so rest your head on that count.
The reality is that Berry is one of those who leans heavily into a very particular type of tradition and conservative-ism, in the very best sense (and sometimes, maybe in a less-good sense). He's not easily pegged as left or right. What he IS pegged correctly as is being a promoter of love, of grace, of the Beloved Community/Realm of God... what he refers to as The Membership. He's a promoter of hard work and conserving that which should be conserved, of treating the land with respect and a colleague, not a source to be raped to enrich the ever-richer.
Mainly, Berry leans into Grace and the Membership, which fits right into the world of progressive thinkers quite well, or at least, my portion of progressive thinkers.
Read Berry for enjoyment, Marshal, and read it to embrace grace. If you can understand that conservative writer, maybe you'll understand that progressives like me are NOT contrary to traditional ideals or conserving the land and nature and that which should be conserved and then maybe you'll begin to understand why he is so embraced by so many progressives, why he is one of our patron saints at Jeff St, for instance.
" Take all that you have and be poor.
Love someone who does not deserve it.
Denounce the government and embrace
the flag. Hope to live in that free
republic for which it stands.
Give your approval to all you cannot
understand. Praise ignorance, for what man
has not encountered he has not destroyed.
Ask the questions that have no answers.
Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.
Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold.
Call that profit. Prophesy such returns...
As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn’t go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection."
~Wendell Berry's "Manifesto: The Mad Farmers Liberation Front"
Should you take the time and learn more about Berry, you will find that, of his poetry, there are three that stand out as his best or most renowned:
1. "The Peace of Wild Things," and it's a great one.
2. This manifesto, which you appear not to understand or like.
3. "What We Need Is Here."
And look I don't care if you don't get or like his poetry. In a post honoring the death of a great man, beloved by many, considered a saint by many, you don't have to come and crap on the post.
I left your comment, at least for now, because, much as with your cowardly friend, this lack of grace, this lack of beloved community stands in stark contrast and illustrates the greatness of Wendell Berry all the much more. Aspire to be better. Beginning by reading Wendell Berry is a great start.
Dan
Just out of morbid curiosity, who do YOU consider a good poet? Lee Greenwood?
I can't believe I have to point this out, but this post is a memorial to a dearly beloved man, a great writer and thinker. It is NOT the time for vulgar little childish insults. This man taught deeply about the importance of grace, of decency, of community. Have that decency yourselves to say nothing, if you can't say something on topic and appropriate for a memorial.
On this post remembering and honoring the memory of Wendell Berry, I've requested that Marshal comment ON topic and since it is a memorial, to not bother posting denigrating comments about the dearly departed and his writing. Marshal refers to that as me having a "hissy fit." Because I requested politely that he comment on topic and that he keep any on topic remarks civil and respectful.
What has become of just simple decency amongst conservatives?
...he said, in a sad fit of graceless spit and vulgarity... not even getting the point.
Warped, indeed.
Dan
Progressive saints/heroes...
Wendell Berry
Barack Obama
Dorothy Day (who wouldn't want to be called a saint!)
Annie Dillard
Jimmy Carter
Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
Gandhi
Jane Goodall
Jesus, in his own words
Etc. Actually good people noted for their great love and stands for justice for all and human rights.
Conservative heroes
Trump (corrupt felon, sexual predator and war criminal)
Reagan (war criminal)
Kirk
Jan 6 felons (violent criminals)
White men who shoot black men (violent criminals/murderers)
ICE kidnappers and murderers...
White "Jesus," in THEIR conservative words (ie, not actually Jesus)
Etc. Actually bad and vulgar people, criminals and killers, and frankly, as a rule, just generally not that bright.
You will be known by the heroes you keep.
Dan
“ Shortly after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, Wendell Berry penned The Hidden Wound, a profoundly honest book examining how racism damages the humanity and soul of white Americans and the social fabric of the country.”
Maybe St Wendell can save Marshal’s racist ass.
Maybe. Hidden Wound would certainly be a good place for racists - for all white folks - to start studying Berry.
It’s morally urgent to point out that Marshal has dropped all pretension - expressed sometime ago - of “seeing some good” in MLK for the country.
He no longer pretends for appearance’ sake. He’s happy to show us his racism heart. So very happy:
“he's far more worthy of your warped reverence and worship than Jimmah Carter and the vile MLK Jr.”… is his subconscious way, Dan, of calling you and “Jimmah” [? Seriously?] - of calling you both “nigger lovers.”
We cannot erase his meaning.
Pure and simple. Bare, honest truth to the group of White men gathered here.
Post a Comment