When it comes to the topic of prayer, I consider myself no natural. There are people who loudly proclaim their prayers, who are fluent, who talk about their prayer lists, answered prayers.
I’m sitting in the corner croaking. I am not good at this: I’m better at study. So I have but two comments, and they are both in the text.
Psalm 143
1 Hear my prayer, O LORD; give ear to my supplications in your faithfulness; answer me in your righteousness.2 Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.3 For the enemy has pursued me, crushing my life to the ground, making me sit in darkness like those long dead.4 Therefore my spirit faints within me; my heart within me is appalled.5 I remember the days of old, I think about all your deeds, I meditate on the works of your hands.6 I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land
Matthew 6:1-6,
1“Beware of practising your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2“So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
via Daily Lectionary Readings — Devotions and Readings — Mission and Ministry — GAMC.
The first comment is that croaking is normal. The Psalmist is troubled by enemies and affliction, he is aware of his sin, and he asks for deliverance. In doing this, he is honest with God and himself. Life is not a box of fluffy unicorns. His enemies are about to destroy him. And he turns to God. We have to allow the full range of emotions in our life, and that includes in prayer.
The second point is that what we do in private is what matters. The public prayers were described as acting out their piety to some standard that the world has for religious people. Now, there is nothing bad about prayer in public, or alms in public — but the things people do not know about define us. Therefore, we should not be intimidated by Sister Sally with her pious psycho-babble as a substitute for prayer.
God values our honest croaking.
I didn’t grow up Reformed, and I have some trouble praying in Reformed-ese; I prefer to pray in private rather than publicly. So, I fumble and stumble along. Somehow, though, I think I manage okay, and I know Who understands me fully regardless of whether anyone else does.
@ Will S.
Have you read this old article by Thomas Fleming?: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/10/09/the-sin-of-humility/
“Humility is the great moral skandalon (stumbing block) of Christianity, in much the same way that Christ—the God who became man, suffered, and died a humiliating death—was the skandalon to the Jews. Thus it is a little amusing to read the complaints of so many uneducated neopagans—most of them anti-Semites—against Christian humility. Their reaction is exactly that of the well-bred Jew of Jesus’ time.”
“The natural man, the old Adam—whether Christened or not—rebels against humility. What, am I supposed to put myself on par with a Third World savage or an effeminate neopagan? In one sense, yes. None of us is perfect as Our Lord would have us perfect. We all fall short, not just of the glory of God but of the human glory we were created to enjoy. If we wish God to forgive our failings, then we must not be too proud to forgive the failings of others: “Forgive us our debts/trespasses, as we forgive our debtors/those who trespass against us.””
I’m starting to really admire Thomas Fleming. “effeminate neopagan”, interesting. Any clue why he would consider them to be effeminate? I’ve always seen them as very masculine. Maybe it’s because I’m confusing the real pagans of old with the pretend-pagans of today.
@ Svar: I don’t remember reading it back then (though I used to read Chronicles religiously). Having read it now, if I had to take a guess, I think what he’s getting at, in part, is the fact that, just like we discussed at TC the other day, modern-day neo-pagans don’t actually believe in the pagan gods they claim to admire, so they’re really just play-acting; that they’re thus ‘wimpy’, not ‘real men’ willing to have solid convictions and defend them to the death if need be; I think he sees them are basically parents’-basement-dwelling Internet warriors. But, I also think he conflates this with ‘metrosexual’ self-styled ‘playboys’ – perhaps he has guys like Mystery in mind, with the comment. I think that’s a bit sloppy on his part, as the AlternativeRight crowd are NOT the PUA crowd, generally. So I think he’s just lumping together everyone he doesn’t like in his language. Hey, it’s fine to have prejudices, but it makes as little sense as, say, lumping Tea Party types and Al-Sharpton Democrat race hustlers together as “morono-Americans” – yeah, one might dislike both groups, but there’s nothing to naturally classify them together.
Fleming’s old-fashioned chivalry makes him come unhinged whenever he thinks about anyone or anything even remotely connected, however tangentially, to the manosphere. He’s an old fart, not just in his years but in his mind, too set in his ways to step outside them, take the ‘red pill’ and think rationally.
So you think that he reads the Manosphere? Interesting.
“Fleming’s old-fashioned chivalry makes him come unhinged whenever he thinks about anyone or anything even remotely connected, however tangentially, to the manosphere.”
It is true that the alt-right and the Manosphere do intersect, mainly at IMF. Interesting, I never thought that he was really conflating faggy PUAs with alt-righters. However, this article was written in 2009, during the peak of the Manosphere.
“He’s an old fart, not just in his years but in his mind, too set in his ways to step outside them, take the ‘red pill’ and think rationally.”
Yes, I have noticed this in his debates with MOSES Nicholas in the comment threads over in his Jerks series. Some of the things he was saying did piss me off a little.
However, a man like him has no need for the red pill. He wasn’t subjected to the intensive indoktrination that we were and on top of that, his wife is undoubtedly a traditional woman who appreciates chivalry, but doesn’t feel entitled to it or, in the case of some nut-jobs, offended by it.
However, the red pill does give us a certain power in this modern-day world: the power of tingles. Dr. Fleming assumes that every man has this and that every man uses this for the wrong ends.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/11/17/athens-and-jerusalem-iv-medieval-christian-wimps/
Thomas Fleming does accurately describe the Alternative Right movement in the comments:
“The boys calling themselves “the alternative right” are insignificant in themselves, but the movement they are latching onto is extremely important. Its elements include: the Neopaganism that reemerged in the Renaissance, the nationalism spawned by the French Revolution, the occultism of Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley, the Nordicism of mystical Germans, and the millennialist aspirations that have launched so many mediocre young men into revolutionary communism and Marxism. It is a foul-smelling brew, but in a society that is losing its bearings, such improbable and illogical combinations begin to seem to make sense to unhappy members of the dispossessed majority. ”
Also, apparently F. Roger Devlin also reads Chronicles.
@ Svar. I read Chronicles for nearly a decade, but let my subscription lapse after Sam Francis died. Fleming’s late behavior toward both myself and the Alternative Righters makes me glad I did. He has accused so many people of effeminacy for disagreeing with him that the move deserves to be named “the Fleming Fallacy.” This particular group’s offense was simply being young: the thumbnails at Takimag made some of them look like babyfaced teenagers. That would hardly seem relevent to the argument, but Fleming throws wild ad hominums at anyone who hints at disagreement with him.
You are absolutely correct that he is out of touch with the situation faced by men today. He seems to think feminists are just a handful of nuts who have never had any effect on law, society or female behavior. If only other men were as manly as himself, everything would be fine. If you disagree, it proves you are a ‘metrosexual.’
It’s an unfalsifiable mindset.
I ended up making a blog about my struggles with faith. It’s full of intelligent introspective posts [you'd like the one where I quoted C.S. Lewis]. I plan to debunk a lot of the “Church of Oprah” American-Christianity nonsense. & before I had gotten sick I was planning to become an ancient Semitic language scholar [hence, why I'm polyglot] so I’ll probably use my language skills to write posts dissecting a few controversial Biblical passages.
I’m not going to allow this from you or anyone
I’m legitimately a chronically ill young woman confused about her faith. I’m not wearing a mask. If you want I can send you photos to prove it.
&, um, I would have just emailed this to you but I don’t have your email address. You can delete it once you read it; I don’t mean to spam, I never meant to be annoying or a burden. Also, I’m kinda afraid of Svar. He tends to display malicious behavior towards me and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Can someone double check as to if this is on the website? I have a couple of work emails, but [email protected] is the one I would prefer you to use
@ Svar: I’m sure he has at least encountered the manosphere, because something he said once seemed to indicate some familiarity with it (I forget where right now). But he was dismissive, as he always is, on such matters. You may say he doesn’t need the Red Pill because he has a Marriage 1.0, which is great for him, but it impedes his understanding of the times we live in, today.
@ F. Roger Devlin: Wow, didn’t expect you to show up here! Agreed, TJF has a major blind spot when it comes to feminism, which he shares with Larry Auster, and many others, unfortunately, in the traditionalist, paleo-con right. As I said to Svar above, it impedes his understanding of our current situation, and, thereby weakens Chronicles Magazine’s analysis.
Love your writings. I brought them to the attention of Ray Sawhill, i.e. Michael Blowhard of 2 Blowhards, back in the day, and he highlighted them in some posts. We’re blessed to have your insight; keep up the good work!
@ Chris
I have not talked to BF or made contact with her since she promised to leave. Please ban her.
@ F Roger Devlin
Wow! I never thought you’d show up! You read Dark Brightness, too?
Say, I have some questions I want to ask you:
1. Me and David Collard were talking about you over at TC. I assumed that you were a conservative Tory-type. He assumed that you were a Whig who voted Labour. Which one are you? Or are you one of those Blue Labour folks who are socially conservative but economically liberal?
2. Also, in the thread of Medieval Christian Wimps? you have this minor spat with Thomas Fleming over what seems to be your mentioning of the White Nationalist site TOQ. Have you and Dr. Fleming been on bad terms prior to this? Is this because of your site talking about the dysfunction of women?
3. Are you a White Nationalist?
@ Chris: I second Svar’s request.
@ Svar and Will: BF is allowed here, but I reserve the right to edit her pieces.
@ BF & @Svar: I will edit from your pieces any personal stuff.
@ All. I need to update the linkage here. Can you email your blogs or blogs I should check out.
@ Chris: Your edits to BF’s post have gone through; I’m posting here because I can’t email you right now. I think her accusation against someone is unfair, and unwarranted; not sure why you’re letting it stand.
@ Chris: rather than email you, let me direct you to the links I posted at TC recently:
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/big-bundle-of-links/#comment-23878
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/big-bundle-of-links/#comment-23892
I thought she wasn’t going to post here anymore. She’s friggin obsessed with me and it’s a little weird. Whatever. I thought she could get a hint.
We see how little a promise can mean to some people, sadly.
Interesting. Srdja Trifkovic has written for Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-the-traditionalist-right-anti-semitic/
I thought paleocons and alt-righters were at odds. Then again, better the alt-right than neo-”cons”. I absolutely loath neo-”cons”. They make the most ridiculous points and sound exactly like liberals but for some reason feel that they have the right to call themselves conservatives.
Fleming was sent the first issue of The Occidental Quarterly by Sam Francis and was immediately dismissive of it. He generally doesn’t like talk about race unless he’s the one doing the talking, frequently caricaturing it as ‘biological determinism.’ I expect much of Fleming’s criticism of AltRight, TOQ, etc., does not indicate real, substantive disagreements but is simply a way of competing for intellectual leadership of the same constituancies.
In my country we don’t have Whigs and Tories; we have Republicans and Democrats, or ‘the stupid party’ and ‘the evil party’ as my late friend Sam Francis used to say. I don’t vote for either of them.
‘White Nationalism’ seems to me a clumsy slogan for behavior you would expect from any people under attack. I do, of course, write for publications and websites often characterized, even by many of their contributors, as ‘White Nationalist.’
@ F. Roger Devlin
Oh, so you are American. I thought you were British.
As for Sam Francis…. I had never heard of him until you mentioned him. I looked him and it seems that he was a paleoconservative somewhat influenced by White Nationalism. Interesting, I thought you only wrote about gender issues, not about race.
I don’t consider myself to be either a WN, a “racist”, or God forbid, an anti-racist(read: anti-white/non-white supremacist). I am probably a non-racist or a race realist. I do believe that race has an obvious biological component to it, but there is more to race and more to people than just genes. I do not know what this view makes me.
As for Dr. Fleming, I do think that some of his criticisms have merit. But, a Christian paleocon arguing with nihilistic and neo-pagan Alt-righters is as pointless as palecons and Alt-righters arguing with neo-cons and liberals. The worldviews are completely different and incompatible.