Overnight I’ve been thinking of something that was said last night, by Travis, who is planting that church in K road. He said that in the USA Barack is despised, and seen as useless, while our PM, Key, is generally liked, but their policies are pretty similar. He is half right: the differences are that Key is a competent economic manager and NZ is less corrupt and less intrusive. But Key, a Tory in NZ terms, is to the left of most Democrats.
Travis said this is cultural. I think it is historical. NZ has already gone to the point of a complete command and control economy, and we almost went bankrupt then: it appears that Len Brown is repeating the same experiment in Auckland.
As a member of the Anglosphere, I worry about the West. But not about the church. Because there is always those who are righteous and called by God. There will always be a church, for the church is God’s.
However, the church may not be legal.
Who Shall Dwell on Your Holy Hill?A Psalm of David.
O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent?
Who shall dwell on your holy hill?He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
and speaks truth in his heart;
who does not slander with his tongue
and does no evil to his neighbor,
nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
but who honors those who fear the LORD;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
who does not put out his money at interest
and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.(Psalm 15 ESV)
When the times are corrupt, and they are at present in the more liberally intolerant places, then speaking plain becomes revolutionary. One couches one’s thoughts in the correct jargon, and by doing that one cannot speak certain things: if one cannot speak them one either has to have another language that oen thinks in or the thought becomes unthinkable.
And this is precisely where we find ourselves after the gramscians have done their damage. I’m quoting a man who is honest enough in his Papism to call the reformed heretics, because he is, in many ways, correct here.
Every now and then I get a comment from an invariably Anglo-Saxon reader, pointing out that something I write is “unChristian”, and meaning by that “not conforming to the normally accepted standards of political correctness and sensitiviteeee for pretty much everything”. Generally, as on the last occasion, they start with “I read your blog everyday” or “I like your blog very much”, though the complaint clearly shows neither is, actually, true.
Let us, then, grab the occasion and spend some more words about social control in Catholic societies.
Most of you do not live, or have never lived, in a Catholic society, and therefore will have some difficulty in following me. But I did, and I think I should share with you both the experience and the benefits.
A salient trait of every traditional Catholic society is a very strong social control. A certain behaviour is expected – nay, it is demanded – and society at large comes down like a ton of brick on those who do not conform to the standard. All the talk of “oppressive”, “repressive”, or “suffocating” traditional societies (from the small village to the biger city) is, in the end, merely that: enforcement of shared values.
Enforcement happened in two ways: one official and publicly exercised; and one unofficial, universally used, and not less effective. The first was public reproach. The second was ridicule and mockery.
In those societies – I am absolutely sure: in France and Spain, or in Portugal and Chile, no less than in Italy – mockery was (because it is, and it always will be) an extremely strong weapon to force conformity to desired standards of behaviour. To make just three common examples the slut, the glutton, and the “beautiful soul” were always a privileged target of this.
Woe, in those societies, to the woman destroying herself with food to the point of morbid obesity (which is not being only of the “fat” type, or rather “in carne“, as is and always was more frequent and was, particularly after a certain age, not mocked at all). She was targeted very pointedly, and very sharply. Or, in the case of astonishing obesity as reposted above, she would have been, because I have not seen any of those in my entire former everyday life in Italy. Not one.
The slut was also the object of ferocious mockery, particularly from women – actually, almost exclusively from women – which is why their number was very little compared to every Anglo-Saxon society you may care to mention. Conservative societies shame sluts, and they shame gluttons. The sins may be of different gravity, but the logic is the same.
Lastly of our category, the people who went out of a certain, generally accepted way of behaviour were also targeted with acute satire: you only needed to be a vegetarian to be driven to desperation; this, without considering that the businesses around you did not care a straw what strange ideas you had, making your problems much worse. Jesus ate meat, they would say. Who the heck are you? I am talking here merely of “vegetarians”. I remember the uncontrolled laughter of older people when we, those who started to go abroad to learn foreign languages, spoke to them about people like the “vegans”. Circus tools. That’s what they were. The same treatment was reserved to those with some secular madness: animal rights activists, pacifists, and other “ists”.
In these times if you loan without interest you are accused of diluting your wealth, and if you do not take a bribe of not providing for your family. Such societies fall apart: I suggest one look at places such as Egypt, where the Islamic preachers rail against corruption (and this is one reason they win elections: they may be Isrealophobic and murderous, but they are not corrupt), but cannot stop what has been ingrained for generations.
If one attempts, even partially and imperfectly, to live as one ought you become part of a remnant. Part of those who will not bow down to anything but God, including the BBQ pits Chris Muir mentions in his cartoon, or whomever wins the world cup game that is starting in a few minutes.
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”Gentiles Grafted In
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
(Romans 11:1-12 ESV)
There will always be righteous in society. There will also always be those who are against righteousness, who call good evil and evil good.
A functional society encourages good living and good behaviour. It allows a certain snark, a sarcasm, criticism, self-reflection. One of the great strengths of the Anglo-Saxon was and is a tendency to consider what they are doing, and reflect upon the morality of it, in the public space. This led to the great Victorian reforms, from the abolition of slavery and child labour to the great expansion of missions.
But the Gramscians have turned this into self hatred. To the restriction of any confrontation, in case one offends. But if one cannot correct, if one cannot say the truth, then the gospel cannot be proclaimed.
Let this not be. I’ll tolerate a lot of mockery, rather than see humour die. I would tolerate active hatred rather than see free speech die.
And I will not apologize for Christ.
