He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
"For this is what it means to be a King: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat and when there's hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land."
Seems pertinent.
So, Lewis is saying that, in times of hunger, a monarch should do the honourable thing and eat less food than his subjects?
I sincerely wonder how often that's been put into practice. Of course, there's the notorious counter-exampke of Marie Antoinette.
I am not sure about reality, but what I am pretty sure about, having read quite a bit of C.S.Lewis' writings and thought, is that he is harking back to the medieval or earlier ideas of chivalry, at least seen through a romantic lens. It is something we have lost.
I’m not sure it’s a totally bad thing that we’ve lost it. It’s that romanticism that makes it difficult for me to take that Lewis quote seriously instead of finding it somewhat problematic.
Others’ mileage will, of course, vary, but to me Lewis’s description—first into battle and last to retreat notwithstanding—is very much a description, and a romanticized one at that, of the kingdom of this world. I get more than a whiff of noblesse oblige.
I’m going to guess that you think that noblesse oblige is a bad thing somehow but I think it’s an extremely good and true thing.
Why guess when you can just ask.
Stan Lee put it perhaps in a way you might prefer – that with great power comes great responsibility.
Actually, I prefer how Jesus put it: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” (Luke 12:48)
But I also think what Jesus and Stan Lee are talking about isn’t quite the same thing as noblesse oblige.
But that moral obligation bonded Peter Parker as an individual to help fight crime in situations he came across. But it's quite different, and I would argue, more problematic, to posit noblesse oblige as a mandate for governance. Just for starters, it posits socioeconomic inequality as both inevitable in its existence and salutary in its effects.
I don’t see that it necessarily posits either of those things at all.
I do. The particular concept of noblesse oblige (“nobility obliges”) is firmly rooted in feudalism and classism. It’s about the mutual obligations society said that land owners and land workers owe one another—just as the serfs had obligations toward their lord, their lord had obligations to them. As strict feudalism died out, the term remained connected to concepts of class.
To my ears, at least, noblesse oblige very much carries connotations of the burdens of socioeconomic inequality.
RE the fine clothes thing-- he means "put a good face on things." Nothing about pride or looking down on other people. The comparative means only that the duty to encourage others by setting an example lies heaviest upon those in authority, and on the king most of all--others may be pardoned for showing their discouragement through what they wear, how they speak, etc but not him because of position. It's "dig out the best you've got" for him.
I get that, and as I said, I get that others’ mileage may and will differ from mine. It’s one of those instances where I get what he’s after, but for me, the romanticism he wraps it in gets in the way of what he’s trying to say, and does so in a fairly big way. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong; it means I don’t find his particular take helpful or meaningful.
Lewis wasn’t just “wrapping things” in romanticism – he believed in romanticism. ❤️ One of his excellent books is The Pilgrim's Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism. And he talks about it elsewhere quite a bit.
Yes, I know. I can be as romantic about some things as the next person, but I find Lewis’s particular romanticism offputting.
At the risk of a tangent: I know that you’re a big C. S. Lewis fan, and that’s great. I wouldn’t dream of trying to talk you out of that; I’m glad you’ve found and find him meaningful and helpful. I think many if not most of us have authors who fill that slot for us, and I know that for lots of people (particularly in the Anglican tradition) that person is CSL. But not for me.
When I was in my teens and twenties, I loved Lewis and read lots of his books. I have a shelf full of them. As I moved into my 30s, 40s and 50s, I found I was reading him less and less, and was not enjoying the books of his I did read. (I think maybe seeing them differently started when I would read the Narnia books to my kids.) Maybe 12 years ago, I decided to re-read That Hideous Strength, which 25-year-old me had loved. 53-year-old me couldn’t make it past 50 pages. Maybe 10 years ago, because so many people raved about it and I’d never read it, I read Till We Have Faces. I found it an excruciating read; to be honest, it put me off ever wanting to read anything by Lewis again.
There are still bits of CSL that I love. “Joy is the serious business of heaven” remains one of my favorite quotes. But much of Lewis’s writings simply don’t resonate with me anymore, and some of the assumptions underlying his writings, including that romanticism, are a major reason why.
He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
"For this is what it means to be a King: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat and when there's hunger in the land (as must be now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land."
Seems pertinent.
So, Lewis is saying that, in times of hunger, a monarch should do the honourable thing and eat less food than his subjects?
I sincerely wonder how often that's been put into practice. Of course, there's the notorious counter-exampke of Marie Antoinette.
I am not sure about reality, but what I am pretty sure about, having read quite a bit of C.S.Lewis' writings and thought, is that he is harking back to the medieval or earlier ideas of chivalry, at least seen through a romantic lens. It is something we have lost.
I’m not sure it’s a totally bad thing that we’ve lost it. It’s that romanticism that makes it difficult for me to take that Lewis quote seriously instead of finding it somewhat problematic.
Others’ mileage will, of course, vary, but to me Lewis’s description—first into battle and last to retreat notwithstanding—is very much a description, and a romanticized one at that, of the kingdom of this world. I get more than a whiff of noblesse oblige.
I’m going to guess that you think that noblesse oblige is a bad thing somehow but I think it’s an extremely good and true thing.
Why guess when you can just ask.
Stan Lee put it perhaps in a way you might prefer – that with great power comes great responsibility.
Actually, I prefer how Jesus put it: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” (Luke 12:48)
But I also think what Jesus and Stan Lee are talking about isn’t quite the same thing as noblesse oblige.
But that moral obligation bonded Peter Parker as an individual to help fight crime in situations he came across. But it's quite different, and I would argue, more problematic, to posit noblesse oblige as a mandate for governance. Just for starters, it posits socioeconomic inequality as both inevitable in its existence and salutary in its effects.
I don’t see that it necessarily posits either of those things at all.
I do. The particular concept of noblesse oblige (“nobility obliges”) is firmly rooted in feudalism and classism. It’s about the mutual obligations society said that land owners and land workers owe one another—just as the serfs had obligations toward their lord, their lord had obligations to them. As strict feudalism died out, the term remained connected to concepts of class.
To my ears, at least, noblesse oblige very much carries connotations of the burdens of socioeconomic inequality.
RE the fine clothes thing-- he means "put a good face on things." Nothing about pride or looking down on other people. The comparative means only that the duty to encourage others by setting an example lies heaviest upon those in authority, and on the king most of all--others may be pardoned for showing their discouragement through what they wear, how they speak, etc but not him because of position. It's "dig out the best you've got" for him.
I get that, and as I said, I get that others’ mileage may and will differ from mine. It’s one of those instances where I get what he’s after, but for me, the romanticism he wraps it in gets in the way of what he’s trying to say, and does so in a fairly big way. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong; it means I don’t find his particular take helpful or meaningful.
Lewis wasn’t just “wrapping things” in romanticism – he believed in romanticism. ❤️ One of his excellent books is The Pilgrim's Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason, and Romanticism. And he talks about it elsewhere quite a bit.
Yes, I know. I can be as romantic about some things as the next person, but I find Lewis’s particular romanticism offputting.
At the risk of a tangent: I know that you’re a big C. S. Lewis fan, and that’s great. I wouldn’t dream of trying to talk you out of that; I’m glad you’ve found and find him meaningful and helpful. I think many if not most of us have authors who fill that slot for us, and I know that for lots of people (particularly in the Anglican tradition) that person is CSL. But not for me.
When I was in my teens and twenties, I loved Lewis and read lots of his books. I have a shelf full of them. As I moved into my 30s, 40s and 50s, I found I was reading him less and less, and was not enjoying the books of his I did read. (I think maybe seeing them differently started when I would read the Narnia books to my kids.) Maybe 12 years ago, I decided to re-read That Hideous Strength, which 25-year-old me had loved. 53-year-old me couldn’t make it past 50 pages. Maybe 10 years ago, because so many people raved about it and I’d never read it, I read Till We Have Faces. I found it an excruciating read; to be honest, it put me off ever wanting to read anything by Lewis again.
There are still bits of CSL that I love. “Joy is the serious business of heaven” remains one of my favorite quotes. But much of Lewis’s writings simply don’t resonate with me anymore, and some of the assumptions underlying his writings, including that romanticism, are a major reason why.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to disagree on basically a lot of of this stuff. Especially whether or not some of these things are somehow intrinsically bad, which I really don’t see. But we do agree on lots of other very central things so hugs and God bless regardless.
Especially whether or not some of these things are somehow intrinsically bad, which I really don’t see.
What did I describe as “intrinsically bad”?
I may have misunderstood your view, then, of noblesse oblige, and possibly aspects of Lewis’ worldview/romanticism.
I certainly didn’t say anything about Lewis’s writings are intrinsically bad. If that was implied, it was unintentional. My point was that certain aspects of Lewis’s writings do not resonate with me, and in fact sometimes get in the way of my reading his writings. That is something that wasn’t always the case, but has increasingly become case as I’ve gotten older.
As for noblesse oblige, my point was two-fold. The first part was that the particular concept of noblesse oblige is rooted in feudalism. And in the context of feudalism, it may have been a reasonably good thing, as it imposed on the nobility obligations of care and protection to those the nobility were otherwise in a position to exploit.
And that leads to the second point, which is that noblesse oblige was part of a larger feudal system of mutual obligation. The duties the nobility owed to those “under” them were the counterbalance to the duties those under the nobility owed the nobility.
That’s what I think makes noblesse oblige different from what Jesus and Stan Lee were talking about. Their “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” and “with great power comes great responsibility” as no aspect of mutuality. Jesus’s and Stan Lee’s observations are about doing what is right,
Especially whether or not some of these things are somehow intrinsically bad, which I really don’t see.
What did I describe as “intrinsically bad”?
I may have misunderstood your view, then, of noblesse oblige, and possibly aspects of Lewis’ worldview/romanticism.
I certainly didn’t say anything about Lewis’s writings being intrinsically bad. If that was implied, it was unintentional. My point was that certain aspects of Lewis’s writings do not resonate with me, and in fact sometimes get in the way of my reading his writings. That is something that wasn’t always the case, but has increasingly become the case as I’ve gotten older.
As for noblesse oblige, my point was two-fold. The first part was that the particular concept of noblesse oblige is rooted in feudalism. And in the context of feudalism, it may have been a reasonably good thing, as it imposed on the nobility obligations of care and protection to those the nobility were otherwise in a position to exploit, or expose,it even worse than they did.
And that leads to the second point, which is that noblesse oblige was part of a larger feudal system of mutual obligation. The duties the nobility owed to those “under” them were the counterbalance to the duties those under the nobility owed the nobility.
That’s what I think makes noblesse oblige different from what Jesus and Stan Lee were talking about. Their “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” and “with great power comes great responsibility” has no aspect of mutuality. Jesus’s and Stan Lee’s observations are about doing what is right because it is right for its own sake, not because it is owed in return for what others owe the one to whom much has been given, the one with great power.
It may have been originally rooted in feudalism, but I believe that doesn’t mean it’s not applicable today, when and where it is applicable.
Thank you for explaining the other stuff regardless. We may not completely agree about certain things, but I am glad we are on the same page about many other others. :-) and now I need to go bite the bullet and fulfill my own responsibilities to my students by grading their stuff at the end of this exhausting semester…
It may have been originally rooted in feudalism, but I believe that doesn’t mean it’s not applicable today, when and where it is applicable.
It may be. But where in a modern context it might be applicable (like perhaps an employment context) is, I think, different, or at least narrower, than what Jesus and Stan Lee were talking about.
Good luck with the grading! My son is doing the same thing. (This was his first semester teaching.)
I'm thinking it would still apply, even in modern/current western democracies (there are other places that are not, of course), to basically those with whatever power they have in whatever system we have (including but not limited to political or governing power, or the wealthy, or people who employ other people). And now back to grading--please tell your son good luck from me!
Oh, and yes, I absolutely agree that noblesse oblige is narrower that what Jesus and Stan were saying, though I think that's by definition--it's one place in life in which that principle plays out, but not the only place by any means.
There was an early-1980s episode of WKRP where Jennifer arranged for some of her wealthy friends to put on a fundraiser for a homeless shelter that Johnny volunteered with. When we first encounter the high-society philanthropists, one of them is shown as gushing over all the great economic policies being put into place by "the Gipper", thus placing a clear ideological label onto the group.
Hilarity ensues when Johnny shows up with some of the residents, who proceed to make a less than stellar impression on Jennifer's crowd(eg. one of them casually admits to a life of petty-theft), prompting the bigwigs to attempt a polite exit, after giving assurances(being people of their word) that the money will still be forthcoming.
This prompts an argument between Jennifer and Johnny, in which Jennifer accuses the shelterees of not saying thank-you for the donation, Johnny says you can't expect people who have next-to-nothing to show overwhelming gratitude for the little they do get, and the whole debate is settled with a conciliatory exchange between an elderly homeless woman(who had previously announced herself to be an exotic dancer) and of the moneybags...
SHELTEREE: We're grateful and everything, but we know you rich people get a kick outta doing this sorta stuff, so we don't make a big deal about it.
TYCOON(roguishly): Did you really used to be an exotic dancer?
Basically, a sitcom-level examination of the concept of nobless-oblige as applied to contemporary capitalism. Possibly not an entirely smooth translation, because wealthy CEOs don't have the same economic connection to the lumpenproletariat(defined as the permanently jobless) that a feudal Lord had to his tenants.
A Christmas Carol, in its various literary and cinematic incarnations, is arguably a precise application of noblesse oblige to a wage-labour situation.
He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
Well, it sounds to me like an abstract philosophical notion, and it doesn't much matter if it is believed or not.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation? (I have stated it this way so you don't think I am asking you to brag.)
Does God care about all people, regardless of their beliefs or actions? If so, would it follow that we should care about all people, regardless of their actions or beliefs?
He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
Well, it sounds to me like an abstract philosophical notion, and it doesn't much matter if it is believed or not.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation? (I have stated it this way so you don't think I am asking you to brag.)
Does God care about all people, regardless of their beliefs or actions? If so, would it follow that we should care about all people, regardless of their actions or beliefs?
I don’t understand the idea of an abstract philosophical concept not mattering.
Regardless, yes, I understand God to care about all people (and not just people) for that matter, regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc., and yes, I believe we should also care about all people (etc.), regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc.
As for noblesse oblige, my point was two-fold. The first part was that the particular concept of noblesse oblige is rooted in feudalism. And in the context of feudalism, it may have been a reasonably good thing, as it imposed on the nobility obligations of care and protection to those the nobility were otherwise in a position to exploit.
And that leads to the second point, which is that noblesse oblige was part of a larger feudal system of mutual obligation. The duties the nobility owed to those “under” them were the counterbalance to the duties those under the nobility owed the nobility.
This is where the posterity of the Star Chamber is interesting. As an exemplifying label, it's got an atrocious reputation, basically an Anglo-Saxon Inquisition. But, according to pretty reputable historians, it served as a court of last resort for peasants in danger of losing property to landlords jubilantly citing the letter of the law for their defense.
Stuff like that makes me think that noblesse oblige might have as one of it conceptual facets that not only is the king acting in the interests of the peasants, but their alliance is based partly on thwarting the interests of the nouveau riche. See Lord Macmillan lamenting the shopkeeper's daughter "selling off the family silver".
(And, yeah, I know Macmillan himself wasn't exactly a blue-blood of ancient pedigree on either side of his family, but about the closest the British had to that by the 1980s.)
He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
Well, it sounds to me like an abstract philosophical notion, and it doesn't much matter if it is believed or not.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation? (I have stated it this way so you don't think I am asking you to brag.)
Does God care about all people, regardless of their beliefs or actions? If so, would it follow that we should care about all people, regardless of their actions or beliefs?
I don’t understand the idea of an abstract philosophical concept not mattering.
Regardless, yes, I understand God to care about all people (and not just people) for that matter, regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc., and yes, I believe we should also care about all people (etc.), regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc.
Then perhaps you could tell me the answer to my question:-
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation?
He is indeed the King of all Creation—every subatomic particle, every archangel, every universe if there are others besides this one.
My systematics lecturer would respond to such a statement with "Cash that out for me!"
How does such an idea affect the way you live?
Does it influence how you are neighbourly?
I really don't see the point.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. I’m describing what I believe is true. How it does or doesn’t influence me is a completely different matter, but I believe it is true regardless. I hope it influences me in the way that I live. Since I’m not entirely sure what I would be like at this point if I didn’t believe that, I don’t have much of a thing to compare it too easily. I think that the fact that I believe that God cares about everything, bugs, or some atomic particles or archangels, affects the way I look at them at least. And if I wanted to say anything about how this has potentially affected me in a positive way, I would feel like I was bragging, which I don’t think I should do. I just hope I will live up to what I believe, though of course I guess I won’t during this time on earth (none of us will) And it will ultimately be a matter of God‘s grace anyway.
Well, it sounds to me like an abstract philosophical notion, and it doesn't much matter if it is believed or not.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation? (I have stated it this way so you don't think I am asking you to brag.)
Does God care about all people, regardless of their beliefs or actions? If so, would it follow that we should care about all people, regardless of their actions or beliefs?
I don’t understand the idea of an abstract philosophical concept not mattering.
Regardless, yes, I understand God to care about all people (and not just people) for that matter, regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc., and yes, I believe we should also care about all people (etc.), regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc.
Then perhaps you could tell me the answer to my question:-
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation?
There’s a part of me that wants to say how exactly should we live up to the truth of the quadratic equation (truth is truth), but practical applications of keeping it in mind (Jesus’ kingship I mean) could include trying to obey what He has instructed up to do, even when we don’t enjoy it. Remembering that all of us creatures and things in Creation are in a way fellow citizens of His Kingdom. (Brother Sun and Sister Moon, as St. Francis put it. Brother Quadratic Equation even. I apologize and say a prayer for Brother Bug(s) when I have to kill them. In a better world I could just teleport them to a distant field or something. I trust we’ll be on better terms in the afterlife.)
So, no different from being a good Christian.
Or a decent human being (as Le Carré had a character say in The Russia House).
Well… When it comes to being a good Christian… Jesus being the king of everything is kind of part of our theology in the first place.
And arguably, yes, being a good or decent human being would kind of be part of that, though some people’s idea of good and decent is going to vary.
Why, did you think it was going to be something else? Seriously, I’m genuinely wondering.
(Of course there’s more to it than just being a decent or good human being since there is actually, you know, looking up to Jesus as the king of everything, and you know, worshiping Him and all of that.)
Well, it sounds to me like an abstract philosophical notion, and it doesn't much matter if it is believed or not.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all CreatHow would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation?
I think you're operating with an overly simple concept of the relationship between metaphysics and praxis. We have praxis, that is action in the world. And then when our established habits of praxis run into problems we theorise about that action - we ask ourselves why we are doing what we're doing, whether it's worth doing, how we could achieve those aims better. So that theory directly influences praxis. But then when the theory runs into problems, we have theory about the theory to solve those problems.
Metaphysical and abstract theological theory are a few steps up. So there is a connection to praxis, but it's not a direct connection, but one mediated by other layers. One can't say it feeds directly into this and that action.
The preacher, a lay professor of physics, at our church last Sunday preached on hope. He contrasted secular hope, which is an optimistic assessment of the future based on the present, with religious hope which is an affirmation of the present based on our confidence in Jesus' future kingship. That is, we act as loving human beings in confidence that in so doing our efforts are not meaningless. We know that the mighty being torn down from their seats and the exaltation of the humble and meek is something to look forward to.
You talk about 'decent human being' as if the concept of a 'decent human being' was self-evident to all people. But decency to an ancient Greek might be a rather different thing to one of us. A fatalist can be a decent human being, but I suspect that the fatalism might affect how they weight the factors that make up decency.
Being a "good"/decent/whatever Christian is based on SOMETHING. I suspect Chastmastr would tell you that in his case, it is based at least on part on this particular belief in Jesus' kingship. Other people might hand you different beliefs as a basis for how they behave.
If you were to ask me what difference the doctrine of Jesus' kingship made in my life, I'd say it's primarily in the area of hope. His kingship gives me hope that, when the rulers of this world fuck things up, they don't have the final say in how things go. They will eventually be overruled by the true and highest king.
The second thing it does for me personally (maybe not for others, maybe yes) is to remind me that I answer to somebody when it comes to my actions in the world. So, I don't get to pollute, exploit, destroy, or misuse the power I have to harm the rest of creation, human or otherwise. I am not king. Jesus is.
Does that make any sense to you, as far as "how does this abstract philosophical notion work its way out in the real life of a Christian?"
I mean, heck, the idea of what counts as appropriately decent and right even by certain Christians or people who call themselves Christians or what have you, when it comes to issues like justice, there are people who think it’s just totally fine and even specifically laudable to torture people to death horribly for various crimes, or even to torture them horribly because there might be useful information to get out of them. For that matter, some of these people explicitly believe that if you don’t think that that’s a good thing, there’s something morally wrong with you and you’re a terrible person. And of course, there are people who aren’t Christian at all, even theologically, who advocate this kind of thing. (There’s a part of me that has never quite recovered the shock when I found out not only about the torture in Abu Ghraib, but so many people in my country, actively approving of it. I thought that attitude was gone, and never to return…) I mean there is a general baseline of what counts is right and wrong through various cultures and societies and times, but there are definite differences between them too. And frankly, there are some people, who over the years, overtly, in various books and things, don’t really believe in the concept of “being a basic decent human being.” I think that’s totally ghastly, but you can’t just assume that everyone will agree about the concept even though I wish we all did.
We do the good things Jesus asks us to do because of what he has done for us. He won salvation for us on the cross. He was the first to rise from the dead so we can rise as well. We do what he has taught us to do, love God and our neighbours because we have been given love. Doing good with all that could show that we are made in God’s image. Either we do good because we know it to be the best thing we can do or we do it for Jesus. It is a bit more complicated than that but that is the basics
Sure. Although doing good isn't a thing Christians have the monopoly on, of course.
I tried to put that in my post but couldn’t come up with a satisfactory way to put it. I was trying to answer the question why Christians do it that was kind of asked up thread. All people are capable of doing good. Some would argue it is a sign we are in God’s image. There are differences in motivation.
And all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike can have 'mixed motives'.
So there isn't going to be a single, straightforward answer as to why Christians do things, any more than there is for anyone else.
Just as 'All truth is God's truth' so any good deed is still a good deed and benefits people even if our motives aren't particularly pure.
If I feel proud or pleased myself for giving to charity, say, in a Pharisaical 'look at me, look at me' kind of way then I have 'my reward in full'. I already have my 'reward' in terms of recognition or adulation, but it undermines any 'hidden' or spiritual benefit I might derive from it.
Not that we should do things in order to get some kind of 'reward.'
Nor do 'works' save us, as it were, although on the basis of Romans 2 I think they can be of value in some sense.
The recipients of any good deed benefit from it even if the motivation of the do-er is questionable.
And all our motivations are questionable at times.
Comments
Actually, I prefer how Jesus put it: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” (Luke 12:48)
But I also think what Jesus and Stan Lee are talking about isn’t quite the same thing as noblesse oblige.
I do. The particular concept of noblesse oblige (“nobility obliges”) is firmly rooted in feudalism and classism. It’s about the mutual obligations society said that land owners and land workers owe one another—just as the serfs had obligations toward their lord, their lord had obligations to them. As strict feudalism died out, the term remained connected to concepts of class.
To my ears, at least, noblesse oblige very much carries connotations of the burdens of socioeconomic inequality.
Yes, I know. I can be as romantic about some things as the next person, but I find Lewis’s particular romanticism offputting.
At the risk of a tangent: I know that you’re a big C. S. Lewis fan, and that’s great. I wouldn’t dream of trying to talk you out of that; I’m glad you’ve found and find him meaningful and helpful. I think many if not most of us have authors who fill that slot for us, and I know that for lots of people (particularly in the Anglican tradition) that person is CSL. But not for me.
When I was in my teens and twenties, I loved Lewis and read lots of his books. I have a shelf full of them. As I moved into my 30s, 40s and 50s, I found I was reading him less and less, and was not enjoying the books of his I did read. (I think maybe seeing them differently started when I would read the Narnia books to my kids.) Maybe 12 years ago, I decided to re-read That Hideous Strength, which 25-year-old me had loved. 53-year-old me couldn’t make it past 50 pages. Maybe 10 years ago, because so many people raved about it and I’d never read it, I read Till We Have Faces. I found it an excruciating read; to be honest, it put me off ever wanting to read anything by Lewis again.
There are still bits of CSL that I love. “Joy is the serious business of heaven” remains one of my favorite quotes. But much of Lewis’s writings simply don’t resonate with me anymore, and some of the assumptions underlying his writings, including that romanticism, are a major reason why.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to disagree on basically a lot of of this stuff. Especially whether or not some of these things are somehow intrinsically bad, which I really don’t see. But we do agree on lots of other very central things so hugs and God bless regardless.
I may have misunderstood your view, then, of noblesse oblige, and possibly aspects of Lewis’ worldview/romanticism.
As for noblesse oblige, my point was two-fold. The first part was that the particular concept of noblesse oblige is rooted in feudalism. And in the context of feudalism, it may have been a reasonably good thing, as it imposed on the nobility obligations of care and protection to those the nobility were otherwise in a position to exploit.
And that leads to the second point, which is that noblesse oblige was part of a larger feudal system of mutual obligation. The duties the nobility owed to those “under” them were the counterbalance to the duties those under the nobility owed the nobility.
That’s what I think makes noblesse oblige different from what Jesus and Stan Lee were talking about. Their “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” and “with great power comes great responsibility” as no aspect of mutuality. Jesus’s and Stan Lee’s observations are about doing what is right, I certainly didn’t say anything about Lewis’s writings being intrinsically bad. If that was implied, it was unintentional. My point was that certain aspects of Lewis’s writings do not resonate with me, and in fact sometimes get in the way of my reading his writings. That is something that wasn’t always the case, but has increasingly become the case as I’ve gotten older.
As for noblesse oblige, my point was two-fold. The first part was that the particular concept of noblesse oblige is rooted in feudalism. And in the context of feudalism, it may have been a reasonably good thing, as it imposed on the nobility obligations of care and protection to those the nobility were otherwise in a position to exploit, or expose,it even worse than they did.
And that leads to the second point, which is that noblesse oblige was part of a larger feudal system of mutual obligation. The duties the nobility owed to those “under” them were the counterbalance to the duties those under the nobility owed the nobility.
That’s what I think makes noblesse oblige different from what Jesus and Stan Lee were talking about. Their “from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” and “with great power comes great responsibility” has no aspect of mutuality. Jesus’s and Stan Lee’s observations are about doing what is right because it is right for its own sake, not because it is owed in return for what others owe the one to whom much has been given, the one with great power.
Thank you for explaining the other stuff regardless. We may not completely agree about certain things, but I am glad we are on the same page about many other others. :-) and now I need to go bite the bullet and fulfill my own responsibilities to my students by grading their stuff at the end of this exhausting semester…
Good luck with the grading! My son is doing the same thing. (This was his first semester teaching.)
Hilarity ensues when Johnny shows up with some of the residents, who proceed to make a less than stellar impression on Jennifer's crowd(eg. one of them casually admits to a life of petty-theft), prompting the bigwigs to attempt a polite exit, after giving assurances(being people of their word) that the money will still be forthcoming.
This prompts an argument between Jennifer and Johnny, in which Jennifer accuses the shelterees of not saying thank-you for the donation, Johnny says you can't expect people who have next-to-nothing to show overwhelming gratitude for the little they do get, and the whole debate is settled with a conciliatory exchange between an elderly homeless woman(who had previously announced herself to be an exotic dancer) and of the moneybags...
SHELTEREE: We're grateful and everything, but we know you rich people get a kick outta doing this sorta stuff, so we don't make a big deal about it.
TYCOON(roguishly): Did you really used to be an exotic dancer?
Basically, a sitcom-level examination of the concept of nobless-oblige as applied to contemporary capitalism. Possibly not an entirely smooth translation, because wealthy CEOs don't have the same economic connection to the lumpenproletariat(defined as the permanently jobless) that a feudal Lord had to his tenants.
A Christmas Carol, in its various literary and cinematic incarnations, is arguably a precise application of noblesse oblige to a wage-labour situation.
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation? (I have stated it this way so you don't think I am asking you to brag.)
Does God care about all people, regardless of their beliefs or actions? If so, would it follow that we should care about all people, regardless of their actions or beliefs?
I don’t understand the idea of an abstract philosophical concept not mattering.
Regardless, yes, I understand God to care about all people (and not just people) for that matter, regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc., and yes, I believe we should also care about all people (etc.), regardless of their actions, beliefs, etc.
This is where the posterity of the Star Chamber is interesting. As an exemplifying label, it's got an atrocious reputation, basically an Anglo-Saxon Inquisition. But, according to pretty reputable historians, it served as a court of last resort for peasants in danger of losing property to landlords jubilantly citing the letter of the law for their defense.
Stuff like that makes me think that noblesse oblige might have as one of it conceptual facets that not only is the king acting in the interests of the peasants, but their alliance is based partly on thwarting the interests of the nouveau riche. See Lord Macmillan lamenting the shopkeeper's daughter "selling off the family silver".
(And, yeah, I know Macmillan himself wasn't exactly a blue-blood of ancient pedigree on either side of his family, but about the closest the British had to that by the 1980s.)
Then perhaps you could tell me the answer to my question:-
How would, or should, any person try to "live up to" believing that He is the King of all Creation?
There’s a part of me that wants to say how exactly should we live up to the truth of the quadratic equation (truth is truth), but practical applications of keeping it in mind (Jesus’ kingship I mean) could include trying to obey what He has instructed up to do, even when we don’t enjoy it. Remembering that all of us creatures and things in Creation are in a way fellow citizens of His Kingdom. (Brother Sun and Sister Moon, as St. Francis put it. Brother Quadratic Equation even. I apologize and say a prayer for Brother Bug(s) when I have to kill them. In a better world I could just teleport them to a distant field or something. I trust we’ll be on better terms in the afterlife.)
Or a decent human being (as Le Carré had a character say in The Russia House).
Well… When it comes to being a good Christian… Jesus being the king of everything is kind of part of our theology in the first place.
And arguably, yes, being a good or decent human being would kind of be part of that, though some people’s idea of good and decent is going to vary.
Why, did you think it was going to be something else? Seriously, I’m genuinely wondering.
(Of course there’s more to it than just being a decent or good human being since there is actually, you know, looking up to Jesus as the king of everything, and you know, worshiping Him and all of that.)
Metaphysical and abstract theological theory are a few steps up. So there is a connection to praxis, but it's not a direct connection, but one mediated by other layers. One can't say it feeds directly into this and that action.
The preacher, a lay professor of physics, at our church last Sunday preached on hope. He contrasted secular hope, which is an optimistic assessment of the future based on the present, with religious hope which is an affirmation of the present based on our confidence in Jesus' future kingship. That is, we act as loving human beings in confidence that in so doing our efforts are not meaningless. We know that the mighty being torn down from their seats and the exaltation of the humble and meek is something to look forward to.
You talk about 'decent human being' as if the concept of a 'decent human being' was self-evident to all people. But decency to an ancient Greek might be a rather different thing to one of us. A fatalist can be a decent human being, but I suspect that the fatalism might affect how they weight the factors that make up decency.
If you were to ask me what difference the doctrine of Jesus' kingship made in my life, I'd say it's primarily in the area of hope. His kingship gives me hope that, when the rulers of this world fuck things up, they don't have the final say in how things go. They will eventually be overruled by the true and highest king.
The second thing it does for me personally (maybe not for others, maybe yes) is to remind me that I answer to somebody when it comes to my actions in the world. So, I don't get to pollute, exploit, destroy, or misuse the power I have to harm the rest of creation, human or otherwise. I am not king. Jesus is.
Does that make any sense to you, as far as "how does this abstract philosophical notion work its way out in the real life of a Christian?"
I tried to put that in my post but couldn’t come up with a satisfactory way to put it. I was trying to answer the question why Christians do it that was kind of asked up thread. All people are capable of doing good. Some would argue it is a sign we are in God’s image. There are differences in motivation.
And all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike can have 'mixed motives'.
So there isn't going to be a single, straightforward answer as to why Christians do things, any more than there is for anyone else.
Just as 'All truth is God's truth' so any good deed is still a good deed and benefits people even if our motives aren't particularly pure.
If I feel proud or pleased myself for giving to charity, say, in a Pharisaical 'look at me, look at me' kind of way then I have 'my reward in full'. I already have my 'reward' in terms of recognition or adulation, but it undermines any 'hidden' or spiritual benefit I might derive from it.
Not that we should do things in order to get some kind of 'reward.'
Nor do 'works' save us, as it were, although on the basis of Romans 2 I think they can be of value in some sense.
The recipients of any good deed benefit from it even if the motivation of the do-er is questionable.
And all our motivations are questionable at times.
But God gives more grace.