Avoid Oversimplified Ideologies: Seek the Truth in Error
It has become very typical to attack people, not merely for their own beliefs and practices, but the beliefs and practices of their friends, the people they have studied under, or the people they have taught. Of course, such relationships are important. Indeed, it is difficult to deny that a teacher can have an influence on their pupil, but it is an over-simplification to suggest that a student’s thoughts are going to be exactly the same as their mentor. Even though guilt by association is a fallacy, it is routinely used in rhetorical debates, and it appears to have a great deal of success because people do not know why such arguments are in error. Thus, it has become very common for some to call President Obama a socialist, and it is done along these lines of thought.[1]
If Christians took this line of argument seriously, we would find ourselves in a serious mess. The history of Christian thought would surprise many readers. Figures such as Evagrius Ponticus, who were to be condemned as heretics at ecumenical councils, were themselves authors who have had tremendous influence in the development of and defense of theological orthodoxy.[2] For the sake of example, however, we will stick with Evagrius and some of his associations.
Evagrius was elevated as a deacon by St Gregory the Theologian, and was active at I Constantinople — indeed, St Gregory the Theologian had nothing but praise for Evagrius. Through Nazianzus, he would become friends with, and even influenced by, St Gregory of Nyssa (who method of Scriptural interpretation clearly inspired Evagrius). As St Gregory the Theologian’s secretary, it appears he worked upon and edited St Gregory’s own writings while he was learning from and appreciating the wisdom of the Cappadocians. “Evagrius proved his worth in fighting at close quarters. As is evident from On the faith, Evagrius thoroughly assimilated the Cappadocian perspective on Nicene theology — so thoroughly, in fact, that he was all in probability involved in the drafting and editing of the great orations that earned for Gregory the sobriquet ‘the Theologian’ (an exceedingly rare honour among the Greek fathers).”[3] Although he would suffer a breakdown in the imperial city, causing him to flee the city and eventually renounce honors and become a monk of the desert, Evagrius remained an influential writer. His excursus in monastic theology was to become the systematic foundation for spiritual thought for years to come. His fore into the desert would itself lead to the first Origenist crisis. Soon Evagrius’ death, Theophilus would be forced to condemn Origenism and Origenist leaning monks who had lived with and learned from Evagrius, such as the Tall Brethren — these same Tall Brethren would then seek asylum by St John Chrysostom, and receive it. St John Chrysostom’s bitter battle and exile would come, in part, as a result of his defense of the Tall Brethren.
Evagrius was approved by greats, he was welcomed by greats, and he was read by greats. And yet, he was to be condemned because of his cosmologies, when the second Origenist crisis was seen as a problem by St Justinian. Evagrius, despite being declared a heretic, is recognized as being an important defender of Nicene orthodoxy, of being an important and influential figure in the development of monastic spiritual discipline, and indeed, in the development of moral theology with his development of the notion of the seven (or eight) deadly sins. One could trace Evagrius’ influence in orthodoxy and note that many of his works were often preserved because someone attributed them to orthodox writers like St Gregory of Nyssa (or they were preserved in Syriac, and in Syriac-speaking lands, Evagrius was not to be seen as unorthodox), so that his ideas continued to be reflected upon and treated by subsequent generations.
Now, if we took the typical rhetorical appeal used in politics and aimed it at the Cappadocians and St John Chrysostom, we would have to condemn them, and Nicene orthodoxy, for being heretical. For, if we followed such tactics, this is what we would have to ask and proclaim: Why were the Cappadocians so approving of Evagrius? Why did St John Chrysostom defend Evagrius’ heirs and fellow Origenists? Were they all secret Origenists? Didn’t St. Athanasius declare himself in agreement with Origen?[4] Didn’t St Gregory of Nyssa follow Origen’s universalism? Didn’t St Basil and St Gregory the Theologian make an abridged edition of the writings of Origen to help promote Origen’s thought? Is Nicene orthodoxy itself really an Origenist heresy?
It is clear that Origen and later Origenists like Evagrius were to be held in esteem, even if such esteem led to a critical examination of their thoughts and an adaptation of them when their speculations were seen as incompatible with Christian orthodox theology. By reading and learning from them, as by reading and learning from the philosophers, Christians certainly believed they were able to gain a better theological understanding. Certainly there is a real profound influence of Origen and Origenism on subsequent theology, but it would be wrong to therefore accuse the whole of theology and Nicene orthodoxy as being the same thing as Origenism. In the same way, those who study and adapt socialist thinkers are not necessarily going to be socialists themselves. Pope Benedict does not end up being a socialist because he writes of the endless fascination one can have with Marx and Marxist thought:
With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution—and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination.[5]
Benedict, after all, suggested that despite the genius and importance of Marx, he was in error, desiring a materialistic utopia without an explanation for how that would actually work:
Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. [6]
The point is not that Pope Benedict agrees with Marx, but that Pope Benedict supports an appreciation and understanding of Marx, evident not only in Spe Salvi but in his other analyses of the work of Marx. Benedict understood the truth contained in Marx is important and is not to be neglected. Truth is important, and it is to be found in the midst of error — indeed, as is often the case, error is really the incomplete, imperfect presentation of a truth, and what is needed is not the rejection of that truth, but its proper placement with those truths which were neglected by such error. This leads us back to the start of our piece. Ideologues think truth is simple, and easily ascertained. They are unwilling to learn from others, to seek out the truths contained in theories contrary to their own. They resort to over-simplifications because their own version of truth is such a simplification. When ad hominem labels are placed upon people based upon their studies and associations, we can know that it is not truth, but an ideology, which is being defended.
[1] Sometimes, he is denounced for direct associations with a “known socialist,” other times it is because of his association with someone who has praised an aspect of a socialist’s writing. Of course, one does not have to be a socialist to praise ideas created by socialists; indeed, it is important to understand that much good and truth is being proclaimed by socialists, as Pope Benedict has himself done in his examinations on Marx.
[2] There are many correspondences which we could bring up, where a teacher and their star pupil, or close friends who shared a common understanding, ended up being declared on opposite sides on the scale of orthodoxy, such as St Justin Martyr with Tatian, Tertullian with St Cyprian, Origen with St Gregory the Wonderworker, Apollinaris with St Athanasius, Dioscorus with St Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia with St John Chrysostom, et. al.
[3] A.M. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus (London: Routledge, 2006), 8.
[4] See St Athanasius, De Decretis VI.27.
[5] Pope Benedict, Spe Salvi 20.
[6] ibid., 21.
Comments are closed.
“Ideologues think truth is simple, and easily ascertained.”
I think that I understand what you mean by that.
But, on the other hand, there is a sense in which the Truth is simple–as exemplified by Jesus being able to translate all of the hundreds of elements of the law and the prophets into two little commandments.
There is an important truth hidden in the shopworn adage, “The devil is in the details.”
I can’t speak for others but my own suspicions regarding Obama’s socialist leanings begin with his association with the Alinsky inspired ACORN crowd in Chicago, his friendship with known communist Frank Davis, while in Hawaii, and his appointments of hard core leftists to positions of influence in his administration., and his alliance with the radical SEIU. And that’s before getting to the auto industry and health care takeovers. There are good reasons to suspect that he is a hard core left wing ideologue. Calling him a socialist is not much of a stretch. His heroes, and compatriots are men and women of the left, and his policies show it. The Pope whatever he may say of Marx, clearly does not admire him or his views.
I can’t speak for others but my own suspicions regarding Obama’s socialist leanings begin with his association with the Alinsky inspired ACORN crowd in Chicago, his friendship with known communist Frank Davis, while in Hawaii, and his appointments of hard core leftists to positions of influence in his administration.,
So, let’s see — does that mean Jacques Maritain is a “socialist” or “with socialist leanings” (what exactly does the second mean) because of his long term association with Alinsky? ( http://www.amazon.com/Philosopher-Provocateur-Correspondence-Jacques-Maritain/dp/0268038023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238080951&sr=1-1 )
Does that make G.K. Chesterton a socialist because of his long-term friendships with known Fabians?
What exactly do you mean by “hardcore leftists” — what exactly makes them “hardcore lefitsts” and what policies are they pushing through which are socialist?
Etc. As for the Pope, he engages Marx, and doesn’t just go “Marx, bad, be a capitalist.”
“his appointments of hard core leftists to positions of influence in his administration.”
Could you explain this? What “hard core leftists” are there in his administration?
I might have mentioned Rev. “G-D America” Wright, and unrepentant violoent America hating WeatherUndergrounder Bill Ayers as pals of his. At some point ones associations do begin to reflect one’s character and values. As for appointments, how about the name Van Jones? For that matter we now have unaccountable Czars overseeing wide swaths of the US ecnomony. Left wing in my book. I am only guessing but I think if the Pope was quoting Marx it wasn’t to give credence to his views in any way,but to engage those who have have been corrupted by them. In other words with an eye towards dialogue leading to conversion.
Chris
The Pope does give _some_ credibility to Marx, especially in his criticism of the abuses of the day, but finds his solution to be in error. As for Wright, once again, nothing to do with socialism.
Did you actually read the post? Would you think the whole of orthodoxy is basically Origenism, with the close associations between the leaders of Nicene orthodoxy with Origenists (with their praise of the Origenists and desire to show themselves in accord with Origen)? I ask that — but if you wanted my response, I think there is a great deal of Origen in orthodox theology, and don’t see it as a problem, but if one wants to engage as you (and many others) do, what do you make of the association of orthodoxy with Origen?
People should actually read some Catholic social teaching. I guarantee that reads far more “left-wing” than anything coming out of the Obama administration.
Chris C – best to avoid Fox News talking points, thanks.
“I might have mentioned Rev. “G-D America” Wright, and unrepentant violoent America hating WeatherUndergrounder Bill Ayers as pals of his. At some point ones associations do begin to reflect one’s character and values. As for appointments, how about the name Van Jones? For that matter we now have unaccountable Czars overseeing wide swaths of the US ecnomony. Left wing in my book. ”
Reverend Wright said “God damn America” in the context of condemning slavery. . . which he was absolutely correct to do. The idea that everything America does is good is nonsense, and Wright was pointing this out. Perhaps he made other comments that are deplorable, but his “God damn America” remark was right on the money.
Bill Ayers is not a “pal” of Obama, despite what Sarah palin says.
What was so bad about Van Jones? Honestly. . . was he a terrorist? Did he kill in the name of his ideology? Or did he, as I suspect, have a slightly different opinion on the matter of our obligation to the poor than you do? Be specific about his crimes.
As for the “czars” nonsense. . . Bush appointed as many czars as did Obama, and many more than previous presidents.
But of course you would never, ever in a million years criticize Bush, so forget I mentioned that.
“I might have mentioned Rev. “G-D America” Wright,”
I hate to harp on this. . . but what exactly does “left wing” mean in this context? I had thoght that a “lefty” was a statist, someone who looked to the state to solve all our problems, while the conservative relied on his or her own powers, sacrificing himself for no man, and asking no man to sacrifice themselves for him.
But now it turns out that if you are not sufficiently deferential to the state. . . if you criticize or condemn the state. . . this is a sign of being hard left?
Explain yourself.
At some point ones associations do begin to reflect one’s character and values.
Chris, what does it say about your character and values that you simple ape the tropes and cadences of Sean Hannity and Fox News?
For those who fear Obama is a socialist,
Isaiah 58 “This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly,
untying the thongs of the yoke;
Setting freee the oppressed,
breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;
Clothing the naked when you see them,
and not turning your back on your own.
Then your light shalll break forth like the dawn,
and your wound whall quickly be healed;
Your vindication shall go beforeyou,
and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard…
If you bestow your bread on the hungry and satisfy the afflicted;
Then light shall rise for you in the darkness,
and the gloom shall become for you like midday;
Then the Lord will guide you always and give you plenty even on the parched land.”
Those who say they are on the right, what do you think about God’s Words.
Some QT’s: Henry yes I did read the post. What stood out was your reference to Obama, Socialism,Marx and Pope Benedict 16th. I am sure your theological points are well thought out, but I was dealing with the political implications of what you were addressing not the theological which certainly may deserve respectful attention, but why interject them with political commentary?
Phos. Please tell me you are not serious about Rev “G-D America”?? Right on the money? I don’t care what the context was, the remarks were abominable. I couldn’t condone them no matter what the context against any nation let alone my own.
Ayers and his violent wife Bernardine Dohrn hosted the first political gathering Obama ever had in Chicago. I think I would prefer the company of Sarah Palin to that of Mr Obama’s friends. You also lost me with your “condemning the state” business. I took Obama’s mentor Rev Wright to be expressing utter contempt and loathing for America n a broader sense than just the state. I would guess that he loves state power.
R.King great quote from Isaiah, though it has nothing to do with anything I wrote. It is an injunction to each of us to be generous and giving, not steal from others via our government.
Those who are on the right would merely dismiss calls in the Bible like that of Isaiah as only applying to individuals, and not society as well.
Even so, if that were the case, we don’t see Sarah Palin and the like doing any such thing as individuals anyway. A cop-out, compounded with hypocrisy.
Chris C., It is an injunction for a society to be generous. We steal individually when we do not give enough. Then government becomes the means through which God must work to care for those we do not care for.
Agree, Ron and Ryan, but society is not synonomous with government, something the concept of subsidiarity recognizes. Society’s most basic unit is the family, immediate and extended; neighbors, local, regional and national charities, varieties of civic groups and voluntary associations, with our governments properly I believe, being not a general manager of society, but a “safety net” insuring that no one suffers from a lack of basic necessities.
Governments, from federal, down to local school boards, have often overreached and undermined the family in numerous ways. And, we should not be mislead into thinking that just becuase pompous politicos tell us they care about the poor and suffering, that they really do. Often the poor are expolited and used more as stooges by those professing to help them but interested more in aggrandizement of their own power. Government programs are notoriously top heavy with bureacracies, benefitting unionized government workers more than the poor they supposedly want to help.By all means, society has a duty, but left unchecked, our government will often run amok.
Chris, I do not worry about the government. God has used pompous people from the beginning to do the right thing in spite of the atrocities they have committed. Solomon is one example.
We catholics have failed with subsidiarity. There are over 60 million of us in this country. Don’t you think that with proper values and leadership we could have started a national healthecare system instead of the fragmented work we do now? It is good work, but it is fragmented.
Government would only be grateful if we did that. It would save them a lot of money to go conquer the world.