Nelu Brie la Saptamina de Evanghelizare Feb 27,2012 Biserica Gloria Arad-Bujac

Pagina PREDICI cu Nelu Brie, Vladimir Pustan, Florin Ianovici aici.

Predica incepe la minutul 70 (sau 01:10:00) Instructiuni daca doriti sa sariti direct la predica:

Porniti butonul de la player 5 secunde si apoi il opriti. Lasati-l 30 de minute pina se incarca si apoi faceti click pe la mijlocul liniei pina va arata 01:10:00.

Predica Pastorul Nelu Brie – Profesor la Institutul Teologic Penticostal din Bucuresti si Pastor la Biserica Penticostala Emanuel Sibiu:

Textul – Marcu 9:43-48 – Focul Gheenei

43Dacă mîna ta te face să cazi în păcat, taie -o; este mai bine pentru tine să intri ciung în viaţă, decît să ai două mîni, şi să mergi în gheenă, în focul care nu se stinge, 44unde viermele lor nu moare, şi focul nu se stinge.
45Dacă piciorul tău te face să cazi în păcat, taie -l; este mai bine pentru tine să intri în viaţă şchiop, decît să ai două picioare, şi să fii aruncat în gheenă, în focul care nu se stinge, 46unde viermele lor nu moare, şi focul nu se stinge.
47Şi dacă ochiul tău te face să cazi în păcat, scoate -l; este mai bine pentru tine să intri în Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu numai cu un ochi, decît să ai doi ochi şi să fii aruncat în focul gheenei, 48unde viermele lor nu moare şi focul nu se stinge.

Trei observatii

  1.  Singurul care vorbeste in mod direct de acest subiect in sfinta scriptura este Domnul Isus. Ceilalti apostoli cind se refera la iad il citeaza pe Domnul Isus. Aceasta observatie trebuie sa ne atraga atentia asupra implicatiilor care le are, faptul ca revelatia despre focul gheenei ne vine nemijlocit, ne vine prin Domnul Isus Hristos.
  2. Istoria predicarii crestine este plina de descrieri care de care mai fanteziste ale infernului. Literatura crestina timpurie contine asemenea scrieri.  Ma voi sili sa evit aceste descrieri pline de fantezie si imaginatie si sa raminem la textele sfintelor scripturi care de buna seama are sa ne spuna pe aceasta tema foarte multe lucruri.
  3. Pina la inceputul secolului douazeci in predicarea crestina, indiferent de confesiune, propovaduirea despre focul gheenei a ocupat un loc aparte in propovaduirea crestina. Predicile parintilor bisericii, sau predici rostite in evul mediu, sau ale reformatorilor, sau in vremea marilor treziri spirituale au fost predici in care s-a facut adeseori trimitere la focul gheenei. A ramas in constiinta bisericii mesajul lui Jonathan Edwards: Pacatosi pierduti in mina unui Dumnezeu infuriat. A fost de fapt o predica despre iad.

Incepind insa cu secolul douazeci se observa un dezinteres crescind fata de aceasta realitate. Oamenilor nemaivenindu-le la indemina sa vorbeasca sau sa auda acest subiect, asa s-a ajuns ca in zilele noastre avem oameni care se declara crestini, cu credinta in Dumnezeu  dar in acelasi timp neaga existenta infernului.

Terminologia folosita pentru acest loc

Avem cel putin sase termeni:

  1. Intunericul de afara. Matei 22:13; Matei 8:12
  2. Focul cel vesnic. Matei 25:41: Marcu 9:43
  3. Iazul de foc si pucioasa. Apocalipsa 19:20: Apocalipsa 20:15 Observati ca scriptura nu foloseste cuvintul “iadul” de foc ci “iazul” de foc adica lacul de foc. Daca un lac e alcatuit din apa, substanta care-l formeaza este apa; iadul are ca substanta constitutiva focul: iazul care arde cu foc si cu pucioasa.
  4. Locul de chin. Domnul Isus relateaza pilda cu bogatul si cu Lazar si se refera la locul de chin
  5. Gheena. Se regaseste in Noul Testament in mai multe locuri, unul din pasaje fiind Matei 5:29; Matei 10:28
  6. Iad. Un cuvint care desi are uzanta larga in mediile populare, acest cuvint nu apare nicaieri in traducerea Cornilescu. El insa reprezinta poate cea mai fidela traducere a cuvintului grecesc  Gehenna (Greek γέεννα) iad. In Noul Testament Romanesc este transliterat fara sa fie tradus. Daca l-am traduce am spune iad.

Aceasta este terminologia biblica privitor la locul de osinda, la locul de chin. S-au ridicat in istoria bisericii intrebari legate de localizarea infernului. Oamenii si-au inchipuit ca iadul exista undeva in interiorul pamintului. Scriptura nu reveleaza locul in care se gaseste infernul. Cu certitudine acest loc exista dar nu ne spune unde. Pot sa spun cu siguranta ca nu se gaseste in interiorul acestei planete-pamint. Argumentul este urmatorul: In timp ce iadul este vesnic, pamintul va trece.

In a doua perspectiva: Focul va fi natura dominanta a iadului. Oare ce se gaseste acolo? Matei 5:22 ne arata ca  natura predominanta a iadului este focul. La fel Matei 25:41; Marcu 9:43; Luca 16:23; Apocalipsa 19:20: Apocalipsa 21:8; Matei 18:8. Toate aceste expresii re regasesc pe buzele Domnului nostru Isus care descrie natura acestui loc.

 Focul iadului – Argumente

In lumea crestina s-a ridicat intrebarea legata de natura acelui foc. Uni au sustinut ca focul iadului nu este un foc fizic ci este un foc al remuscarilor. Expresia a reprezenta o metafora care te trimite la focul interior al severelor, cruzilor mustrari de constiinta. Ca n-ar fi un foc real; dati-mi voie sa afirm clar, raspicat ca dupa sfinta scriptura focul gheenei este un foc fizic, real. Argumentele pe baza caror fac aceste argumente sunt cel putin trei

  1. Primul argument: Invierea mortilor. Biblia marturiseste ca vor avea parte de inviere toti, toti oamenii, si cei care vor fi mintuiti si cei care vor fi pierduti. Cei mintuiti in trupuri asemanatoare trupului slavit al Domnului nostru Isus Hristos se vor duce in prezenta lui Dumnezeu si vor fi pentru totdeauna cu Domnul privind nemijlocit fata lui Dumnezeu. Ceilalti, cei nemintuiti, in trupuri inviate vor fi aruncati in iazul de foc care arde cu pucioasa. Daca infernul nu este un loc real si focul de acolo nu e real atunci la ce inviere?
  2. Ajuns in locul de chin, Domnul Isus vorbeste despre bogatul prezent in locul de chin care spunea urmatoarele: Trimite pe Lazar in casa tatalui meu ca grozav sunt chinuit in vapaia aceasta,  sa vina Lazar sa-si moaie virful degetului in apa si sa imi racoreasca limba, caci grozav sunt chinuit in vapaia aceasta. Va intreb, cind ne mustra constiinta, daca bem un pahar cu apa ne trece? La ce avea nevoie de apa?
  3. Apocalipsa 14 ne descrie conditia nefericita a celora care neavind scris numele in Cartea Vietii, mergind pe urmele celui rau, traind in pacate, slujind celui rau vor ajunge la sfirsit sa fie osinditi. Apocalipsa 14:10 spune Si vor fi aruncati in iazul care arde cu foc si pucioasa si fumul chinului lor se suie in sus in veci vecilor.Cind ne mustra constiinta iese fum? Cind iese fum? Cind ceva arde.

Pe baza acestor argumente, linga care ar putea fi puse si altele afirmam ca  natura predominanta a infernului este focul si ca acest foc este real.  Parintii bisericii au ridicat intrebari legate de felul acelui foc. Spre exemplu Augustin l-a numit diferit de cel pe care il cunoastem noi in prezent. Spunea Augustin ca focul pe care il stim noi astazi arde si consuma in timp ce focul gheenei arde, consuma si reface in acelasi timp. Ma limitez doar al cita pe Augustin care spunea ca acest ofc este un foc inteligent si fara sa spunem cu certitudine ca are dreptate, ce trece peste ce a spus Isus este speculatie.Raminem la cele spuse. Focul va fi fizic si ma ingrozesc la gindul ca uni dintre cei care suntem aici prezenti am putea ajunge acolo.

Infernul este un loc real, pregatit de Dumnezeu pentru diavolul, pentru demonii sai, insa din pricina trairii in necredinta si in pacate, acolo vor ajunge si uni oameni.

Suferintele iadului vor fi at it suferinte sufletesti cit si suferinte trupesti. Exista opinia care sustine ca suferintele iadului nu vor fi suferinte trupesti, ci doar sufletesti; spiritul va fi chinuit acolo, nu corpul. Biblia ne invata altceva. Suferintele din infern vor fi at it suferinte sufletesti cit si trupesti. Matei 5:29; Marcu 9. Mintuitorul a spus clar: corpul unor oameni poate sa ajunga in gheena. Matei 10:28- Dupa vorbirea Domnului nostru Isus Hristos, in gheena va fi pierdut si trupul si sufletul celor osinditi. Imaginatia omeneasca nu poate sa conceapa suferintele din infern.

A aparut si in limba Romana o carte intitulata “Istoria Infernurilor” scriza de un francez- Georges Minois; editura Humanitas, este o abordare stiintifica. Se trece in revista conceptia despre infern pe parcursul istoriei bisericii. Sunt trecute in atentie sute de pasaje cu referinte la infern. Imaginatia este plina de fantezie. Socanta, tulburatoare. Intelegerea mea este ca ceia ce se intimpla acolo nu poate fi conceput de nimeni.

Dupa cum rasplatirile si fericirea si bucuria pe care a pregatit-o Dumnezeu pentru cei care mostenesc mintuirea nu poate fi conceputa; aici adeverindu-se cuvintele apostolului Pavel care a spus: Lucruri pe care ochiul omului nu le-a vazut; urechea omului nu le-a auzit si la mintea omului nu s-au suit- asa sunt lucrurile pe care le-a pregatit Dumnezeu pentru cei care vor mosteni mintuirea. La polul opus este suferinta infernului.

Mici ferestre spre suferinta maximala in iad.

Matei 22:13 Atunci împăratul a zis slujitorilor săi: ,Legaţi -i mînile şi picioarele, şi luaţi -l şi aruncaţi -l în întunerecul de afară; acolo va fi plînsul şi scrîşnirea dinţilor. Trei lucruri sunt spuse aici despre iad: 1)Legat – de miini si de picioare 2)Intunericul de afara si 3)Plinsul si scrisnirea dintilor. Ce-i scrisnirea dintilor? In vremea in care nu fuseze inca descoperit anestezicul, interventiile chirurgicale se faceau pe viu. Imaginati-va nenorocit a carui picior trebuia sa fie amputat de viu. Pacientul era imbatat bine si apoi se trecea la operatie. Inchipuiti-va o operatie la rinichi pe viu. Nenorocitul a carui viata se dorea sa fie salvata stringea din dinti cu asa o putere incit ii crapau maselele in gura. Ce-o fi fost in sufletul lui de a preferat durerea spartului maselelor lui in gura sub propria presiune durerii cauterizarii cu fier incins a ranii?  Ca sa fie impiedicata paguba spartului maselelor prin scrisnirea dintilor in gura era pusa o bucata de lemn ca sa stringa de ala. Aici va fi sensul expresiei “scrisnirea dintilor”.

In Apocalipsa 20:10 avem o expresie: unde vor fi munciti in veci vecilor, adica torturati. Sau, expresia: unde viermele lor nu moare si focul nu se stinge. Sau, expresia: grozav sunt chinuit in vapaia aceasta. Toate aceste referinte biblice, care ne vin doar de pe buzele Domnului nostru Isus ne comunica faptul ca iadul este locul suferintei in forma maxima.

Si cind te gindesti ca ai putea sa fi in rai. Locul acesta este real. Din clipa cind omul moare cit timp trece pina cind sufletul lui, daca e credincios ajunge in rai? O secunda. Tilharului mintuit Domnul Isus i-a spus: Astazi vei fi cu  mine in rai.Iar Stefan a vazut chiar in clipa mortii sale cerul deschis si a spus: Primeste Doamne duhul meu. Ai murit in credinta, in urmatoarea clipa esti la Domnul. Dar cind un om fara Hristos moare, cit timp trebuie sa treaca din clipa mortii pina ajunge in infern? O clipa.  Iti imaginezi cit esti de aproape de iad? Citi nu au murit in imprejurari napraznice plecind spre casa lor?  Daca nu esti pus cu DUmnezeu in rinduiala esti la o secunda din infern.

Oare care este virsta in care poate sa deosebeasca omul binele de rau?

Si care este virsta cind un om este responsabil inaintea lui Dumnezeu pentru propriile alegeri? Nu avem raspuns clar in Biblie. Dar e ceva care ne-ar putea face sa gasim capatul firului. Exista o virsta in care copilului ii este rusine sa fie vazut in pielea goala. Asa-i? Pina la o anumita virsta iese dintr-o camera si intra in alta; nu conteaza ca-s musafiri, el se duce. Dar dupa o anumita virsta nu mai vrea sa fie vazut nici de mamica, nici de taticu. Deja stie. Avind in vedere ca atunci cind a stiut ce-i bine si ce-i rau, Adam si Eva si-au dat seama ca sunt goi, probabil ca de-acolo e virsta responsabilitatii morale. Acest lucru ne cheama la simtul responsabilitatii ca nu e unul intre cei prezenti , poate cu exceptii, micuti tare care sa nu poata decide ce face cu viata lui.  Voia lui Dumnezeu este mintuirea noastra.  Afirmam cu hotarire si cu convingere ca Dumnezeu este dragoste si iubeste pe oameni si doreste mintuirea oamenilor.

Oare ce este in inima lui Dumnezeu ca a ajuns in fata fapturii create de sine sa se jure spunind: Pe viata Mea, zice Domnul, ca nu doresc viata pacatosului ci mai degraba intoarcerea lui? Voia lui Dumnezeu este mintuirea noastra dar in acelasi timp trebuie sa stim ca Dumnezeul nostru este demn, e drept. Iubirea lui DUmnezeu ne este oferita in har si e mare, necuprinsa; dar nu nesfirsita.  Se sfirseste cind mori fara Hristos.

Teoriile moderne

Au aparut in lumea crestina tot felul de conceptii care minimalizeaza judecata lui Dumnezeu si consecintele vesnice:

  • Mintuirea Universala – Sunt oameni care sustin ca in final Dumnezeu va mintui pe toti; si pe diavolul il va mintui pina la urma. Unii mai creduli au inceput sa se roage ca Dumnezeu sa-l mintuiasca si pe diavolul.
  • Teoria Anihilarii –  sau teoria nemuririi conditionate. Asta spune ca vor trai vesnic cei mintuiti iar cei mintuiti nu sunt aruncati in iad, ei dispar sau nu mai sunt, au evaporat. Dupa Biblie, sufletul omului traieste vesnic. Sufletul nu moare, corpul moare. Sufletul e viu, traieste si dupa ce corpul moare. Se desparte de trup si se duce in lumea cealalta. Daca a fost mintuit merge la Domnul in rai. Daca a fost nemintuit se duce in chin.

Grief is not a disorder

Chuck Colson reports that the American Psychiatric Association began serious discussions, earlier this year, about whether to label grieving a psychiatric disorder. Emotions are part of what makes us human. Only in the postmodern western part of the world is the ultimate goal: Pleasure. And that means no pain? Chuck Colson calls it a fantasy that would make us less than human.

Colson cites C.S.Lewis’s Abolition of man: If wise men of old sought to conform the soul to reality, the solution to the human problem was self discipline and virtue. But today through applied science and now it seems through little white pills we try to subdue reality to the wishes of man. Lewis was a prophet. What he saw was that our attempt to conquer nature will inevitably lead to nature conquering us. When humans are reduced to mere nature, the by products of chances and cause, they may be manipulated and remade according to the whims of the powerful.  It is an invitation to dehumanization and tyranny.

C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man Chapter 1 – Men without chests

Here is a book that is rarely in print so Columbia University digitized it.  Abolition is a short philosophical work about moral education and the context of Lewis’s book is British education in the 1940s, so some of his expressions will need explanation. For this, you can read Dale J. Nelson’s short discussion of the book here.

Synopsis of Chapter 1: All civilizations have agreed: education ought to nurture in the child a love of the good; admiration of the excellent and beautiful; faithfulness to the truth; and also children should be taught to disapprove of the false, the shoddy, the unworthy.  The aim of true education is not only that children learn to spell and calculate and become physically strong. It is, above all, that young people should become courageous, generous, steady, and capable of discrimination in a good sense, that is, able to judge what is more worthy and what is less worthy of the esteem of a mature human being.(source here. ) The book is composed of 3 chapters. (COMING UP – DAILY)

Read Chapter 2 here – The Way

Read Chapter 3 here – The Abolition of Man    Read – Appendix here

C.S. Lewis

THE ABOLITION OF MAN

or

Reflections on education with special
reference to the teaching of English in
the upper forms of schools (means upper grades)

MEN WITHOUT CHESTS

So he sent the word to slay
And slew the little childer.

—TRADITIONAL CAROL

I doubt whether we are sufficiently attentive to the importance of elementary text books. That is why I have chosen as the starting-point for these lectures a little book on English intended for ‘boys and girls in the upper forms of schools’. I do not think the authors of this book (there were two of them) intended any harm, and I owe them, or their publisher, good language for sending me a complimentary copy. At the same time I shall have nothing good to say of them. Here is a pretty predicament. I do not want to pillory two modest practising schoolmasters who were doing the best they knew: but I cannot be silent about what I think the actual tendency of their work. I therefore propose to conceal their names. I shall refer to these gentlemen as Gaius and Titius and to their book as The Green Book. But I promise you there is such a book and I have it on my shelves.

In their second chapter Gaius and Titius quote the well-known story of Coleridge at the waterfall. You remember that there were two tourists present: that one called it ‘sublime’ and the other ‘pretty’; and that Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgement and rejected the second with disgust. Gaius and Titius comment as follows: ‘When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually … he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word “Sublime”, or shortly, I have sublime feelings’ Here are a good many deep questions settled in a pretty summary fashion. But the authors are not yet finished. They add: ‘This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.’1

danheller.com

Before considering the issues really raised by this momentous little paragraph (designed, you will remember, for ‘the upper forms of schools’) we must eliminate one mere confusion into which Gaius and Titius have fallen. Even on their own view—on any conceivable view—the man who says This is sublime cannot mean I have sublime feelings. Even if it were granted that such qualities as sublimity were simply and solely projected into things from our own emotions, yet the emotions which prompt the projection are the correlatives, and therefore almost the opposites, of the qualities projected. The feelings which make a man call an object sublime are not sublime feelings but feelings of veneration. If This is sublime is to be reduced at all to a statement about the speaker’s feelings, the proper translation would be I have humble feelings. If the view held by Gaius and Titius were consistently applied it would lead to obvious absurdities. It would force them to maintain that You are contemptible means I have contemptible feelings’, in fact that Your feelings are contemptible means My feelings are contemptible. But we need not delay over this which is the very pons asinorum of our subject. It would be unjust to Gaius and Titius themselves to emphasize what was doubtless a mere inadvertence.

The schoolboy who reads this passage in The Green Book will believe two propositions: firstly, that all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional state of the speaker, and secondly, that all such statements are unimportant. It is true that Gaius and Titius have said neither of these things in so many words. They have treated only one particular predicate of value (sublime) as a word descriptive of the speaker’s emotions. The pupils are left to do for themselves the work of extending the same treatment to all predicates of value: and no slightest obstacle to such extension is placed in their way. The authors may or may not desire the extension: they may never have given the question five minutes’ serious thought in their lives. I am not concerned with what they desired but with the effect their book will certainly have on the schoolboy’s mind. In the same way, they have not said that judgements of value are unimportant. Their words are that we ‘appear to be saying something very important’ when in reality we are ‘only saying something about our own feelings’. No schoolboy will be able to resist the suggestion brought to bear upon him by that word only. I do not mean, of course, that he will make any conscious inference from what he reads to a general philosophical theory that all values are subjective and trivial. The very power of Gaius and Titius depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy: a boy who thinks he is ‘doing’ his ‘English prep’ and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake. It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all. The authors themselves, I suspect, hardly know what they are doing to the boy, and he cannot know what is being done to him.

Before considering the philosophical credentials of the position which Gaius and Titius have adopted about value, I should like to show its practical results on the educational procedure. In their fourth chapter they quote a silly advertisement of a pleasure cruise and proceed to inoculate their pupils against the sort of writing it exhibits.2 The advertisement tells us that those who buy tickets for this cruise will go ‘across the Western Ocean where Drake of Devon sailed’, ‘adventuring after the treasures of the Indies’, and bringing home themselves also a ‘treasure’ of ‘golden hours’ and ‘glowing colours’. It is a bad bit of writing, of course: a venal and bathetic exploitation of those emotions of awe and pleasure which men feel in visiting places that have striking associations with history or legend. If Gaius and Titius were to stick to their last and teach their readers (as they promised to do) the art of English composition, it was their business to put this advertisement side by side with passages from great writers in which the very emotion is well expressed, and then show where the difference lies.

They might have used Johnson’s famous passage from the Western Islands, which concludes: ‘That man is little to be envied, whose patriotism would not gain force upon the plain of Marathon, or whose piety would not grow warmer among the ruins of Iona.’3 They might have taken that place in The Prelude where Wordsworth describes how the antiquity of London first descended on his mind with ‘Weight and power, Power growing under weight’.4 A lesson which had laid such literature beside the advertisement and really discriminated the good from the bad would have been a lesson worth teaching. There would have been some blood and sap in it—the trees of knowledge and of life growing together. It would also have had the merit of being a lesson in literature: a subject of which Gaius and Titius, despite their professed purpose, are uncommonly shy.

What they actually do is to point out that the luxurious motor-vessel won’t really sail where Drake did, that the tourists will not have any adventures, that the treasures they bring home will be of a purely metaphorical nature, and that a trip to Margate might provide ‘all the pleasure and rest’ they required.5 All this is very true: talents inferior to those of Gaius and Titius would have sufficed to discover it. What they have not noticed, or not cared about, is that a very similar treatment could be applied to much good literature which treats the same emotion. What, after all, can the history of early British Christianity, in pure reason, add to the motives for piety as they exist in the eighteenth century? Why should Mr Wordsworth’s inn be more comfortable or the air of London more healthy because London has existed for a long time? Or, if there is indeed any obstacle which will prevent a critic from ‘debunking’ Johnson and Wordsworth (and Lamb, and Virgil, and Thomas Browne, and Mr de la Mare) as The Green Book debunks the advertisement, Gaius and Titius have given their schoolboy readers no faintest help to its discovery.

From this passage the schoolboy will learn about literature precisely nothing. What he will learn quickly enough, and perhaps indelibly, is the belief that all emotions aroused by local association are in themselves contrary to reason and contemptible. He will have no notion that there are two ways of being immune to such an advertisement—that it falls equally flat on those who are above it and those who are below it, on the man of real sensibility and on the mere trousered ape who has never been able to conceive the Atlantic as anything more than so many million tons of cold salt water. There are two men to whom we offer in vain a false leading article on patriotism and honour: one is the coward, the other is the honourable and patriotic man. None of this is brought before the schoolboy’s mind. On the contrary, he is encouraged to reject the lure of the ‘Western Ocean’ on the very dangerous ground that in so doing he will prove himself a knowing fellow who can’t be bubbled out of his cash. Gaius and Titius, while teaching him nothing about letters, have cut out of his soul, long before he is old enough to choose, the possibility of having certain experiences which thinkers of more authority than they have held to be generous, fruitful, and humane. But it is not only Gaius and Titius. In another little book, whose author I will call Orbilius, I find that the same operation, under the same general anaesthetic, is being carried out. Orbilius chooses for ‘debunking’ a silly bit of writing on horses, where these animals are praised as the ‘willing servants’ of the early colonists in Australia.6 And he falls into the same trap as Gaius and Titius. Of Ruksh and Sleipnir and the weeping horses of Achilles and the war-horse in the Book of Job—nay even of Brer Rabbit and of Peter Rabbit—of man’s prehistoric piety to ‘our brother the ox’—of all that this semi-anthropomorphic treatment of beasts has meant in human history and of the literature where it finds noble or piquant expression—he has not a word to say.7 Even of the problems of animal psychology as they exist for science he says nothing. He contents himself with explaining that horses are not, secundum litteram, interested in colonial expansion.8 This piece of information is really all that his pupils get from him. Why the composition before them is bad, when others that lie open to the same charge are good, they do not hear. Much less do they learn of the two classes of men who are, respectively, above and below the danger of such writing—the man who really knows horses and really loves them, not with anthropomorphic illusions, but with ordinate love, and the irredeemable urban blockhead to whom a horse is merely an old-fashioned means of transport. Some pleasure in their own ponies and dogs they will have lost; some incentive to cruelty or neglect they will have received; some pleasure in their own knowingness will have entered their minds. That is their day’s lesson in English, though of English they have learned nothing. Another little portion of the human heritage has been quietly taken from them before they were old enough to understand.

I have hitherto been assuming that such teachers as Gaius and Titius do not fully realize what they are doing and do not intend the far-reaching consequences it will actually have. There is, of course, another possibility. What I have called (presuming on their concurrence in a certain traditional system of values) the ‘trousered ape’ and the ‘urban blockhead’ may be precisely the kind of man they really wish to produce. The differences between us may go all the way down. They may really hold that the ordinary human feelings about the past or animals or large waterfalls are contrary to reason and contemptible and ought to be eradicated. They may be intending to make a clean sweep of traditional values and start with a new set. That position will be discussed later. If it is the position which Gaius and Titius are holding, I must, for the moment, content myself with pointing out that it is a philosophical and not a literary position. In filling their book with it they have been unjust to the parent or headmaster who buys it and who has got the work of amateur philosophers where he expected the work of professional grammarians. A man would be annoyed if his son returned from the dentist with his teeth untouched and his head crammed with the dentist’s obiter dicta on bimetallism or the Baconian theory.

Eton schoolboy-England lemons2williams.wordpress.com

But I doubt whether Gaius and Titius have really planned, under cover of teaching English, to propagate their philosophy. I think they have slipped into it for the following reasons. In the first place, literary criticism is difficult, and what they actually do is very much easier. To explain why a bad treatment of some basic human emotion is bad literature is, if we exclude all question-begging attacks on the emotion itself, a very hard thing to do. Even Dr Richards, who first seriously tackled the problem of badness in literature, failed, I think, to do it. To ‘debunk’ the emotion, on the basis of a commonplace rationalism, is within almost anyone’s capacity. In the second place, I think Gaius and Titius may have honestly misunderstood the pressing educational need of the moment. They see the world around them swayed by emotional propaganda—they have learned from tradition that youth is sentimental—and they conclude that the best thing they can do is to fortify the minds of young people against emotion. My own experience as a teacher tells an opposite tale. For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.

But there is a third, and a profounder, reason for the procedure which Gaius and Titius adopt. They may be perfectly ready to admit that a good education should build some sentiments while destroying others. They may endeavour to do so. But it is impossible that they should succeed. Do what they will, it is the ‘debunking’ side of their work, and this side alone, which will really tell. In order to grasp this necessity clearly I must digress for a moment to show that what may be called the educational predicament of Gaius and Titius is different from that of all their predecessors.

Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it—believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt. The reason why Coleridge agreed with the tourist who called the cataract sublime and disagreed with the one who called it pretty was of course that he believed inanimate nature to be such that certain responses could be more ‘just’ or ‘ordinate’ or ‘appropriate’ to it than others. And he believed (correctly) that the tourists thought the same. The man who called the cataract sublime was not intending simply to describe his own emotions about it: he was also claiming that the object was one which merited those emotions. But for this claim there would be nothing to agree or disagree about. To disagree with This is pretty if those words simply described the lady’s feelings, would be absurd: if she had said I feel sick Coleridge would hardly have replied No; I feel quite well. When Shelley, having compared the human sensibility to an Aeolian lyre, goes on to add that it differs from a lyre in having a power of ‘internal adjustment’ whereby it can ‘accommodate its chords to the motions of that which strikes them’,9 he is assuming the same belief. ‘Can you be righteous’, asks Traherne, ‘unless you be just in rendering to things their due esteem? All things were made to be yours and you were made to prize them according to their value.’10

St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it.11 Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought.12 When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in ‘ordinate affections’ or ‘just sentiments’ will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science.13 Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.14 In the Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one ‘who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.’15 In early Hinduism that conduct in men which can be called good consists in conformity to, or almost participation in, the Rta—that great ritual or pattern of nature and supernature which is revealed alike in the cosmic order, the moral virtues, and the ceremonial of the temple. Righteousness, correctness, order, the Rta, is constantly identified with satya or truth, correspondence to reality. As Plato said that the Good was ‘beyond existence’ and Wordsworth that through virtue the stars were strong, so the Indian masters say that the gods themselves are born of the Rta and obey it.16

The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar.17 ‘In ritual’, say the Analects, ‘it is harmony with Nature that is prized.’18 The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being ‘true’.19

This conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer to for brevity simply as ‘the Tao‘. Some of the accounts of it which I have quoted will seem, perhaps, to many of you merely quaint or even magical. But what is common to them all is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not. I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself—just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind. And because our approvals and disapprovals are thus recognitions of objective value or responses to an objective order, therefore emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). No emotion is, in itself, a judgement; in that sense all emotions and sentiments are alogical. But they can be reasonable or unreasonable as they conform to Reason or fail to conform. The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.

Over against this stands the world of The Green Book. In it the very possibility of a sentiment being reasonable—or even unreasonable—has been excluded from the outset. It can be reasonable or unreasonable only if it conforms or fails to conform to something else. To say that the cataract is sublime means saying that our emotion of humility is appropriate or ordinate to the reality, and thus to speak of something else besides the emotion; just as to say that a shoe fits is to speak not only of shoes but of feet. But this reference to something beyond the emotion is what Gaius and Titius exclude from every sentence containing a predicate of value. Such statements, for them, refer solely to the emotion. Now the emotion, thus considered by itself, cannot be either in agreement or disagreement with Reason. It is irrational not as a paralogism is irrational, but as a physical event is irrational: it does not rise even to the dignity of error. On this view, the world of facts, without one trace of value, and the world of feelings, without one trace of truth or falsehood, justice or injustice, confront one another, and no rapprochement is possible.

Hence the educational problem is wholly different according as you stand within or without the Tao. For those within, the task is to train in the pupil those responses which are in themselves appropriate, whether anyone is making them or not, and in making which the very nature of man consists. Those without, if they are logical, must regard all sentiments as equally non-rational, as mere mists between us and the real objects. As a result, they must either decide to remove all sentiments, as far as possible, from the pupil’s mind; or else to encourage some sentiments for reasons that have nothing to do with their intrinsic ‘justness’ or ‘ordinacy’. The latter course involves them in the questionable process of creating in others by ‘suggestion’ or incantation a mirage which their own reason has successfully dissipated.

Perhaps this will become clearer if we take a concrete instance. When a Roman father told his son that it was a sweet and seemly thing to die for his country, he believed what he said. He was communicating to the son an emotion which he himself shared and which he believed to be in accord with the value which his judgement discerned in noble death. He was giving the boy the best he had, giving of his spirit to humanize him as he had given of his body to beget him. But Gaius and Titius cannot believe that in calling such a death sweet and seemly they would be saying ‘something important about something’. Their own method of debunking would cry out against them if they attempted to do so. For death is not something to eat and therefore cannot bedulce in the literal sense, and it is unlikely that the real sensations preceding it will be dulce even by analogy. And as for decorum—that is only a word describing how some other people will feel about your death when they happen to think of it, which won’t be often, and will certainly do you no good. There are only two courses open to Gaius and Titius. Either they must go the whole way and debunk this sentiment like any other, or must set themselves to work to produce, from outside, a sentiment which they believe to be of no value to the pupil and which may cost him his life, because it is useful to us (the survivors) that our young men should feel it. If they embark on this course the difference between the old and the new education will be an important one. Where the old initiated, the new merely ‘conditions’. The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds— making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation—men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda.

It is to their credit that Gaius and Titius embrace the first alternative. Propaganda is their abomination: not because their own philosophy gives a ground for condemning it (or anything else) but because they are better than their principles. They probably have some vague notion (I will examine it in my next lecture) that valour and good faith and justice could be sufficiently commended to the pupil on what they would call ‘rational’ or ‘biological’ or ‘modern’ grounds, if it should ever become necessary. In the meantime, they leave the matter alone and get on with the business of debunking. But this course, though less inhuman, is not less disastrous than the opposite alternative of cynical propaganda. Let us suppose for a moment that the harder virtues could really be theoretically justified with no appeal to objective value. It still remains true that no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite sceptical about ethics, but bred to believe that ‘a gentleman does not cheat’, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers. In battle it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism (such as Gaius and Titius would wince at) about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use. We were told it all long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the ‘spirited element’.20 The head rules the belly through the chest—the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity,21 of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.

The operation of The Green Book and its kind is to produce what may be called Men without Chests. It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. Indeed it would be strange if they were: a persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titius could debunk as easily as any other. It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.


NOTES

The Green Book, pp. 19, 20.

2 Ibid., p 53.

Journey to the Western Islands (Samuel Johnson).

The Prelude, viii, 11. 549-59.

The Green Book, pp. 53-5.

6 Orbilius’ book, p 5.

7 Orbilius is so far superior to Gaius and Titius that he does (pp. 19-22) contrast a piece of good writing to animals with the piece condemned. Unfortunately, however, the only superiority he really demonstrates in the second extract is its superiority in factual truth. The specifically literary problem (the use and abuse of expressions which are false secundum litteram) is not tackled. Orbilius indeed tells us (p. 97) that we must ‘learn to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate figurative statement’, but he gives us very little help in doing so. At the same time it is fair to record my opinion that his work is on quite a different level from The Green Book.

8 Ibid., p 9.

Defence of Poetry.

10 Centuries of Meditations, i, 12.

11 De Civ. Dei, xv. 22. Cf. ibid. ix. 5, xi. 28.

12 Eth. Nic. 1104 b.

13 Ibid. 1095 b.

14 Laws, 653.

15 Republic, 402 a.

16 A. B. Keith, s.v. ‘Righteousness (Hindu)’ Enc. Religion and Ethics, vol. x.

17 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 454 b; iv. 12 b; ix. 87 a.

18 The Analects of Confucius, trans. Arthur Waley, London, 1938, i. 12

19 Psalm 119:151. The word is emeth, ‘truth’. Where the Satya of the Indian sources emphasizes truth as ‘correspondence’, emeth (connected with a verb that means ‘to be firm’) emphasizes rather the reliability or trustworthiness of truth. Faithfulness and permanence are suggested by Hebraists as alternative renderings. Emeth is that which does not deceive, does not ‘give’, does not change, that which holds water. (See T. K. Cheyne in Encyclopedia Biblica, 1914, s.v. ‘Truth’.)

20 Republic, 442 b, c.

21 Alanus ab Insulis. De Planctu Naturae Prosa, iii.


Transcriber’s Notes

Bimetallism - use of two precious metals (e.g. gold and silver) as the standard of currency

Baconian theory - theory that holds Francis Bacon to have written the plays attributed to Shakespeare

Elemetary text-books - (1940′s British) equivalent to high school-level books

Dulce (sweet) Decorum (seemly or honorable) from the Roman saying dulce et decorum est pro patria mori “It is sweet and seemly to die for one’s country.”

Margate - resort area on the southeastern coast of England

Marathon…Iona Marathon is a plain in southeast Greece, where the Athenians defeated Persian invaders in 490 B.C. and saved Western civilization. Iona is a remote island west of Scotland, where despite many hazards monks preserved the Christian faith and much of Western learning. Samuel Johnson meant that seeing these famous sites, scenes of the greatest human dedication, should inspire a good person to greater love of his own country and religious faith.

Pons asinorum - bridge of asses, a basic geometric theorem

Obiter dicta - incidental judgements or opinions

Ordo amoris - order of love

Ruksh, Sleipnir, etc. - majestic or lovable animals of literature

Secundum literam - literally true

Stick to their last - stick to their proper job, from the expression “Shoemaker, stick to your last” (the last is a model of the human foot, made of wood or metal)

Upper forms of schools (1940′s British) equivalent to American upper grades


Posted by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, March 2002, because the book is only in print sporadically

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/
augustine@columbia.edu

Last update: March 6, 2002

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


Zilele trec…

Click pe harta pt ora actuala World Time Click on map for timezone

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,164 other followers