Poetic Faith: Culture + Subcreation w/r/t Religion

Month

February 2012

6 posts

“

In talking to audiences outside universities (some of whom may be graduates), I am struck by the level of curiosity about, and enthusiasm for, ideas and the quest for greater understanding, whether in history and literature, or physics and biology, or any number of other fields. Some members of these audiences may not have had the chance to study these things themselves, but they very much want their children to have the opportunity to do so; others may have enjoyed only limited and perhaps not altogether happy experience of higher education in their own lives, but have now in their adulthood discovered a keen amateur reading interest in these subjects; others still may have retired from occupations that largely frustrated their intellectual or aesthetic inclinations and are now hungry for stimulation.

Such audiences do not want to be told that we judge the success of a university education by how much more graduates can earn than non-graduates, any more than they want to hear how much scholarship and science may indirectly contribute to GDP. They are, rather, susceptible to the romance of ideas and the power of beauty; they want to learn about far-off times and faraway worlds; they expect to hear language used more inventively, more exactly, more evocatively than it normally is in their workaday world; they want to know that, somewhere, human understanding is being pressed to its limits, unconstrained by immediate practical outcomes.

These audiences are not all of one mind, needless to say, and not all sections of society are equally well represented among them. At various points in their lives their members may have other priorities, and there will always be competing demands on their interests and sympathies. But it is noticeable, and surely regrettable, how little the public debate about universities in contemporary Britain makes any kind of appeal to this widespread appreciation on the part of ordinary intelligent citizens that there should be places where these kinds of inquiries are being pursued at their highest level. Part of the problem may be that while universities are spectacularly good at producing new forms of understanding, they are not always very good at explaining what they are doing when they do this.

”
—Stefan Collini (via ayjay)
Feb 24, 20123 notes
“Benevolence to such persons is like that mistaken kindness of Eli that he was accused of showing his sons, contrary to the good pleasure of God. A feigned kindness to the wicked is a betrayal of truth, an act of treachery to the community and a means of habituating oneself to indifference to evil.” —Basil the Great, The Long Rules 28.
Feb 23, 20125 notes
“

And it is this joy of expectation and this expectation of joy that are expressed in singing and ritual, in vestments and in censing, in that whole “beauty” of the liturgy which has so often been denounced as unnecessary and even sinful.

Unnecessary it is indeed, for we are beyond the categories of the “necessary.” Beauty is never “necessary,” “functional” or “useful.” And when, expecting someone whom we love, we put a beautiful tablecloth on the table and decorate it with candles and flowers, we do all this not out of necessity, but out of love…. As long as Christians will love the Kingdom of God, and not only discuss it, they will “represent” it and signify it, in art and beauty.

”
—Schmemann, For the Life of the World
Feb 20, 20127 notes
“

“Man is what he eats.” With this statement the German materialistic philosopher Feuerbach thought he had put an end to all “idealistic” speculations about human nature. In fact, however, he was expressing, without knowing it, the most religious idea of man.

For long before Feuerbach the same definition of man was given by the Bible. In the biblical story of creation man is presented, first of all, as a hungry being, and the whole world as his food. Second only to the direction to propagate and have dominion over the earth, according to the author of the first chapter of Genesis, is God’s instruction to to men to eat of the earth: “Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed…and every tree, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat…”

Man must eat in order to live; he must take the world into his body and transform it into himself, into flesh and blood.

He is indeed that which he eats, and the whole world is presented as one all-embracing banquet table for man. And this image of the banquet remains, throughout the whole Bible, the central image of life. It is the image of life at its creation and also the image of life at its end and fulfillment: “… that you eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom.”

”
—Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World, ch. 1
Feb 17, 20121 note
“In the celebrated discussion in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera says two things about kitsch: first, that it represents ‘the absence of shit in the world’ – in other words, the refusal to be honest about pain and evil; second, that looking at kitsch two tears fall, one at the subject and the other which notes what a tender emotional being I am to be moved by this.” —Kitsch: Feeling Good about Ourselves While Evil Goes Unchecked
Feb 11, 2012
“In the centre of the picture a gigantic Christ, of disproportionate size if compared with the figures grouped around him, is nailed to a cross which has been roughly trimmed so that patches of bare wood are exposed here and there; the transverse branch, dragged down by the hands, is bent as in the Karlsruhe Crucifixion into the shape of a bow. The body looks much the same in the two works: pale and shiny, dotted with spots of blood, and bristling like a chestnut-burr with splinters that the rods have left in the wounds; at the ends of the unnaturally long arms the hands twist convulsively and claw the air; the knees are turned in so that the bulbous knee-caps almost touch; while the feet, nailed one on top of the other, are just a jumbled heap of muscles underneath rotting, discoloured flesh and blue toe-nails; as for the head, it lolls on the bulging, sack-like chest patterned with stripes by the cage of the ribs. This crucified Christ would be a faithful replica of the one at Karlsruhe if the facial expression were not entirely different. Here, in fact, Jesus no longer wears the fearful rictus of tetanus; the jaw is no longer contracted, but hangs loosely, with open mouth and slavering lips. Christ is less frightening here, but more humanly vulgar, more obviously dead. In the Karlsruhe panel the terrifying effect of the trismus, of the strident laugh, served to conceal the brutishness of the features, now accentuated by this imbecile slackness of the mouth. The Man-God of Colmar is nothing but a common thief who has met his end on the gallows.” —Grunewald, J.-K. Huysmans
Feb 9, 2012
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January 1
  • February 1
  • March 2
  • April 3
  • May 3
  • June 1
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January 16
  • February 6
  • March 24
  • April 17
  • May 7
  • June 4
  • July 10
  • August 2
  • September 6
  • October 4
  • November 1
  • December 2
2010 2011 2012
  • January 1
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July 2
  • August 2
  • September
  • October
  • November 1
  • December 5
2009 2010 2011
  • January 23
  • February 9
  • March 42
  • April 12
  • May 10
  • June
  • July 2
  • August
  • September 3
  • October 1
  • November 2
  • December
2009 2010
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December 61