Just yesterday I was thinking about how volatile the Internet is. Have you ever thought about collecting the best of your posts, maybe with some of the best comments, in a book?
I do hope he keeps an archive. Everything on the internet is subject to disappearance soon enough. And more than our current print media, this is where important things are happening. Imagine losing all the crucial pieces that have appeared on Substack over the past five years.
But Rod mainly uses his blogging for trying out and developing ideas. He should keep an archive of everything in a hard drive, but if he were to print out all his blogging on TAC, then here, he'd have like two-hundred copies of War and Peace to lug around.
At the very least our host here deserves a.) someone besides himself to handle the archiving and curating; and b.) the conservative equivalent of a Pulitzer for online writing.
When I first became a Christian, it was an entirely new world for me -- my conversion stemmed from a debilitating battle with Lyme Disease and fibromyalgia syndrome that took my wealth as well as my health. I had to close my hard-won law practice because I could barely walk. I was raised without faith, and near suicide, when I prayed in utter despair and surrender.... and the pain evaporated. That was the beginning of a journey that led my to baptism on my 40th birthday -- my true day of birth.
But scriptures about the End Times terrified me. I often felt horrified by what I saw ahead for America (I had been a PriceWaterhouseCoopers tax attorney for several years and understand money supply and inflation, and what a Mark of the Beast electronic currency would be.) But as I have matured in Christ, I see now that His End Times servants were literally created for exactly this time, and as much as the potential horrors looming above us (total Kissingerian food control, for one), I have come to see it as a "center of the universe" opportunity to harvest souls for Him. The End Times are not about judgement, but bout reaping humans OUT of the clutches of secular Hell. You are a powerful reaper, Rod -- not at all grim. The coming Great Awakening is about joy, hope, and salvation for eternity. Sharpen your swords -- iron sharpens iron!
In re: Ross Douthat's new book. I got my signed copy at his talk in Chicago about a week ago, but haven't had time to start it yet. Ross sees signs of renewal and believes we're in a moment where people are open to belief ('enchantment', if you will) in a way that "they weren't in 2011".
Had a chance to speak with him. Came across as unpretentious and thoughtful, with a dry, subtle humor. It was clear during the Q & A afterwards that one topic you can't peaceably broach in a room full of Catholics is this papacy. "We'll take one more non-pope related question...". *laughter ensues*
I was there too (wish I had known a fellow Dreher traveler was there). It was the second time I have heard Ross speak and he comes across a truly decent and fair person. The Q&A got quite contentious there at the end. I was sitting up front and Ross appeared genuinely pained by it all. I also have only just started the book, but I am excited that it is reaching so many people already.
Whenever Rod writes about the Orrs, I feel an intense joy. The love and devotion of these disciples of Christ comes out in Rod's words. I marvel about what they have done in creating their place.
Rod, do we know why the three Judge Advocate Generals for the military departments were relieved? No. DEI may have had nothing to do with it. Mr. Hegseth is on record with an animus toward legal constraints on soldiers in operations and toward judge advocates (military lawyers) “tout court”. This is much more serious, I believe, than you seem to credit. Online discussions are virtually exploding over it. Yes, I have a personal, somewhat emotional stake in this matter - a quarter century’s service as a legal officer.
Re: The Moorings, if only more of the truly monied people on the right started recognizing the role cultural capture played in the West’s destruction, the Orrs would get more help expanding their vision. Many of us here have spent our lives watching so-called conservatives who live and legislate by the mantra that Everything Follows Tax Cuts.
Is this changing? Perhaps it will start to. It’s not Trump’s ethos, or Elon’s either, but one can see hints of cultural *noblesse oblige* in Elon’s purchase of Twitter. Yes, one can. The guy knowingly paid double what it was worth because he realized free speech was necessary and was willing to put his money and reputation on the line. That’s not exactly funding a Benedict Option retreat for Christian scholars and students, but it’s a step that will help protect such projects, going forward, from direct state suppression. And I think we were getting *very* close.
We’re lucky that Musk is willing to take risks. Consider his main business, Tesla, and the typical Tesla buyer. With his political convictions, he is directly pissing off his go-to customers.
Musk's purchase of Twitter probably saved America. Without that disruption of the media monopoly, Harris would have likely won; and after four years of her, there might not have been much of an America left to save. I'm not sure how many people realize just how serious of a bullet we just dodged.
Oh yes, Musk - a lap dog for the CCP and his business interests in China - is a man of great conviction. Clearly, he's a firm believer in reversing demographic decline...
Sethu's right - Musk buying Twitter was ultimately a big win for a freer discourse on social media. But the end of the day, this guy is just a tech bro, who has impulses to curb speech that is critical of him and whose ultimate philosophy is rabid materialism.
The other day, he referred to himself as Trump's tech support, which I thought sounded pretty good. Overall, I don't trust Musk or his transhumanist worldview and ambitions, but I can still appreciate some of his specific *functions* at this time.
I don't trust some of his tech ambitions. But as for billionaires with one or another social vision, compare him to Bill Gates. Musk has proven he believes in free speech. To do what he's done was a major risk for him.
Bill Gates is someone who almost makes me wonder about the wisdom of banning the bill of attainder. He's sort of a walking crime; it feels like it should be a criminal offense to just *be* that guy.
And yes: I mean that what I don't trust is his overall worldview. I do think that he can be trusted as an advocate for free speech, since he has indeed defended it at real personal risk, as you say.
Not strange that we don’t trust Musk’s overall worldview. But it’s not going to lead me to wish he weren’t around. I was mostly referring to Vince’s comments.
As for Gates, he’s an ongoing menace. All we can do is wait, and hope his pals don’t figure out how to reverse ageing.
Maybe we should get some garlic and wooden stakes ready, just in case, and also dig up a Transylvanian grimoire with some reliable instructions pertaining to enchanted circles.
I'm not a particular Musk fan, but I wonder how you know his ultimate philosophy is rabid materialism. I think it probably is, my suspicion being based on his belief that we must colonize Mars, but Rod writes all the time about the widespread certainty among the techbros that AI will be the Mt Sinai on which God reveals Itself to humanity.
Years ago, when the guys at Babylon Bee were getting censored on this and than social media forum, Musk went out of his way to offer them a sit down interview. The guy is not a Christian, but he is willing to defend Christians when they're in the crosshairs.
The atomic bomb. The gatling gun. The birth control pill. The medieval longbow. Strip mining. Mustard gas. The leaf blower. The smartphone. Glyphosate. High fructose corn syrup.
Can it make a choice? If it can what will it choose? Because if it is truly intelligent it will discover that choices must be made and those choices will have consequences. Is it a machine, or is it something else?
When Christ reaffirmed the second great commandment, He sanctified politics that were based on love of God and love of all mankind. If there really is free will (and there is) then we must have give and take in human relationships that is properly called politics.
However, politics can never take the place of direct personal actions. We are called to charity not just as a society (or as a Church)-- a tax-funded safety net may be necessary for a modern society to be virtuous and churches have a proper mission to help the poor and afflicted-- but individual charity is also called for.
I admit that this challenges me at times. Just this morning a panhandler begged money from me. Should we give to such people, who may well use the money for bad purposes (booze/drugs)? Especially at Lent I fret about this dilemma. Not wanting to threadjack this, but I would like to hear how others deal with that problem.
Following the lead of one of my professors, my usual tact for that is to ask what they need money for (food, ticket, water, etc.) and then offer to get the object for them directly. When I make the offer, it turns away about 80% of people asking for money, so I take it to mean that for the remaining 20%, they really did need that particular item to survive for the day.
Perhaps a little cold and calculating, but if they truly do need food/water/bus fare, I can make the time to help.
Trevor, think about this: being homeless is as crushing a condition as one can be in. It really does feel as if God has turned against you once and for all.
There is an inherent patronization in taking the approach to panhandlers which you write about. It casts them in the role of permanent children who lack the maturity to figure things out for themselves. It's insulting, though you don't mean it to be.
I acknowledge that it's tricky. I know that I have been taken for hundreds of dollars by a couple who weren't homeless but were on the verge of becoming so because of her disability and his inability to hold a job. It turned out that he couldn't hold a job because both of them were opiate addicts.
My advice is to give the money because you can't afford not to, but maybe to try to engage them in some conversation about their lives first. It shouldn't take long for you to discern what the real problem is.
Bobby, you strike closer at the heart of the issue than you realize.
Indeed, it is a patronizing stance to take, but years of being ground down by panhandlers has left me more jaded than most. I do automatically assume that most homeless are those dealing with drug addictions, which makes me very skeptical and cautious of them.
I understand Jesus's commandments, but 1) He could cast out demons, so he could probably handle a drug-addled zombie, and 2) His poverty was a chosen one, so He didn't have to worry about people asking him for money.
I fully accept this as my own shortcoming, but for now, I am far too cautious and leery when someone comes up asking for a handout.
Jesus Himself asked the question, "What do you want?" when a local blind guy raised a ruckus by shouting, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" When Jesus stopped and Bartimaeus-- ragged and OBVIOUSLY blind was brought to him--Jesus STILL asked, "What do you want?" It's not patronizing if Jesus set an example of compassion and shrewdness thereby. (Bartimaeus was not the only person of whom Jesus asked this question; there may be a little lesson for us in His strategy.)
I am an Orthodox Christian. Some time ago I went to a meeting about tithing. The speaker introduced us to a book Money and Salvation by Andrew Geleris,M.D. I recommend it to everyone.
It was made clear to me that giving is not about the receiver but about the action of the giver; where his heart is.
I have a few friends who drive into Manhattan for work and see the same panhandlers while in traffic approaching the West Side Drive. Two of my friends apparently try to give a few bucks to "the blonde girl on the approach ramp" because she seems particularly distressed. They both locked on to the same poor soul.
I try to go by my instinct.....which has a high enough fail rate. Like you, I try to step it up during Lent. Last year a very sad looking man asked me for a few bucks. I gave him 10$ and he skipped away giggling. Was he happy to get the money or happy to have enough for a hit? I just go with my gut. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. This is an area of being "street smart" that has changed for me as I age. When I was living paycheck to paycheck it would have made my blood boil. If I'm a sucker, so be it.
A somewhat oblique comment. Was to NYC recently and had some interactions with homeless and panhandlers. One guy who stood out to me was sleeping on a bench, and I noticed a festering sore on his ankle. He needed multiple kinds of help. Allowing people to live this way in not compassionate. A degree of coercion is appropriate here.
Glad you asked, Jon. If it's a sweltering day, I'll get the person a cold bottle of water. If it's a cold day, a hot coffee. Otherwise, I hand out a holy card (with a lovely picture of Christ, Mary, or a saint) that I've previously wrapped a few dollars around (I never open my wallet in a public place) so he or she can choose what suits. And I always, always use their names and chat (they tend to congregate around the Safeway and the Target I walk to a few times a week). I've learned a lot from them, and always leave more grateful than when I arrived. I'm sure you would too, because you already have the impulse to reach out.
I have given money to panhandlers when I thought they might use it for food. Never for obvious drunks. We had a homeless woman who came to our church for years. I'd slip her a twenty occasionally. Wealthier members of our parish would put her up in hotels when it was freezing cold. She certainly wasn't a drunk but had something go wrong with her life many years before and was a paranoid. Margaret is the only person I know who died of Covid. A parishioner realized that she was of age to receive Social Security and Medicare and has her put in a retirement home. And that's where she died.
Rejoicing! You know that I knew by faith you would have a home, such a home as pilgrims here may have. - - Is this it? Of course I know not. You will know it God's time. But still, rejoicing.
I know someone who will have read this I hope. Tell you later :)
"Assuming you beach at last / Near Atlantis"
(But if this is the beaching, the terrible trek part may be near done. Nor do I think you will keel over before finding The Atlantis of this life.)
I always had something against Cleese, even though I enjoyed his comedy. I saw him on a talk show with Malcolm Muggeridge where he taunted the old man and his views about Christianity and missionaries in an arrogant way. Maybe he changed his tune.
The Orr’s sound like great people but I do wonder about the conservatism of a woman priest. The danger of feminism is already in the door there and as you say unless something is explicitly conservative it will eventually become liberal. To be a true conservative institution she has to resign
I’m an Orthodox Christian woman who had the same thought re: female clergy in the Church of England. Helen Orr sounds like an amazing, wonderful Christian. I saw an interview with her in which she said her father had been a priest in the C of E. I suppose the way to wrap our heads around her ordination is to think, well, according to the theology and ecclesiology of their church, she is within their understanding of the Christian faith.
So, as a gentleman and a friend, I imagine something like that thought governs Rod’s interactions with the Orrs.
I would have great difficulty attending a Bible study or prayer service led by an ordained woman. A lay female leader, I would have less issue with, depending on her qualifications, spiritual gifts, and obedience to and receiving blessing from her priest or bishop. I would draw a hard line at attending a Eucharistic service, unless it were solely as a guest.
The Orr’s gifts as friends and hosts is extremely generous and admirable. I would be very worried myself that I might offend a generous and sincere lady like Helen Orr because of my Orthodox Christian beliefs.
I would be very interested if Rod were to discuss how he navigates the theological differences with the Orrs. Perhaps they just don’t discuss them, out of charity?
It would be hard. As much as I love Morning Prayer I could not attend if she presides. As for the compound they are visiting it sounds like my kind of place and would love to be a part of
Her father was Simon Barrington-Ward, one of the great bishops of the C of E, I'm told. He was close to St. Sophrony. Helen wears the prayer rope that St. Sophrony gave to her father.
Interesting story but that does not change the fact that she is not validly ordained and she can’t confer the sacraments. My fear is not her per se. The Orrs sound wonderful but as you yourself have noted something that is not explicitly conservative will eventually go liberal. Women’s ordination is explicitly liberal. How do you hold the conservatism of something founded on an explicitly liberal position? I love what they are doing and support it 100% but this does worry me about the long term of it
Magdalene was the first witness to the Resurrection, which seems . . . meaningful. And a lot of women seem to have been in the role of at least what we would describe as deacon.
Now seems like a really bad time to revisit the role of women in the Church, though, since of course that conversation would get hijacked by the woke feminists. So first put wokism to rest, and then *maybe* we can talk about it, is what I think.
I went to Angry Nun U, so I know what they're feeling cause they took it out on me. White Man, get 'im. I'd like to say that I've never encountered people who were more thouroughly misdirected, but it seems rather common to mistake me for the Oppresor. The world is chock full of nutters.
I don’t really want to get into this, but Mary Magdalene’s first witness was probably due to the grace given her because she loved Jesus with such devotion, not as a sign that an eventual “dialogue” about women’s ordination was providential. As to Phoebe and the other early deaconesses, yes, they were of great assistance in the early house churches, as messengers/carriers of the letters sent between fledgling Christian communities, etc. Disputes about rank-formal ordination in the churches-are already talked about. The Orthodox Church in Alexandria, in Africa, has already ordained a woman as a deacon with full liturgical duties. She can serve ALL the diaconal functions, per Alexandria.
I am saying that this is already beyond “talked about.”
No, it certainly hasn’t! In the long run and even medium run, should we have them, it’s going to tear at Orthodoxy and Catholicism as it has torn the Protestant churches.
What David Brooks refuses to accept is that virtually all big institutions in America have been captured by the left. There is little that Trump can do to reform the universities, Hollywood, big corporations and the rest but he can reform the government of which he is the executive. Trump is rooting out the left in government wherever he can find it. And he has found it in the military. Obama fired nearly 200 military officers as president. I hope Trump fires 1000 or more leftist officers, especially the generals. And his reforms of the military should extend to West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs(which I would close but that's another argument). The entire History, English and Political Science Departments should be fired because they are steeped in leftist woke dogma. New professors that believe in America and Western Civilization should be hired to take their places.
Firing all those professors is of course impossible. But I do think the Trump administration, if they ever get round to it, could apply some serious pressure toward "viewpoint diversity" in academia. The Department of Education is a nightmare, but how about basically gutting it and turning it mainly into a bureau charged with standards? One mandate would be ensuring all schools receiving government money defend free speech on campus and do not discriminate against conservative voices in the faculty. Another would be enforcing standards for entrance.
Yeah, I know, there *are* no conservative voices in most of those faculties at present. But applying pressure like this is something the federal government could do.
What really must happen is the creation of new universities from scratch, set up according to previous norms of academic excellence and open debate.
One thing DoE could do is put metrics in place for the proportion of actual teachers to administrators at schools receiving a dime of federal money, which is all of them besides Hillsdale and St. John's, right?
I'm actually on board with disbanding the Department of Education and transferring any important functions to some other department-- maybe a return to a Department of Health, Education and Welfare which is what we had before.
I don't think the proliferation of cabinet departments has been a good thing.
And I prefer that, as much as possible, education policy be left to the states and to local districts.
Just yesterday I was thinking about how volatile the Internet is. Have you ever thought about collecting the best of your posts, maybe with some of the best comments, in a book?
Rod is so prolific (and so are many commenters here) I think that would be a Herculean labor.
Yes, it's not something he can do on his own, he would need help.
I do hope he keeps an archive. Everything on the internet is subject to disappearance soon enough. And more than our current print media, this is where important things are happening. Imagine losing all the crucial pieces that have appeared on Substack over the past five years.
But Rod mainly uses his blogging for trying out and developing ideas. He should keep an archive of everything in a hard drive, but if he were to print out all his blogging on TAC, then here, he'd have like two-hundred copies of War and Peace to lug around.
The ink cartridges alone would cost what?
At the very least our host here deserves a.) someone besides himself to handle the archiving and curating; and b.) the conservative equivalent of a Pulitzer for online writing.
When I first became a Christian, it was an entirely new world for me -- my conversion stemmed from a debilitating battle with Lyme Disease and fibromyalgia syndrome that took my wealth as well as my health. I had to close my hard-won law practice because I could barely walk. I was raised without faith, and near suicide, when I prayed in utter despair and surrender.... and the pain evaporated. That was the beginning of a journey that led my to baptism on my 40th birthday -- my true day of birth.
But scriptures about the End Times terrified me. I often felt horrified by what I saw ahead for America (I had been a PriceWaterhouseCoopers tax attorney for several years and understand money supply and inflation, and what a Mark of the Beast electronic currency would be.) But as I have matured in Christ, I see now that His End Times servants were literally created for exactly this time, and as much as the potential horrors looming above us (total Kissingerian food control, for one), I have come to see it as a "center of the universe" opportunity to harvest souls for Him. The End Times are not about judgement, but bout reaping humans OUT of the clutches of secular Hell. You are a powerful reaper, Rod -- not at all grim. The coming Great Awakening is about joy, hope, and salvation for eternity. Sharpen your swords -- iron sharpens iron!
What a thoughtful and well-written comment and quite a personal journey...
What a fantastic night that must have been, Rod! The Moorings sounds like a wonderful place. May God speed the Orrs' efforts!
In re: Ross Douthat's new book. I got my signed copy at his talk in Chicago about a week ago, but haven't had time to start it yet. Ross sees signs of renewal and believes we're in a moment where people are open to belief ('enchantment', if you will) in a way that "they weren't in 2011".
Had a chance to speak with him. Came across as unpretentious and thoughtful, with a dry, subtle humor. It was clear during the Q & A afterwards that one topic you can't peaceably broach in a room full of Catholics is this papacy. "We'll take one more non-pope related question...". *laughter ensues*
I was there too (wish I had known a fellow Dreher traveler was there). It was the second time I have heard Ross speak and he comes across a truly decent and fair person. The Q&A got quite contentious there at the end. I was sitting up front and Ross appeared genuinely pained by it all. I also have only just started the book, but I am excited that it is reaching so many people already.
He really is that.
Whenever Rod writes about the Orrs, I feel an intense joy. The love and devotion of these disciples of Christ comes out in Rod's words. I marvel about what they have done in creating their place.
Rod, do we know why the three Judge Advocate Generals for the military departments were relieved? No. DEI may have had nothing to do with it. Mr. Hegseth is on record with an animus toward legal constraints on soldiers in operations and toward judge advocates (military lawyers) “tout court”. This is much more serious, I believe, than you seem to credit. Online discussions are virtually exploding over it. Yes, I have a personal, somewhat emotional stake in this matter - a quarter century’s service as a legal officer.
It's easy to see why this issue needs more discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.
What is your concern of where this may lead?
Re: The Moorings, if only more of the truly monied people on the right started recognizing the role cultural capture played in the West’s destruction, the Orrs would get more help expanding their vision. Many of us here have spent our lives watching so-called conservatives who live and legislate by the mantra that Everything Follows Tax Cuts.
Is this changing? Perhaps it will start to. It’s not Trump’s ethos, or Elon’s either, but one can see hints of cultural *noblesse oblige* in Elon’s purchase of Twitter. Yes, one can. The guy knowingly paid double what it was worth because he realized free speech was necessary and was willing to put his money and reputation on the line. That’s not exactly funding a Benedict Option retreat for Christian scholars and students, but it’s a step that will help protect such projects, going forward, from direct state suppression. And I think we were getting *very* close.
We’re lucky that Musk is willing to take risks. Consider his main business, Tesla, and the typical Tesla buyer. With his political convictions, he is directly pissing off his go-to customers.
Musk's purchase of Twitter probably saved America. Without that disruption of the media monopoly, Harris would have likely won; and after four years of her, there might not have been much of an America left to save. I'm not sure how many people realize just how serious of a bullet we just dodged.
I was told that Musk bought Twitter in order to propagate disinformation, misinformation, and Nazis.
"Was told." Hahaha. I see what you did there. You have to know whom to, and whom not to, listen to!
Oh yes, Musk - a lap dog for the CCP and his business interests in China - is a man of great conviction. Clearly, he's a firm believer in reversing demographic decline...
Sethu's right - Musk buying Twitter was ultimately a big win for a freer discourse on social media. But the end of the day, this guy is just a tech bro, who has impulses to curb speech that is critical of him and whose ultimate philosophy is rabid materialism.
The other day, he referred to himself as Trump's tech support, which I thought sounded pretty good. Overall, I don't trust Musk or his transhumanist worldview and ambitions, but I can still appreciate some of his specific *functions* at this time.
I don't trust some of his tech ambitions. But as for billionaires with one or another social vision, compare him to Bill Gates. Musk has proven he believes in free speech. To do what he's done was a major risk for him.
Bill Gates is someone who almost makes me wonder about the wisdom of banning the bill of attainder. He's sort of a walking crime; it feels like it should be a criminal offense to just *be* that guy.
And yes: I mean that what I don't trust is his overall worldview. I do think that he can be trusted as an advocate for free speech, since he has indeed defended it at real personal risk, as you say.
Not strange that we don’t trust Musk’s overall worldview. But it’s not going to lead me to wish he weren’t around. I was mostly referring to Vince’s comments.
As for Gates, he’s an ongoing menace. All we can do is wait, and hope his pals don’t figure out how to reverse ageing.
Maybe we should get some garlic and wooden stakes ready, just in case, and also dig up a Transylvanian grimoire with some reliable instructions pertaining to enchanted circles.
95 % of us are useless eaters.
I'm not a particular Musk fan, but I wonder how you know his ultimate philosophy is rabid materialism. I think it probably is, my suspicion being based on his belief that we must colonize Mars, but Rod writes all the time about the widespread certainty among the techbros that AI will be the Mt Sinai on which God reveals Itself to humanity.
Years ago, when the guys at Babylon Bee were getting censored on this and than social media forum, Musk went out of his way to offer them a sit down interview. The guy is not a Christian, but he is willing to defend Christians when they're in the crosshairs.
"that AI will be the Mt Sinai on which God reveals Itself to humanity."
Thought God Already did that? :-)
The thing about AI (and all technology) is it is neither Good nor Evil. It simply IS.
This is a common statement but it's simply not true. Some technology lends itself to true human flourishing, some does not. It's not all neutral.
Examples?
The atomic bomb. The gatling gun. The birth control pill. The medieval longbow. Strip mining. Mustard gas. The leaf blower. The smartphone. Glyphosate. High fructose corn syrup.
Can it make a choice? If it can what will it choose? Because if it is truly intelligent it will discover that choices must be made and those choices will have consequences. Is it a machine, or is it something else?
When Christ reaffirmed the second great commandment, He sanctified politics that were based on love of God and love of all mankind. If there really is free will (and there is) then we must have give and take in human relationships that is properly called politics.
However, politics can never take the place of direct personal actions. We are called to charity not just as a society (or as a Church)-- a tax-funded safety net may be necessary for a modern society to be virtuous and churches have a proper mission to help the poor and afflicted-- but individual charity is also called for.
I admit that this challenges me at times. Just this morning a panhandler begged money from me. Should we give to such people, who may well use the money for bad purposes (booze/drugs)? Especially at Lent I fret about this dilemma. Not wanting to threadjack this, but I would like to hear how others deal with that problem.
Direct personal actions are a form of politics--the most genuine form. Subsidiarity at its highest.
NO. That is the road to politicization of all of life. It's how we got to where we are today.
I think we have different definitions of politics. Mine might be a bit more encompassing.
More pity for you.
This is where you end when all life is political:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ozpct8zUA_U&pp=ygUjZHIgemhpdmFnbyB0aGUgcHJpdmF0ZSBsaWZlIGlzIGRlYWQ%3D
Following the lead of one of my professors, my usual tact for that is to ask what they need money for (food, ticket, water, etc.) and then offer to get the object for them directly. When I make the offer, it turns away about 80% of people asking for money, so I take it to mean that for the remaining 20%, they really did need that particular item to survive for the day.
Perhaps a little cold and calculating, but if they truly do need food/water/bus fare, I can make the time to help.
Trevor, think about this: being homeless is as crushing a condition as one can be in. It really does feel as if God has turned against you once and for all.
There is an inherent patronization in taking the approach to panhandlers which you write about. It casts them in the role of permanent children who lack the maturity to figure things out for themselves. It's insulting, though you don't mean it to be.
I acknowledge that it's tricky. I know that I have been taken for hundreds of dollars by a couple who weren't homeless but were on the verge of becoming so because of her disability and his inability to hold a job. It turned out that he couldn't hold a job because both of them were opiate addicts.
My advice is to give the money because you can't afford not to, but maybe to try to engage them in some conversation about their lives first. It shouldn't take long for you to discern what the real problem is.
Bobby, you strike closer at the heart of the issue than you realize.
Indeed, it is a patronizing stance to take, but years of being ground down by panhandlers has left me more jaded than most. I do automatically assume that most homeless are those dealing with drug addictions, which makes me very skeptical and cautious of them.
I understand Jesus's commandments, but 1) He could cast out demons, so he could probably handle a drug-addled zombie, and 2) His poverty was a chosen one, so He didn't have to worry about people asking him for money.
I fully accept this as my own shortcoming, but for now, I am far too cautious and leery when someone comes up asking for a handout.
Jesus Himself asked the question, "What do you want?" when a local blind guy raised a ruckus by shouting, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" When Jesus stopped and Bartimaeus-- ragged and OBVIOUSLY blind was brought to him--Jesus STILL asked, "What do you want?" It's not patronizing if Jesus set an example of compassion and shrewdness thereby. (Bartimaeus was not the only person of whom Jesus asked this question; there may be a little lesson for us in His strategy.)
Benevolent incarceration.
I am an Orthodox Christian. Some time ago I went to a meeting about tithing. The speaker introduced us to a book Money and Salvation by Andrew Geleris,M.D. I recommend it to everyone.
It was made clear to me that giving is not about the receiver but about the action of the giver; where his heart is.
I have a few friends who drive into Manhattan for work and see the same panhandlers while in traffic approaching the West Side Drive. Two of my friends apparently try to give a few bucks to "the blonde girl on the approach ramp" because she seems particularly distressed. They both locked on to the same poor soul.
I try to go by my instinct.....which has a high enough fail rate. Like you, I try to step it up during Lent. Last year a very sad looking man asked me for a few bucks. I gave him 10$ and he skipped away giggling. Was he happy to get the money or happy to have enough for a hit? I just go with my gut. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. This is an area of being "street smart" that has changed for me as I age. When I was living paycheck to paycheck it would have made my blood boil. If I'm a sucker, so be it.
A somewhat oblique comment. Was to NYC recently and had some interactions with homeless and panhandlers. One guy who stood out to me was sleeping on a bench, and I noticed a festering sore on his ankle. He needed multiple kinds of help. Allowing people to live this way in not compassionate. A degree of coercion is appropriate here.
Glad you asked, Jon. If it's a sweltering day, I'll get the person a cold bottle of water. If it's a cold day, a hot coffee. Otherwise, I hand out a holy card (with a lovely picture of Christ, Mary, or a saint) that I've previously wrapped a few dollars around (I never open my wallet in a public place) so he or she can choose what suits. And I always, always use their names and chat (they tend to congregate around the Safeway and the Target I walk to a few times a week). I've learned a lot from them, and always leave more grateful than when I arrived. I'm sure you would too, because you already have the impulse to reach out.
I have given money to panhandlers when I thought they might use it for food. Never for obvious drunks. We had a homeless woman who came to our church for years. I'd slip her a twenty occasionally. Wealthier members of our parish would put her up in hotels when it was freezing cold. She certainly wasn't a drunk but had something go wrong with her life many years before and was a paranoid. Margaret is the only person I know who died of Covid. A parishioner realized that she was of age to receive Social Security and Medicare and has her put in a retirement home. And that's where she died.
Rejoicing! You know that I knew by faith you would have a home, such a home as pilgrims here may have. - - Is this it? Of course I know not. You will know it God's time. But still, rejoicing.
I know someone who will have read this I hope. Tell you later :)
"Assuming you beach at last / Near Atlantis"
(But if this is the beaching, the terrible trek part may be near done. Nor do I think you will keel over before finding The Atlantis of this life.)
If the Orrs have hosted John Cleese they need to invite Rowan Atkinson over.
I always had something against Cleese, even though I enjoyed his comedy. I saw him on a talk show with Malcolm Muggeridge where he taunted the old man and his views about Christianity and missionaries in an arrogant way. Maybe he changed his tune.
With such superb writing on fascinating topics, I just became a paid subscriber. The Moorings sounds like a special place indeed.
Welcome! :)
Thank you!
Rod's writings in recent days have been exceptionally rich and interesting.
Good to have you aboard.
The Orr’s sound like great people but I do wonder about the conservatism of a woman priest. The danger of feminism is already in the door there and as you say unless something is explicitly conservative it will eventually become liberal. To be a true conservative institution she has to resign
It's their Church, friend. Peter Hitchens, an Anglican, says he doesn't what sex the vicar is.
Women’s ordination has been the canary in the coal mine for churches. To save the church it has to go
I'm going under the assumption that you're, like me, Roman Catholic. What you say may be true or untrue; it's none of our business.
I am actually an Anglican of the traditional sort that does not have WO
Anytime I see a woman of the cloth, I brace myself for what's to come. I want to be wrong.
Well, then, you're perfectly within your rights.
I’m an Orthodox Christian woman who had the same thought re: female clergy in the Church of England. Helen Orr sounds like an amazing, wonderful Christian. I saw an interview with her in which she said her father had been a priest in the C of E. I suppose the way to wrap our heads around her ordination is to think, well, according to the theology and ecclesiology of their church, she is within their understanding of the Christian faith.
So, as a gentleman and a friend, I imagine something like that thought governs Rod’s interactions with the Orrs.
I would have great difficulty attending a Bible study or prayer service led by an ordained woman. A lay female leader, I would have less issue with, depending on her qualifications, spiritual gifts, and obedience to and receiving blessing from her priest or bishop. I would draw a hard line at attending a Eucharistic service, unless it were solely as a guest.
The Orr’s gifts as friends and hosts is extremely generous and admirable. I would be very worried myself that I might offend a generous and sincere lady like Helen Orr because of my Orthodox Christian beliefs.
I would be very interested if Rod were to discuss how he navigates the theological differences with the Orrs. Perhaps they just don’t discuss them, out of charity?
It would be hard. As much as I love Morning Prayer I could not attend if she presides. As for the compound they are visiting it sounds like my kind of place and would love to be a part of
Her father was Simon Barrington-Ward, one of the great bishops of the C of E, I'm told. He was close to St. Sophrony. Helen wears the prayer rope that St. Sophrony gave to her father.
That doesn’t address the question, though.
Interesting story but that does not change the fact that she is not validly ordained and she can’t confer the sacraments. My fear is not her per se. The Orrs sound wonderful but as you yourself have noted something that is not explicitly conservative will eventually go liberal. Women’s ordination is explicitly liberal. How do you hold the conservatism of something founded on an explicitly liberal position? I love what they are doing and support it 100% but this does worry me about the long term of it
Well, she is one of the few right-wing female priests in the C of E. Not my church -- they can do what they wanna.
It was my church once, so I guess I feel differently
Wasn't it different for women in the early church, pre Christian christianity?
Magdalene was the first witness to the Resurrection, which seems . . . meaningful. And a lot of women seem to have been in the role of at least what we would describe as deacon.
Now seems like a really bad time to revisit the role of women in the Church, though, since of course that conversation would get hijacked by the woke feminists. So first put wokism to rest, and then *maybe* we can talk about it, is what I think.
I went to Angry Nun U, so I know what they're feeling cause they took it out on me. White Man, get 'im. I'd like to say that I've never encountered people who were more thouroughly misdirected, but it seems rather common to mistake me for the Oppresor. The world is chock full of nutters.
I don’t really want to get into this, but Mary Magdalene’s first witness was probably due to the grace given her because she loved Jesus with such devotion, not as a sign that an eventual “dialogue” about women’s ordination was providential. As to Phoebe and the other early deaconesses, yes, they were of great assistance in the early house churches, as messengers/carriers of the letters sent between fledgling Christian communities, etc. Disputes about rank-formal ordination in the churches-are already talked about. The Orthodox Church in Alexandria, in Africa, has already ordained a woman as a deacon with full liturgical duties. She can serve ALL the diaconal functions, per Alexandria.
I am saying that this is already beyond “talked about.”
Well, sounds like we’re still talking about it, then. Clearly it hasn’t been laid to rest.
No, it certainly hasn’t! In the long run and even medium run, should we have them, it’s going to tear at Orthodoxy and Catholicism as it has torn the Protestant churches.
Even after Constantine there was women deacons in some sort of role. What that was is beyond my knowledge.
What an idyll! Thank you for that elevating reverie.
What David Brooks refuses to accept is that virtually all big institutions in America have been captured by the left. There is little that Trump can do to reform the universities, Hollywood, big corporations and the rest but he can reform the government of which he is the executive. Trump is rooting out the left in government wherever he can find it. And he has found it in the military. Obama fired nearly 200 military officers as president. I hope Trump fires 1000 or more leftist officers, especially the generals. And his reforms of the military should extend to West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs(which I would close but that's another argument). The entire History, English and Political Science Departments should be fired because they are steeped in leftist woke dogma. New professors that believe in America and Western Civilization should be hired to take their places.
Firing all those professors is of course impossible. But I do think the Trump administration, if they ever get round to it, could apply some serious pressure toward "viewpoint diversity" in academia. The Department of Education is a nightmare, but how about basically gutting it and turning it mainly into a bureau charged with standards? One mandate would be ensuring all schools receiving government money defend free speech on campus and do not discriminate against conservative voices in the faculty. Another would be enforcing standards for entrance.
Yeah, I know, there *are* no conservative voices in most of those faculties at present. But applying pressure like this is something the federal government could do.
What really must happen is the creation of new universities from scratch, set up according to previous norms of academic excellence and open debate.
I was talking only about West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs. I believe each is funded out of the Department of Defense.
Got it.
One thing DoE could do is put metrics in place for the proportion of actual teachers to administrators at schools receiving a dime of federal money, which is all of them besides Hillsdale and St. John's, right?
Exactly. I've argued the same. This would be most of the battle right here.
"You have three administrators for one faculty member. You're not a university. You're a leftist boot camp run by midwit babysitters."
I'm actually on board with disbanding the Department of Education and transferring any important functions to some other department-- maybe a return to a Department of Health, Education and Welfare which is what we had before.
I don't think the proliferation of cabinet departments has been a good thing.
And I prefer that, as much as possible, education policy be left to the states and to local districts.
I agree. Local control.
And Grove City College, which is an excellent school.
The Moorings sounds wonderful. It reminds me of the Russell Kirk Center in Mecosta, Michigan.
I was about to say the same.
A modern-day Clapham Sect! May their tribe increase!