Roots of Self-Responsibility and Optimism

“All is well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

         Julian of Norwich

I have suggested that Meister Eckhart is right when he says “Thank You” is not just one of many good and appropriate prayers, but in some way both the capstone and highest crown of prayer, and the source-spring of many virtues.

I have suggested an intuitive definition of gratitude and argued (somewhat haphazardly) that thanksgiving, like almost every feeling, is felt appropriately in response to certain facts, and inappropriately to others. I have suggested that entitlement is another name for that wellspring of sickness, vice, hatred, and estrangement that the Greeks called hubris and the Christian tradition calls pride, and that its opposite disposition, childlike dependence, is both a psychological fact of being human (we do not seem to know where we came from or how we hold together or how to make ourselves whole) and a philosophical clue to what happiness might consist of, namely, joyfully resting in that dependence.

I would now like to take a look at Genesis again to see how two features especially, self-responsibility and optimism, might move us towards being more grateful, and therefore happy, people. (more…)

Tonight’s winner? I’m biased, but I think Huck did particularly well, especially at the end.

He had solid answers (especially on taxes and the question about the Bible), was as likeable as expected (my wife, who had never heard him before, was impressed), and avoided making any significant blunders (qualification: I missed the first 45 minutes of the debate).

Romney was fairly strong until he got dusted up by McCain on torture. After that point, he seemed a little off kilter.

Everyone else? As expected.

One more note on Huckabee: the 24 undecided primary voters said they were all still undecided, but Huckabee was mentioned by name as being the winner.
A few other thoughts:

Bryron York from the Corner: [Huckabee's] clearly on the rise in Iowa and South Carolina, and perhaps elsewhere, and my guess is that people who are considering supporting him liked what they saw tonight.

Patrick Ruffini: Huckabee actually won. I wasn’t a fan of his previous debate performances, but he dialed down the schtick. This was a debate performance he needed at a critical time.

Erick at RedState: Mike Huckabee scored the debate points on rhetoric and is the winner of this debate. He did really well. He showed up Romney. He showed up Rudy. If Mike could convince me he’s actually a free market guy, I’d be tempted.

Update: Hugh keeps making the case that Romney won big. And he cites a lot of Beltway folk, too. But Patrick Ruffini comes down stronger on the side of Huckabee’s win last night.

But here’s the real news: in both Florida and Iowa, Huckabee was ranked as the clear winner by the voters. In Florida, where the voters were undecided, Huckabee took 44% to Romney’s 13%. Of 1000 Iowa voters (not all undecided), Huckabee took 32% to Romney’s 16%.

Two questions: (a) is this indicative of a cocoon around the conservative pundits, and (2) does this mean that a vote for Mitt is a vote for Rudy? If Huckabee wins Iowa, that has to be a plausible argument, right?

Updated again:  Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard (scroll down):

It was a very strong night for the campaign’s “it” candidate. I thought the “What would Jesus do?” question about the death penalty might trip him up. Shows you what I know. By the time [Huckabee] was done, I was staring at the TV agape. Oh my, is he a smoothie and a charmer.

Then did the almost unimaginable–he got even stronger when he got the chance to discuss the Bible. Yes, he had a home court advantage on the question, but he exploited it brilliantly. The line about finite man not being able to comprehend an infinite God touched even this non-Christian. If Huckabee should become president, that will be his “I paid for this microphone” moment. The man connects. I can imagine a lot of people, especially a lot of Iowan people, heard that skillful answer and their minds snapped shut. They found their candidate.

A personal note to all my sophisticated East Coast friends: Don’t wait for the Christmas rush–stop underestimating Huckabee now. Unless the other guys can be a lot more effective at landing some leather on him than they were last night, he may win Iowa by 20 points.

In a media-driven political environment, the ability to communicate difficult and complex issues with grace and ease is essential.  For all his virtues, it is a skill that our current president lacks, which has proved nearly disastrous for our current war.

Last night, Mike Huckabee demonstrated his surpassing ability to communicate those difficult issues with the sort of delicacy and sensitivity that the other candidates are short on.  When asked, “What would Jesus do?” with respect to capital punishment, Huckabee gave perhaps the best answer to any question in the debate series so far–on either side, I might add.

You can watch the video here.

Huckabee has been accused of being a lot of things during this campaign cycle, including being “too Christian” to win the general election. When baited to deploy religious language and imagery with respect to a difficult issue, Huckabee clearly demurred and instead offered a clear and compelling non-religious answer for how pro-lifers can support the death penalty.  Clearly, the man knows how to make non-theological arguments for the positions he holds.
We talk a lot about the war of ideas within America, both politically and culturally.  That war will not–can not–be won without effective communicators who know how to articulate those ideas in persuasive and compelling ways.  Huckabee is clearly leads the Republican pack in this regard, as last night’s performance amply demonstrated.

Joy is the Only Psychological Fact

“All day I think about it, then at night I say it:
Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing?
I have no idea. My soul is from elsewhere,
I am sure of that, and I intend to end up there.

This drunkenness began in some other tavern.
When I get back around to that place, I’ll be completely
sober. Meanwhile, I’m like a bird from another continent.
They day is coming when I fly off,
but who is it now in my ear who hears my voice?

Who says words with my mouth?
Who looks out with my eyes? What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking. If I could taste one sip
Of an answer, I could break out of this prison for drunks.
I didn’t come here of my own accord,
and I can’t leave that way.
Whoever brought me here will have to take me home.”

-Rumi (Trans. Coleman Barks)
Some somber athiestic type people I have heard will often softly grumble to themselves that people believe in God because of a left-over childhood feeling of dependence. I presume they assert things like this to each other, not only to affirm their belief that God does not in fact exist, but because they think there is a soft-hearted and soft-headed weakness to believing in something just to make you feel better. They think, in their high-mindedness, that believing in the “cold, hard truth” of self-reliance is more austere, more noble, more intellectual, more mature. They think that they perpetual child, the person who is constantly ascribing his happiness or lack thereof to some parental agent outside of themselves is doomed to being a victim and a puppet their whole lives, never claiming the responsibility that is rightfully theirs, never taking life by the horns and making the best of it.

I think what these somber grown-up athiest-type people miss is the unbearable joy of dependence. A young man once asked his master (I believe I read this of Coleman Barks), “What is it like being enlightened?” His master said nothing, but made little sucking noises with his mouth, like a child at the breast.

(more…)

What I’ve seen of tonight’s debate is not so inspiring.  But Rudy Giuliani hit a home run on the “unintentional comedy” scale with his remarks on welfare:

“I moved 600,000 people off of welfare during my time as mayor, most of them to jobs.”

Which begs the question:  what happened to the rest of those people?

Clearly, if this election were a football game, Huckabee’s surge would be the equivalent of a second-half comeback. He has all the momentum on his side, and he is making huge strides in overcoming his opponents.

The main question, of course, is whether he can keep the momentum long enough to propel him to victory, and whether he can effectively counter the inevitable counters by his opponents.

For those who haven’t followed it all recently, let’s recap what Huck has done this week:

Rasmussen, the leading pollster, now has Huckabee leading in Iowa. That, combined with Romney’s purported miscue (even if it’s overblown, like I think it is, it’s bad press) makes for a very good weak alone.

But the question all along has been whether Huckabee would be able to translate that win into victories in other states. There are good signs on this front as well: Huckabee has picked up a key endorsement in Florida, where he has improved to second place.

Dick Morris made the “fiscal conservative” case for him on a major political website. I don’t know how worthwhile it is given the source–Morris was, after all, an adviser to Bill–but the facts are pretty impressive:

A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.

In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.

Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.

He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)

Huckabee has taken some hits, however, particularly for this ad in which he identifies himself as a “Christian leader.” I’m not a fan of the ad, mostly because I think it’s politically inexpedient for him with respect to the general election.

But the overall trend is strong, and it shows no sign of slowing. Every moment is crucial for Mike Huckabee, but tonight’s debate is particularly pivotal–a strong showing here, especially on economic issues and foreign policy issues, and Huckabee could solidify his position as the top social conservative in the race.

And who would have expected that sentence to be written six months ago?

Update:  How could I forget the endorsement by Jerry Falwell, Jr. and the announcement of his “Faith and Values Coalition,” which has a number of Christian celebrities listed?

Stephanie Coontz continues to make the case for homosexual marriage, appealing to a principle that is increasingly popular among evangelicals: the state should keep its grubby hands off marriage.

Coontz appeals to history for her case, arguing that the State and the Church viewed marriage as a private decision for sixteen centuries.

But Coontz’s argument is suspect. While common-law marriages have always existed (even in our own country), they were—and are—exceptional. Though the Church may have recognized such marriages, such recognition does not entail what Coontz wants it to—a repudiation of the institutional and social nature of marriage.

In addition, the notion that ‘consent’ was the only criterion for marriage (for either the Church of the State) is misleading. In the middle ages, for instance, families would exchange promises, provide dowries, and then hand over the daughter. Ironically, the Church introduced the principle of consent to curb these practices.[1]

Likewise, the situation in Roman society was equally complex. The late Roman state had a system that approximated the modern state’s control and influence over marriage, and that suggested marriage had public ramifications.[2]

Even granting Coontz’s historical case, her suggestion that we privatize marriage has other unsavory consequences, as both Elizabeth Marquardt and Joseph Knippenberg point out. From Marquardt:

Moreover, in the Coontz system, people who lived together and explicitly chose NOT to be married will find themselves nonetheless held to legal obligations they explicitly did not sign up for (even though they had the chance! With something called “marriage”!). Is that fair? Maybe when there is a child involved we’ll all agree it’s fair, but what if there isn’t? Do you owe financial payments to a girlfriend you lived with for 18 months? Can she tell the hospital whether to pull the plug after you suffer brain damage in a car accident? In the Coontz system, who knows?

As Knippenberg writes, “In other words, government support for, or acquiesence in, the free choices of individuals could in the long run lead to the elimination of government support for the family. This can’t be good for children, but, then, who cares about them?”

There is good reason, then, for Christians to resist Coontz’s suggestions. Not only are they historically dubious, they are impractical and could undercut the position of the family within contemporary society.
By virtue of the fact that it unites two human persons–social creatures, as Aristotle understood–marriage will always resist the totalitarian privatization of those who wish to fashion it according to their own ends.

And for that, we can be extraordinarily thankful.

[2] See, for instance, “The Registration of Marriage under Mediæval Roman Law,” by J. E. G. de Montmorency. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser., Vol. 14, No. 2. (1914), pp. 390-399.

Entitlement is the only sin.

“Value the least gifts no less than the greatest, and simple graces as especial favours. If you remember the dignity of the Giver, no gift will seem small or mean, for nothing can be valueless that is given by the most high God.” Thomas A Kempis

Entitlement has many names, for it is legion. Pride, self-will, esteem of self, hubris, audacity, call it what you will. Its core is a sense that whatever I have is not good enough; or worse, the good things I have are good enough, and I deserve them. The universe, God, whatever, owes it to me. “I’m grateful because it’s what I deserve” is just as bad as “I’m ungrateful because it’s not what I deserve.”

When Adam and Eve plucked the fruit of the garden, what was their sin? Disobedience, surely. Gluttony, surely. Impatience, believing a serpent rather than God, yes yes. I think the core was a feeling of entitlement that overcame their love for God. “This fruit is good, and I deserve it. It belongs to me.” They were right; it was good. But they were wrong — we should get no good thing until God decides… and even then we should be overcome with how unworthy and grateful we are!

What we deserve is exactly and precisely nothing, nil, nada. So the appropriate affection springing from awareness of any fact is gratitude, joy, and thanks. Awareness of being rather than non-being, of life rather than mere mineral existence, of rationality rather than mere sentience, of self-awareness rather than stupidity, of freedom of choice rather than machine-like auto-motion, of the curse of physical death rather than everlasting slavery to sin, of forgiveness rather than wrath, of clear communication of his word rather than forsaking us in our transgressions, of showing us how to obey rather than just telling us, of the gift of divinity rather than the curse of bestiality of blessings rather than curses — the correct affection in every case is absolute, unqualified and life-shattering gratitude. Even awareness of God’s wrath is cause for gratitude, for he gives us his divine wrath rather than divine apathy. I would rather go to hell because God hates my sin than to lie on earth because God does not even care that I am sick.

A Kempis again says, ” Even if awards punishment and pain, accept them gladly, for whatever he allows to befall us is always for our salvation.”

Columbia University, one of America’s more prestigious universities, created a furor when they invited Mahmoud Ahadinejad to speak on their campus.

It doesn’t make the decision any better, but at least he has the credibility of being the leader of a country.

In their attempt to play catch-up with their American friends, the Oxford Union could only get David Irving, whom Der Spiegel gently describes as a “discredited British historian,” and David Griffin, the leader of a political party in Britain that got a whopping 0.7% of the vote in 2005.

The ‘debate’ was picketed, with protesters breaking through the police line.  And the backlash hasn’t been good for the OU:  a member of Parliament has turned in his 37 year membership, and a number of other dignitaries have canceled their engagements.

In case you’re not familiar with the Oxford Union, Der Spiegel describes it this way:
The Oxford Union is a venerable platform for debate at the university, and protesters objected to giving Griffin and Irving so much respectable exposure. Bill Clinton and Mother Theresa have spoken at the Union in the past. Kermit the Frog, however, has also been invited.

Kermit the Frog, apparently, doesn’t rise to the level of ‘venerable.’  Neither do their two most recent guests.*

*While living in Oxford, I lived 100 feet from the Oxford Union and directly above their bar, the “Purple Turtle.”  Trivial information about my life completely unrelated to the story, but potentially interesting all the same!

Gratitude Is the Spontaneous Emotion of Thanksgiving and Happiness in Response to Some Unmerited Good.

When someone gives you a gift you did not expect and did not deserve, you ought (and most people do) feel a spontaneous sense of gratitude. Gratitude is an openness, a rather vulnerable and tender affection, a sense of one’s own lowliness (not to say worthlessness) and unmerited favor. It is often said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” It is equally true that, “It is more humbling to receive than to give.” To receive a gift, a kind word, the honor of a friendship is to accept one’s own true place in the world, a place of having needs and wants that others may satisfy.

Charlie Lehardy thinks jazz is (gasp!) worse than asparagus:

Jazz may be worse than asparagus.

As a musician, I have great respect for the virtuosity of jazz artists, most of whom are masters of their instruments. I can relate to the desire to do something novel and unconventional. But deep down in the musical recesses of my soul, jazz kills whatever is blooming there. And actually, I think that’s the point.

Jazz is the anti-music.

If that’s not strong enough for you, try this:

If art has any weakness, it’s in the way it is ultimately a reflection of its culture and times. As our culture has become more narcissistic, art, too, has fallen in love with itself. It has become so unconventional and self-referential that only insiders can appreciate it. Art of all stripes — the fine arts, music, literature, architecture — has exchanged objective/traditional measures of beauty for the knowing winks and nods of the self-congratulating art community itself.

It’s hard to know where art might go next. Unconventionality itself has now become conventional — and boring. Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” (a urinal) has had a thousand imitators, each less interesting (and less provocative) than the last.

Likewise, jazz has become conventional in its desperate search for edginess. The earliest jazz virtuosos were looking for something new, something fresh. At first, what they were attempting seemed like the discovery of fire all over again. Now, decades later, every blaring trumpet and squealing saxophone sounds like the last. We’re stuck in a musical rut.

This, of course, is the danger of a musical tradition that sees ‘rule breaking’ as an important artistic element (the tradition, of course, stretches back to Mozart, at least).  It will always run the risk of becoming anti-tradition and anti-form.

Whether Charlie’s analysis of art is correct is, of course, debatable (though he does have Bloom on his side, I think!).  But the deeper point about the self-destructive nature of ‘pushing the limits’ to the point where they no longer exist is, I think, exactly right.*

*It’s worth pointing out (again!) that Charlie is one of the blogosphere’s best-kept secrets.  If you’re looking for good prose to imitate, read him.  He knows how to turn a phrase with the best of them.

What I am going to say may sound like exaggeration. It is.
But it is hyperbolic speech for hyperbolic reality. I exaggerate about grand things for to speak softly would be a lie.  Follow me closely and hear what I say. I have only lived a few short years (25 this December) and the more I learn the more I am certain I do not know much surely. But the good Lord has seen fit to reveal one truth that I believe more and more firmly, though I can express it only imperfectly in words. It is the fundamental importance of an attitude of thanksgiving.
“If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, ‘thank you,’ that would suffice.” So says Meister Eckhart. This seems overly grand, overly simplistic, and exaggerated. I say it is understated. Let’s see if we can parse its meaning.
Before we begin, it is fitting to sing a hymn of thanksgiving to the Giver of gifts.

Let self-will (and her product) die!

– All ownership of life and limb!

And as we sing let us decry

His gifts, and give our selves to Him
Who gave us being, who gave us flesh,

Who gave us life and senses filled,

Who gave us thought, and gave the best

Gift creatures can receive: a will.
Who gave us fruit, and knowledge dear

Who gave us loving, gracious death,

Who gave us mind and ear to hear

When God himself had come to earth.
Who gives us faith, who gives new life

Who gives the gift of repentance;

Who makes us his own spotless wife

And teaches us obedience,
Who, having been the author

Of our faith (th’ old self having died)

Becomes our faith’s perfecter,

New selves in Christ being glorified.
Five Points
First, since gratitude seems to be an attitude or emotion or sentiment, we shall look at the concept of “appropriate emotions.” Second, I shall attempt to give a brief definition of gratitude. Third, I shall attempt to contrast gratitude with its perfect opposite, a feeling or attitude of entitlement, and show how this is the root of all unhappiness, vice, and sin. Fourth, I shall relate gratitude to its constant companion, joy, and attempt to provide a glimpse of why both are rooted in the psychological fact of dependence. Fifth, I shall offer suggestions for moving towards a becoming a more grateful person by focusing on her roots: self-responsibility and optimism.

Appropriate Emotions

The first and foremost fact we must acquaint ourselves with is that certain emotions are appropriate given a stimulus and certain others are not. See CS Lewis for a detailed and robust argument in Abolition of Man. For now a few common sense observations will suffice. Seeing a baby and feeling happiness, tenderness, affection, and care is appropriate, “fitting,” natural, normal and good. Seeing a dead rat in the basement and feeling disgust is also appropriate. Similarly, receiving a gift has an appropriate emotional response, that of thanksgiving, humility, and gratitude.