Pastor John Wright

« Easter Sunday – He is Risen! | Main | Bread of Life, the FBI, and the Unworthy Poor »

April 27, 2009

Biographical Reflections

I have spent some time in the past two weeks -- in the little time available -- trying to understand what is going on institutionally in the North American culture and to own influential sources that have formed me. One of the strangest events has been how I am now perceived as a "conservative" by colleagues and the institution whereas seven years ago, I would have been branded a "liberal." Such are the categories that come in this awkward transition between high and late modernity. Of course, I am both and neither.

I remember as a freshman at Mount Vernon Nazarene College in 1977 reading a book for my introduction to philosophy class called, Ideas have Consequences by Richard M. Weaver. It deeply impacted me, though I soon forgot that I had read it. Nor was Richard Weaver nor his influence mentioned to me again in my education. The book was originally published by the University of Chicago Press in 1948.

About two years ago I discovered that a substantial academic discourse among the American conservative intellectual movement and that Weaver was regarded as an iconic founder by some in this movement. It did not accord with my memory and what I had experienced as "conservative politics" from the '80s onward. So two years ago I picked up the book, Steps toward Restoration: The Consequences of Richard Weaver's Ideas edited by Ted J. Smith III and published by ISI Books of the Intercollegiate Institute, an organization to sustain conservative cultural and political causes. I wanted some "down time" reading this weekend, and read some of the essays. It has been very interesting.

Most interesting, it recalled that the book did an intellectual/genealogical criticism of modernity and liberalism. It gives a certain declensionist view. Weaver criticizes in it the notion of progress and replaces it with a notion of degeneration. What struck me as really interesting, however, as an essay by Robert A. Preston. He described Weaver's commitment to transcendence, and its lost due to the cultural/intellectual commitments of medieval nominalism. According to Preston (and seemingly corresponding to my memory by and large),

"It is also the realm of the universal that is htat basis of truth. Weaer accepts the traditional definition of metaphysical truthyas that which cannot be otherwise than it is, and truth in this sense in unchanging and always and everywhere the same . . . .

The doctrine of nominalism . . . holds that only the individual is real. The universal is seen as a mental fiction useful in organizing the disparate aspects of reality so that they may be more easily studies or categorized. Nominalism explicity denies any such reality as human nature being grounded outside the knowning mind. . . . Reality is not intelligible, it is sensible only. . . .

The implications of this doctrine are fearful. There is no order of truth in the traditional sense, there are only facts; there are no universally valid moral principles, but only relative moral standards . . . the denial of the intelligibility of the universe entails the denial of undersatnding and wisdom as the basis of authority and law, and substitutesw ealth and power; the purpose of each individual human life within the created order loses its meaning, and the purpose of human life is not discovered by analysis of the real, but chosen by each individual to be whatever he or she wants it to be . . . .

Weaver traces the rise of nominalism in the 14th century with William of Ockham, through its development by the British Empiricists inthe 18th century to its popular acceptance inthe 20th century. For its rapid spread from the end of World War I until the time of his writing of Ideas, Weaver credits what he calls 'the great stereopticon." That is, the movies, the press and the radio. Television had not achieved the status that it has today, but if Weaver had revised Ideas he certainly would have included television as even a greater force for cultural and social dissolution" (pp. 48-50).

As I read this, I discovered a similar story to that told by Etienne Gilson, Michael Allan Gillespie (Nihilism before Nietzsche), Benedict XVI, and Conor Cunningham and others within so-called "radical orthodoxy". The times coming out of the WWII were interesting intellectual years as the world struggled with what it had wrought; however the Cold War seems to have diverted these thoughts into other veins radically redefined what "conservative" was to be many things that Weaver initially criticized and that seem "leftist" today.

More about these shifts later. Yet it does show that what contemporary culture calls conservative and liberal are two wings within a common framework, far distant from the intellectual traditions that produced the terms in the first place.

Posted by johnwright at April 27, 2009 12:40 PM

Comments

John,

Perhaps this is oversimplifying a bit, but 7 years ago, the conservatives were in office and controlled most of the federal government. Now it is the opposite. You're always resisting either, so 7 years ago you would have been seen as a 'liberal' because you were against the Republican rule of the day, and now that you are most likely resisting the Liberal/Democratic rule of the day, that somehow makes you 'conservative'.

The reason this comes to mind is that during the 2004 election you told me something along the lines of, "well, whoever wins, we'll have to adjust our resistances accordingly because either political party isn't very Christian."

I don't know. Just a thought.

Peace,

Eric

Posted by: Eric Lee at April 28, 2009 6:55 AM

J-Dub

I envy your ability to "see what is." Keep wranting!

Posted by: Al at April 28, 2009 9:41 PM

Eric and Al:

Thanks for the comments. I hope to add some more later. I think, Eric, that you are correct. But I don't think that I'm trying to "resist" anything -- I don't want to be pulled into a Hegelian dialectic! Yet I think that you describe perceptions very well, and those perceptions get too me and confuse me.

I'm thinking about trying to articulate a "left-wing libertarian" political theory -- small, limited government that focuses on economic and environmental affairs and withdraws from military and moral matters because of the fundamental inability to develop rationales to make involvement in these areas intelligible in its own terms. We'll see.

Peace,
John

Posted by: John Wright at April 29, 2009 6:55 PM

Like you, I remember with fondness Weaver's book at MVNU(C). It went far in shaping my thought processes. I wonder if L. Stevens had any idea he was so impacting our lives and ministries? Having said that I find myself increasingly dissolutioned with the liberal/conservative debate.

I think your insight into nominalism would fit well with NT Wright's ideas in "Surprised by Hope". Likewise CS Lewis seems to offer an interesting take on this in "The Great Divorce". His idea of the real and the more real fit in there somewhere though I know not exactly how.

Thank you for stirring my thinking about such things again.

I hear you met my son an his wife in San Diego. They were quite taken with the place.

Posted by: Randy Owens at April 30, 2009 11:31 AM

John,

I couldn't help but let you know that a "left-wing libertarian political theory" does exist in America right now in case you didn't know about it before. It is being led by Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He ran for president this past election but of course the media didn't choose him, so the people couldn't hear him. Anyway, for as much as I know you care about American govt. I know you are still interested and the "Campaign for Liberty" he has inspired is fascinating to follow--a true grassroots movement.

They have made some wonderful progress (again, that you will never hear about on Fox, CNN or NBC) in proposing bills, and getting congressmen to co-sponsor them, to do such things as audit the Fed and exposing to common people--via the internet--the agendas hidden in bills before they are passed. I think the main reason the economic stimulus package during Bush's term didn't pass in the house the first time around was because of the behind the scenes movement of this organization. Anyway, they are still working within the categories of American "politics" rather than a true alternative ecclesiological politics, but they seem to be concerned with severely limiting this North American empire and that makes me intrigued, even encouraged at times.
Paul works to end the "war on drugs" legalizing marijuana, doesn't have a problem with legalizing gay marriage, opposes abortion, would immediately withdrawl from not just Iraq but the other military bases we have in 160 nations worldwide, and would end the PRIVATE BANK we call the Federal Reserve immediately. An interesting guy to look up...in all the spare time I know you have :)

Anyway, hope all is well. I hear this swine flu is a pretty big thing down in Cali right now. We'll have to send you some real pork that Brandon works with on the farm/restaurant operation he works for up here. Real meat, locally raised, no hormones, organic feed, ethically treated. Brandon is currently the slaughterer and butcher for the farm...basically he is an old testament priest. I got to help hold down a lamb he slaughtered. Talk about power. Talk about gratitude. That is truly the only way to get your meat.

I'll be in more touch soon,
Take Care,
Lauren

Posted by: Lauren Sheard at May 1, 2009 12:23 PM

I just tried to send an email to the address you have on your website, but it failed.

Posted by: John Mulholland at May 2, 2009 7:16 AM

Hi Randy!

It was wonderfully meeting your soon; I find it fascinating that you remember that read as well. I hope to do more with it later.

Lauren: Ron Paul is pretty much a strict free-market capitalist libertarian, from my understanding. Yet his position as a 'conservative' in his foreign policy has wakened my imagination, and made me think -- via antiwar.com -- it was these "principled conservatives" that most consistently opposed the war in Iraq.

John:
I'm sorry. You should be able to contact me at jwright@pointloma.edu. I'll check the email on the site. They changed from ptloma.edu to pointloma.edu awhile back, but left it active until recently.

It will be an honor hearing from you.

John

Posted by: John Wright at May 2, 2009 7:16 PM

Well, since it was 8 years ago that Jason and I graduated, I would say it's been well over 7 years ago that you might have been labeled a "liberal." I'm thinking at least 9. :-) Enjoyed this.

Great seeing you running the other day. Wish we could have connected.

Maya

Posted by: Maya at May 22, 2009 2:15 PM