#the church is a socio-political institution | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

winterfable · 1 year ago

Text

Religion as the counterbalance to mass-mindedness

In order to free the fiction of the sovereign State—in other words, the whims of the chieftains who manipulate it—from every wholesome restriction, all socio-political movements tending in this direction invariably try to cut the ground from under religion. For, in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything else must be taken from him. Religion means dependence on and submission to the irrational facts of experience. These do not refer directly to social and physical conditions; they concern far more the individual's psychic attitude.

But it is possible to have an attitude to the external conditions of life only when there is a point of reference outside them. Religion gives, or claims to give, such a standpoint, thereby enabling the individual to exercise his judgment and his power of decision. It builds up a reserve, as it were, against the obvious and inevitable force of circumstances to which everyone is exposed who lives only in the outer world and has no other ground under his feet except the pavement. If statistical reality is the only one, then that is the sole authority. There is then only one condition, and since no contrary condition exists, judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible. Then the individual is bound to be a function of statistics and hence a function of the State or whatever the abstract principle of order may be called.

Religion, however, teaches another authority opposed to that of the "world." The doctrine of the individual's dependence on God makes just as high a claim upon him as the world does. It may even happen that the absoluteness of this claim estranges him from the world in the same way as he is estranged from himself when he succumbs to the collective mentality. He can forfeit his judgment and power of decision in the former case (for the sake of religious doctrine) quite as much as in the latter. This is the goal which religion openly aspires to unless it compromises with the State. When it does so, I prefer to call it not "religion" but a "creed." A creed gives expression to a definite collective belief, whereas the word religion expresses a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A creed is a confession of faith intended chiefly for the world at large and is thus an intramundane affair, while the meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or to the path of salvation and liberation (Buddhism). From this basic fact all ethics is derived, which without the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality.

Since they are compromises with mundane reality, the creeds have accordingly seen themselves obliged to undertake a pro[1]gressive codification of their views, doctrines, and customs, and in so doing have externalized themselves to such an extent that the authentic religious element in them—the living relationship to and direct confrontation with their extramundane point of reference—has been thrust into the background. The denomina[1]tional standpoint measures the worth and importance of the subjective religious relationship by the yardstick of traditional doctrine, and where this is not so frequent, as in Protestantism, one immediately hears talk of pietism, sectarianism, eccentricity, and so forth, as soon as anyone claims to be guided by God's will. A creed coincides with the established Church or, at any rate, forms a public institution whose members include not only true believers but vast numbers of people who can only be de[1]scribed as "indifferent" in matters of religion and who belong to it simply by force of habit. Here the difference between a creed and a religion becomes palpable.

To be the adherent of a creed, therefore, is not always a religious matter but more often a social one and, as such, it does nothing to give the individual any foundation. For this he has to depend exclusively on his relation to an authority which is not of this world. The criterion here is not lip service to a creed but the psychological fact that the life of the individual is not determined solely by the ego and its opinions or by social factors, but quite as much, if not more, by a transcendent authority. It is not ethical principles, however lofty, or creeds, however orthodox, that lay the foundations for the freedom and autonomy of the individual, but simply and solely the empirical awareness, the incontrovertible experience of an intensely personal, reciprocal relationship between man and extramundane authority which acts as a counterpoise to the "world" and its “reason”.

This formulation will not please either the mass man or the collective believer. For the former the policy of the State is the supreme principle of thought and action. Indeed, this was the purpose for which he was enlightened, and accordingly the mass man grants the individual a right to exist only in so far as he is a function of the State. The believer, on the other hand, while admitting that the State has a moral and factual claim on him, confesses to the belief that not only man but the State that rules him is subject to the overlordship of "God," and that, in case of doubt, the supreme decision will be made by God and not by the State. Since I do not presume to any metaphysical judgments, I must leave it an open question whether the "world," i.e., the phenomenal world of man, and hence nature in general, is the "opposite" of God or not. I can only point to the fact that the psychological opposition between these two realms of experience is not only vouched for in the New Testament but is still exemplified very plainly today in the negative attitude of the dictator States to religion and of the Church to atheism and materialism.

Just as man, as a social being, cannot in the long run exist without a tie to the community, so the individual will never find the real justification for his existence and his own spiritual and moral autonomy anywhere except in an extramundane principle capable of relativizing the overpowering influence of external factors. The individual who is not anchored in God can offer no resistance on his own resources to the physical and moral blandishments of the world. For this he needs the evidence of inner, transcendent experience which alone can protect him from the otherwise inevitable submersion in the mass. Merely intellectual or even moral insight into the stultification and moral irresponsibility of the mass man is a negative recognition only and amounts to not much more than a wavering on the road to the atomization of the individual. It lacks the driving force of religious conviction, since it is merely rational. The dictator State has one great advantage over bourgeois reason: along with the individual it swallows up his religious forces. The State takes the place of God; that is why, seen from this angle, the socialist dictatorships are religions and State slavery is a form of worship. But the religious function cannot be dislocated and falsified in this way without giving rise to secret doubts, which are immediately repressed so as to avoid conflict with the prevailing trend towards mass-mindedness. The result, as always in such cases, is overcompensation in the form of fanaticism, which in its turn is used as a weapon for stamping out the least flicker of opposition. Free opinion is stifled and moral decision ruthlessly suppressed, on the plea that the end justifies the means, even the vilest. The policy of the State is exalted to a creed, the leader or party boss becomes a demigod beyond good and evil, and his votaries are honoured as heroes, martyrs, apostles, missionaries. There is only one truth and beside it no other. It is sacrosanct and above criticism. Anyone who thinks differently is a heretic, who, as we know from history, is threatened with all manner of unpleasant things. Only the party boss, who holds the political power in his hands, can interpret the State doctrine authentically, and he does so just as suits him.

When, through mass rule, the individual becomes social unit No. so-and-so and the State is elevated to the supreme principle, it is only to be expected that the religious function too will be sucked into the maelstrom. Religion, as the careful observation and taking account of certain invisible and uncontrollable factors, is an instinctive attitude peculiar to man, and its manifestations can be followed all through human history. Its evident purpose is to maintain the psychic balance, for the natural man has an equally natural "knowledge" of the fact that his conscious functions may at any time be thwarted by uncontrollable happenings coming from inside as well as from outside. For this reason he has always taken care that any difficult decision likely to have consequences for himself and others shall be rendered safe by suitable measures of a religious nature. Offerings are made to the invisible powers, formidable blessings are pronounced, and all kinds of solemn rites are performed. Everywhere and at all times there have been rites d’entrée et de sortie whose efficacy is impugned as magic and superstition by rationalists incapable of psychological insight. But magic has above all a psychological effect whose importance should not be underestimated. The performance of a "magical" action gives the person concerned a feeling of security which is absolutely essential for carrying out a decision, because a decision is inevitably somewhat one-sided and is therefore rightly felt to be a risk. Even a dictator thinks it necessary not only to accompany his acts of State with threats but to stage them with all manner of solemnities. Brass bands, flags, banners, parades, and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades, and fireworks to scare off demons. Only, the suggestive parade of State power engenders a collective feeling of security which, unlike religious demonstrations, gives the individual no protection against his inner demonism. Hence he will cling all the more to the power of the State, i.e., to the mass, thus delivering himself up to it psychically as well as morally and putting the finishing touch to his social depotentiation. The State, like the Church, demands enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and love, and if religion requires or presupposes the "fear of God," then the dictator State takes good care to provide the necessary terror.

When the rationalist directs the main force of his attack against the miraculous effect of the rite as asserted by tradition, he has in reality completely missed the mark. The essential point, the psychological effect, is overlooked, although both parties make use of it for directly opposite purposes. A similar situation prevails with regard to their respective conceptions of the goal. The goals of religion—deliverance from evil, reconciliation with God, rewards in the hereafter, and so on—turn into worldly promises about freedom from care for one's daily bread, the just distribution of-material goods, universal prosperity in the future, and shorter working hours. That the fulfilment of these promises is as far off as Paradise only furnishes yet another analogy and underlines the fact that the masses have been converted from an extramundane goal to a purely worldly belief, which is extolled with exactly the same religious fervour and exclusiveness that the creeds display in the other direction.

In order not to repeat myself unnecessarily, I shall not enumerate all the parallels between worldly and otherworldly beliefs, but shall content myself with emphasizing the fact that a natural function which has existed from the beginning, like the religious function, cannot be disposed of with rationalistic and so-called enlightened criticism. You can, of course, represent the doctrinal contents of the creeds as impossible and subject them to ridicule, but such methods miss the point and do not affect the religious function which forms the basis of the creeds. Religion, in the sense of conscientious regard for the irrational fac[1]tors of the psyche and individual fate, reappears—evilly distorted—in the deification of the State and the dictator: Naturam expellas furca tamen usque recurret (You can throw out Nature with a pitchfork, but she'll always turn up again). The leaders and dictators, having weighed up the situation correctly, are therefore doing their best to gloss over the all too obvious parallel with the deification of Caesar and to hide their real power behind the fiction of the State, though this, of course, alters nothing.

As I have already pointed out, the dictator State, besides robbing the individual of his rights, has also cut the ground from under his feet psychically by depriving him of the metaphysical foundations of his existence. The ethical decision of the individual human being no longer counts—what alone matters is the blind movement of the masses, and the lie thus becomes the operative principle of political action. The State has drawn the logical conclusions from this, as the existence of many millions of State slaves completely deprived of all rights mutely testifies.

Both the dictator State and denominational religion lay quite particular emphasis on the idea of community. This is the basic ideal of "communism," and it is thrust down the throats of the people so much that it has the exact opposite of the desired effect: it inspires divisive mistrust. The Church, which is no less emphatic, appears on its side as a communal ideal, and where the Church is notoriously weak, as in Protestantism, the hope of or belief in a "communal experience" makes up for the painful lack of cohesion. As can easily be seen, "community" is an indispensable aid in the organization of masses and is therefore a two-edged weapon. Just as the addition of however many zeros will never make a unit, so the value of a community depends on the spiritual and moral stature of the individuals composing it. For this reason one cannot expect from the community any effect that would outweigh the suggestive influence of the environment—that is, a real and fundamental change in individuals, whether for good or for bad. Such changes can come only from the personal encounter between man and man, but not from communistic or Christian baptisms en masse, which do not touch the inner man. How superficial the effect of communal propaganda actually is can be seen from recent events in Eastern Europe. The communal ideal reckons without its host, overlooking the individual human being, who in the end will assert his claims.

--Carl Jung en "The undiscovered self"

#carl jung #the undiscovered self

0 notes

zenta1989 · 1 year ago

Text

In fact, many of the accounts in the hegemonic text (such as People Power) took on biblical forms; they were told as parables, testimonies, juridical witnessings, and exegeses. And the entire revolt is told as a parable of a Church-sanctioned miracle.90 As the filling of a lack (Ninoy's death), the fulfillment of a promise (national redemption), and the expulsion of a surplus object of antagonism (Marcos), the EDSA experience served to encapsulate the crisis that is the nation as the crisis of the nation, which had now been dealt with and overcome. Thus the nation building that came afterwards could not be founded from another point radically different from the point from which it had been hitherto constructed and maintained. As I argued in the first chapter, the fantasy upon which the Marcos regime had been founded was still in place, even if the state would undergo alterations in the process of accommodating the excessive desires of the people. Viewed in terms of Ninoy's death in the hands of the Marcos-military regime, the debt that marked the nation's constitution was seen then to have been paid or recompensed (such that even the military's complicity came to be overlooked). Rather than being seen within the context of the international fantasy of imperialism, it was seen only as an internal, domestic problem. In other words, the national crisis was not addressed within this larger context, outside the grasp of the Free World fantasy. Dependence was seen as a symptom of only an internal national failure rather than as the product of international dreamwork. Thus the emphasis on inner strength and transformation, thus the spiritual solution — 'reconciliation' — to the antagonisms that pervade the Philippine socius. No doubt, these are the 'empty gestures' by which we assume our subjective freedom as a community. But that subjective freedom is the condition of struggle, not its end. In order to transform our concrete 'reality', we must also undo the fantasyscenarios that organize it and dream other realities into being. The political imaginary that needs to be transformed to revolutionary ends, however, subsists in concrete social relations — in the world men and women make with the instruments of their lives as well as with their minds. In the words of Sekou Toure, 'the world is always the brain of mankind [sic].'91 Hence, any struggle to transform the fantasy-reality of our society must also be a material struggle to transform the socio-political structures and institutions it regulates. For history is made on the fantastic terrain that stretches between a society's objective institutions and its living imaginary. More importantly, it is made by the people who ply that terrain, who are no longer willing to be resigned to the possibilities of life 'reality' affords, and who decide to act, to heed other callings and make 'reality' yield to their desires. This is where true 'people power' or, as some have put it, 'people's power', lies.

実際、覇権主義的なテキスト（『ピープルパワー』など）の記述の多くは聖書の形式をとっており、たとえ話、証言、法学的証言、釈義として語られている。そして、反乱全体が教会公認の奇跡のたとえ話として語られるのである90。欠落（ニノイの死）を埋め、約束（国家の救済）を果たし、余剰の敵対対象（マルコス）を追い出すものとして、EDSAの経験は、今や対処され克服された国家の危機として、国家という危機を包み込む役割を果たした。したがって、その後の国家建設は、それまで国家が構築され維持されてきた地点とは根本的に異なる別の地点から立ち上げることはできなかった。第1章で論じたように、マルコス政権が基礎としていたファンタジーは、たとえ国民の過剰な欲望を受け入れる過程で国家が変化を遂げるとしても、依然として存在していたのである。ニノイがマルコス＝軍事政権の手によって死んだという観点から見れば、国家の憲法を象徴する負債が支払われた、あるいは返済されたと見なされたのである（軍の加担さえも見過ごされるようになった）。帝国主義という国際ファンタジーの文脈で捉えられるのではなく、国内の問題としてのみ捉えられた。言い換えれば、この国家的危機は、自由世界ファンタジーの把握の外にある、より大きな文脈の中では扱われなかった。依存は、国際的なドリームワークの産物としてではなく、国内的な失敗の症状としてのみ見なされた。こうして、内なる強さと変容が強調され、フィリピン社会全体に蔓延する軋轢に対する精神的な解決策、つまり「和解」が強調された。間違いなく、これらは共同体としての主観的自由を前提とした「空虚な身振り」である。しかし、��の主観的自由は闘争の条件であって、その終わりではない。私たちの具体的な「現実」を変革するためには、それを組織化し、他の現実を夢想する空想的シナリオも解かなければならない。しかし、革命の目的のために変容させる必要のある政治的想像力は、具体的な社会関係の中に、つまり、男女が自分たちの生活の道具と心で作る世界の中に存在する。セクー・トゥーレの言葉を借りれば、「世界はつねに人間の頭脳である」91 。それゆえ、私たちの社会のファンタジー＝現実を変革するための闘いは、それが規制する社会政治構造や制度を変革するための物質的な闘いでもなければならない。歴史は、ある社会の客観的な制度とその社会の生きた想像の間に広がる幻想的な地形の上で作られるからである。より重要なことは、その地形を行き来する人々、もはや「現実」が与えてくれる人生の可能性に見切りをつけることを望まず、他の呼びかけに耳を傾け、「現実」を自分たちの欲望に屈服させるために行動することを決意した人々によって作られるということである。これこそが真の「ピープル・パワー」であり、「ピープルズ・パワー」と呼ぶ人もいる。

0 notes

zhuolan · 1 year ago

Text

1. Industrialization:

The Industrial Revolution marked a shift from agrarian economies to industrialized ones. Factories and mechanized production became central, leading to the rise of urbanization as people moved from rural areas to cities in search of work.

2. Urbanization:

Cities grew rapidly as industries expanded. This led to the development of urban centers with large populations, new infrastructure, and significant social changes.

Living conditions in early industrial cities were often challenging, with crowded and unsanitary conditions.

3. Technological Advancements:

Technological innovations, such as the steam engine and new manufacturing processes, revolutionized production, transportation, and communication.

The development of the railway and steamship facilitated the movement of goods and people over long distances.

4. Social Classes and Inequality:

While industrialization brought about economic growth, it also led to social inequalities. The gap between the wealthy industrialists and the working class widened, giving rise to socio-economic disparities.

5. Rise of the Middle Class:

The Industrial Revolution saw the emergence and growth of the middle class, comprised of entrepreneurs, professionals, and skilled workers. This group played a crucial role in the economic and social changes of the time.

6. Political Changes:

The French Revolution had a profound impact on the political landscape. Monarchies were overthrown, and new political ideologies, including nationalism and liberalism, gained prominence.

Constitutional monarchies, republics, and democratic systems began to replace absolute monarchies.

7. Nationalism and Nation-States:

Nationalism became a powerful force, leading to the formation of nation-states based on shared language, culture, and history.

The political map of Europe underwent significant changes as new nations emerged and borders were redrawn.

8. Secularization:

The influence of religious institutions began to decline, and secular values gained prominence. The separation of church and state became a key principle in many societies.

9. Advances in Education:

Education underwent reform, with the establishment of public education systems. Increased access to education became a driving force for social mobility.

10. Democratic Ideals:

The concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which emerged during the French Revolution, influenced political thought. Democratic ideals gained traction, leading to the establishment of democratic forms of government in various parts of the world.

These transformative periods set the stage for the modern era, shaping the socio-economic, political, and cultural landscape in ways that continue to influence contemporary society. The effects of these revolutions reverberate in the systems and institutions that characterize the 21st century.

#characteristic

0 notes

hardynwa · 2 years ago

Text

"There is no compelling reasons why the census most be held" - Afenifere

The pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere has called on the Federal Government to discontinue all the plans and arrangements to conduct the forthcoming National Housing and Population Census in Nigeria. The group said it bemoaned the conduct of the national exercise, which is scheduled to commence on May 3, saying it was inauspicious in timing and would be impossible in credible implementation. This was contained in a communique at the end of its monthly meeting held at the residence of Afenifere’s Acting Leader, Pa Ayo Adebanjo in Isanya Ogbo, Ogun State. The communique was made available to our correspondent in Akure, Ondo State by the Secretary General of the group, Chief Sola Ebiseni on Thursday. According to the association, some stakeholders have raised concerns over conducting the census in the same year of the general election but the government insisted in conduct the census. The group also condemned the N100 billion on the exercise, describing it as a “scandalous and economic offence.” The group said, “Afenifere recalls that in a paper it presented at the National Consultative Forum on the 2023 Census held at the Banquet Hall, State House Abuja on August 11, 2022, it reiterated the imperative of census in national development noting that the application and misuse of Census data had been our bane as a country where we lie to ourselves and the world about our number indulging in laughable projections sometimes based on assumed and fixed percentage of population growth across different parts notwithstanding glaring variables. “It is in the light of the importance of credible exercise that, in the August 2022 Conference, we strongly advised against the conduct of the Census which, among other reasons, we said could not possibly hold in the same year of a General election. Other well-meaning personalities and institutions including the UNFPA Resident Representative in Nigeria who was at another Conference in Port Harcourt on March 26-29 2023 and most recently the Methodist Church Nigeria, Diocese of Calabar all have raised concerns on the possibility of reasonable and genuine participation in an acceptable headcount in the current mood of the nation. “Afenifere is particularly bemused that Government expects participation in headcount by citizens still incensed and distraught by the trauma of violence and brigandage of the elections or by those in IDP camps within their country in whose ancestral homes terrorists in occupation will now be counted as new indigenes. That all factors considered, including its inability to supervise a transparent electoral process, and a lesser headcount exercise, the integrity deficiency of this administration are abysmally compounded in conducting census in which partisan disputes in Nigeria are often at the level of communities, states and ethnic nationalities having been politicised over time. “Afenifere decries the most insensitive deployment of over 100 billion Naira on this wasteful exercise as scandalous and an economic offence. Afenifere conclusively says there is no compelling reason why the census must be held by the expiring Buhari administration and calls for all steps and preparations in that regards to be stopped forthwith.” The group also called on the judiciary to ensure that all petitions in respect of the just concluded presidential election be timeously and justly resolved before the end of the tenure of the “Buhari administration as the only way the confidence of Nigerians in its intervention may be earned. “Precedents in this regard have been laid even by less endowed countries in Africa,” it noted Read the full article

0 notes

brendanelliswilliams · 3 years ago

Text

Fundamentalism, the Rejected Gospel, and the Religious Foundations of the Current Crisis in Ukraine

It seems that many Americans are not aware of the sinister dynamics of fundamentalist religiosity that underlie the current crisis in Ukraine, and I think it is important that those elements are known and expressed. I have often attempted to highlight some of these very dangerous dynamics to folks in the Western Church since I left Eastern Orthodoxy roughly fifteen years ago, and it has been my experience that most Western Christians simply lack the context to understand where these complex dynamics arise from and what they imply. The history of Orthodox Christianity in Russia, Ukraine, and the surrounding countries, and its role in centuries of politics there, is extremely nuanced, and not something I intend to treat of here. But I feel compelled to say a few words about the religious dimensions of this catastrophic scenario.

Firstly, it should be plainly said that the Russian Orthodox Church is a highly problematic institution, which has been corrupted and essentially weaponized by Vladimir Putin. Moreover, American branches of Orthodoxy that derived from the Russian Church are in part complicit in this horrific marriage, by virtue of (a) their upholding of similar hypocritical ideologies, often tied to some pet political obsession or socio-cultural insecurity; (b) their support of the Russian Orthodox Church; and (c) their frequent use of the same violent rhetoric frequently used in the Russian Church to denounce Muslims, Jews, other Christians, and generally anyone who has not found the ‘true faith’. On a personal note, this is in essence why I left the Orthodox Church and joined another Catholic jurisdiction: though I loved (and still love) the beauty of the tradition held by the Eastern Orthodox expressions of Catholic Christianity, I simply could not reconcile the utter dissonance and mind-melting hypocrisy that was so fully and constantly on display in the environment of American Orthodoxy—which is so closely tied to Russian Orthodoxy. Both are rife with toxic religious fundamentalism and reactionary politics, though the Russian Church definitely takes the cake.

What we’re seeing now unfolding in Ukraine is much more indebted to that religious fundamentalism than most would probably guess. As Fr. Giles Fraser put it in his article published earlier today, Putin’s Spiritual Destiny: ‘[Vladimir] Putin regards his spiritual destiny as the rebuilding of Christendom, based in Moscow.’ In my own experience of Orthodoxy, there are many Orthodox Christians, both Russian and American, who would unabashedly celebrate such an aim, and think it a good for the world, a ‘victory for God’—and probably for ‘truth’ and for ‘God’s chosen people’ as well. Much of this sentiment is tied up with culture and politics, of course. Putin’s own rhetoric makes this abundantly clear. On some level, he sees himself as a kind of puritanical, pseudo-theocratic monarch, who will set right all the ‘permissive ills’ of the Western world, which he (and many Orthodox Christians, in my experience) would say has lost its way due to its abandonment of a fundamentalist practice of Christian religiosity in the attendant context of a cultural milieu of social conservatism and authoritarian control.

To my thinking, one of the greatest enemies of authentic spirituality, of self-discovery, and of truth generally, is fundamentalism. In America, the Orthodox have taken advantage of the fundamentalist leanings of Evangelicals (and ex-Evangelicals), and have co-opted many of them into their equally fundamentalist vision, which pretends of uniquely possessing ‘the one true, original faith’. Not coincidentally, the Russian and American Orthodox often use language in common discourse that references coming ‘holy wars’, ‘crusades’, and the restoration of a world-dominating ‘Christian empire’, which is all too familiar to fundamentalist Evangelicals and their fevered dreams of ‘Revelations’ and a ‘Second Coming’. These are all, needless to say, dangerous historical fallacies, as well as self-evidently absurd claims in the eyes of anyone who has experientially tasted anything resembling truth. But they are very tempting bait for the uneducated, the insecure, and the spiritually undeveloped, who desire easy answers and (illusory) absolutes to lean on. They are also low-hanging fruit for political ideologues and reactionaries. Thus the tragic wheel of fundamentalism turns round and round, whether it’s in Christian Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, or anywhere else. As I’ve often said, fundamentalism, in whatever form, provides a ready and convenient narrative—and a very sharp stick—to those who wish to dominate and control.

The thing is, domination and control are precisely the opposite of what the authentic Gospel teaches and invites its adherents into. Fundamentalism and the divine witness of kenotic love are plainly exclusive to one another. Those who cannot see this, and who resultantly commit, condone, or passively support atrocities in the name of religious doctrine, are lost in a dark, thorny thicket of self-obsession, often veiled by false humility, and have not yet even begun to place a foot on the path of real transformation (metanoia) or spiritual awakening (theosis). I say this with genuine compassion for the millions of people trapped in this myopic and dangerous circumstance, and take no pleasure whatsoever in saying it. I know how difficult the authentic spiritual journey is (in whatever context one might endeavor to live it), and, foundationally, my aim is always to inspire and equip as many souls as I in my very limited capacity can, to help them find an authentic spiritual path and walk it sincerely, for the sake of all beings, and for the good of the whole Creation.

Being painfully reminded yet again today of the immense dangers of fundamentalist religiosity, as they are once more writ large on the world stage, I therefore feel moved to offer the following to fellow seekers and religious practitioners, and to fellow Christians especially:

Fundamentalist religiosity is easy; coming to know truth, or anything ultimately worthwhile, is never easy. The true Way of the Cross cannot be easy: by its very nature it is self-sacrificing—and it is certainly not as easy as accepting a canned set of dogmas, imagining them to be God-breathed truth for all time.

Beware those who speak often of humility and claim Christ or the Saints (who are the very icons of genuine humility) as their own, yet are eager to condemn others, and to imagine and proclaim themselves as knowing or living the ‘one true way’. In the words of St. Isaac the Syrian: ‘Someone who has actually tasted truth is not contentious for truth. Someone who acts zealous on behalf of truth has not yet learned what truth is really like; for once he has experienced it, he will cease from all zealousness on its behalf.’

Beware those who claim to uphold the spirit of the Gospel, and yet are eager to harm or even extinguish life when it suits their own selfish aims and delusions, or their political ideologies and ambitions. Again, consider the wisdom of St. Isaac: ‘The following shall serve for you as a luminous sign of your soul’s attainment: when, on examining yourself, you find yourself filled with compassion for all humanity, and your heart is struck in pain at their afflictions, and burns as if on fire, on behalf of everyone without distinction.’

This is precisely what the Master modeled for humanity, in his life and in his death. ‘Christendom’ is utterly contrary to that vision, and always has been, from the moment it was inaugurated by Constantine and his puppet bishops. Significantly, it was largely in response to this blatant corruption and hypocrisy, this co-opting of the Church by a dominator system of political and military power, that monasticism was born in the Church: the preservation of a Christian path that could actually produce Saints, who, as self-emptied vessels carrying the work of Divine Wisdom into the world, might actually know how to love ‘everyone without distinction’.

The Buddhists have done a far better job at that than most Christians. In Mahāyana Buddhism, much of the religious doctrine and many of the practices are, in fact, focused precisely on this ideal. That is to say, the ideal of Christ—which they call the Way of the Bodhisattva. I would say that this is not an irony so much as a testament to the fact that Wisdom will find a way to work in the world, in whatever hearts are open to her. As the divine energy and essence of Love, she is obviously no respecter of persons—or of cultures or religious orientations. Lady Wisdom ‘cries out in the streets’, and in the marble halls of the patriarchates; she cries out in front of the Russian Orthodox ‘military cathedral’ in Moscow; she cries out in every place where egotism reigns, where injustices are committed with impunity in the name of some religious ideology or other. The question is—and always has been—: Who will listen?

Fr. Brendan+

8 notes · View notes

vladdocs · 3 years ago

Text

The Crusader Vlad and the organization of his country's army and its defensive system When we refer to the remarkable merits of Vlad Țepeș's head of state and army [1], we cannot ignore his takeover of a politico-military conception that has its origins in the old Byzantine imperial crusade tradition, Dragula being indisputably the first of our voivodes who rose to fight against the Ottoman Turks after the entry of Byzantium into the rule of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror [2]. Of course, this takeover was also made because he considered himself the legal continuator of the anti-Ottoman struggle of the Byzantine basilicas (emperors) and the great Romanian rulers, especially after the death of Iancu de Hunedoara [3], "the last great European crusade" [4]. Thus, edifying for the pro-crusade politico-military thinking of Vlad Țepeș is also the “crusade duchy [5]” discovered at Târgșor (in Prahova county), ie in the place where Vlad built a church (…) and where there was, in the 15th century, a royal court ”[6]. The currency was struck, in all probability, between 1459-1461, in this case being a second monetary issue made during the reign of Vlad Tepes [7], because, wanting to intensify trade for economic development of the country (which resulted in the procurement of the financial resources necessary to fight the anti-Ottoman struggle), the Romanian voivode was also concerned with this aspect. The only copy of the respective monetary issue, discovered so far, the silver duchy mentioned above, has on its two facets images inspired by the Byzantine iconographic tradition. On the obverse, there appears the face of Vlad Ţepeş with a beard, seen from the front, standing, wearing a crown [on his head] and holding a long cross in his right hand, and the cruciferous globe in his left ”[8], practically“ the typical representation of the Byzantine emperor, in his double position of defender of Christianity and holder of the power of universal aspiration ”[9]. On the reverse is shown "the bust of Jesus Christ, seen [all] from the front, blessing with his right hand, and with his left holding the gospel to his chest" [10]. Practically "this image was also taken from the Byzantine iconographic tradition, being the representation on coins of rex regnantium, ie the hierarchical top of all Christian sovereigns" [11]. Putting the two effigies together on the same coin, certainly on the initiative of Vlad Ţepeş, leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with “a crusade duchy", the Romanian lord considering himself the direct heir of the old Byzantine crusade traditions and , therefore, the main Christian adversary of the Crusent [12], after the disappearance of Iancu de Hunedoara ”[13]. It is interesting to mention the fact that the first coin struck by Vlad Țepeș was a “penny” of anepigraphic silver (ie without any inscription) on the reverse of which appears a star with a tail in the shape of the letter «S», so a comet. The fact that, according to astronomical data, on June 8, 1456, the famous comet Halley (which could be seen for a whole month) appeared in the sky of Europe, led the specialists to conclude that Vlad Ţepeş was influenced in choosing the image for the reverse of the coin. issued from his order, right at the beginning of the second of his reigns, precisely by this rare and interesting astronomical phenomenon, "disturbing image, as it seems unique in the European numismatics of the time" [14]. Considering the uniqueness of Dracula in our history, but also in the universal one, we cannot fail to notice the amazing connection between the evolution of his politico-military career and the mentioned astral phenomenon, which, while at that time instilled a terrible horror in the population. For Europe, it was for him a "heavenly" sign under which he managed to defeat (and kill) his rival (Vladislav II [15]) and ascend to the royal throne of his ancestors [16]. Aiming to consolidate and protect the royal authority and the economic and socio-political bases of the anti-Ottoman resistance and “preparing the reopening of the war

with the Ottoman Empire to ensure state independence and restore the territorial unity of Wallachia, Vlad Țepeș took numerous measures to strengthen the court army (The permanent army- nnTC), the backbone of the "great army", making full use of its revenues for its reorganization, endowment and training, according to the requirements of the time ”[17]. Dragula was also concerned with hiring a large number of specialized fighters from the sister countries (ie Transylvania and Moldova - nnTC), especially those trained in the campaigns of Iancu de Hunedoara, giving a similar status to the soldiers in the country "[18 ]. At the same time, he "raised and strengthened in military positions faithful and talented people (…), chosen with discernment, according to the value criterion" [19]. In the time of Vlad the Impaler, the country's "small army" (as well as its personal guard) consisted of mercenaries, viteji(Braves)[20], courtiers and servants or princely servants, while "the great army" ( mobilized only in case of great danger) was composed of all those able to bear arms and fight (mostly of them, these being inhabitants of villages, but also of fairs and cities, which, "unlike the guard the lord [as well as the army of the courtiers, the troops of the princely servants and the troops of mercenaries], an elite army, were inhomogeneously armed, that is, each came with the weapon he had in the household ”[21]) [22]. In fact, Dragula is the first Romanian ruler, since Mircea the Elder, who raised to battle all those capable of wielding a weapon, an act of great courage that proves his ability to maneuver large masses of people on the battlefield [ 2. 3]. Constantly in a categorical and overwhelming numerical inferiority to the Ottoman invaders he had to face [24], Vlad Țepeș always resorted to a series of measures aimed at a "consistent application of the strategy of the struggle of the whole people (specific to the Romanians - nnTC), he destroying everything in the way of the invading army - thus depriving it of any logistical support in the invaded territory - and triggering bold actions of harassment, the latter - the prelude to a decisive battle - must undermine the combative potential of to the enemy and to decisively weaken his morale ”[25]. Relevant to the care given to military matters is the fact that according to tradition, after the end of any of the battles in which he took part, Dragula (who was a good fighter himself instilling in the whole army a spirit of order and discipline" [26], as well as great courage and love for the country to the point of self-sacrifice), he personally searched each fighter and “who was wounded in the face, gave him great honor and made him brave, [but] who was struck in the back , he ordered that he be put (put - nnTC) on the stake ”[27]. Being "agile and as good as possible in military affairs" [28], a fact recognized even by his enemies, the Ottoman Turks [29], Vlad Țepeș " enlarged and strengthened the military institution promoting peaseants to small rank boyars , exempt them from taxes and benefits in exchange for military service, thus cementing ties with the majority class of the time - the peasantry - a class that understood to serve with devotion the one who defended it from the abuses of the great nobility "[30]. Therefore, "the peasant soldiers of Vlad [Țepeș] defended the entire land of Wallachia, from the Danube, where the Ottoman fleet could not be controlled, until the mountains transformed into a natural fortress of resistance" [31], and Dracula "He himself, as an example of bravery and heroism, often fighting in the front lines, personally leading the attacks on enemy camps, established himself as a valiant defender of his country's independence, [as] a great lord and army commander, [he being] one of the the most brilliant leaders of the Romanian people ”[32]. Vlad Țepeș also paid special attention to the defensive system of his country (as, moreover, was normal in the context of his anti-Ottoman policy), he strengthened it with new cities of refuge, fortresses on

the probable directions of invasion and fortified monasteries ”[33]. Dracula proceeded both to repair, enlarge, strengthen and even raise the foundations of some fortresses, and to "build or rebuild the defensive walls" [34] of some monasteries, such as Cozia, Govora, Tismana, Snagov and Comana [ 35]. Among the fortresses rehabilitated, consolidated and enlarged by the worthy Romanian voivode is the fortress of Poienari (on the upper course of the river Argeș), which, between April-May 1457, he renovated and expanded, which was done according to Povestirilor about Vlad Ţepeş and the forced labor of a significant number of boyars and townspeople from Târgovişte (along with their families), who had plotted against him (these are the ones who took part in the murder of his older brother, Mircea]) [ 36]. The next is the fortress of Bucharest (on the river Dâmbovița), where, in order to monitor the Danube line (given that the fortress of Giurgiu had been occupied by the Turks), he ordered the construction of a strong fortress (which was built in the current area). center of Bucharest, now the well-known archeological ensemble "Curtea Veche"), which is considered the most important plain fortification erected by Dracula (practically, it rebuilds, expands and strengthens the fortress existing here since the time of his grandfather, of Ungrovlahia ”Mircea the Old) [37]. In fact, the first definite documentary attestation of Bucharest dates exactly from the time of Vlad Țepeș, more precisely from 1459, when, through the deed of September 20 (“true birth certificate of our Capital today” [38]), the great Romanian ruler it exempts donations and strengthens the property rights of some inhabitants [39]. The document, very damaged, was discovered around 1900 [40], it represents, more precisely, a deed that strengthened, through the signature of the fierce voivode, an act of sale-purchase of some estates from Ponor (locality today in the county Mehedinti). The act concludes with the following text: "It was written on September 20, in the city of Bucharest, in the year (according to the" Byzantine era "- nn TC) 6968 (ie 1459 [according to" our era "- nn TC]), Io Vlad voivod, by the mercy of God, sir ”[41]. Also, on the last line of this document is mentioned the name “Bucharest [42]. If we take into account the large number of documents written on the orders of Vlad Ţepeş from his residence in Dâmboviţa, we can conclude that, starting with 1459, he led the affairs of the state here, practically Bucharest (or Dâmboviţa Fortress, as it was also called urban settlement at that time) becoming (along with Târgoviște) the second capital of the Romanian south-Carpathian state [43]. Finally, another fortress built by Vlad Țepeș is the fortress of Frumoasa, which, being located on the valley of the river Vedea (right on its bank), "controlled the access road coming from the Danube ford, from the right Zimnicea locality ”[44]. This "fortification, with an area of 2.5 ha, consisted of three rows of waves and two ditches arranged concentrically, the central wave, square in plan with a side of 43 m, carrying the wooden structure of the palisade [45], and the other two were of the simple type, having a rectangular route (the second) and trapezoidal (the outer one) ”[46]. Vlad Țepeș also ordered the expansion of the military constructions of all voivodship residences [47], such as the one in Târgovişte (at that time the largest urban settlement in the country and the main royal residence) [48], where, among other things, he “rebuilt the walls of the fortress with Transylvanian stonemasons” [49] and at the same time, “it seems to have been erected [by his command] and the famous tower of Chindia” [50], which was built , initially, for military purposes, the building serving as a guard point, and later it was also used as a fireplace, as well as for storing the country's treasure [51]. By investing large sums of money in the construction of solid buildings, made of stone and brick, Vlad Ţepeş made both the city and his royal court in Târgovişte to

have a truly princely appearance [52]. "The repair and enlargement of the walls of the royal court made it much stronger and, from now on, to be called a 'fortress'" [53] (on this occasion the royal palace was extended here, erected in a first form by Mircea the Old) [54]. In this sense, the opinion of Ştefan Báthory [55] (the supreme commander of the Transylvanian troops sent to Wallachia by King Matia Corvin to help Vlad Ţepeş to return for the third time to his reign) is also relevant. 1476, he visited Târgoviştele (after it was occupied by the army led by the Transylvanian “captain” and Dracula) and, at his sight, he stated that it was “a real fortress” [56], his opinion being an informed one, because where he came from, the art of building large fortifications was well represented, "and the notions of the military were much more precise." Referring to the exceptional qualities proved by Vlad Ţepeş as organizer of the defense of his country, and not only, as well as as a fighter with a gun in his hand and a leader of the army on the battlefield, a great specialist in military history in the eighteenth century , the Frenchman M. de Follard, appreciated them as remarkable, which is why, in his vision, the brave Romanian prince proved to be "one of the greatest captains (army leaders - nn TC) of his century" [58] , bringing as the main argument for this cataloging his famous victory obtained after his unprecedented and daring night attack, executed on 16/17 June 1462 on the camp of the huge Ottoman army near Targoviste (led by the conqueror of Constantinople, Sultan Muhammad of II), a battle that entered the popular tradition and historiography under the name of "Night Attack" [59]. ________________________ [1] Also nicknamed Dragula, Vlad III Ţepeş was the son of Vlad II Dracul (in his turn illegitimate son of Mircea cel Bătrân [who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1386-1418 - History world in data, Romanian Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1972, p. 567], he ruled Wallachia between 1436-1442 and from 1443 to 1447 [Ibidem]) and Mrs. Anastasia (one of the daughters of Alexander the Good [Virgil Ciocâltan, Between the Sultan and the Emperor: Vlad Dracul in 1438, in “Revista de istorie”, XXIX, No. 11, Bucharest, 1976, pp. 1777, 1782], the lord of Moldavia between 1400-1432 [History of the world in data, p. 569]), he being, therefore, nephew of the two great voivodes, who completed the Romanian statehood in the south and east of the Carpathians. Dracula ruled over "Ungrovlahia" (the name of Wallachia in internal documents written in Slavonic) three times, namely from October (before 17-19) until the beginning of November (certainly after October 31) 1448; from July (before 3) 1456 to November (before 26) 1462 and from October (after 7) / November (before 📷 until the end of December 1476, possibly even until the beginning of January (certainly before of 10) 1477 (Constantin Rezachevici, Encyclopedia of Romanian Lords. Critical Chronology of the Lords of Wallachia and Moldova, vol. I [XIV-XVI Centuries], Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001, pp. 101, 103, 115, 117, 801 , 802). [2] Mehmed II ruled the Ottoman Empire between 1444-1446 and 1451-1481 (History of the World in Dates, p. 567). [3] Remarkable politician and brilliant leader of the Romanian army, who lived between 1407-1456 and held high dignities in the Kingdom of Hungary, including that of regent or governor general of Hungary (between 1446-1453), he being the main promoter of the struggle of Christendom against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, which he led, practically, between 1441-1456. Also, Iancu de Hunedoara was the father of the most important king of Hungary, Matia I Corvin, who reigned between 1458-1490 Tiberiu Ciobanu, «Fortissimus athleta Christi», Iancu de Hunedoara 555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2011, p 15-28, 118, 192-193). [4] Ioan-Aurel Pop, The name of the family of King Matthias Corvinus: from period sources to contemporary historiography, in "Studies and materials of

medieval history", XXVI, Bucharest, 2008, p. 138. Regarding the related aspects of the “imperial idea” in Romanian, see also Dumitru Năstase, The imperial idea in the Romanian Lands. The genesis and its evolution in relation to the old Romanian art (XIV-XVI centuries), Athens, 1972; Petre Ș. Năsturel, Considérations sur l’idée impériale chez les Roumains (Considerations on the Imperial Idea in Romanian), in “Byzantina”, tom. V, Thessaloniki, 1973, pp. 397-413. [5] In the Middle Ages, in Wallachia, the "duchy" was a silver coin, weighing about one gram and worth three "money" (the name given to coins that have circulated over time on the territory of today Of Romania and whose value varied according to epochs and regions, small coin, initially silver, then copper, having the lowest value [Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory in Vaslui against the Turks Ottomans, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2015, p. 366]), whose prototype (model) was the Venetian silver duchy, beaten since 1202 (Ibidem, p. 431). Stephen the Great was "great voivode and lord" of Moldavia from April 14, 1457 to July 2, 1504 (History of Romania in data, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1971, p. 457). Being the son of Bogdan II (who ruled the eastern Romanian-Eastern Carpathian state from October 12, 1449 to October 15, 1451 [Ibidem]) and the nephew of Alexander the Good, he was closely related to Dracula [they were primary cousins] , because the mother of the latter, Mrs. Anastasia, was in turn the daughter of Alexander the Good and, therefore, sister (at least in paternal line) with the father of Stephen the Great (Virgil Ciocâltan, op. cit., p. 1777 , 1782). [6] Ştefan Andreescu, Vlad Ţepeş Dracula between legend and historical truth, second edition, revised, Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, p. 99. [7] Ibidem. [8] Ibidem. The term "globe cruciger" refers to a Christian symbol of authority, which was used in the Middle Ages, but which is still found on some coins, as well as in iconography. It represents a globe on which is placed a cross, used as a royal insignia, for coronation, in several monarchies in Europe. This is especially the case of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, where it was designated as the "imperial globe". The cross on the globe, which symbolizes God's dominion over the entire world, is much larger than the globe, suggesting God's priority over human affairs. The globe, in the hand of the emperor, also signifies the divine origin of the power he exercises. The term comes from the Latin phrase "globus cruciger", consisting of the words "globus", meaning "sphere, globe", and "cruciger" [composed in turn from the noun "crux, crucis", meaning "cross" and the verb "gero , gerere, gessi, gestum ”, meaning“ to carry ”], which means“ bearer of the cross ”) and has the meaning of“ bearer of the cross ”(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger). [9] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99. [10] Ibidem. [11] Ibidem. [12] Part of the Moon's semicircular disk, illuminated by the Sun during one of the phases of the star; The moon seen in the phase of the first and last square. Symbolic sign of Islam, representing the Moon in the rising phase, in the form of a "sickle". Figuratively, the Ottoman Empire, the Turks, the Muslims; Islam, Mohammedanism [13] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 99; Octavian Iliescu, Unknown Duchies issued by two voivodes of Wallachia in the 15th century, in the “Bulletin of the Romanian Numismatic Society”, years LXXVII-LXXIX (1983-1985), Bucharest, 1987, pp. 268-278. [14] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 63. [15] This was the son of Dan II the Brave (who ruled over Wallachia between 1420-1431, with four interruptions [History of the World in Data, p. 567]), who in turn had him as father on Dan I (who ruled the medieval Romanian state in the South Carpathians between 1383-1386 [Ibidem]), considered to be the father of Dăneşti, one of the two main branches of the princely dynasty of the Bessarabians, along with that of the Drăculeşti Vlad

Dracul, Vlad Țepeș's father, but who generally refers to the descendants of Mircea cel Bătrân). Vladislav II ruled between 1447-1456, with a brief interruption in the autumn of 1448, when the throne of Targoviste was first occupied by Vlad the Impaler (Ibidem, p. 568). In unknown circumstances, Vladislav II was executed by order of Dracula, on August 20, 1456 (after his defeat and capture following the battle of Târgșor [Prahova County], which took place before this date), finding- and eternal rest at Dealu Monastery (Constantin Bălan, Dealu Monastery, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, pp. 6-8, 24). [16] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 63; Jean Delumeau, Fear in the West (14th-18th century). A besieged fortress, vol. I, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, pp. 118-119. [17] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, Militară Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, p. 259. [18] Ibidem: Ioan Bogdan, Documents regarding the relations of Wallachia with Brasov and with Hungarian Country in sec. XV-XVI, vol. I, Bucharest, 1905, p. 99. [19] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259. [20] In the Middle Ages, in the Romanian Lands, the term "brave" meant a person who belonged to a category of landowners, similar to the knights of Western Europe and having special military tasks. Our princes raised many of their soldiers, who stood out on the battlefield, among the brave, especially from the second half of the fifteenth century and, especially, by Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler (Tiberiu Ciobanu, op cit., p. 633). [21] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, In the footsteps of Vlad Țepeș, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1979, p. 123. [22] Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, Editura Enciclopedică, București, 2001, p. 352; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 119-123. [23] Ibidem, pp. 123; Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Night Attack, in From Rovine to Călugăreni. Great victories of the Romanian armies over the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2014, p. 68. „In addition to the numerical increase of the soldiers who depended directly on the reign - mercenaries, servants, heroes, courtiers his army, mercilessly punishing those who did not respect his dispositions ”(Istoria Românilor, vol. IV, p. 352). Honestly and strongly "impressed by this discipline" (Ibidem), the Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha * himself stated in the summer of 1462 that if Dracula had a larger number of fighters he "could reach great power" ( Laonic Chalcocondil, Historical Exhibitions: The Rise of Turkish Power, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (Romanian edition by Vasile Grecu), RPR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1958, p. 289). * Nicknamed the "Greek" (probably due to his origin), Mahmoud Pasha was the son-in-law of Sultan Muhammad II the Conqueror and Grand Vizier (the first counselor and his deputy) between 1455-1467 and 1472-1473 or, according to another opinion, between 1456 -1468 and 1472-1474 (Mustafa Ali Mehmed, History of the Turks, Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1976, p. 383; ro.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Pașa). [24] Dracula never had more than 30,000-32,000 fighters (Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 263) and this only by decreeing the general mobilization, on this occasion being recruited all men and young people from his country, capable of carrying weapons, "from 12 years upwards" (the magazine "Trajan's Column" [edited by BP Hasdeu], NS, IV, Bucharest, 1883, p. 36). [25] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 272-273. [26] Ibidem, pp. 259. [27] The Slavo-Romanian chronicles from the XV-XVI centuries. Published by Ioan Bogdan (critical edition by P. P. Panaitescu), R.P.R. Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 207-208. [28] Foreign travelers about the Romanian Lands, vol. I (edited by Maria Holban), Scientific Publishing House, Bucharest, 1968, p. 176. [29] "The results of his reorganization and training of the army and his qualities as a

military commander were appreciated even by his fiercest opponents, and Turkish chroniclers regarded him as" famous among his peers and in his craft. to lead armies. He was also unique in serdaria (ie in command, this word coming from the term "serdar" * - nn TC), a second like him not being in the land of the ghiauri ", Sultan Mehmed II himself (ie Muhammad II- the Conqueror - nn TC) “considering him a brave man, and praising him to others” ”(Military History of the Romanian People, vol. II, p. 260; Turkish Chronicles on the Romanian Lands, vol. I [compiled by Mihail Guboglu and Mustafa Ali Mehmed], RSR Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, 1966, p. 199). Ghiaur = pejorative name (ie unfavorable, derogatory, contemptuous), used by the Turks to designate those of a religion other than the Mohammedan, in Turkish meaning "unbeliever" (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Glossary, in Mircea cel Batran the most agile of Christian principles », Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2013, p. 188). * The generic name, in the Ottoman Empire, of the commander-in-chief of a large Turkish expeditionary military corps (Idem, Glossary, in Stephen the Great and Saint and his brilliant victory at Vaslui against the Ottoman Turks, p. 593). [30] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 259-260. [31] Ibidem, p. 283. [32] Ibidem, p. 283-284. [33] Ibidem, p. 260. [34] Ibidem. [35] Ibidem. [36] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Poienari Fortress, 15th-16th centuries, in “Studies and researches of ancient history”, tom. XXII, no. 2, Bucharest, 1971, pp. 263-289; Maria Ciobanu, Nicolae Moisescu, Radu Ștefan Ciobanu, Poienari Fortress, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, pp. 88-89; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., 109-112. [37] Panait I. Panait, The Citadel of Bucharest in the 14th and 15th centuries, in “Revista Muzeelor”, no. 4, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 310-318; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 103-105; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, Problems of the relations between the beginnings of the medieval urban settlements and the princely courts from Wallachia, in “Studia Valachica”, Târgovişte, 1970, pp. 104-105. [38] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 94. [39] H. Chircă, Historical-Philosophical Commentary on the Chrysostom of September 20, 1459, in "Studies", vol. XII, no. 5, Bucharest, 1959, pp. 5-7; Radu Olteanu, Bucharest in dates and events, Paideia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002, p. 14. [40] Ibidem; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [41] Ibidem; Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14. According to the “Byzantine era”, the date of “Creation” is the year 5508 BC. Often encountered in the form of "years since the creation of the world" or "years since the building of the world" or "years since Adam", this chronology was officially used in the Byzantine Empire (by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) and other churches. Orthodox from 692 to 1728. In the Romanian Lands, it was used mainly until the middle of the eighteenth century, being gradually replaced, until the middle of the nineteenth century, with "our era" (abbreviated "en"), which we count from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is why the abbreviation "AD" is used. Because the "Byzantine era" is considered to be 5508 years older than "our era", in order to transpose the years of the "Byzantine era" into the years of "our era" this difference of years must be taken into account, using operations. subtraction or addition, depending on the situation(ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_bizantină). [42] Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7. [43] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 105. In fact, Dracula spent four of the more than six years of his reign “in the city of Bucharest”, preferring it to the royal residence in Târgoviște, this, especially, out of the desire to be as close as possible of the Danube, in order to be able to better supervise the movements of the Turks (Radu Olteanu, op. cit., p. 14; H. Chircă, op. cit., p. 5-7). [44] The military history of the Romanian people,

vol. II, p. 90; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [45] Wooden fence or "wall", used in the past as a defense structure; fortification element, used in older defensive arrangements, consisting of thick and long poles, knocked to the ground, tied together with planks, ropes, ropes (tree branches, tree branches, etc.) etc. and having between the spaces braids of twigs, sometimes also a filling of beaten earth. The height of a palisade could be up to three meters. Synonym: (rarely today) lever ((ro.wiki-pedia.org/wiki/Palisadă; dexonline.ro/definiție/palisade). [46] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 90. „The ditches (fortress from Frumoasa - n.n. T.C.) had oblique walls, with a maximum width of 8-12 m; the difference between the wave coast and the ditch wire was between 6 and 10 m. Outside the central palisade there was a platform, approx. 3-3.5 m, on which the defenders of the fortress circulated. For the construction of the central palisade, two ditches were dug with a depth of 1-1.30 m, on the bottom of which were fixed, in an oblique position, thick oak poles, at a distance of 0.15-0.25 m from each other . Between the rows of stakes, at different levels of them, thick beams and beams were fixed, horizontally or obliquely, thus compartmentalizing the skeleton of the palisade, which was then covered with beaten earth ”(Ibidem). [47] Gheorghe I. Cantacuzino, op. cit., p. 104-105; Istoria militară a poporului român, vol. II, p. 90; Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 123. [48] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., pp. 97; The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260; Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 123-126; Nicolae Constantinescu, Cristian Moisescu, Royal Court of Târgovişte, 2nd edition, Meridiane Publishing House, Bucharest, 1969. Royal and capital residence between 1396 and 1714, Târgoviște held for more than three centuries the status of the most important economic, political center -military and cultural-artistic of Wallachia, currently being the city-municipality of residence of Dâmbovița County, administrative-territorial unit from the central-southern part of the country, more precisely from the central-northern area of the Romanian geographical-historical region Muntenia (ro .wikipedia.org/wiki/Târgoviște. [49] The military history of the Romanian people, vol. II, p. 260. [50] Ştefan Andreescu, op. cit., p. 97. [51] Also known as the "Chindia Tower", it is currently part of the "Royal Court" Historical Monument Ensemble and measures 27 meters in height and 9 meters in diameter. Between 1847-1851, the tower was completely restored by the rulers of Wallachia, Gheorghe Bibescu (who ruled between 1842-1848 [History of the world in data, p. 568]) and Barbu Știrbei (who ruled between 1849-1853 and 1854). -1856 [Ibidem]), the current form being due to the first one, including its elevation by about 5 meters compared to the initial construction. The Chindia Tower is the most important tourist attraction in Târgoviște and, at the same time, the symbol of the city, specific elements of the building being present on the coat of arms of the respective city, both at the top and at the bottom. In fact, now, the tower is also the most important tourist attraction of the entire Dâmbovița County, currently hosting the exhibition entitled "Vlad the Impaler - Dracula, legend and historical truth", which presents documents, weapons and objects from the reign of the fierce Romanian voivode, but also maps with the surroundings of those times. From an administrative point of view, the Chindia Tower is under the tutelage of the “Curtea Domnească” National Museum Complex in Târgoviște. There are two hypotheses regarding the origin of the name of the tower, but there is no consensus on this fact. The first claims that areas in the vicinity of the tower were places of feasting, called "chindii", hence the origin of the name. It has also been suggested that its name comes from the word "chindie", an archaism meaning "sunset", a time of day when soldiers

defending the tower were required to give the signal that the five gates of the city were closed. After this moment, it was forbidden to enter or leave the city throughout the night, and the inhabitants had the obligation not to drive on the streets and not to maintain outdoor fires, which would have made the city visible from a great distance (ro.wikipedia .org / wiki / Turnul_Chindiei). [52] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., pp. 125. [53] Ibidem, pp. 124. [54] Ibidem. [55] This is Stephen I Báthory of Ecsed, who was a prominent member of the powerful Hungarian noble family Báthory. He lived between 1430-1493 and held the position of voivode of Transylvania from July 1479 to January 1493 (History of Romania in dates, p. 461; History of the Romanians, vol. IV, p. 807). Very ambitious, he will be appointed, in 1471, by Matthias Corvinus as a judge of the Royal Court (ie royal judge, in which capacity he was the king's legal deputy [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_royal]), holding this high position until his death. Due, however, to his warlike nature (warriors - nn TC), along with the cruelty he had shown countless times (especially to the Szeklers, whose committee [governor] had been for a time - nn TC), István (Ştefan - nn TC ) Báthory will end up being dethroned in 1493 "(Cristian Ioan Popa, The Battle of the Field of Bread [October 13, 1479]. From the universality of the medieval lied to the recovery of national heroes, in" Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis "[ Yearbook of the Municipal Museum „Ioan Raica” from Sebeş], No. 2, Sebeş, 2010, p. 276), dying shortly afterwards (see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ştefan_Báthory_de_Ecsed). The special merit of Stephen I Báthory was that together with the Timiș counties, Pavel Chinezu will obtain, on October 13, 1479, on Câmpul Păinii (near Orăştie), a brilliant victory over the Turks who had invaded Transylvania (Military History of the People). Romanian, vol. II, pp. 334-337). * Famous for his Herculean strength, for his extraordinary skill in handling weapons of all kinds, especially the sword, usually he "fighting with two swords at once" [Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia, Buda, 1770, p. 639]) and for his remarkable qualities as an army leader, Pavel Chinezu was a Romanian from Banat, who lived between 1432-1494 and held a number of high positions in the political-administrative and military hierarchy of Hungary, among which the leadership of the entire province of Banat and the supreme command of the troops from the south of the Hungarian Kingdom were counted (at one point, he was appointed by Matthias Corvinus at the head of all the military forces of the Hungarian Crown), which he exercised from 1478 until his death. sa (Tiberiu Ciobanu, Pavel Chinezu and his great victory on the Field of Bread against the Ottoman Turks, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timişoara, 2014, p. 15-42). [56] Radu Ştefan Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 125-126. [57] Ibidem, p. 126. [58] M.de Follard, Histoire de Polybe (Istoria lui Polybius), II, Paris, 1727, pp. 49-50. Polybius = Greek politician and historian, who lived between 200-120 BC. and he was an unconditional admirer of Rome, compiling a vast history (in 40 books) of the Roman Republic (and of the states which came into contact with it, practically a universal history), which entered historiography under the title of General History, which deals with the events that took place between 220-146 BC. (Dominique Vallaud, Historical Dictionary, translated by Nicolae Șarambei, Artemis Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. [59] For information on the development of the sultanate campaign in the summer of 1462, undertaken north of the Danube, as well as details on the "Night Attack", see Tiberiu Ciobanu, The Great Sultanate Campaign in the Summer of 1462 undertaken in Wallachia and the Night Attack ”, In Vlad Țepeș and“ The Night Attack ”555, Eurostampa Publishing House, Timișoara, 2017, pp. 99-172; Sultan's campaign = large-scale military action led personally by the sultan.

#Vlad voda #Vlad Tepes #Vlad Dracula #vlad the impaler #Ladislau Dragkwlya #documents #history #wallachia #romania #vlad dracula tepes #Vlad the impaler's coins #Wallachian ducats #The Crusader Vlad and the organization of his country's army and its defensive system

25 notes · View notes

longwindedbore · 3 years ago

Text

In the Reality that Non-Reactionaries and Non-Evangelicals live in ~

In other news in a completely different Reality ~ unvaccinated deaths are a hoax!

Every Reactionary and Evangelical Influencer, Pastor, Politician PERSONALLY KNOWS SIX VACCINATED WHO <gasp> DIED from the VACCINE!!!.

Curiously, they can’t name these vaccinated dead nor reference dates of deaths so that we can confirm.

Nor do they have have any lists of names of the hundreds of thousands of allegedly vaccinated who have died in hospitals.

Nor any explanation of HOW WE LIBERTARDS are successfully concealing hundreds of thousands of deaths of vaccinated with families forgoing funerals WHILE compiling list after list of anti-vaxx influencers, pastors and politicians who have died.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At this point every anti-vax Church, Roght-wing Community, Rifht-wing Social Institution and Right-wing Social Media app have had endless series of prayers for members of that socio-political spectrum who have died.

Surviving anti-vax proponents just don’t care. Idk why. Maybe it’s just not enough deaths.

Or maybe there would never be enough deaths for them to care.

Consider Mother’s who drive minors to riots or Parents who provide attorneys for themselves but not their kid. Are these people demonstrating in their actions that they really care about their own families?

Anti-vax, mass shooters, Reactionaries, Fundamentalist Religious all hail from the same narrow band of the socio-political spectrum.

The Deplorables who admire the former First Lady’s jacket motto recycled from 1930s Fascists:

“I really don’t care. Do U?”

9 notes · View notes

sensessences · 3 years ago

Text

So I am reading Monica Hoff's arguments on Mediation Is Not Representation and she discusses about the taste that has been socio-politically developed in the Brazilian society for conflict ever since around 2013, with the rise of neofacist standings and the confusion and inability of the left wing to truly address and reorient these. She very amazingly puts it in perspective and works through the avoidance of the topic, the making of conflict for the hunger and enjoyment of it (like a shock therapy) and the (shocking) possible and maybe inevitable outcome to salvage mediation and the current situation being, precisely, dissent. But dissent doesn't have to mean competition, or direct confrontation - although it may. On the other hand, is it so wrong if it is? We do our best to keep the negatives to a zero, but what if at least a minimum is truly inevitable? To cut that thought, and related to it (of course), I remember of my classes and materials on Conflict Resolution, about how there are very different approaches and, what often steems from unmet needs of each party involved in an issue also is essential fertile ground to solve the matter. There were 5 different aspects listed that I remember regarding the pre-positioning of each party, one of which makes for a difficult and singular win, coming from direct confrontation and taking the upper hand against a party, as well as repression, collaboration and silence. Out of them all, of course, collaborative stances are the best, and the only that genuinely seeks for a win-win situation of all parties combined. Most often we individually reach those stances after coming to terms with certain things and a lot of psyche and psychological work. But then again, communities and whole societies are hard to cater to in such a way, at least taking into account Brazil, and with an addendum of the way of thinking of the more conservative parts of society, not to mention the lack of means and priorities as listed by Maslow's to a country that has a rising number of people in the poverty line, in hunger and in dire situations. Feasibility and necessity seem to have a wide, strenuous gap in between. Planning to provide seems then that it needs several different steps first to get there, but then again if there were a way to get started, and provided a way for people to get there already beforehand, like a means or a link (literal and not) that they can access by only having their will? Would that help? A carry-on, step by step of understanding of the process. Maybe like a lecture, like a communal form and means to fill, with our families, our churches, our institutions. Like a group psychological... therapy?

#li talks shit #thoughts #art #mediation #museum #psychology

3 notes · View notes

theexistentialeasel · 4 years ago

Text

Exegesis - Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space

Week 3 | July 21st, 2021

In his three-part essay entitled Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, published in 1976 in Artforum Magazine, Brian O'Doherty takes us on an overview of the history of the gallery space. We start from the 18th and 19th-century salon-style hangings to the present-day white cube, where the author reserves a stark criticism. The term 'white cube' is used to reference the mode of display of white walls with artificial light sources that have long since been the established default in galleries and museums.

There are two arguments in O'Doherty's text. The first is that the white cube came about because of our changing notion about the edge. Previously the frame was used to contain an illusion into a 3D space, similar to a window frame. As art became flatter, such as in Monet's work which is the example given in the text, it eroded the edge. Thus, the frame became obsolete and was replaced by white walls to objectify the work and provide a type of palette cleanser between artworks to avoid the pictures becoming a single perceptual field. His second argument is that the white cube alienates everything that is 'other.' It not only alienates the presence of the body, but it exploits the art by making it expensive and excluding. It puts the art on a pedestal. O'Doherty writes: "In this context, a standing ashtray becomes almost like a sacred object […]" In this context, the fact that it is art cannot be questioned anymore.

Consequently, an even bigger problem arises; the art gallery becomes a secular system with a closed system of values conforming with the social order. Therefore, it has never truly been as neutral as its white walls might otherwise suggest. "This, of course," O'Doherty writes, "is one of modernism's fatal diseases." The essay was so popular that it was republished in a book and deeply discussed. It was a turning point in contemporary art theory as O'Doherty's criticism tapped into what many people were thinking but had not yet put into words.

While I agree with the essay's main arguments, there is no doubt a generalization in his second argument. Specifically, it comes from this last quote where he calls the white cube "one of modernism's fatal diseases." The fault is that this supposes that this problem caused by the white cube is uniquely a modernist one. As mentioned before, O'Doherty main issue with the white cube is that its neutrality is an illusion. Therefore, if the artist accepts the gallery space he is showing in, he conforms to the ideological state apparatus. But hasn't this always been the case?

The white cube indeed excludes everything that is 'other;' poor people, people of colour, uneducated people, queer people, etc. However, this was also the case for the gallery space even back in the 18th and 19th century salon-style hangings. During this time in Western society, not everybody was allowed to produce so-called "art." It had to be one of the 'classical' arts, and it had to be taught at an institution; this meant that it wasn't accessible to people who didn't have the means to pay for an education, people of colour, and women. There was no illusion that the art world and, therefore, the space in the gallery was an inclusive one. The system that controlled what was considered art and who could produce art back then is still very much the same today. In the case of the white cube, I would argue that it is actually more obvious that the gallery space and the apparatus behind it aren't 'neutral' or inclusive. Now, instead of simply knowing at the back of your mind that your body is an intrusion onto the space, you feel it instantly when you walk into the hermetically sealed white cube. Therefore, as the art world stands today, even if you strip today's art gallery of its white hermetic walls, the institution that transforms ashtrays into sacred objects is still there; it will still be biased, the art object will still be deified by its mere inclusion into a gallery space, and the 'other' will never feel as if they belong.

That being said, the art world isn't hopeless. There are ways to counter the problem of the white cube. Many artists have chosen to simply not exhibit in formal gallery spaces and instead utilize public space or other unconventional spaces to display their art. For example, David Hammons refused to exhibit any work in art galleries, museums, and very acclaimed art exhibitions but instead opted for Church basements and street corners. Additionally, some artists have found ways to critique the institution behind the white cube (also called institutional critiques, which falls under conceptual art) while operating within the system. Perhaps one of the best-known art stunts was Hans Haacke's MoMA Poll in 1970 (pictured above), where (without letting the Museum know what he was up to) asked visitors to vote on socio-political issues. For example, one poll asked: "Would the fact that Governor Rockefeller has not denounced President Nixon's Indochina Policy be a reason for your not voting for him in November?" By doing this, Haacke was directly commenting on the involvement of MoMa's major donors and board members. Haacke thought that the artist's job was to expose the institutional framework of the gallery as a kind of inside job to disillusion the general public as to the so-called neutrality of the white cube. Since then, many other artists have taken up the flame, such as Matthieu Laurette, Andrea Fraser and Fred Wilson.

In the end, like O'Doherty hints to in his writing, the form of the art gallery will change again once art itself goes through another metamorphosis. I cannot help but wonder what this new phase will look like.

Sources:

Filipovic, Elena. David Hammons : Bliz-aard Ball Sale. London, (England: Afterall Books) 2017.

"Moma Poll, Hans Haacke." WikiArt, October 5th, 2012. https://www.wikiart.org/en/hans-haacke/moma-poll-1970

O'Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube : the Ideology of the Gallery Space. Expanded ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Image 1: "Christine Ay Tjoe Spinning in the Desert." The White Cube. https://whitecube.com/exhibitions/exhibition/christine_ay_tjoe_hong_kong_2021

Image 2: Hans Haacke, MOMA Poll, New York, 1970. https://www.wikiart.org/en/hans-haacke/moma-poll-1970

#white cube #art criticism #art #review #institutionalcritique

4 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 4 years ago

Note

Two more Reformation questions: Why did salvation by grace vs. works matter so much? And why was episcopacy such a contentious issue between Puritans/Presybterians etc. and Anglicans in England and Scotland?

Following up on this post, let me state that I am not a historian of religion, so I apologize if I make any theological mistakes.

Salvation by grace versus salvation by works is obviously a major point of contention, because getting this wrong means that people following the wrong doctrine are condemned to hell, largely because they’ve been misinformed.

At the same time, there are major socio-cultural consequences to the two traditions. To take the Lutheran one first, if you believe in salvation by grace alone, you believe that people can achieve it by themselves through their faith - and that you acquire that faith in no small part by reading the Bible for yourself, in your own vernacular. That’s a pretty revolutionary statement to make, and it inspired a lot of people at the time to challenge the religious, cultural, and social hierarchies they lived under.

However, from a Catholic perspective, while faith is necessary, so are works. At the time, this didn’t mean being nice to your neighbors and helping senior citizens cross the street, but specific religious activities like organized prayer, going on pilgrimage, donating to charity, going on crusade, etc. Salvation by grace alone threatened to invalidate the centuries of works done by sincere people - and by extension, invalidate the salvation of not just their own souls but also the souls of their loved ones going back generations. You can imagine how personal this could get.

(There’s also some really complicated academic debating going on here about whether we think of human nature as inherently sinful or inherently good, whether God is necessary for salvation or not, and so on, but that was less important on the street level.)

When it comes to episcopacy, I’m on somewhat stronger ground, because this one has a lot to do with 17th century Scottish and English politics and European religious-inflected geopolitics.

The important thing to understand is that Presbyterianism was heavily influenced by John Calvin, and John Calvin was Swiss and A. thought about politics differently than other religious scholars of his timer who were more used to aristocratic or monarchical government, and B. thought about politics a lot. He thought churches should be governed more democratically because that’s how the original Christian church was organized (and thus that structure was ordained by God), he thought that the state should be organized more democratically, because both the principle of equality extended from the religious to the secular and because democratic safeguards were necessary to protect people from ungodly rulers who might to tyrannize them by imposing the wrong religion on them.

John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, extends and recontexualizes Calvin’s teachings for a Scottish context. Specifically, a context in which monarchs were frequently trying to impose their control over the church - whether we’re talking about Mary of Guise trying to stamp out Protestantism in Scotland, England’s vaccilations between Lutheran/Calvinist teachings and Catholic teachings in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I, James VI and I trying to gain the same control over the leadership of the Church of Scotland that he had over the Church of England, and so on. Obviously, calling for secular democracy wasn’t on the table, but Knox and his followers drew a hard line when it came to religious democracy, that the church had to govern itself freely, and that otherwise loyal subjects to the monarch were justified in resisting the monarch’s attempts to compromise that independence.

This conflict over church governance also intersects with theological conflicts in a significant way. While James’ efforts were more about politics and institutions, Charles I’s religious efforts were about doctrine. Charles and his Archbishop William Laud were not just High Church Anglicans, but specifically Arminians - and Arminianism was flatly incompatible with Calvinism and Presbyterianism on core doctrinal issues, and closer to Catholicism than Calvinism on a number of points. Thus, when Charles and Laud begin an effort at imposing religious uniformity between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, it’s seen as not just a struggle over whether the Kirk is run by appointed bishops or elected elders, but also a struggle over whether Scotland is going to be Calvinist or pseudo-Catholic.

On the 23rd of July, 1637, Jenny Geddes kicks off a riot when the Dean of Edinburgh tries to use the Book at St. Giles’ Church, throwing a stool at his head. This riot sweeps Edinburgh, besieging the government, and forcing them to plead with Charles to make a U-turn. Charles won’t (and in fact, threatens the people who sent the petition with treason charges), and things keep getting worse - riots happen whenever the Book of Common Prayer is used; in one case the Bishop of Brechin has to pull pistols on his own congregation as he stands at the pulpit. In response to royal obstenancy a National Covenant is drafted by most of the nobility, ministers, and city officials of Scotland and signed by tens and ultimately hundreds of thousands of people, pledging to resist religious “innovations” by military force.

So in the case of episcopacy, what you have going on is both a conflict over who runs the Church, what church structure says about church doctrine, and ultimately about whether authority and legitimacy come from the people or from the king.

#historical analysis #history of religion #the reformation #scottish reformation #english reformation

34 notes · View notes

humansofhds · 4 years ago

Text

Don Abram, MDiv ’19

“In the same way that the Black Church has been queer through its very existence—by operating on the undersides of power, by existing in the margins, by advocating for the least of these—me advocating for LGBTQ rights is simply an extension of that tradition. It is an extension of that Black, freedom-loving tradition. I want to be able to walk congregants through this as we center the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ folks in the Black Church.”

Don Abram, MDiv ’19, is the founder of Pride in the Pews, a nonprofit that seeks to amplify the voices and experiences of queer Christians in the Black Church.

A Call to Identity and to Faith

I grew up on the far South Side of Chicago, and I was raised by a single mother and a very active Jamaican grandmother. Every Sunday I attended a hand-clapping, toe-tapping Black Church right down the street from my house, within walking distance. I attended every Sunday, initially reluctantly because I didn’t like waking up in the morning. I would come up with a myriad of excuses and reasons for why I could not attend on Sunday, including not being able to find matching socks or not being able to find the right tie. It never worked.

At the age of 14, I was called to preach. I moved from the pews to the pulpit, which was really a paradigm-shifting change, especially in the Black Church, wherein the Black pulpit is often centered over and above other positions and places in the congregation. At the same time that I was called to preach, I was also introduced to my sexuality. But what I knew instinctively was that I could not embody both of those identities without losing both my community and my calling.

So to put it simply, I did not embody both of those identities, at least not on Sunday mornings. When I would preach in my church or go to different churches for revivals, I was a straight preacher. Outside of the four walls of the Black Church, I was able to explore my queerness – still in the shadows, but not nearly as tucked away as when I was in the pulpit. Frankly, I didn’t have an opportunity to explore the theological foundations I was brought up under until I arrived at HDS. That was the first time I was able to take a deep dive into toxic theologies, unpack them, and reconstruct a theology that spoke to the fullness of who I am. And I did all of that from within the radical Black religious tradition.

I was reading folks like James Cone and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as folks like Fannie Lou Hamer—all of these amazing scholars who took seriously the Black Church as an institution. Not just what transpired at the spiritual level, but the ways in which the Black Church showed up in the public square. And the Black Church historically showed up pursing justice and pushing back against systems of oppression. I was able to reconstruct this theology and I loved it. I was able to reconcile my faith and my sexuality. There was no distinction between the two. I saw them as inextricable.

An Invitation In

I would also travel back home, to the far South Side of Chicago, to the same old hand-clapping, toe-tapping Black Church, where folks did not have access to the same sort of conversations I was having at HDS, or to the same thinkers or luminaries who were engaging in prophetic critique of Black Church theology. I wrestled with how to invite my church into these conversations around the intersection of race, religion, and sexuality.

At HDS, we didn’t talk a whole lot about how to translate what we were learning, or how to engage in conversations with folks who didn’t have access to that space. And that’s really where Pride in the Pews emerged. I wondered, how might we think of a sustainable way to engage congregants, on the South Side of Chicago and in cities like it across the country, in these conversations that are central to our theology and our understanding of ourself as an institution? That is where it began.

And then came the George Floyd murder, after which I was protesting. Alongside me were Black pastors and clergy, and they were chanting along with me, Black Lives Matter. My immediate retort was, does my life matter to you? As a Black queer man who shows up Sunday after Sunday to a sanctuary where my sexuality is demonized and condemned? I realized that now is a great time for the Black Church to recommit itself to pursing justice for all people—for those who exist at the margins of society, for those who are on the underside of power. I launched Pride in the Pews in the hopes that in this particular socio-political moment, we would be able to take a deeper dive into our commitments and the way we carry them into the world.

Different Faiths, Same Justice

Religious communities like the one I come from—Black Baptist, fundamentalist communities—are quite skeptical of “out-there,” liberal places like HDS. There’s this fear that you’re bringing folks of all different faiths together, and they’re just going to steer you away from Jesus. Steer you away from God. But what I found was that being in conversation with Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist colleagues, with folks who practice Indigenous African religious traditions, did not bring me away from my faith, but actually brought me closer to it. My colleagues were asking questions and framing the pursuit of justice in ways that pushed me to ask, how might Jesus see this? In doing so, it actually gave me permission, or offered an invitation, for me to think more critically about the values that I hold as a Black Christian—and more specifically, a Black, Queer Christian in the Black Church.

For me, this was an opportunity to take a deep dive into my convictions, both theological and philosophical and spiritual, and begin to ask the scary questions. The questions that would lead to answers that I didn’t already have. Being willing to engage in that humble inquiry, that audacious questioning, presented an opportunity for me to say, ok, let me re-imagine the way I’ve interpreted the gospel. Let me reimagine the way I understand harm and violence and white supremacy and homophobia.

I got to the place where I was able to see both my queerness and my faith as inextricably connected, but also where I was able to go broader than that. I was able to say, when I’m talking about the injustices caused by queerphobia in the world, those are intimately connected to white supremacy. Those are intimately connected to patriarchy and homophobia and transphobia. These things are not separate and independent from one another. What we are really talking about is interlocking systems of oppression. My colleagues from different faith traditions and I, we were able to work together and agree on the fact that we should be pursuing justice. We should be doing good in the world. Whatever it is that we deem ministry or our calling or the philosophical tenets that we subscribe to, it should all work toward a world where we are safer, more whole, and more free.

“Can I Get a Witness?”

I started Pride in the Pews not only when this country was confronting a racial reckoning that was catapulted by state-sanctioned violence against Black bodies. It also happened when we were seeing unprecedented and historic attacks against the Black community, with a specific emphasis on attacks on the rights of trans-folks to exist. At the same time as we saw this racial reckoning, we saw these concerted attacks across the country on LGBTQ folks. That’s the intersectional context that Pride in the Pews emerged into. That intersectionality makes Pride in the Pews so powerful. We recognize that we’re fighting on multiple fronts. We’re fighting for our right to exist as Black people, and we’re fighting for our right to exist as queer-embodied people. For me, that context was key. It gave this push power.

Context is important. Since I’m trying to reach folks in the Black religious tradition, any content that I create, any story that I tell, any voice that I lift up, needs to reside within that tradition. One thing that is central to our tradition is storytelling. It is with this in mind that we started with the Can I Get a Witness Project, which aims to capture the stories of 66 Black Queer Christians within the Black Church. Whether it’s my enslaved ancestors who didn’t have access to the scriptural texts to be able to read them, who accessed the word of God through story; or whether it is my African ancestors who were passing on sacred religious traditions, not by writing them down, but through word of mouth—that oral tradition is rich. That’s the one I’m centering in this project.

When we’ve collected all 66 stories, we hope to take all of the wisdom, all of the insights we’ve been able to gleam from our conversations with Black queer Christians, look at the trends and salient points, and turn that into a curriculum. A curriculum that is shaped and fashioned by the Black religious tradition.

The Black church was born fighting systems of oppression and dehumanization. I want to bring that history in. I want to bring in the history of folks like Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was the first Democratic politician in this nation’s history to ever advocate for LGBTQ rights. That’s a part of our tradition. And I want to bring in the history of Dr. King, the freedom fighter, truth-teller, and table-shaker who decided to speak truth to power, and in doing so, lost his life. These are the traditions we are part of. I want to lift that up and say, in the same way that the Black Church has been queer through its very existence—by operating on the undersides of power, by existing in the margins, by advocating for the least of these—me advocating for LGBTQ rights is simply an extension of that tradition. It is an extension of that Black, freedom-loving tradition. I want to be able to walk congregants through this as we center the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ folks in the Black Church.

We are going to turn some of these stories into case studies. We are going to read and hear the stories of the Black queer folks as sacred texts. We’re going to take them seriously, to wrestle with them, and to create tools that combat queerphobia and transphobia and homophobia as it shows up historically in the Black Church context.

A Call to Action

I would like to invite folks to participate in the Can I Get a Witness Project. If they identify as Black, Queer, and Christian, we’d love for them to be a part of this work and of this project. We have just over 30 folks that we’ve interviewed, and we have just over 30 to go. And of course, for all the allies out there who don’t identity as Black or Queer, you can support us by following the work that we’re doing, contributing financially to the work we are doing, and sharing our work. Our work will spread by the willingness of folks to share their stories and to open up those spaces where liberation and love do not abound, so that we can make it abound.

Interview by Gianna Cacciatore; photos courtesy of Don Abram

#harvard #Harvard Divinity School #Black Church #queer #christian #faith #chicago #Religion #large

4 notes · View notes

andrewuttaro · 4 years ago

Text

American Christianity’s Death by Trump

This conversation could’ve very easily been had before January 6th, 2021. It should’ve happened on a massive scale in 2016. Some of us have had this conversation in small groups and through blog posts exchanged on forums. Some whole Churches have even put out statements and memorandums and even condemnations. Not enough. After that date, this conversation is imperative for everyone who considers themselves a Christian in the United States of America.

I know you read the title. If you bothered to read this post, you must believe there is something sincere and worthy here. I don’t think its hard to see. Do you? Is American Christianity dying because of the influence of President Donald Trump? If you don’t think that’s true you probably don’t think its even remotely true. I’ll get to you in a minute; but if you’re someone who maybe even endeavors to wear a cross or crucifix around your neck and you don’t think he’s the death of us, but you’re close to thinking that… how does this image make you feel?

Used? I know Christians who tell me this event in June 2020 made them feel used. Yeah, the ones I’m thinking of voted for him before and after this event. If you don’t think he’s the death of us, then you probably have a couple words about Abortion or “religious liberty” on deck. Sure, as a practicing Catholic I can attest to voting in this country as a double-edged sword. Two dominant political parties: neither represents the entirety of our beliefs, no nationally viable party here probably ever will. We all vote for a candidate in spite of their disagreements with us on certain beliefs. It’s been the Christian way since the rise of modern democracy.

But save your abortion and religious liberty defenses. They’re not enough. Not now, if they ever were. Not with this man. Only God will finally judge his soul, but tell me honestly: do you think he’d ever been inside that Church? Do you think he knew where it was before the day he ordered the tear gas to clear his way there? Do you think he saw that book he held aloft as anything more than a political weapon? Does he know Christian faith as anything more than a political tool? And let’s not pretend its just about the man himself. Trump World, all those who support him including a broad swath of the Christian religious elite in this country, has turned a blind eye to the more authoritarian actions for what? Political expediency? We can now abandon any religious principle for what, desire to follow a political leader? That thinking has now made publicly professed Christians into accomplices in an Insurrection.

One last thought to the crowd who feels he’s not the death of us but not by a lot. Perhaps you think him, and his movement are a passing torment; and true followers of Christ will soon come to their senses to how they were swindled by this great swindler of American history. Even if Jesus-following Americans see the light of a Post-Trump world (if such a thing will exist anytime soon) would our revival matter to anyone beyond us? What has this President, who overwhelmingly carried at least one Christian demographic group in both his elections, done to our credibility, our witness to Jesus Christ? What has he done to our mission? Nothing we will be able to repair in my lifetime, not in the public life of this country.

Now for you folks who, if you’re still reading, are cringing at my dramatics: I won’t address American Evangelicals here or the myriad low-liturgy Protestants who effectively belong to that group as well; I don’t know your life experience the way I know the Catholic life experience in this country. So, here’s some thoughts on that: 48% of American Catholics identify as Republicans, 47% as Democrats according to a recent Pew Research Report. You may look at those numbers and say religion doesn’t really matter to most Catholics in their political lives if there isn’t a consensus, right? Well, apart from American Evangelicals who voted for Trump in both of his elections at rates at or above 90%, every Christian religious group in this country is split nearly down the center like Catholics. What should we gather from this: perhaps the Gospel goes different ways in different places? That’s probably right but this is different.

The Gospel doesn’t go any way with this man. If you call him the sinful doer of God’s Will please then also give that title to the far more respectful man succeeding him; a man who has been inside a Church for something other than a funeral recently. Yes, we Christians must discern our vote and often finally do the democratic duty in spite of half our beliefs; but this man occupies a whole different eschatological plain than the average politician. Christians need to respond a certain way to politicians like this. An Insurrection of the same caliber consisting of predominately non-white dissidents would’ve been a bloodbath and I don’t think you have a leg to stand on disagreeing with that considering this past summer. How do our black and brown brothers and sisters hear our witness to the Gospel after this crowd gets waved into the Capitol and take selfies with the police like some kind of anti-democratic festival? The President of the United States incited an Insurrection that law enforcement gave preferential treatment to and you still want to defend whoever American Conservatism tells you to in the name of Jesus?

Call all politicians liars, cheats and sinners if you want. I won’t argue against that point. But no leader of the free world in modern history has so decisively and shamelessly used Christianity and its place in American history and contemporary life as a weapon like Donald Trump has. That tear gas bible scene was just the most obvious incarnation of it. If this man’s public life has even inclined a single soul toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ than it is truly God’s miraculous doing. He breathes no sincere word of Jesus’ message and no number of my fellow Catholics can be confirmed to the Supreme Court to further God’s will under this man’s reign. If he is not the modern Nero, enjoying musical accompaniment as Rome burns, then nobody is. If any Christian stands by a political demagogue of this caliber they do so at the detriment of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Before the Insurrection, the biggest media conglomerate bearing the title of “Catholic”, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), was already silencing any voice that went against their idol in Donald Trump and his agenda. Right-Wing Catholicism in this nation has seen prominent Priests and Bishops support America’s authoritarian to the point of calling on Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, to resign! Anyone who doesn’t adhere to Trump, the secular icon of neo-conservatism, evidently isn’t good enough to even lead a religious institution. America’s most well-known Catholic Bishop, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Arch-Diocese of New York, has slow peddled any criticism of Trump to this point and still only tacitly criticizes him in the aftermath of this attack on American Democracy. What has become of us Americans who also venture to call ourselves Christians?

The only reason there are any self-identifying Christians supporting him is by way of cultural comfort. Some find it easy to support him given their place in this nation’s socio-religious structure. Some find it advantageous to support him for a variety of reasons that find there way back to the love of money. Finally, still others support him for the sinister dreams of the perversion of the Gospel best called Christian-Nationalism. I know it for fact that members of that last group broke into the Capitol. Those who do not identify as Christians are watching and nothing this man has done has made their hearts softer to the message of the Gospel. If you can’t recognize that you are only deceiving yourself now; and indeed, the Gospel isn’t truly your highest priority.

I will turn 27 years of age this, our Lord’s year 2021. My generation has as many who identify as agnostic, atheist or nonreligious as we do all religious. For my generation, the Christian faith is not growing; and the wisdom of old age will not restore it for the millions of us who never knew it in the first place. This ugly episode has certainly converted none of us. I acutely remember the day after he was first elected: I was a Youth Minister and sat in a staff meeting as we all looked down at our hands dumbfounded. How would we ever teach the faith with this cloud hanging over our heads? How would we even be credible? My fears that day in 2016 were fully confirmed on January 6th, 2021.

American Christianity will not die because of Donald Trump. Yes, Christianity will sure enough persist in this country for as long as it lives. Religion is always culturally entrenched, and the religion of Jesus Christ will likely always be somewhere entrenched in the life of this nation. But if the Christians of this country stand by or, worse more, cheer on future authoritarians like Donald Trump, our witness to the Gospel of Jesus will be void of all meaningful mission and bankrupt on a moral level that would alienate us from the face of God. Such a fate is tantamount to the death of the Christian faith in this country and the sooner we realize this sooner we can envision someday when we begin to make it right.

#Trump #Christianity #catholic #blog

2 notes · View notes