Settling Accounts with Eric

Eric replied to our last post and wants to see what we will say. However, we have been reluctant to get into discussing the details of his comments for fear of distorting the thrust of our Sarah Palin posts. However, President-Elect Obama has gone home; in the weak light before dawn the janitors are sweeping up the confetti; we can’t sleep and don’t know what to do. So we are going to discuss in detail why we said what we said, what Eric said and says, and why he’s wrong and so on. It’s going to be a very tedious post except for the diehard readers of this blog. Others would do just as well to skip it.

The first thing we want to say is that this is the 201^st post on our blog. We have been posting for over three years; that makes us something of a grandfather on the Internet, given its ferocious sociological velocity.

We have taken the text of Eric’s comments verbatim from the notification emails that we receive from Blogger. We are going to give the full text of Eric’s comments in footnotes, although somewhat repetitively we are going to give the text we want to comment on in-line indented, interspersed with our discussion without indent.

Let us begin our discussion starting with the first comment[1].

I've run into this blog and have been waiting for some more posts to get a read on what it is or who is writing it. It is not clear to me whether this is written by an Orthodox monk or not.

This is not a good beginning, Eric. If you had taken the trouble to read the back posts, you would have seen what we say we are—an Orthodox monk.

You have set yourself up as a judge—the man of means checking out the High Street boot maker.

"she would like Creationism taught in schools; she really believes the earth is 5000 years old; she wanted a book presenting homosexuality in a positive light removed from the town library; she seems to think that the war in Iraq was ordained by God"

I think all of the above claims need to be fact checked. While some are saying these things are true, I think her words have been twisted in at least the case of the Iraq war.

If you are sincere, Eric, this is a very odd way to proceed. We are confident of what we wrote, although the matter is complicated by Ms. Palin’s tendency to hide her beliefs. In the case of the Iraq war, we think that we have it right. Her use of the same language in discussing the proposed gas pipeline in a context where it is clear that she thinks that the project is ordained by God indicates that the explanation she gave on Iraq—that she was just reprising Lincoln—was merely ‘spin’ from her spin doctors. (No we aren’t politicians, but as stylists of the English language we feel quite capable of switching to a political or journalistic register when necessary.) To paraphrase Bentsen to Quayle: you ain’t no Lincoln, honey.

As regards her Pentecostal church past - She changed churches 6 years ago after about 28 years in the Pentecostal church, and apparently no longer identifies herself as Pentecostal (it appears her current church is far different). I read elsewhere that she was never altogether into the charismatic elements, however true that may or may not be.

This seems quite evidently not to be true. The video of her being anointed by Pastor Muthee, her own recent recorded comments, even to Dr. James Dobson, where she uses language connected to the Muthee strain of Pentecostalism, the fact that the church she attends in Juneau is in fact an Assembly of God Pentecostalist Church that is rebranding itself without giving up its Pentecostalist orientation, the fact that she has very close and cordial relations with her old AOG church in Wasilla—all these things indicate that she is in fact a Pentecostalist of the spiritual warfare strain. There was a recent article in the New York Times that had information on this strain of Pentecostalism. The article was a little superficial we thought but it is well worth reading as an introduction (sorry no link). So the question is, Eric—do you believe what you’re writing or are we justified in wondering whether you are being sincere or not?

"Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she believes that Christ’s Second Coming will happen in her life-time"

I'm wondering how, exactly, apart from the "Rapturist school," this is, in itself, a negative thing. Aren't all Christians to be prepared both for death and the end of the world at all moments in time?

Here is the first source of our remark that we couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with someone who couldn’t think straight—or a shyster lawyer twisting logic to defend a guilty client. Your logic is faulty.

Scripture is very clear, Eric, that we should wait in eager expectation of the Second Coming. It is equally clear that no one knows when the Second Coming will be. Only the Father. So while we are to await the Second Coming—and Elder Paisios of Mount Athos once remarked that if a person dies, for him it is the Second Coming—we are not to time-limit the Second Coming. The historical record is full of deluded sectarians who thought the Second Coming was coming on a specific day.

To put the matter in a little more Orthodox fashion. Elder Porphyrios of Mount Athos relived in a spiritual ecstasy the whole of the Revelation to John (the Apocalypse) when he was on Patmos about 30 years ago (see his account in Wounded by Love). But Elder Porphyrios, who was noted for his prophetic gifts, somewhere also remarked that he had no more idea than anyone else when the Second Coming would occur. So, yes, the Orthodox eagerly await the Second Coming from day to day—and this is one of the foundations of the discipline called sobriety that forms an essential strand of the Jesus Prayer in the Orthodox Church—but only a fool says that the Second Coming is coming now or tomorrow or on such and such a day.

That Sarah Palin believes that the Second Coming will happen in her lifetime is not based on Scripture because it time-limits God.

Moreover, such a belief is disquieting from the point of view of her being in a position to launch nuclear weapons as President of the United States of America. For if we ourselves understand the ‘Rapturist’ School aright, and the ‘Joel’s Army’ people aright, these people are expecting a nuclear war involving Iran and Israel as part of the scenario they envisage for the Second Coming. Leaving aside the issue that there is room for discussion whether they are interpreting Scripture correctly concerning how the Second Coming will unfold, there is this problem: Sarah Palin seems to believe that the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime; hence, if we understand correctly, she would expect such a nuclear war to occur in her lifetime. She would, by hypothesis, be President of the United States of America, a nation armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. She would have authority as Commander-in-Chief to launch those nuclear weapons. President Bush himself is reliably said to have instructed the Pentagon to prepare to use nuclear weapons against the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The reason for this is that the Iranian sites are hardened and it is doubtful whether non-nuclear weapons would be effective against them. This was not just a theoretical exercise in war-gaming. He wanted the option. We are talking about serious stuff here, Eric. The Pentagon pushed back. The option seems to have come off the table. What would happen if Sarah Palin were President with the above beliefs? If she insisted on her legal authority to launch? Moreover, she seems to be connected to a strand of Evangelical and/or Pentecostalist Christianity that believes that Christians should take secular power in America to impose an Evangelical and/or Pentecostalist Christian agenda, and that leaders can be brought forth by God in America to do his will, much as the various Kings of Israel were prophetically anointed. This is heady stuff, Eric. If Sarah were to think that she were anointed by God to help the Second Coming out by launching a nuclear war against Iran or another country, what would happen? Where would things end? What if she is a deluded sectarian and the interpretation of Scripture she espouses is deluded—wrong—so that she wouldn't be helping the Second Coming out at all, but only causing disaster in the lives of millions? We don’t believe Sarah Palin is finished with her political aspirations although there will be a serious problem with her national career because of her narrow base. These questions simply have to be addressed. Moreover, there is also the very murky area where Evangelical/Pentecostalist Christianity merges into far right-wing political groups. Sarah Palin’s husband was a member in good standing of the Alaska Independence Party. Sarah Palin quite recently spoke by video to the AIP Convention in a positive way as Governor of Alaska. She spoke in person several years ago. The founder of the AIP was murdered during a private transaction involving plastic explosives. He was buried in Canada, evidently to honour his wish that he not be buried under the American flag but that his bones be returned to Alaska once it was a free and independent country. A certain Chryson gave an interview with a reporter discussing his relations with Sarah Palin during her rise to political power in Wasilla. He was at one time the leader of the AIP. He showed the reporter his Makarov automatic pistol and remarked that his basement was full of enough weapons for a small army. He discussed his associate Stoll’s relations with Palin and Palin’s attempt to put Stoll into a position of political power. What is not clear to us is where the Christianity stops and the far-right politics begins: i.e. what does Evangelical/Pentecostalist Christianity have to do with the AIP? We don’t know. This is complicated by the fact that one of the beliefs of some of these people is that in the End Times, Alaska will be a refuge state which will take in refugees from the Tribulation. These things have to be clarified.

"Never put someone unprepared in a position of authority and responsibility." It seems that ex-presidents routinely say that nothing prepares you for the job, though they do go on to endorse candidates.

Do you really believe what you’re saying here, Eric? What do you teach? Surely not philosophy or law or mathematics. This is faulty logic, the second egregious example.

I have a brain tumour. I talk to a few Professors about how to select a brain surgeon. They say: ‘Well you know, nothing really prepares you to be a brain surgeon; there’s nothing that can prepare you for starting to drill into someone’s skull then peeling back the various layers of tissue to get at the grey matter to cut the tumour out.’ So what I am to infer? That it doesn’t matter if the fellow who’s going to cut open my skull has only finished Grade 3? I am sure that the Professors would then go on to say: “But for all that, get the most qualified brain surgeon you can find even if he hasn’t done your particular kind of tumour before. Don’t go with someone from a quack school. Go with someone who’s properly educated.” Yes, Eric, nothing prepares you for the office of President of the United States of America. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter if you have no preparation at all. Why did so many experienced Republican Washington insiders jump to Obama saying that Palin was not qualified to stand a heart-beat away from the Presidency? Surely not to curry favour in an Obama administration. Not all of them.

I share the concern about putting someone so inexperienced in such a position, but I have not been convinced that the leader of the opposing ticket has significantly more, and he was not mentioned here - she was.

Barack Obama’s beliefs and attitudes can be fairly easily tracked. There is his first book; there are the examinations he set as Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, there is his discussion of Reinhold Niebuhr with David Brooks. We personally are not so worried about Obama’s lack of experience, or even about his beliefs. For us it is quite clear where he is coming from, seeing some videos of his speeches—including his speech on race—reading transcripts of other speeches, and, above all, looking a little at his examination questions in con law and knowing a little about Reinhold Niebuhr. We are an Orthodox monk and believe what the Orthodox Church believes but while on a number of serious issues Obama’s, or even Niebuhr’s, positions are not those of the Orthodox Church, it is quite clear that Obama has thought his positions through very carefully. He knows where he’s coming from. Moreover, he is clearly someone with whom a person of reasoned but opposing views can have a serious discussion of the proper public policy to implement. At one point the Dean of the Law School sat him down and said to him—Barack your political career is going nowhere; accept tenure here at the Law School. (This is going to go down in history as one of those famous biographical footnotes.) You don’t get tenure at U of C Law without academic credibility—without intellectual respectability. Obama declined. On the libertarian-conservative Volokh Conspiracy academic blog that discusses US legal issues, one legal scholar remarked that Obama would have made a great Professor of Con Law. We can see it in his examination questions. Barack Obama has an intellectual formation that is very strong. We think that this compensates for his lack of formal experience to be President. He has, as they say, judgement. Another word for it is prudence.

Now as to why we did not discuss Obama but discussed Palin. Obama, as far as we know, does not have eschatological beliefs that raise the question whether he might want to start a nuclear war. Palin seems to have such beliefs. The issue of Palin’s eschatological beliefs and whether they might be deluded and dangerous is a theological issue. It is fair game for this blog. The issue of whether Obama has the proper understanding of con law is an issue only insofar as we want to discuss Roman Catholic moral theology. We don’t.

(Here we would like to interject a remark that relates to comments on the Palin posts made by others. We remarked that public policy is not the same as ‘personal morality’. We should have said ‘private morality’. What we meant is that public policy—especially in a secular culture, or in a culture in which the Orthodox Church is in a minority—is not simply a projection into law of the confessor’s handbook. There is more to it. Some of this can be seen at this post and this post, written by Roman Catholics from a Roman Catholic perspective. Read especially the comments. What we do not mean is that legally in an Orthodox society ‘anything goes’, or even in a secular society in which the Orthodox live. We just mean that you can’t automatically translate the confessor’s handbook into law. You have to weigh other issues.)

Also, the beliefs of his church have been widely discussed, but it stands to repeat that they are, as well, quite extreme in ways, and he did not leave that church 6 years ago.

For the reasons we have just given in discussing Obama’s intellectual formation, we think that Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s views are a non-issue—and we went to the trouble of watching the complete National Press Club talk he gave, and Obama’s press conference after. We personally think that Obama made an actual personal conversion to active Christianity but not to an Evangelical form of it. Well, of course, he would have been better off becoming Orthodox, but he didn’t and we’re not going to hold our breath waiting for it. But we think that it is because of this conversion, in which Pastor Wright played an important part, that Trinity United Church became an emotional home for him. It is where he was married. It was where his children were baptized. That is why it took so long for him to break his ties. It’s like leaving your alcoholic parent who is beating you. You should but you can’t and you don’t.

Moreover, Eric, you do not seem to have comprehended that what is important to us is not church membership—we do not believe in either salvation by association or guilt by association—but what Palin’s and Obama’s personal beliefs are as grounds for their actions. In other words, it is clear that Palin believes what she grew up with at Wasilla Assembly of God. In Obama’s case it is quite clear from the other sources that we mentioned that there is no possibility of his holding such wacko views as his Pastor was pleased to espouse when making a spectacle of himself at the National Press Club. We ourselves had the feeling that there Pastor Wright wanted to put the upstart Obama in his place—a kind of reverse Oedipal resentment. Well, we suppose he would now like to have done things differently.

Frankly, I appreciate your concern but am disappointed that this post was made on a site that I believed was about monastic life and Orthodox spirituality. With all love, please fully investigate the context of a person's actions and hear their own words before educating others publicly (even pupils of Christian spirituality) about his or her character and leadership style. And as I believe our lives are to be models of love, this would not include increasing political division or creating scary hypotheticals that are truly improbable in American society.

We don’t buy this, Eric.

Eric’s second comment[2]:

My comments were not sarcastic.

Thank you for making a response. Again, I appreciate your opinion on political matters as a citizen (I presume) but its presence on this site shows me it’s not the kind of blog I was looking for.

So who asked you?

Eric’s third comment[3]:

I did come back to see whether or not you had responded to my protest, and I think I should apologize and answer for myself. I am indeed a Protestant seeking Orthodoxy and a teacher in Chicago. I did not mean to question your credibility by asking if you were a monk or American citizen but to state the lack of knowledge that I had about the writer of the blog in general, and especially then when I was surprised about the post topic.

It’s true that I am not your customer, I do not pay you, but I assumed you wanted ears for your voice. I assumed since you put your words onto a blog that you wanted readers to come and learn from you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t post them. When I was offended (or at least, unhappily surprised) by this post I thought I would let you know how I reacted to it so that you could consider that in your decisions about future posts.

To us it came across as political pressure.

Basically, it turned me off and did make me question the wisdom of the writer if he was one to take part in what I considered misinformation and fear mongering.

We stand by what we wrote.

The presidential campaigns and many of their followers at this point appear to be patently unloving toward one another, slandering or demonizing their opponents at every turn. I see it around at work with co-workers and all around an obviously pro-Obama town – Sarah Palin is called “retarded” and her down syndrome baby is alternatively her daughter’s or John McCain’s baby.

You’ll notice that we didn’t discuss her child.

I don’t know why you continue to ask if I am sincere, but I’m not being facetious or “sarcastic.”

See above.

I do believe that the claim she thinks Iraq is God’s war is from a quote taken out of context, among various other claims.

See above. One of the good things about her losing is that to pursue a national career with any chance of going anywhere outside her base she is going to have to submit to press conferences and interviews, to explain her beliefs, to put up with books by investigative journalists vetting her life, to put up with muckraking tabloids and so on. The claims will soon be tested, although we expect that there will be a healthy dose of prevarication about her actual beliefs.

I do not believe that her Pentecostal background will necessarily lead her to treat people any worse than Barack Obama, especially since she will be a relatively powerless vice president (unlike our Dick Cheney).

Do you really believe this? After her rallies which could only be called demagoguery, and dangerous demagoguery at that? Moreover, the central issue that we raised was how her eschatological beliefs might impinge on her conduct of American foreign policy and on her actions as Commander-in-Chief with the legal authority to launch nuclear weapons on command—given that McCain was an old man who might easily die in office.

Some of the examples you raised above involved very murderous or incestuous people, and if you are comparing this situation with some of those, I believe you are assuming too much about what decisions she will make with what little power she may have.

Our assumption, well-founded we think—we are quite sure that McCain will soon be shown to be in very poor health indeed—was that Sarah Palin was too close to succeeding a dead McCain to the presidency for her to be a rational choice. We thought that we were clear on that. If you are being sincere, why is it that you don’t understand what we write?

I do believe that you are right that a holy man should tell the truth and confront people with their misdeeds from time to time – especially when they are great and have not yet been stopped. Palin has not yet been stopped but from what I don’t yet know. She had the “troopergate” investigation, which had mixed results.

Have you looked at the text of Branchflower’s report? While we haven’t read it all, we have looked at some of it. The thrust of the report is the Ms. Palin violated State of Alaska ethics laws but notwithstanding that she was within her legal rights to fire Monegan—not because she wasn’t violating ethics laws but because in Alaska a Governor has complete discretionary authority to fire the Director of Public Safety for good reasons, bad reasons or no reasons at all. There is moreover a disturbing history, documented both in Branchflower's report and in independent journalistic accounts, of the use of public office for petty vindictive revenge and, something that Branchflower explicitly states was not within his brief and hence something he could not discuss, a disturbing element of her husband Todd acting as co-Governor.

Most of the other legitimate (in my opinion) criticisms have to do with the debt left to her town or state after major projects went over budget (after she’s left).

These are purely political issues that we avoid on this blog.

I suppose I could understand a holy man bringing up concern about abortion policies or economic policies that would negatively affect the poor, but I still find it strange to confront Palin or people who might vote for Palin with her Christian faith background, which in my eyes has not yet proved to be a major impediment, in itself, to actions of love in her previous jobs.

You just don’t get it, Eric. It is precisely because Palin’s eschatological beliefs are faulty and dangerous that we felt obliged to raise them. ‘Actions of love’? Read Branchflower. It is not because Palin has faith that we took issue with her but because her particular faith is deluded on matters of serious import with regard to occupancy of the Oval Office.

I apologize for coming off as haughty. I believe I was mimicking behavior I have seen or read before. Please forgive me. I received the post as a contribution to the spiteful rhetoric influencing both sides of this debate, and I was disappointed. If you find it as a legitimate place for warning, perhaps I should not assume the position as critic.

Though, comments like these: “We believe that somewhere St Basil states that a person who winks the eye is not to be trusted.”

You would, we think, have to read the passage of St Basil. You say that you are interested in Orthodoxy. We believe that it is in the Long or Short Rules, in his ascetical writings. You might find it useful to read all of St Basil’s ascetical writings. He is remarkable for his discernment, given by the Holy Spirit.

It is scandalous for a woman to wink: there are only two known uses of the wink as body language: as a sign of sexual availability—clearly what was involved in the debate—or as a sign of deceit. Do you seriously think that a serious Christian woman should wink repeatedly in explicit sexual invitation to millions of men, let it be through the medium of television, in order to win their votes? The latter meaning—i.e. the wink as a sign of deceit—is probably what prompted St. Basil’s remark. But we are sure that St. Basil, all of whose family are recognized Saints of the Orthodox Church, would not be amused by the use of a sexual invitation to garner votes. There is nothing in Scripture to justify winking. And this is the point about St. Basil’s discernment: to the Fathers this is not a trivial matter: the Fathers of the Church had very high standards of the acceptable. If you are genuinely interested in Orthodoxy, you will have to pursue this aspect of Orthodoxy.

and “We couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with sincere persons who couldn’t think straight or with operatives who were engaging in the sophistic tricks that unscrupulous lawyers use to defend their clients.” made me wonder how serious you were in your statements, as well.

What sort of apology do you make that follows up with another attack?

Thank you for responding to both of my earlier messages.

Let’s hope that this is it, Eric.

–Orthodox Monk

---

[1] Just a few thoughts...

I've run into this blog and have been waiting for some more posts to get a read on what it is or who is writing it. It is not clear to me whether this is written by an Orthodox monk or not.

"she would like Creationism taught in schools; she really believes the earth is 5000 years old; she wanted a book presenting homosexuality in a positive light removed from the town library; she seems to think that the war in Iraq was ordained by God"

I think all of the above claims need to be fact checked. While some are saying these things are true, I think her words have been twisted in at least the case of the Iraq war.

As regards her Pentecostal church past - She changed churches 6 years ago after about 28 years in the Pentecostal church, and apparently no longer identifies herself as Pentecostal (it appears her current church is far different). I read elsewhere that she was never altogether into the charismatic elements, however true that may or may not be.

"Sarah Palin is on record as saying that she believes that Christ’s Second Coming will happen in her life-time"

I'm wondering how, exactly, apart from the "Rapturist school," this is, in itself, a negative thing. Aren't all Christians to be prepared both for death and the end of the world at all moments in time?

"Never put someone unprepared in a position of authority and responsibility." It seems that ex-presidents routinely say that nothing prepares you for the job, though they do go on to endorse candidates.

I share the concern about putting someone so inexperienced in such a position, but I have not been convinced that the leader of the opposing ticket has significantly more, and he was not mentioned here - she was.

Also, the beliefs of his church have been widely discussed, but it stands to repeat that they are, as well, quite extreme in ways, and he did not leave that church 6 years ago.

Frankly, I appreciate your concern but am disappointed that this post was made on a site that I believed was about monastic life and Orthodox spirituality. With all love, please fully investigate the context of a person's actions and hear their own words before educating others publicly (even pupils of Christian spirituality) about his or her character and leadership style. And as I believe our lives are to be models of love, this would not include increasing political division or creating scary hypotheticals that are truly improbable in American society.

Posted by Eric Friday, September 26, 2008 1:14:00 AM [note from Orthodox Monk: these are the Blogger time stamps; we have our clock arbitrarily set to UTC.]

[2] My comments were not sarcastic.

Thank you for making a response. Again, I appreciate your opinion on political matters as a citizen (I presume) but its presence on this site shows me its not the kind of blog I was looking for.

Posted by Eric to Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:28:00 PM

[3] I did come back to see whether or not you had responded to my protest, and I think I should apologize and answer for myself. I am indeed a Protestant seeking Orthodoxy and a teacher in Chicago. I did not mean to question your credibility by asking if you were a monk or American citizen but to state the lack of knowledge that I had about the writer of the blog in general, and especially then when I was surprised about the post topic.

It’s true that I am not your customer, I do not pay you, but I assumed you wanted ears for your voice. I assumed since you put your words onto a blog that you wanted readers to come and learn from you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t post them. When I was offended (or at least, unhappily surprised) by this post I thought I would let you know how I reacted to it so that you could consider that in your decisions about future posts. Basically, it turned me off and did make me question the wisdom of the writer if he was one to take part in what I considered misinformation and fear mongering. The presidential campaigns and many of their followers at this point appear to be patently unloving toward one another, slandering or demonizing their opponents at every turn. I see it around at work with coworkers and all around an obviously pro-Obama town – Sarah Palin is called “retarded” and her down syndrome baby is alternatively her daughter’s or John McCain’s baby.

I don’t know why you continue to ask if I am sincere, but I’m not being facetious or “sarcastic.” I do believe that the claim she thinks Iraq is God’s war is from a quote taken out of context, among various other claims. I do not believe that her Pentecostal background will necessarily lead her to treat people any worse than Barack Obama, especially since she will be a relatively powerless vice president (unlike our Dick Cheney).

Some of the examples you raised above involved very murderous or incestuous people, and if you are comparing this situation with some of those, I believe you are assuming too much about what decisions she will make with what little power she may have.

I do believe that you are right that a holy man should tell the truth and confront people with their misdeeds from time to time – especially when they are great and have not yet been stopped. Palin has not yet been stopped but from what I don’t yet know. She had the “troopergate” investigation, which had mixed results. Most of the other legitimate (in my opinion) criticisms have to do with the debt left to her town or state after major projects went over budget (after she’s left).

I suppose I could understand a holy man bringing up concern about abortion policies or economic policies that would negatively affect the poor, but I still find it strange to confront Palin or people who might vote for Palin with her Christian faith background, which in my eyes has not yet proved to be a major impediment, in itself, to actions of love in her previous jobs.

I apologize for coming off as haughty. I believe I was mimicking behavior I have seen or read before. Please forgive me. I received the post as a contribution to the spiteful rhetoric influencing both sides of this debate, and I was disappointed. If you find it as a legitimate place for warning, perhaps I should not assume the position as critic.

Though, comments like these: “We believe that somewhere St Basil states that a person who winks the eye is not to be trusted.” and “We couldn’t tell whether we were dealing with sincere persons who couldn’t think straight or with operatives who were engaging in the sophistic tricks that unscrupulous lawyers use to defend their clients.” made me wonder how serious you were in your statements, as well.

Thank you for responding to both of my earlier messages.

Posted by Eric Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:47:00 PM