That McDermott's source is not Irenaeus himself but—Michael McClymond! tells you all you need to know about his knowledge of the gnostics. It's like learning about jazz from Adorno. And he claims that you dismiss McClymond's book "without argument," as if you hadn't devoted 4000 words to it—several of them specifically against the claim about the Carpocratians—at Eclectic Orthodoxy three years ago. That said, to give this guy any more attention is straining at a gnat.
Protestant clergy/theologians rarely bother to learn Latin, in my experience. I have a friend who's a Cru minister that told me not long ago he was learning it, and he laughed at my suggestion that if he was really looking to obtain the tongue, he ought to start praying in Latin. Paenitet me!
(Protestants do other things well; I don't mean to knock them too much.)
I know we don’t use “all” in a plural form in English to mean “any” in the plural, because neither word has a plural form. But you would hope a putatively trained theologian would know that much basic Latin.
Hang on. We owe (or anyway I as a writer do) the KJV and The Book of Common Prayer to Protestants and a rether better known writer than me owed a good deal in his plays to the Geneva Bible; so let's not join in with the common contemporay zeal for throwing babies out with bath waters. As for praying in Latin, my old friend the late and much missed Placid Spearitt, Abott of New Norcia, always said he prayed best while walking his dog by the sea. Come on. God is not a snob.
I think David is referring to the state of things among our Orotestant clergy today. The truth is, though, that Catholic clergymen aren’t really taught Latin any more either.
Sorry - I'm aware of that. It was rather unfair of me. I was responding more to tone - not wanting to "knock them too much" - which came across, to me anyway, as slightly patronising, re Protestantism, for which we really need a new word since it wasn't theirs.
Oh, David knows every wing of the Christian world from the inside. A true voyager on the storm-tossed waves who has at last found his way into the kindly harbor of the C of E.
Well, the fundamental conceit of Protestantism is that the entire Latin-speaking period of Western church history was a mistake (with Augustine being given a pass only because he sometimes sounds like Luther or Calvin), so why learn a language that will only lead you into papist heresies?
Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, etc, all wrote in Latin. And arguably Germany has taken Latin more seriously since the Reformation than many Catholic-majority nations. As David says, I think the problem is a general decline in theological education. The impression is that priests and often even professors can't be expected to put in the time and effort a classical language requires.
I would love to read that story of what happened with FT. Thank you for this update.
Apologies for veering off topic, but I just wanted to mention how grateful I was to encounter your remarks featured over at Eclectic Orthodoxy on Universal Restoration and animals. My dog just received a 6 month prognosis and while my heart grieves mightily, I was comforted by the picture you painted of the personal quality of animals and of their place in the kingdom. Again, please excuse me not adhering to the topics raised in this post, but I wanted to express my gratitude somewhere.
I only discovered this website after reading McDermott's article "A Lonely Hart" in FT. And man, did that discovery make my day. I didn't hesitate to subscribe (and I usually avoid even minor monthly payments on anything I don't really need, so consider your work essential reading). I was waiting impatiently for your reply in FT, and had no idea you'd cut ties with the magazine. So I'd say McDermott's warning to keep far away from you has backfired, at least in my case.
If I may, I think the great appeal of your work for many (definitely for me) is the defense of the concept of a God who is loving in the ordinary sense of the word "loving" that we humans are not only taught, but seem to instinctively grasp or intuit. Although I've always had a strong sense of God's presence (even in an embarrassing atheist phase) I've been somewhat of a lazy theological seeker, never satisfied with what the "authorities" have concluded, but not having the mental capacity or motivation to find my own way through the maze (unfortunately, a childhood habit of being extremely bored in church seems to have carried over into my adult spiritual life) . So when I read your book "That All Shall be Saved" I said "Finally! Someone talking sense!" Now I'm paying attention. Keep up the good work!
Dr Hart, regarding whether to write a possible expose on First Things or the sending of another diatribe in the direction of Mr McDermott, my advice to you, as someone who seems to have a great love for the teachings of the Buddha, is that you recall two verses from the Dhammapada:
In this world never is enmity appeased by hatred; enmity is ever appeased by love. This is the Law Eternal. The many who know not this also forget that in this world we shall one day die. They do not restrain themselves. But those who recognize the Law end their quarrels soon. (Dp verses 5-6)
Jesus would agree, I think. How much better, in my blinkered opinion, if you were to use your truly impressive erudition to share what pieces of music you like, and why (with suggested recordings... please?), or write on what delights you about The Wind in the Willows, Pooh, or any of the other "children's books" you have suggested you will share? By the way, I highly recommend Abel's Island, if you've not read it.
In the end each of us has only so much time. While the world has always loved watching dogfights of this sort, I would urge you to leave off with the whole McDermott/FT thing (and I admit that as a non-Christian this might be easier for me to say than for most here) and give us instead new things to stimulate our minds, our hearts, our ears or (dare I say it?) even our taste buds.
Dogfights of this sort can be fun to watch, and I'll admit, I would probably be quite entertained watching it go down. But, putting those more impure impulses aside, I am genuinely interested in learning about FT losing its way. I discovered the magazine maybe 6 or 7 years ago and, as someone who had just returned to Christianity and by nature tends toward conservatism, I saw it as a confident, but seemingly reasonable (often gentle) voice for those seeking a bit of shelter from an increasingly hostile and unforgiving progressive social epoch. But besides the politics, I loved that it incorporated history and philosophy along with theology. I haven't paid as much attention to it in the last few years, only occasionally checking in to see if any articles peak my interest. I have noticed they've ramped up the politics, and there've been an increasing number of articles lambasting anything "woke." Although I could tell something was changing, this didn't really send off any alarm bells, because so many decent and caring Christians I know are genuinely worried about the influence some of these ideas might have on the minds of their children. But I was alarmed when you mentioned, in an earlier article, that the magazine has turned toward the alt-right and a "national conservatism." I have had a growing fear that Christians will increasingly respond to the radical left by endorsing or moving toward a radical right. The thought makes my heart sick. I know a couple self-declared Christians who tell me they are "looking forward" to the "war" that's coming where the excesses of the left are brought to balance (and they aren't talking about an intellectual battle where its combatants are armed with pens). Thankfully, these sorts seem to be few, but you never really know what fearful ideas are percolating in the shadows or fringes of group consciousness.
Yes, well, there are many self-declared Christians in America who are probably taking a bigger risk than they know in making that declaration. Call yourself a Christian, and someone very important may require you to act like one. "Many will come to me on that day saying, "Lord, Lord..."
I'm happy for you that you haven't fallen into the trap of being driven by one extremism in the direction of another.
I say this gently: please consider that the specter haunting America is not “wokeness,” which at its broadest is simply a long overdue recognition that racial & other social injustices are written into the very framework of our society. It’s not Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory that threatens children. In fact it is their opposites that do so.
There's the problem with large general terms. It wouldn't occur to me to include BLM or CRT in any definition of wokeness myself, since I just think of those as expressions of decency. I usually assume that the reference is to trigger-warnings, safe-spaces, guys competing in girls' wrestling, the term Latinx, and the use of "cis-" as a prefix. But who can say?
Sure but those things are trivial & banal, so I assume they pose no threat to the virtuous development of our vulnerable youth, who are at any rate watching Pornhub on their phones.
Yeah, general terms do cause these problems. I mostly associate wokeness with an attitude: agree with us or be slandered, pushed out of your job, etc. Lots of pressure to unthinkingly agree with whatever idea is popular at the time. (Sometimes i agree with the ideas) Trigger warnings, personal pronouns, etc, are quite trivial for sure. But I think the zeal to give kids puberty blockers, encourage them to have irreversible surgeries on their sexual organs, etc, is pretty terrifying. I don't know how we got to a place where such things have become so easily acceptable. I know a lot of parents pulling their kids out of public schools in order to homeschool. Is this just baseless paranoia? I don't know.
I too was a FT reader. Became increasingly disaffected over the last 7 or 8 years but would still check in for the occasional outstanding article such as Paul Kingsnorth's conversion story. Used to be part of the Editor's Circle and let my displeasure at their alt-right drift and nationalism be known. I think calling them to task can be useful if done in the spirit of fraternal correction and then to make sure one can just let go of the hostile and self-righteous response that is sure to follow. In these cases, I worry that only catastrophe will show some the errors of their ways. Life is a great teacher, as our loving God has orchestrated creation to facilitate, but the damage done along the way . . . is at times terrifying.
I find aspects of Kingsnorth’s writings rather sinister these days. I think he’s going alt-right in a very English way (Mosleyite eco-fascism being a well established tendency). But I might look up the article. As for FT in general, I see it now as a case of leaving the dead to bury the dead.
I haven't read a ton of his work. A few blog posts here and there I barely remember. I don't seem to recall anything sinister in them. I remember most his warnings about the transhumanist cult that is fashionable among atheist techies these days which I thought you'd agree with. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Kingsnorth a fascist, his open calls for “nationalism” in response to ecological crisis certainly open the doors to eco-fascism of a tremendously destructive variety. And now of course he has thrown his lot in with the anti-vax nutters. Seems to me his conversion could use a bit of conversion.
I don't think he is a hardcore anti-vaxxer. Even Dr. Paul Offit, who has written the book on childhood vaccination and is on the FDA panel that approved the Covid vaccines, is not in concert with the full recommendations for the vaccine schedule as they have been promoted. My first career was as a medical communications executive and, although vaccinated, I think the Covid vaccines are a mixed-bag. The industry is experiencing regulatory capture of an unprecedented level (former pharma executives supposedly legislating what other pharma executives should do. Doesn't work as well as it should for obvious reasons. Nothing is perfect and like I said I got 3 vaccines.)
As to the nationalism in response to the ecological crisis can you crisis can you tell me more? I am not sure I know what you mean by that and want to understand. (Genuine question, not meant to be combative. ) He has changed his mind about the usefulness of at least part of his prior activism and has mostly, at lease from what I have read and listened to, called for Christians to be thoughtful about consumption, in a thoughtful ascetic mode -- one which used to be commonly preached when I was growing up.
I concur exactly. I also revere saint shakyamuni and I also think many desert fathers would agree, especially Evagrius. Besides praying about it I'd also suggest having a chat with Roland. Such a pure and incandescent soul must have some wisdom to shed on the matter.
Thank you for the reply. It seems I accidentally deleted my original question when I thought I was just editing it. My apologies! I'm doing a project on Sherrard so I hope I can do him justice...
May God favor the Orioles and bring justice to the Astros.
I am one of those late subscribers, but I can't recall if it was because of McDermott. I think it was because of your habit of pairing adverbs with adjectives in such a bizarrely inventive way.
The title I gave that book was "The Christian Revolution". The subtitle was "and its fashionable enemies". Happily, that was the last time I had to adopt a title I did not want. There have been subtitles forced on me since then that I could have lived without...
There will be a tipping point, like with tobacco, where everyone will look back and think, "How could I ever have owned a vehicle with an internal combustion engine?" That's my hope, anyway.
I think the same will be said about our consumption of animals and animal products which not only is bad for their health and ours but also is the most significant factor in ecological destruction and climate change. One can hope at any rate.
The problem is the price, but this new federal tax credit is quite impressive. I've been looking at electric cars online, and the credit greatly reduces the price.
I have literally five books on my shelf thanks to your recommendations in this substack and I only subscribed a few weeks ago. I feel like I have accessed an entirely new and unique universe thanks to it. I'm spreading the news far and wide in the hopes you might make some more lists, those things are like crack for me!
It is always such a joy to read these updates. It really is a wonderful way for you to connect with your audience, and I'm glad that audience is growing. I really can't begin to tell you how your writing has helped my own life: professional, personal, spiritual, theological. Thank you for sharing your gifts so prodigally.
As for First Things, I would encourage you to pray about it. Often, it is good to "let it be known" so that the record is clear, especially after relentless personal attacks. At other times, it's good to let what is buried remain so. Careful discernment is key, as I'm sure you know. Thank you again for the update.
I just want to say a huge thank you for your writings. I am just starting to engage more with them, and I find them very thought-provoking. As a conservative who is very opposed to “NatCon” and a disgruntled former First Things subscriber, I would love to hear your story about your departure. They really have kept going downhill since I was last a subscriber in 2016, from what I can tell.
I first started reading First Things a little more than a decade ago. Admittedly I focused more on the political/culture-wars stuff than on the other content. But it struck me as a gay man that a lot of its content was pretty nasty, uncharitable, and callous. I don't mean that its bottom line on those issues was pretty different from mine (it was and is, but that's why I was reading in the first place); but that the tone of the discourse just did not seem very interested in appreciating the human stakes involved or the realities of the lives it casually judged and dismissed. Maybe my judgment was unfair, and it's been long enough that I don't think I'd be able to find and re-evaluate the writing that made me reach this conclusion. But to me its descent into the alt-right seemed something of a piece (which isn't meant to disparage all of its content or contributors, then or even now).
As interesting as I would find a telling of the story, I think I agree with other commenters that it's unnecessary and likely unhelpful. The articles it publishes about you are very bad--but I think reading the articles and the responses to them is a pretty good exposition of their badness, and revealing in its own way about the break.
Sad to say of course but it seems that you may be arguing with someone who suffers some moral privation and well my particular track for such ones is simply to beg off. But I think in this case (and you have already experienced a surge in readership) you should stay engaged in the fight, and not just because everybody loves a fight but because we all need training in how to argue a point intelligently and logically and not just to win the argument but in the end to understand the world we live in and most importantly the God whom has brought all things into existence.
"But it is now obvious to me that the resentment incurred by my departure is not going to subside, so I think I will have to write an article recounting what happened and why, just to make clear what is going on (and on and on). Unless you, kind readers, advise otherwise. (Comments solicited.)"
Only and I mean only, because you asked--Don't. It's beneath you. Past is past; get past it.
I will echo John's words. Your gracious summary of your time with FT, along with the simple "I disliked FT's editorial direction , so I left", is enough. Anything more will turn into a "he said, she said" pissing match. When an FT author attacks you, respond to the attack (as you did with McDermott), not the source . That's the high road. From a New Testament point of view, that may even be what FT -- once a friend, now an enemy -- deserves.
I think it would be interesting to speculate on what it is that induces these expressions of hatred which , not merely in the case of First Things, have bedeviiled Christian institutions, indeed all institutions but especially those supposedly promulgating the higher virtues. Having said that, I for one rather enjoy a good fight and sometimes they are needed if only to supply the less articulate with sound counter arguments and to provide examples of how to stick up for one's corebelief (and rsesist bullying).
In my case, I may enjoy the fight too much--especially when I know I can win it before entering the ring. I'm afraid that, like many Marylanders, I absorbed a great deal of Mencken in my youth--the Sage of Baltimore, my natal city--and that can be a very heady brew.
My cautious intuition is that FT is not really worth any more of your time and that most of your readers already know enough about your reasons for leaving. The current members of the masthead seem to find it gratifying to provoke you to respond to their attacks, and no doubt your exchanges with your critics there (both in FT and in the hallowed pixels of this Substack) garner them a goodly haul of unearned readers and attention. As a ghost at an air-raid once said,
These things have served their purpose: let them be.
Well, Little Gidding to one side, I am increasingly inclined to agree with your view. After all, I write for an immeasurably better publication these days. So it all worked out for the best.
That McDermott's source is not Irenaeus himself but—Michael McClymond! tells you all you need to know about his knowledge of the gnostics. It's like learning about jazz from Adorno. And he claims that you dismiss McClymond's book "without argument," as if you hadn't devoted 4000 words to it—several of them specifically against the claim about the Carpocratians—at Eclectic Orthodoxy three years ago. That said, to give this guy any more attention is straining at a gnat.
Hey, so far I’ve gotten a car out of it. If we keep it up, I may sweep the whole Price is Right stage clean.
His Latin is obviously lousy, or he would note the oddity of the phrasing of the quote from Irenaeus.
Protestant clergy/theologians rarely bother to learn Latin, in my experience. I have a friend who's a Cru minister that told me not long ago he was learning it, and he laughed at my suggestion that if he was really looking to obtain the tongue, he ought to start praying in Latin. Paenitet me!
(Protestants do other things well; I don't mean to knock them too much.)
I know we don’t use “all” in a plural form in English to mean “any” in the plural, because neither word has a plural form. But you would hope a putatively trained theologian would know that much basic Latin.
Hang on. We owe (or anyway I as a writer do) the KJV and The Book of Common Prayer to Protestants and a rether better known writer than me owed a good deal in his plays to the Geneva Bible; so let's not join in with the common contemporay zeal for throwing babies out with bath waters. As for praying in Latin, my old friend the late and much missed Placid Spearitt, Abott of New Norcia, always said he prayed best while walking his dog by the sea. Come on. God is not a snob.
I think David is referring to the state of things among our Orotestant clergy today. The truth is, though, that Catholic clergymen aren’t really taught Latin any more either.
I’m also perturbed by how many independent Catholic schools don’t offer it. I’ve nothing against Spanish or French, but I mean, c’mon!
Barbari vicerunt.
This comment doesn’t feel like it responds to mine above. As I said, I’m not trying to knock Protestants.
I think it’s meant in good humor, old man.
Re-reading, I think you’re right. Mea culpa.
Sorry - I'm aware of that. It was rather unfair of me. I was responding more to tone - not wanting to "knock them too much" - which came across, to me anyway, as slightly patronising, re Protestantism, for which we really need a new word since it wasn't theirs.
Oh, David knows every wing of the Christian world from the inside. A true voyager on the storm-tossed waves who has at last found his way into the kindly harbor of the C of E.
Well, the fundamental conceit of Protestantism is that the entire Latin-speaking period of Western church history was a mistake (with Augustine being given a pass only because he sometimes sounds like Luther or Calvin), so why learn a language that will only lead you into papist heresies?
I'd mention Horace and Virgil, but somehow I doubt that would ring any bells with them.
Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, etc, all wrote in Latin. And arguably Germany has taken Latin more seriously since the Reformation than many Catholic-majority nations. As David says, I think the problem is a general decline in theological education. The impression is that priests and often even professors can't be expected to put in the time and effort a classical language requires.
I would love to read that story of what happened with FT. Thank you for this update.
Apologies for veering off topic, but I just wanted to mention how grateful I was to encounter your remarks featured over at Eclectic Orthodoxy on Universal Restoration and animals. My dog just received a 6 month prognosis and while my heart grieves mightily, I was comforted by the picture you painted of the personal quality of animals and of their place in the kingdom. Again, please excuse me not adhering to the topics raised in this post, but I wanted to express my gratitude somewhere.
Hey, that’s something you can always bring up. My condolences. I know how much it hurts to part with these pure souls.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
I only discovered this website after reading McDermott's article "A Lonely Hart" in FT. And man, did that discovery make my day. I didn't hesitate to subscribe (and I usually avoid even minor monthly payments on anything I don't really need, so consider your work essential reading). I was waiting impatiently for your reply in FT, and had no idea you'd cut ties with the magazine. So I'd say McDermott's warning to keep far away from you has backfired, at least in my case.
If I may, I think the great appeal of your work for many (definitely for me) is the defense of the concept of a God who is loving in the ordinary sense of the word "loving" that we humans are not only taught, but seem to instinctively grasp or intuit. Although I've always had a strong sense of God's presence (even in an embarrassing atheist phase) I've been somewhat of a lazy theological seeker, never satisfied with what the "authorities" have concluded, but not having the mental capacity or motivation to find my own way through the maze (unfortunately, a childhood habit of being extremely bored in church seems to have carried over into my adult spiritual life) . So when I read your book "That All Shall be Saved" I said "Finally! Someone talking sense!" Now I'm paying attention. Keep up the good work!
Well, now I can thank him for my new car and for your subscription.
Welcome.
Dr Hart, regarding whether to write a possible expose on First Things or the sending of another diatribe in the direction of Mr McDermott, my advice to you, as someone who seems to have a great love for the teachings of the Buddha, is that you recall two verses from the Dhammapada:
In this world never is enmity appeased by hatred; enmity is ever appeased by love. This is the Law Eternal. The many who know not this also forget that in this world we shall one day die. They do not restrain themselves. But those who recognize the Law end their quarrels soon. (Dp verses 5-6)
Jesus would agree, I think. How much better, in my blinkered opinion, if you were to use your truly impressive erudition to share what pieces of music you like, and why (with suggested recordings... please?), or write on what delights you about The Wind in the Willows, Pooh, or any of the other "children's books" you have suggested you will share? By the way, I highly recommend Abel's Island, if you've not read it.
In the end each of us has only so much time. While the world has always loved watching dogfights of this sort, I would urge you to leave off with the whole McDermott/FT thing (and I admit that as a non-Christian this might be easier for me to say than for most here) and give us instead new things to stimulate our minds, our hearts, our ears or (dare I say it?) even our taste buds.
My two cents.
Yours is the correct advice, of course. The truth is that being attacked can be gratifying, but being systematically misrepresented grows wearisome.
Dogfights of this sort can be fun to watch, and I'll admit, I would probably be quite entertained watching it go down. But, putting those more impure impulses aside, I am genuinely interested in learning about FT losing its way. I discovered the magazine maybe 6 or 7 years ago and, as someone who had just returned to Christianity and by nature tends toward conservatism, I saw it as a confident, but seemingly reasonable (often gentle) voice for those seeking a bit of shelter from an increasingly hostile and unforgiving progressive social epoch. But besides the politics, I loved that it incorporated history and philosophy along with theology. I haven't paid as much attention to it in the last few years, only occasionally checking in to see if any articles peak my interest. I have noticed they've ramped up the politics, and there've been an increasing number of articles lambasting anything "woke." Although I could tell something was changing, this didn't really send off any alarm bells, because so many decent and caring Christians I know are genuinely worried about the influence some of these ideas might have on the minds of their children. But I was alarmed when you mentioned, in an earlier article, that the magazine has turned toward the alt-right and a "national conservatism." I have had a growing fear that Christians will increasingly respond to the radical left by endorsing or moving toward a radical right. The thought makes my heart sick. I know a couple self-declared Christians who tell me they are "looking forward" to the "war" that's coming where the excesses of the left are brought to balance (and they aren't talking about an intellectual battle where its combatants are armed with pens). Thankfully, these sorts seem to be few, but you never really know what fearful ideas are percolating in the shadows or fringes of group consciousness.
Yes, well, there are many self-declared Christians in America who are probably taking a bigger risk than they know in making that declaration. Call yourself a Christian, and someone very important may require you to act like one. "Many will come to me on that day saying, "Lord, Lord..."
I'm happy for you that you haven't fallen into the trap of being driven by one extremism in the direction of another.
I say this gently: please consider that the specter haunting America is not “wokeness,” which at its broadest is simply a long overdue recognition that racial & other social injustices are written into the very framework of our society. It’s not Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory that threatens children. In fact it is their opposites that do so.
There's the problem with large general terms. It wouldn't occur to me to include BLM or CRT in any definition of wokeness myself, since I just think of those as expressions of decency. I usually assume that the reference is to trigger-warnings, safe-spaces, guys competing in girls' wrestling, the term Latinx, and the use of "cis-" as a prefix. But who can say?
Sure but those things are trivial & banal, so I assume they pose no threat to the virtuous development of our vulnerable youth, who are at any rate watching Pornhub on their phones.
Yeah, general terms do cause these problems. I mostly associate wokeness with an attitude: agree with us or be slandered, pushed out of your job, etc. Lots of pressure to unthinkingly agree with whatever idea is popular at the time. (Sometimes i agree with the ideas) Trigger warnings, personal pronouns, etc, are quite trivial for sure. But I think the zeal to give kids puberty blockers, encourage them to have irreversible surgeries on their sexual organs, etc, is pretty terrifying. I don't know how we got to a place where such things have become so easily acceptable. I know a lot of parents pulling their kids out of public schools in order to homeschool. Is this just baseless paranoia? I don't know.
I too was a FT reader. Became increasingly disaffected over the last 7 or 8 years but would still check in for the occasional outstanding article such as Paul Kingsnorth's conversion story. Used to be part of the Editor's Circle and let my displeasure at their alt-right drift and nationalism be known. I think calling them to task can be useful if done in the spirit of fraternal correction and then to make sure one can just let go of the hostile and self-righteous response that is sure to follow. In these cases, I worry that only catastrophe will show some the errors of their ways. Life is a great teacher, as our loving God has orchestrated creation to facilitate, but the damage done along the way . . . is at times terrifying.
I find aspects of Kingsnorth’s writings rather sinister these days. I think he’s going alt-right in a very English way (Mosleyite eco-fascism being a well established tendency). But I might look up the article. As for FT in general, I see it now as a case of leaving the dead to bury the dead.
I have just, like within the last couple of days, started thinking that same thing about Kingsnorth.
I haven't read a ton of his work. A few blog posts here and there I barely remember. I don't seem to recall anything sinister in them. I remember most his warnings about the transhumanist cult that is fashionable among atheist techies these days which I thought you'd agree with. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Kingsnorth a fascist, his open calls for “nationalism” in response to ecological crisis certainly open the doors to eco-fascism of a tremendously destructive variety. And now of course he has thrown his lot in with the anti-vax nutters. Seems to me his conversion could use a bit of conversion.
Can’t help it: the guy gives me a Henry Williamson vibe
I don't think he is a hardcore anti-vaxxer. Even Dr. Paul Offit, who has written the book on childhood vaccination and is on the FDA panel that approved the Covid vaccines, is not in concert with the full recommendations for the vaccine schedule as they have been promoted. My first career was as a medical communications executive and, although vaccinated, I think the Covid vaccines are a mixed-bag. The industry is experiencing regulatory capture of an unprecedented level (former pharma executives supposedly legislating what other pharma executives should do. Doesn't work as well as it should for obvious reasons. Nothing is perfect and like I said I got 3 vaccines.)
As to the nationalism in response to the ecological crisis can you crisis can you tell me more? I am not sure I know what you mean by that and want to understand. (Genuine question, not meant to be combative. ) He has changed his mind about the usefulness of at least part of his prior activism and has mostly, at lease from what I have read and listened to, called for Christians to be thoughtful about consumption, in a thoughtful ascetic mode -- one which used to be commonly preached when I was growing up.
Yes.
I concur exactly. I also revere saint shakyamuni and I also think many desert fathers would agree, especially Evagrius. Besides praying about it I'd also suggest having a chat with Roland. Such a pure and incandescent soul must have some wisdom to shed on the matter.
I asked him. All he said was, “He who walks among sheep will hear only their bleating.” I’m still trying to work out what it means.
Does Roalns have any sheep dog genes, I wonder? My sense of him is that he may well have.
None that are visible. But his ancestry is deep and mysterious and he doesn’t like to brag.
Sorry, I meant of course Roland. It's too hot here
Sherrard was a wonderful man, so it’s pleasant company to keep.
Rutschman looks very much like the real thing.
Thank you for the reply. It seems I accidentally deleted my original question when I thought I was just editing it. My apologies! I'm doing a project on Sherrard so I hope I can do him justice...
May God favor the Orioles and bring justice to the Astros.
I am one of those late subscribers, but I can't recall if it was because of McDermott. I think it was because of your habit of pairing adverbs with adjectives in such a bizarrely inventive way.
You’ve a sharp eye. That’s one of my little tricks.
Yes and yes (and thanks).
The title I gave that book was "The Christian Revolution". The subtitle was "and its fashionable enemies". Happily, that was the last time I had to adopt a title I did not want. There have been subtitles forced on me since then that I could have lived without...
And thanks for your contribution to my ecologically responsible new car.
There will be a tipping point, like with tobacco, where everyone will look back and think, "How could I ever have owned a vehicle with an internal combustion engine?" That's my hope, anyway.
I think the same will be said about our consumption of animals and animal products which not only is bad for their health and ours but also is the most significant factor in ecological destruction and climate change. One can hope at any rate.
An excellent point!
The problem is the price, but this new federal tax credit is quite impressive. I've been looking at electric cars online, and the credit greatly reduces the price.
On "less is more", I typically defer to master logician Yngwie Malmsteen: https://youtu.be/QHZ48AE3TOI
I have literally five books on my shelf thanks to your recommendations in this substack and I only subscribed a few weeks ago. I feel like I have accessed an entirely new and unique universe thanks to it. I'm spreading the news far and wide in the hopes you might make some more lists, those things are like crack for me!
I'm a listomaniac. (There's sort of a Ken Russell joke in there, of which I'm duly ashamed.)
It is always such a joy to read these updates. It really is a wonderful way for you to connect with your audience, and I'm glad that audience is growing. I really can't begin to tell you how your writing has helped my own life: professional, personal, spiritual, theological. Thank you for sharing your gifts so prodigally.
As for First Things, I would encourage you to pray about it. Often, it is good to "let it be known" so that the record is clear, especially after relentless personal attacks. At other times, it's good to let what is buried remain so. Careful discernment is key, as I'm sure you know. Thank you again for the update.
Yeah that’s my thinking too. It’s hard to decide.
Yes, the FT story please.
I just want to say a huge thank you for your writings. I am just starting to engage more with them, and I find them very thought-provoking. As a conservative who is very opposed to “NatCon” and a disgruntled former First Things subscriber, I would love to hear your story about your departure. They really have kept going downhill since I was last a subscriber in 2016, from what I can tell.
Thanks for signing on.
I feel like there is a coterie of burned FT former fans you have provided solace for even if you decide no longer opine on their decline.
Let’s all head together somewhere better.
I first started reading First Things a little more than a decade ago. Admittedly I focused more on the political/culture-wars stuff than on the other content. But it struck me as a gay man that a lot of its content was pretty nasty, uncharitable, and callous. I don't mean that its bottom line on those issues was pretty different from mine (it was and is, but that's why I was reading in the first place); but that the tone of the discourse just did not seem very interested in appreciating the human stakes involved or the realities of the lives it casually judged and dismissed. Maybe my judgment was unfair, and it's been long enough that I don't think I'd be able to find and re-evaluate the writing that made me reach this conclusion. But to me its descent into the alt-right seemed something of a piece (which isn't meant to disparage all of its content or contributors, then or even now).
As interesting as I would find a telling of the story, I think I agree with other commenters that it's unnecessary and likely unhelpful. The articles it publishes about you are very bad--but I think reading the articles and the responses to them is a pretty good exposition of their badness, and revealing in its own way about the break.
Dr. Hart, a bit unrelated, but do you have any thoughts on Sri Ramana Maharshi's take on Vedanta?
I admire much of it. But it would take some time to lay out my thoughts.
Sad to say of course but it seems that you may be arguing with someone who suffers some moral privation and well my particular track for such ones is simply to beg off. But I think in this case (and you have already experienced a surge in readership) you should stay engaged in the fight, and not just because everybody loves a fight but because we all need training in how to argue a point intelligently and logically and not just to win the argument but in the end to understand the world we live in and most importantly the God whom has brought all things into existence.
"But it is now obvious to me that the resentment incurred by my departure is not going to subside, so I think I will have to write an article recounting what happened and why, just to make clear what is going on (and on and on). Unless you, kind readers, advise otherwise. (Comments solicited.)"
Only and I mean only, because you asked--Don't. It's beneath you. Past is past; get past it.
Okay. You're right. I planned to be dispassionate and dry, but that's probably impossible.
I will echo John's words. Your gracious summary of your time with FT, along with the simple "I disliked FT's editorial direction , so I left", is enough. Anything more will turn into a "he said, she said" pissing match. When an FT author attacks you, respond to the attack (as you did with McDermott), not the source . That's the high road. From a New Testament point of view, that may even be what FT -- once a friend, now an enemy -- deserves.
I think it would be interesting to speculate on what it is that induces these expressions of hatred which , not merely in the case of First Things, have bedeviiled Christian institutions, indeed all institutions but especially those supposedly promulgating the higher virtues. Having said that, I for one rather enjoy a good fight and sometimes they are needed if only to supply the less articulate with sound counter arguments and to provide examples of how to stick up for one's corebelief (and rsesist bullying).
In my case, I may enjoy the fight too much--especially when I know I can win it before entering the ring. I'm afraid that, like many Marylanders, I absorbed a great deal of Mencken in my youth--the Sage of Baltimore, my natal city--and that can be a very heady brew.
My natal city is Dayton, TN, (home of the Scopes Monkey Trial). I'm afraid Mencken is held in somewhat lower regard around here.
My cautious intuition is that FT is not really worth any more of your time and that most of your readers already know enough about your reasons for leaving. The current members of the masthead seem to find it gratifying to provoke you to respond to their attacks, and no doubt your exchanges with your critics there (both in FT and in the hallowed pixels of this Substack) garner them a goodly haul of unearned readers and attention. As a ghost at an air-raid once said,
These things have served their purpose: let them be.
So with your own, and pray they be forgiven
By others, as I pray you to forgive
Both bad and good. Last season's fruit is eaten
And the fullfed beast shall kick the empty pail.
Well, Little Gidding to one side, I am increasingly inclined to agree with your view. After all, I write for an immeasurably better publication these days. So it all worked out for the best.