The sensual pleasures and attractions of Venusberg entice and beckon the christian of today no less than they did Tannhauser. He succumbed, but he later repented (to some of Wagner's glorious music). Easter certainly offers a good opportunity or impetus for anyone to continue his resurrection from the wholly false beliefs of life, truth, intelligence, and substance in matter, to cease being victimized by the material senses (S&H p. 294).
Anything which excites, delights, engages, or just soothes one's physical senses will tend to blur his spiritual vision and cause him to stumble into the mire of the Slough of Despond. He can then give up, like Obstinate and Pliable, and return to the City of Destruction or, like Christian, fight his way through to the far side of the slough and continue on his spiritual way to the Celestial City. One of John Bunyan's margin notes [I wonder if Mrs. Eddy got the idea from him?] early in "The Pilgrim's Progress" reads: "Christ and the way to him cannot be found without the Word". The exceedingly inspired Bunyan does not shilly-shally in trivial theological hairsplitting or distracting minutia. Christian gets into trouble when he is beguiled by Mr. Worldly-Wiseman, who ceaselessly peddles his palaver, to turn aside from the strait way and go into the village of Morality, a kind of village in the plain of Ono.
To return to my hobbyhorse of the previous entry, this is why any visual yoo-hoo in the periodicals can lead the undisciplined, incautious, or bovine thought to wander in the seductive and perilous Venusberg of the senses. The periodicals are obviously written for mortals, but not for mortals qua mortals, i.e., not in order to appeal to what is mortal in them, and not for their amusement, but for their edification. Pictures appeal most strongly to mortal man's visual sense. The Word speaks to man's consciousness, and as this consciousness is dematerialized Truth will grow clearer and more distinct to thought. If there is a need for the periodicals at all then there is a need for more inspired, penetrating, and timely articles, not for the pleasant opiates of pretty pictures, bric-a-brac, and froufrou.
Note: To EW, I meant by sprinter that my forte, to the extent I have one, is in short pieces, not the long-distance "race" of a book. Also, a book, to be worth the considerable effort it would take to write, would have to find someone willing to publish it and get it into bookstores, almost impossible challenges today for an unknown scribbler.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
If this isn't an attention-getting title, I haven't seen one. Very well done, Christian!
Not only a well read blogger, but one who appreciates fine music I see. Enjoyed reading this one, as always very good.
(Meant to say, "new" the past couple of months. Must go back and read your earlier blog posts--when I can find a lot of free time. You are prolific!)
Interested in your comments to that commenter on writing a book. No doubt it would take a lot of effort, but with your talent, why not give it a try? I think you should.
Haven't checked out your blog of late, but glad I'm back. Will catch up with the ones I missed.
Really enjoyed reading this one.
Hi there,
You're on a roll! They just keep getting turned out, and not just any old essays at that. Almost without fail extremely well crafted.
Doesn't our Leader say in plain words that materiality and CS are incompatible, that the great moral distance between these two keep the worldly thought from being attracted to CS? Hmmmm? Why then does Boston keep trying to interest the worldly thought?
You do come up with the most creative, original, fresh, well-written blog posts I've found when it comes to Christian Science!
I find that your essays contain much to take away and think about more deeply, and for this, I am grateful.
It's easy to see why so many people like reading your blog. So very well done, in my opinion. And I must have a lot of company out here.
Keep it up!
You are really, really, really good. I've recommended your site to more than a few friends I want you to know.
We need you doing what you are doing! Your devotion to the Cause we love is widely admired, and I certainly am grateful you are continuing to do this blog.
I was just about to say while I like your blogs posts, the lead=in to the 2nd para. seemed a bit sweeping to me. Thought you had painted with too broad a brush. But read it again, and my apology, think you got it right.
Have a happy Monday,
Had never read that margin note from Bunyan. How true, how true!
Have noted your less than delight over the "new" Journal. What do you think of the current Sentinel? Would be interested in your critique of it.
Yes, I agree with what you bring out as to the shortcomings of our Church right now and its weakened outreach (don't like that word!) to others. But in my opinion, only deeper prayer will correct the wrongs and cause the adjustments at the highest level of human authority our Church so needs to see.
Always a pleasure for me to read your essays. Keep them coming along.
Christian Blogger,
While I appreciate your writings, I ask whether I'm the only one who thinks you're beginning to become too self-consciously taken with your own sense of erudition? . . .
"this is why any visual yoo-hoo in the periodicals can lead the undisciplined, incautious, or bovine thought to wander in the seductive and perilous Venusberg of the senses."
. . . is just one handy example.
Cannot this example (and others) can be expressed much more simply? I am suggesting we (or you!) possibly leave the William F. Buckleying to William F. Buckley (may he rest in peace), and let see whether the rest of us can communicate just plain directly, simply, straightforwardly.
((But in my opinion, only deeper prayer will correct the wrongs and cause the adjustments at the highest level of human authority our Church so needs to see.))
I think that constructive criticism is also needed. If the flock is scattering, feeling unshepherded, obviously there's something is needed. Remember Mrs. Eddy said she was most grateful for constructive criticism. However much meekness and humility is neded to profit by it.
I apologize for my typos in the above post. Next time I will proofread!
(("this is why any visual yoo-hoo in the periodicals can lead the undisciplined, incautious, or bovine thought to wander in the seductive and perilous Venusberg of the senses."
. . . is just one handy example.
Cannot this example (and others) can be expressed much more simply?))
Why don't you give it a shot? Try rewriting the "handy example" above "much more simply" to make the same point in as witty a fashion as the original.
We are waiting.
Do I detect some green eyes in the preceding comments? That your blog is widely read is well known, and I feel certain at the highest human levels.
Thank God there is a true-blue Christian Scientist such as you are!
To all those Anonymous's -- now, now let's not be naughty. And your remarks were certainly that. Methinks Christian's perceptiveness a la the periodicals is hitting too close to home. He or she is not the only one to feel this way, and I for one, am glad the author of this blog is speaking out so plainly on what is clearly substandard material coming from Boston.
BRITISH FAN:
((To all those Anonymous's -- now, now let's not be naughty. And your remarks were certainly that. Methinks Christian's perceptiveness a la the periodicals is hitting too close to home. ))
Am I understanding you correctly? Do you think it was "NAUGHTY" to ask the commenter who was so critical of the blogger's style to improve on it?
I asked the commenter for a rewrite because IMHO only those who can do better themselves reserve the right to be that critical.
If that qualifies as "naughty" then Lord help us.
Christian,
The more erudition the merrier! There is plenty in the CSJ and the CSS that is "simple" in the way one or more Anonymouses called for it, except that in those publications more often than not what starts out to be simple becomes merely simplistic. Consequently, itt has been a long time since, for instance, dictionaries have included a "Christian Science" definition. CS is not taken seriously in intellectual and literary circles any more. That is a shame, because it has much to contribute. The Comforter promised to lead us into all truth, and to ignore so important a chunk of it as the entire literary tradition of the English language may suggest that a big chunk of "comforting" isn't being done. So bravo, Christian, and keep it up!
"Why don't you give it a shot? Try rewriting the 'handy example' above "much more simply" to make the same point in as witty a fashion as the original."
"I asked the commenter for a rewrite because IMHO only those who can do better themselves reserve the right to be that critical."
I disagree with the latter statement -- just as, if I believe that Babe Ruth might have been a better baseball player had he only done XYZ [in this example, not gone out carousing and drinking before games], I can still criticise elements of how Ruth worked his craft -- even if I, because I'm me, with my particular talents, am unable to do better.
I nevertheless reserve the right and privilege of commenting on Blogger Christian's style. I think in all these months of blogging, mine must be the first comment to criticise anything in Blogger Christian's way of expressing him/herself. How serious a transgression is that?
Do note that I began my comment by sincerely expressing appreciation ("While I appreciate your writings . . ."). But:
Is Blogger Christian above any criticism?? Are the readers of this blog distant relatives of Jim Jones followers, who can only heap praise on their new-found hero, and scorn on anyone who dares to burst their bubble? Or is there room for honest thought, just as there is room for honest dissension from what's been going on in Boston these days?
((Is Blogger Christian above any criticism?? ))
Not at all, but for criticism to be credible and constructive, it should flow from people who know what they are talking about.
I think Christian knows enough about what is going on within the C.S. movement to be able to make worthy criticisms of same. The question is, do those who criticize Christian's witty and satiric writing style know as much about writing as Christian knows about C.S.?
I'm only speaking for myself here, but the reason I think so highly of Christian's blog is that I genuinely feel a sense of humility and deep respect for the woman who discovered and founded the religion I love so much. This is what keeps me coming back to see the latest and may I say, excellent essays? That the author of "The Broken Net" loves God supremely, is a follower of our great Master, Christ Jesus, and a true student of Mary Baker Eddy's writings is certainly plain for me to see. And given the widespread attention this website is getting, I'd say many, many others as well.
Why do I get the impression that Blogger Christian is probably more amenable to honest criticism -- s/he being the honest seeker for Truth that s/he certainly appears to be -- than are many of his/her devoted followers/readers?
((Why do I get the impression that Blogger Christian is probably more amenable to honest criticism ))
I agree, as long the the criticism is directed at Christian's substance not his/her style. The criticism in question was akin to telling someone you don't like their hair color; it was totally subjective, a matter of taste, therefore not very helpful. Yes, let's reduce Christian's humorous and informed expression into a boring bowl of bland porridge. NOT!!!!!
If, on the other hand, there's a criticism of the actual objective content, the real substance of what Christian is saying, then bring it on!
Post a Comment