Recovering tradition

"We DO need to be the leaven in the world, but we can't be until we build up our strength. The family is under constant assault, and we need to retreat and fortify. We are going to be lost if we don't." Who is not doing this? Who is spending so much time in politics we've neglected our families? How hard is it to be a good parent and also pull the GOP lever? I mean, didn't Karen Hughes move back to Texas for precisely this reason?

Everyone has a tradition even if that tradition is individualism and consumerism. All seek to give meaning to their lives even if that meaning is ultimately bankrupt.
Unlike the blogger you site, I do not believe for minute that true followers of Jesus are going to be lost to the culture. Across the centuries God has kept his people in the most hostile moral conditions. What happens is that only what is true survives. In its own way a morally hostile culture is a form of persecution for people who claim faith and serves to sift the wheat from the shaft.
We can not keep ourselves or our children in faith even in a secluded community. Only God preserves us.

I think the "Benedict" option sounds wonderful, but may be very difficult to actually live. Catholic lay communities are not a new idea; they have been around for several decades in America. They often fall apart due to internal conflicts between members.
I actually grew up in an extremely rural, almost exclusively Catholic community. It certainly had its benefits and protected me from much of the vulgarity of the culture in my younger years. However, it also was rampant with its own set of vices. I believe it is important to keep in mind that orginal sin is alive and well every - in the city and the country, in small communities and large cities. And just practically speaking, it is often difficult to support a family in an agrarian setting. The family farm is no longer economically viable (sadly), and there is often not many job opportunities, especially in professional or academic fields, in these rural areas. I personally I come to believe the most practical solution for my family is to live out our lives in the secular world and truly be a witness. We surround ourselves with as many like-minded families as possible, limit as much media as possible in our home, and for the rest, try to be Christ in our fellow man.

Maria, Very true.
People say they want community but they don't want the limits of community. It's very difficult for us to understand how much individualism is part of our psyche and how claustrophobic a community can feel. If you can just leave when things get tough your sense of community is very fragile and thin as paper. In religion, not to be able to leave qualifies it as a cult.

"... because what else is there but despair?" it seems true that more and more persons are taking a secular path and abandoning the "traditions" of all ancient Myths which are mismatches with Reality... but I don't see the "despair"... rejecting traditional Myths doesn't automatically lead to despair... it actually is freeing to live a life based on thoughts that best match Reality... with or without the traditional belief in God, since it's easily possible that Myth can be rejected and belief in God retained... though I personally believe in God, I don't see the lack of any such traditional belief leading to certain despair... faith hope faith hope faith hope faith...

I don't have much hope for utopian communities. However, the monastic communities manage to survive because of an extremely well-defined ethos on the part of the individuals as well as the organization. As a gardener, I can't help but be attracted to the idea of transplanting oneself into a well-established tradition. I've got the same problem as so many--set adrift from the traditions of my ancestors has left my generation with only American culture as a 'tradition.' It is proving to be quite inadequate to the task of growing healthy children and supporting family. I bought some violets from an online nursery. When they arrived the other day they were pale and weak. They've been in the ground for days, and though they haven't died, they are not thriving as of yet. Interestingly, I found some wild violets growing in my lawn. I dug them up and planted them near the nursery violets. The wild ones are doing very well, no transplant shock, even though I accidentally cut off a lot of the roots. Maybe countercultural Christians need to be a bit more wild. :-)

I've been impressed with Dr Guroian's work for years, having read a number of his essays and heard him speak. My hunch is that his skepticism regarding transplants goes back to the 1980s influx of American converts. That has to look and feel odd - even phony - to an Armenian paleo-con. As one of those converts, I confess that it's a curious pathway fraught with peril. It's easy to get distracted by multiple "traditions" and somehow evade imbibing the Great Tradition - which is the constant abiding of the Holy Spirit in the Church. That evasion is an invitation to phoniness. A fascinating account of a convert who appears to be getting it right is the poet Scott Cairns, now Greek Orthodox, whose "Short Trip to the Edge" is worth a read. Of course, once upon a time, someone preached the Gospel to Guroian's Armenian ancestors and they were baptized. Give or take a thousand years, and we American converts may look less phony to the Armenians. In the meantime, there's much work to do.

Another reason monastic communities survived, frankly, was because of the power of authority and the fear of hell. I'm not being coy or saying that's *bad* - it's just the facts. There were many factors that adhered members of monastic communities together, but you can't discount the fear of either temporal or eternal punishment as a factor.

How can anyone justify the desire to cut one's self off from the rest of society? Like it or not, the Church is called to be a community, the Body of Christ. As a Catholic, this go-it-alone, hide in the hills, just-Jesus-and-me mentality is incomprehensible to me; it seems to be a very Protestant, typically American mindset. Rugged individualism and isolation are fine, I guess, if your aim is to become the best capitalist you can be; but it seems to me if our aim is to be good Christians, if we are called to be saints, then we cannot cut ourselves off from others, no matter how messy, ugly, or offensive they might be. To do that isn't just cutting ourselves off, it's cutting others off too, telling them they're not worth our time and effort. In the post below, Wendell Berry wisely notes that "More people - but still too few - are becoming aware of the unsustainability of our way of life, of the isolation resulting from the way we've organized our living space, of the loss of patrimony and the disruption of cultural transmission that used to be part of the obligations of one generation to the next. If we lay folks go into Benedictine "mode", aren't we just adding to the isolation? How do we change the culture around us if we keep putting distance between ourselves and the "village"? Isn't that what we already have here in America? Sterile suburbs formed by people fleeing the "village"? Each family isolated in their own fenced yard? How do you square the desire to flee with Berry's observation about isolation and loss of cultural transmission? I mean, going Benedictine is wonderful, if you are called to the monastic life. But for the rest of us who aren't called to that, I think it's a mistake to try to live like it. It's not our vocation, and I can't see that isolating ourselves trying to create some near-perfect little utopia is spiritually helpful for anyone (us or the ones we're trying to get away from).

What Ilian said. And at least in monasticism there are agreed-on, traditional ascetic limits. Aspirants practice before entering, and are often ruthlessly evaluated. Psychologically as well as in other ways. Someone is in charge, with a vow of obedience. In a lay community, whose taste would determine? A nightmare of covert, unconscious aesthetic and rhythmic and temperament-related competition. The likelihood of fissures involving Orthodox / Catholic / Evangelical worldviews, or greater and lesser zeal, or the wild violets and the nursery violets.... Yikes.
It would be at least as hard living an artificial improv possibly impoverished agrarian community as living faithfully and mindfully as a part of a parish in Dallas. And the disappointment hazard when it doesn't work, well, I don't want to contemplate. Only if there is nothing more to do to live more godly in one's own, immediate, current situation do these grand schemes make sense. If Providence directs, it will be as an obvious & seamless step, not a theory or neo-Romantic throwing caution to the winds. Look to the Virtues!

As a Catholic, around the time of my 're-version' I found myself guided to literature and writings of a monastic nature. Instantly something in my head clicked, "These guys have it figured out." Being a layperson, and a husband and father, obviously some translation was needed but the ancient and modern monastics indeed, "figured it out." While I cannot fully turn my life into some lay-Cistercian, though some do, I can incorporate many aspects of monastic life into our own: some sense of asceticism, regular prayer and daily [as best as possible] Mass, imbibing my children with a sense of the Incarnation, that God is REALLY present in our daily lives, a real sense of our temporal nature here on Earth, and so on. Monastics seek to leave the world to follow Christ. Why is this not attainable for the laity? Sure, lay people have bills to pay, stresses of many sorts as we have to deal with 'the world' but we are called to live in the world, not be of the world. I disagree with the assertion that we moderns cannot connect with earlier traditions. The message of the Gospel is to do just that, "Do not conform yourself to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind. That you might discern the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." Christ calls us to make that change, this isn't grafting oneself onto the vine, but being part of the vine. Our salvation depends on this. And while we are to seek the kingdom of God in Heaven, not Earth, we are also called to be the "light of the world" and "salt of the Earth." It is obvious, in this "Christian" nation, we have failed. Total seclusion isn't the answer nor is total immersion. If Christians took the Gospel seriously, abortion, gay 'marriage', euthanasia and other horrors of modernity wouldn't be part and parcel of our legal and institutional framework, nor would radical Islam be a constant menace on our shores. Those Christians who have abandoned the world is what has allowed these and worse things to happen, just as Christians who have become part of the world has as well. God is ever new and ever changing. We can't just seek "the good 'ol days" but must seek to live the Gospel here, in this time and space. It isn't politics, the GOP, or even our Church which will be the agent of change, it is each Christian acting in unison with the Holy Spirit. Monastics figured this out because they realized that one in a sense had to leave the world in order to change it AND bring Christ into the world, as hundreds of years of Irish missionary monks proved. I believe we can change this world, we can sink our roots into the Truth, the Gospel, which is relevant in any age, any time, any situation. That's it, that's the only thing that will work. Secularism will only make us slaves to sin and our most base passions. Atheism fails to recognize the inherent nature of good evil and leave us under the yoke of totalitarianism of some form, be it that of governance or radical Islam. Christ is it, seek Him.

who me said, Yikes. good heavens, lighten up. The Family Cloister is a great book that I recommend if one is looking for ways to incorporate Benedictine Wisdom into family life. http://www.amazon.com/Family-Cloister-Benedictine-Wisdom-Home/dp/0824518276/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9036242-7278455?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178290932&sr=1-1

"I'm pretty sure things weren't too all round super dooper in the Holy Land in the time of Jesus. Jesus engaged with society." This makes me think about the Jesus, the God who became human and walked among, touched and healed lepers who were outcasted in every way.

The kind of attitude you attribute to Guorian is exasperating. He has a point. But anyone who is a baptized beliver in Christ is certainly IN the tradition. In principle he has it all, already; all that truly is Christ's is his, in principle. He is rooted in Christ. For anyone, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, whatever - - if someone is bpatized in the Triune Name and believes, he is united to Christ. To be sure, there may be elements in his churchly experience that are at odds with the faith into which he has thus been baptized. And to be sure, even among the most orthodox believers there is always the need to struggle against that in oneself and one's milieu that is not in keeping with one's Baptism. But if you have been baptized into Christ, be of good cheer; the /essential/ is yours. It's too bad some people in otherwise highly sacramentally-oriented denominations don't seem to get this.

Of course I'm just speaking out of "total chaos," don't mind me.

We don't have an ethnic background to give us any traditional foods, celebrations, etc. It's all been washed out over the centuries we've been in America. Now I'm confused again. Bob, don't you think there are American traditions? What happened to hot dogs, baseball, football, frisbees on the lawn, cotton candy, corn on the cob (yum!)(unknown in Europe), county fairs in the warm evenings (ditto), fried chicken (I'll stack my grandmother's fried chicken gravy up against anyone's Italian food), pickup games in the city streets, juicy hamburgers (I don't care what anyone says, Europeans don't do it right), on and on?
I visit my daughter in Scotland and I have to teach my grandson how to carve a pumpkin, he doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about. My daughter said, "What are you doing?" I said, "I'm teaching him about his ethnic heritage." Thanksgiving turkey. My daughter's adopted countrymen are puzzled but intrigued. (Oh yeh, while I'm putting up my grandmother's gravy, let me enter my father-in-law's unique turkey stuffing in the contest! No better. None.)
No celebrations? You don't cop to the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, all of which are unknown anywhere else?
I'm all for traditions, wherever you get them, but I can't understand the position that at this late date we have to import them from Europe or somewhere else or do without.

Let me give you a piece of wisdom or experience or something from the generation just older than you are, from your parents, and that's me. We perceived the rot of the culture just as you do, though we talked about it in different terms. We too formed "intentional communities," lots and lots of them, though we didn't call it that. Mostly they weren't religion-based, but some were. A few, a very few, of them worked out. Most didn't, and broke up after a few years of operation. Most of the reasons have already been listed here. You can talk all you want to about "family" and "community," but you really cannot fake blood ties, and it's hard to find something equally compelling as a substitute. The little towns you all are harking back to (and seeing through very rose-colored glasses) were composed of interlocking networks of families. Furthermore, most of the adults in the group had grown up within 5 miles of "city" center and had known all the players from infancy. That makes for a cohesion which is also hard to create after the fact. (Just as a side note, you might want to consider the fact that the people who did live in these little towns, back in the day, made a series of decisions which in the end destroyed these communities. And they weren't, for the most part, sorry about that. You might consider why that is. Did they know something we don't?) There's absolutely nothing wrong with intentional communities, and as I say, every now and again one works. For the history buffs among you, I will remind you that while the 20th century was a bit sparse in this area, the 19th century in the United States was a veritable hotbed of the creation of a whole spectrum of intentional communities, from the Mormons to the Oneida to the Shakers to literally thousands of others. And, running true to form, some, a very few, worked and most didn't. A few Christians are called to monastic life (where repeated attempts over centuries to integrate sex and children have failed, so the wisdom of the ages is, celibacy), and a few may be called to these intentional communities you're talking about. But most of us are called to be salt and leaven, in the world but not of it, as cs so wisely points out.

My hunch is that his skepticism regarding transplants goes back to the 1980s influx of American converts. That has to look and feel odd - even phony - to an Armenian paleo-con. Was there a wave of converts to the Armenian Orthodox Church? Serious question. The phenonomen of distinguished Protestant pastors and scholars converting to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism is fairly well known -- but this is the first time I'd heard of the non-Chalcedonian ("Oriental Orthodox") getting into the mix.
Good for the Armenians, if indeed they are actively proselytising.

Oh, yeah, and somebody has to be willing to work harder than they think is quite fair. You re always going to think it s you. Oh drat, sigaliris, it WAS me! Back in the day. Or so I thought! Darn it, you're probably right. :)

So many great posts here on this thread, though I particularly enjoyed those of Maria Bremberg and Major Wooton. If the "Benedictine Option" means Christians forming intentional communities, then it seems to me a profound mistake. In dealing with a violent, hyper-sexualized and coarsening culture, why would our model be anything other than the Christians of the first three centuries? The Greco-Roman world in which those Christians lived wasn't all about toga-clad philosophers. It was a world of constant and inescapable brutality, injustice, filth, sexual degradation and exploitation. Yet Christians did NOT withdraw from it. They made the local church the center of their social lives, certainly, but they never separated from the secular communities in which they found themselves. That is how the Church spread and, ultimately, transformed the empire.
The Benedictine and other monastic movements arose in different circumstances: A world which was increasingly Christian by profession, but often lukewarm or poorly catechized in practice. That problem the monks answered with small communities of celibate men and women who strove to live the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience to perfection by withdrawing from the world entirely.
The monastic witness is that of a powerful ideal, but I don't see how it is much of a model for how modern Christian families should live. For that, we are better off looking to the pre-monastic Christian world of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, A.D.: The Christians who pulled off the most dramatic and successful evangelization in history.

How right you are, ScurvyOaks. Light!

Do you all understand that while Crunchy Cons are generally understood to be conservatives politically...they are socially very liberal and the whole sustainability thing only works when 3/5ths of the population is GONE....whose demise is in process. You really need to pray for ears to hear! HOW DO YOU ALIGN SUSTAINABILITY AGENDAS UP WITH OWNING PRIVATE PROPERTY? We are losing our country and will ultimately be a nation in complete bondage! http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/ Preservation and Private Property http://www.mises.org/story/1060 Premises identification first step in NAIS http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2006/03/13/ag_news/livestock_news/live22.txt What is the Hegelian Dialectic? http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html#intro Oh and for the record, Jesus was not a republican!
Hope this reaches the ears of atleast one seeking truth. Many of God's people will be destroyed for lack of knowledge!

"Gender annihilation" is sort of like porn in that it's hard to define, but easy to spot. But if one needs a scientific view of it, that's easy. Just look to see if a woman/man has three or more offspring for three or more generations. M_David, where does this definition come from, please? Anyway, Grandma made it, Mom made it, I had four kids and already have three grandchildren, so I made it.
In spite of the undeniable fact that none of us bad girls "fulfilled our unique roles" according to the likes of Mr. Skojec. BUT, according to you, a priest doesn't make it. (A priest who remembers what he is about, of course, not That Other Kind.) His parents may make the grade, his sibs may make the grade, but by your definition he himself is gender-annihilated.

"Do you all understand that while Crunchy Cons are generally understood to be conservatives politically...they are socially very liberal and the whole sustainability thing only works when 3/5ths of the population is GONE....whose demise is in process. You really need to pray for ears to hear!" Complete and total nonsense. I can't speak for all 'Crunchy Cons' but for myself, who are my conservative teachers and role models? Russell Kirk, Marion Montgomery, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Chesterton & Belloq, Donald Davidson, C.S. Lewis. I could name more but I hope you get the point -- not a "socially very liberal" among them. And I daresay the other CCs here would have similar lists.

where does this definition come from, please Gender is defined as the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity. However, for a gender "role" to not "annihilate" is must pass on to the next generation. Hence, the only scientific definition for "gender annihilation" is some sort of roles that cannot pass on. All the rest is just opinion. Good opinion perhaps, but not demonstratable until it fails or succeeds. ------------ BUT, according to you, a priest doesn't make it. Uh, you need to read my PPS. Here, I specifically address this point. Humans, like nearly all higher primates, are group animals. Thus, he passes his genetics on through his siblings...and the old parental saying, "and one more for the Church". ----------- Anyway, Grandma made it, Mom made it, I had four kids and already have three grandchildren, so I made it For primates who have not expanded to fill their environment (humans) you would not fully have yet...because you are only maintaining population, but many others are growing. I meant 3 grandkids kids for each kid, i.e., 9. Hence the grandparent biological demand: "when are you gonna have my grandkids!" :-) And this way the gender role passes on in each family, rather than skipping two out of three families. Only the gender roles that expand into the next generation with growth have the potential to carry on.

M_David However, for a gender "role" to not "annihilate" is must pass on to the next generation. Who is this? Is this you? I don't think it's Mr. Skojec, because apparently, according to you, it's pretty easy to pass the test. No role-playing required. No effort at all, really. Just have a lot of kids who will have a lot of kids.
Having children isn't really all that difficult, and the last time I watched daytime TV (had the flu) I noticed that there are an awful lot of folks who can barely dress themselves without help who are having six or seven each, and their kids the same. None of them are getting an education, none of the fathers are supporting the children (when the moms even know who the fathers ARE), but hey, all gender roles non-annihilated here. Is this all it takes? Mr. Skojec is making WAY too hard a job out of this then. I said, three grandchildren SO FAR. Two kids are not married yet, being too young. It'll be nine at least by the time everyone's done. And better yet, they're taking care of them, which apparently isn't required.

Traditionalism can be deadly to the Christian faith; after all, Abraham is my father, not by blood but by faith. I can sympathize with Guroian's annoyance with those who jump on a new trend and pretend they are suddenly steeped in a deep tradition, but his critique seems to imagine traditions are all-or-nothing static entities, passed on like grandfather clocks. That's just not the way it is; traditions grow stale, are renewed, and take on new configurations in new contexts and with new encounters and new additions.
You'd think he'd appreciate this more than he does, because without the adaptability of traditions there's not much chance a Roman Catholic school would ever employ someone traditionally labeled a monophysite heretic to teach theology. Mutual anathemas and all that.

Having children isn't really all that difficult...is this all it takes? Mr. Skojec is making WAY too hard a job Remember I said one has to do it for three generations, and be ready for stress along the way (famine, war, etc.). This may be easy for you, but it is not for many. The only cultures so far to demonstrate the ability to do this have been traditional cultures. But who knows what the future holds? I said, three grandchildren SO FAR. Two kids are not married yet, being too young. It'll be nine at least by the time everyone's done. I was not saying anything about your particular situation; relax, I was only commenting on that three was not enough for primates who are growing. I am not making a claim for any type of family here. And better yet, they're taking care of them, which apparently isn't required. Once again, taking care of children is absolutely mandatory to building families that pass on. Hey - if you find a way to do it without work, let me know...I'm interested. :-)

Susan, Is this all it takes? Mr. Skojec is making WAY too hard a job out of this then. To whom are you speaking? It certainly isn't me.

M_David, according to what I see on the daytime TV, it takes no work at all to "build families that pass on," if all you mean by "pass on" is have a lot of children. Please review just about any daytime TV show to see examples of people who have 6+ kids whose kids have 6+ kids, and so forth. The moms are working hard, at least they're raising the kids, but many of the fathers - when we even know who they are - aren't mostly working at all, so far as I can tell.

Aren't you supposed to just love your neighbors? Pre-selecting them sounds a bit like cheating to me.

Susan: Please review just about any daytime TV show to see examples of people who have 6+ kids whose kids have 6+ kids, and so forth. I don't watch daytime TV, so I can't speak to it, but these types of families do not produce enough resources to support themselves (not sustainable) will collapse whenever their gravy train runs out. I don't know very many women after welfare reform who are having 6 kids without husbands, and I think women who do this for 3 or more generations is very rare - less than 0.01%. I think women in general who have more than 6 kids has become very rare - about 5%. I bet those women are on tv for just that reason - they're rare. The highest breeding subculture in the US that I know of (besides primates like the Amish, etc.) is Hispanic 1st generation having a TFR of 2.7. A 6 kid family with no father is quite rare. Actually, what you have is more like one father with six different women who each have just a kid or two, like our good pal Ricky.

Rob, Im not surprised what I very briefly suggested seems like nonsense if THESE are your mentors. Im not critising you personally, just encouraging you to dig a little deeper and consider from where you draw your information, how you know what they are suggesting is true and what happens if they are wrong? Most of the bio info is straight out of Wikipedia. Russell Kirk - This man held a belief that property and freedom are closely linked....ownership of private property doesnt fit with the sustainability credo.
Marion Montgomery - His catholic worldview permeates his own work according to wikipedia. The catholic church claims authority OVER the Word of God. Edmund Burke - Another of roman catholic stock.....in 1765 Burke became private secretary to liberal Whig statesman Charles Watson-Wentworth, the Marquess of Rockingham, at the time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who remained Burke's close friend and associate until his premature death in 1782. The Liberal historian Lord Acton considered Burke as one of the three greatest liberals, along with William Ewart Gladstone and Thomas Babington Macaulay.
Richard Weaver - He believed that humans should grant priority to a living community and its well-being, not to individual fulfillment. Because collectivism (aka communism) robs individual men of their personal responsibility to God, it is unbiblical, and it always leads to poverty of the great majority of the people. We see this today in Russia, Romania, China and the other communist countries; we see it in the many socialist - collectivist tyrannies throughout history.
G.K. Chesterton - A distributionist...humoring socialism in my opinion. Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order besides socialism and capitalism. However, some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives).
Hilaire Belloc - stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number owners of the means of production" ("The Servile State", 1913). This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc. ("The Servile State", 1913). Donald Davidson - Assuming you mean the agrarian poet and not the psycho-babble philosopher, this mans politics remained segregationist throughout the US Civil Rights struggle. He was a founding member of the Nashville circle of poets known as the Fugitives For what may be considered obvious reasons, fugitives generally avoid contact with individuals from their home country. This doesnt line up with the neighbor networking Im hearing espoused by the sustainablity folks either. C.S. Lewis - Lewis appears to be the modern-day precursor of the current wave of Christian philosophers and psychologists who mention Christ but exalt Christian behavior. The effect of the teachings of this persuasion is to unite people under a belief system of Christian behavior patterns. It is to draw them to large groups or churches that help reinforce such behavior patterns, in the name of Christ, of course. (Else, how would those who wish to know Christ accept it?) Such persuasions also stress the importance of spreading Christian behavior patterns through activism, legislation and other means, propounding the idea that we are all in this together and we are all the same. However, we are not all the same. Some of us believe that what people need is Jesus, and not cohesion, whether Christian legislation ever gets passed. Often the idea of faith in Christ is proclaimed. It simply loses focus behind struggles over physical externals, and the call to unify because there is strength in numbers. God s strength is not in numbers. - http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/BookReviews/BookReviewDisplay.asp?key=4
As I am not in ANY WAY claiming authoritative knowledge or even desiring such concerning these works, I read just a little bit about each. I respectfully beg to differ.....that there's "...not a "socially very liberal" among them". Truth be known, there are very few men we ought to emmulate in this life. Those that we have been given by God to emmulate are considered not enough.....most it seems prefer to look for traditions and opinions.
You know, all even *I* offered in my previous post was just more OPINION, more REFERENCE. At this place in time, I confess my previous post was in my flesh...in utter frustration, due to a bigger picture I believe I am just beginning to see. I hope you ALL will forgive me and continue your journey seeking God personally. Maybe the links I shared will inspire more indepth searching, culminating in what I pray for us all......a intimate relationship with the only Living God and His perfect provision for the sins of men found soley in His Son.

AP, which part of it "served us very well?" The part that forbade non-Christians, by default, from practicing their religions? You know, the so-called blue laws in reverse: a Jew could close his shop from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, but the law prevented him from opening on Sunday. In some professions, that extra day of income can be critical. The part that gave defacto legal benefits to the local church and clergy? You know, things like police traffic control on Sundays, suspension of ordnances like parking, that sort of thing. Or maybe it was the wink and nod given to other breakings of the law when a church member was involved. He'll get right with God, or so the saying went. I'm being intentionally vague, because I never lived in one of the last remaining places where those things were true. However, I can find quite a few of my previous generation who did, and not a few who can point us to such places that still exist, where the local brand of Christianity amounts to a special privilege club. What we had was an aristocracy. It has nothing to do with the tenets of the religion (some of you can release your breath now; I am not here to bash Christianity), and everything to do with the notion that by whatever definition you care to use, some people are just better than others. "Public morals and virtue" never existed in the sense you write about. I challenge you to provide a prominent example that did not also have its share of scandal and entrenchment against outsiders. You can call me a squawker if you like. I call your world unAmerican.

Self isolation isn't good, not in a pluralistic country with modern transportation and communication. My European ancestors isolated themselves into their little enclaves when they came to this country. This may have eased the strain of assimilating into a new country, but eventually, the children grew up and realized there was so much more out there and left. Most of these communities are now defunct. I believe that encounters with people from other faiths can enrich one's own spirituality. Such self-isolating communities don't facilitate this. Similarly, homeschooling is a dead end. Not only are the children denied opportunities for encountering others of different backgrounds, the parents cut themselves off from the one communal activity carried out in this individualistic society: how do we best educate the children. My children actually attend public schools and I wouldn't have it any other way. My daughter is best friends with a girl whose parents immigrated from Nigeria. In spite of their differences, they are learning about their common humanity. That is the best lesson. This would have never happened in a homeschool setting. Many countries in the world are beset with sectarian and ethnic strife. The best defense against this is to have our children go to school together and realize, in spite of our patchwork quilt set of beliefs, we are all American and together,we must make the country work. Leave the monastaries to the Middle Ages. We live in the United States now.

Thanks, Susan, for reminding us of our great traditions. We have many as Americans. The American tradition of permitting people of all religions to immigrate to this country and the tradition of keeping the state out of religion has resulted in a less unified country in terms of celebrating and honoring religious traditions. I think that the tradition of respecting people of all faiths is one of the things that makes America great. I'd hate to lose that.
We are making traditions in our family. I'm sure that Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians would look down their nose at how we celebrate traditions in our home, but....oh, well.
I think that Christians can form their own tight communities if they want, but I don't believe that it's compatible with the teachings of Jesus.

Doubtful Certainty, I agree with Franklin that you may be laboring under a misapprehension. For example, the year several of my homeschooled siblings spent in Singapore when my father's job took him there was hardly a sheltering experience. Also, just because I choose to homeschool my children doesn't mean I don't care about the future of education in this country, any more than parents who put their children into parochial or private schools don't care. Many of us care very deeply that the system of public education seems to be breaking down.

Abner's is long gone to franchises and Penn development. You're right about Jim's -- for me, part of the taste is waiting outside on the sidewalk while the sandwich is made.

Susan, 1) Yes, but you die in ecstasy. :) 2) Schools, so far as I can see, either punt (as in your case) or go much too far in the other direction (the so-called zero-tolerance policy). There are better ways, and I find myself nearing zero-tolerance for their inability to find and implement those ways.

Susan, I do have direct experience with a zero-tolerance policy that is implemented; my son ran afoul of it in middle school. The point is quite what you illustrate with your personal story. We, society, have lost sight of what it means to be a kid and to need structure and discipline in reasonable measure. There are plenty of adults in both our generations who have opposite stories to tell, arbitrary punishments and talking-tos that were little more than "wait until your Father gets home" translated to Bible quotes. And, of course, the obligatory spankings/switchings. I have vivid memories of my friends in parochial schools showing their red knuckles, and the welts on their thighs, none of which came from anyone at home. The vast majority of kids are not bad, they just haven't learned impulse control and empathy yet. The control comes from fostering in them a quite natural respectful regard for the feelings of others, and for some it does require firsthand demonstration of the discomfort they cause others. For the most part, though, the tide has turned to the other extreme: we must not cause any child discomfort of any sort, even those forms that are beneficial and constructive. To steal from Isaac Asimov*: zero-tolerance policies are the last refuge of the incompetent. Any teacher or administrator who wishes to be offended by that, please be my guest. If your school tolerates bullies, I fully intend the insult. If your school deals with bullies as they should be, then you have nothing for which to be offended. * "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- from his Foundation trilogy.

Conservative & Concerned, you call yourself the former and I've no doubt you're the latter, but it seems to me that you aren't particular well-informed about what conservatism, at least in its traditional sense, entails. I'd strongly recommend that you read some of the authors I named, particularly Kirk, so you can get a handle on what conservatism really is. It's not just simply about private property and anti-collectivism.

zero-tolerance policies are the last refuge of the incompetent This is a great line. Sadly, I think the truth is closer to "zero-tolerance is the final stop before institutional and cultural breakdown". Of course, the institution splinters when its building block, the family, does. I'm not sure anyone, competent or otherwise, can make it work these days. Those who do are extraordinary. Heroes.

that should read "My son thought it was funny that they made him promise NOT to hit the guy, like he would.

I've been away from the blog all weekend and I see there's been a lot of commentary on this thread, most of it quite good. A couple of clarifying points, from my perspective: 1. I don't wish to be a separatist. I like the definition someone up above used: "Create a Nintendo-free house and invite the world in, as opposed to creating a Nintendo-free world and keeping the world out."
2. I personally would be horrible at rural life (see "Jean de Florette"). But as one of you pointed out, Orthodox Jews manage to live strong communal lives in urban settings. I'd be thrilled if several of us young families from church could live within easy walking distance from each other and the church.
3. I think it's a false choice to say that either you have to be completely open to the world, or you have to be a separatist, walled off in a compound. I was really impressed with the Orthodox community I visited in Eagle River, Alaska. They seem to have found a good balance. Many of them live in close physical proximity, around the church, and their kids go to the parish school. But they've never had a separatist attitude.
4. To be completely open to the world is to take an intolerable risk with your kids, in my view. I don't want my kids partaking of the Bratz 'n videogame 'n hip-hop culture that's ubiquitous among American kids. I want them to find peer groups where kids rebel against that crap, and to play with kids whose parents feel as Julie and I do about it. It seems to me that that's hardly asking too much. A friend of mine, a secular liberal who is early in his teaching career, says that if he could wave his magic wand and make hip-hop disappear, he'd do it. So many of the problems in his school, he says, come from the values of hip-hop being inculturated in the lives of the kids. He says that teaching has made him far more socially conservative than he ever imagined being. He and his wife have a new baby at home, and he's getting a lot more conservative about exposing her to pop culture than he guessed he would be ... because he's living every professional day among kids who are swimming in it, and he sees the effect.

Rod I think you're looking for pets in the hardware department. What I mean by that is you're looking for a community to do what is the job of family. I might be wrong but I see you wanting community to do what you're supposed to do as father. To put this in today's world, it's not unlike some calls I've gotten lately. We've had a lot of fences blow over in these storms. Most of these blowovers involve landscape timber posts rotting off at grade level due to rotting out. Friends not close enough to rate free labor and yet close enough to ask for advice have called wanting to know the easiest way to pull the old concrete and post so they can plant a new one in the same spot. They're all disappointed when I explain that the way I do it is I use post hole diggers and dig a hole beside the existing hole and then pull the old concrete and post into it and out of the ground. They didn't want to do any hand digging. I'm sorry. But some things take work. It's the same with parenting. Some of it's just not fun. One of the things I find interesting about these conversations is the missing of the obvious. You are part of a community that shares your values. You have a circle of friends that are close to you on multiple levels. They are a reflection of what you value. If they don't reflect what you see as ideal then I believe the answer is self study.

Clearly I believe, as we all do, that kids need to figure life out for themselves sooner or later, if only because we won't always be around. I just don't think 11 year olds should be put in a Lord Of The Flies situation where the strongest party wins, as Franklin points out. If that's our approach, why have adults on campus at all? Why not just herd the little monsters in there, open the library door, and hope they learn everything they need to know on their own? The idea that adults should not and cannot intervene in the formation of the values of the children in their care is in a way the problem we're addressing here. If we leave it to the peer group, the peer group will be taught by the media, and then we have 11 year olds saturated in hip-hop, video games, sex or its facsimile behind the gym, weed behind the gym - or heck, with that kind of "supervision", weed right out in the open - plus kids settling their differences by whacking each other with bricks. Do we intervene? I think everyone thinks we should. All harvey and I disagree about is, when should we intervene? I think, a bit short of kids beating each other up, either physically or emotionally. After all, we don't allow that in adult society. What would I have learned, at 10, if Sister Dorothy hadn't intervened (probably at the behest of Marianne's parents)? I'd have learned that the strongest wins, and that with the help of my gang I could beat down the weakest among us. Marianne would have learned what my son was in the process of learning, that she is worthless, that if you can't fight back for whatever reason you just have to take the beating. harvey's system, if I understand him, only works when the victim can fight back effectively. I'd wonder about it even then if it leads to kids beating each other up physically. One more story. My youngest, a daughter, is a stand-up kind of kid. When she was 10, she was approached on the playground by a (male) bully, who started harassing her. Verbal was OK, but when he struck her, she took one step back and kicked him, hard, in the balls. Then she walked off. I was told this story by the principal, who had it from the adult "monitoring" the playground.
Everyone thought this was funny. I didn't. Is this how we "monitor" children? Why weren't both of these kids hauled before the principal forthwith?
What has my daughter learned from this incident? That when someone bullies you, you kick him in the balls, and that solves the problem? Is this a lesson which will serve her well as an adult in a law firm, say? Or in a courtroom? She's learned that violence is a great problem-solver so long as you don't get caught, which you probably won't. Great.

"It's called grass-roots sacrifice. Give up your SUV. Give up that extra bedroom and make your kids bunk together. Give up cable, use only broadcast TV, and take the money saved to buy books and recorded TV you think is appropriate. Don't blame the suppliers in a consumer-driven society. Blame yourselves for passively supporting the very things you complain about. It's all interconnected..." Can we get an "Amen!" somebody? Nicely put, Franklin.

Forgive the double post, but I didn't see Rod's comments here until I'd already posted. 1. I don't wish to be a separatist. I like the definition someone up above used: "Create a Nintendo-free house and invite the world in, as opposed to creating a Nintendo-free world and keeping the world out." That's reasonable. But you're not going to create Nintendo-innocent children, once they get to a certain age. At some point they make their own decisions what culture they partake in and what they reject.
2. I personally would be horrible at rural life (see "Jean de Florette"). But as one of you pointed out, Orthodox Jews manage to live strong communal lives in urban settings. They do. However, Orthodox Jews also create and sustain their own synagogues, call their own rabbis and provide their support. I'm not sure how it works in Orthodoxy, but from what I observed in Catholicism, there seemed to be two major patterns. In the first, families were driving sometimes 30-50 miles to go to a Latin Mass or "orthodox" parish (many of which were in regions of the cities one wouldn't consider desirable for raising children.)
I'd be thrilled if several of us young families from church could live within easy walking distance from each other and the church.
Or, in some cities, conceivably you could buy a house next to a given parish. But you'd have no guarantee that in a year that parish would still be there - because Catholics don't control the location / staffing etc. of their parishes. It's a lot more complicated than for Orthodox Jews. Not only that, not everyone can afford the same level of house, and friends hopefully can cut across income levels.
I was really impressed with the Orthodox community I visited in Eagle River, Alaska. They seem to have found a good balance. I chuckled a little at this - Alaska itself is pretty isolated... 4. To be completely open to the world is to take an intolerable risk with your kids, in my view. I don't want my kids partaking of the Bratz 'n videogame 'n hip-hop culture that's ubiquitous among American kids. I want them to find peer groups where kids rebel against that crap, and to play with kids whose parents feel as Julie and I do about it. Then you have to rigidly keep your children away from just about every child on the block, in the neighborhood, on the playground, or in any given non-approved school.
Also, don't take them to the grocery store or drugstore - because the tabloids alone are going to raise a lot of interesting questions. ("Mommy, what does it mean that "Princess Diana was abducted and impregnated by aliens right before her death?"") And we won't even get into certain products on the shelves in certain aisles. Keep them out of the library, because they'll see the Disney Adventure and Nintendo Power magazines etc. on the racks (as well as everything else.) Our library has a big collection of manga and graphic novels in the young-adult section. Oops.
For that matter, don't take them to museums - I can't even stand them myself, with their rock-music and flashing-light exhibits.
Don't let them read a NY Times - that will raise more questions than anybody wants to handle. Watch that highway driving - I don't know about other cities, but here we have billboards for strip clubs, gambling casinos, cable TV shows, seductive liquor ads, etc. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here - but only a little. Some kids never question anything (which I consider more alarming than desirable.) Some kids OTOH don't miss a trick - and quickly parents can get forced into Perpetual Defensive Mode, always explaining, "That's bad," or "We don't do that," or "We don't buy that," and sooner or later, a smart kid is going to figure out that there's a great big world outside the cultural "walls" - and that it has a peculiar capacity to make his parents really upset. A nice peer group is great - every kid should have one. But the influences that comprise a child's upbringing are far more than just the kids with whom they play. The factors I mentioned all come into it too - even among no-TV, homeschooled, handpicked-peers kids.

Franklin, I didn't mean to make you mad - what I was trying to say was that if someone isn't raised in an elaborate tradition (insert cultural, especially religious), it can be very difficult for them to experience that religion/culture in the same way as someone who grew up learning it before they were "rational." I apologize; "fake" is a loaded word and not descriptive. However, IMO there's a big difference between doing things "that we've always done, because that's just the way we do them," and doing things because someone sat down with a book and planned, "OK, what kind of traditions are we going to observe here, from what countries, what cultures, what time periods, etc.?" It's not that the emotions behind the observances are inauthentic. It's not that the person is insincere or unfaithful or anything like that. It's just that whenever an individual or family deliberately sits down to *craft* what they're going to do for "tradition" or "ritual," they run the risk of teaching an inadvertent lesson - that traditions are something you pick and choose. Obviously if you pick some, you can discard others. Pax?

Just what exactly then is "conversion"? Does it only encompass adding to a body count and "salvation," or is the modus operandi when converting people to infuse the "new" traditions?

Susan, Franklin, it's obvious you don't see bullies as I do. Maybe it's best that I explain my position a little more clearer if I can. All behavior reflects a tool. Nothing more, nothing less, it's a tool that we appropriate to accomplish a goal. A bully, whether it's the office manager that looks down her nose when talking to you, the car salesman that treats you like you're a credit flake, or the kid down the street that threatens your child for his lunch money. All have found their bullying techniques produce results. Succesful behavior changing demands two components. First you have to make the behavior inefficient. Then you have to offer a replacement tool that does the job better. Bullys are everywhere in our world. And some of the ones that don't threaten violence do as much damage as those who do. If you doubt me get a job where your boss keeps you on edge about losing your job. Middle school is where we put the lessons learned up to that point about interacting with others to the test. Between our hormones and those of all of our peers being in turmoil and the natural reactions of the adults towards us, it's a pressure test of pressure tests. If the tool of choice that we've picked up, whether by example or just accident-incident, is bullying. Then that's the one we're going to rely on when we're tested. If the tool of choice is running to momma or daddy then that's the one we're most likely to use also. Yesterday as I was working, you'd have loved it, sometimes we go off into uncharted territory, can be so scary and you never know whether it'll work or not, but you keep on pushing, grasping a hammer with out uncrossing your fingers, seeing without uncrossing your eyes, just makes it more thrilling, then it starts coming together, it's a high, a real high, but, as I was working I went over my life as I see it and concentrated on the bullys I'd known. I realized two things. Most of them didn't threaten violence. And I'd confronted them head on everytime. Something I'm convinced I learned in middle school. An example would be the telco supervisor that insisted on being a bully because I was the contractor supervisor. He exerted his power day one by being a jerk to let us know just who and what he was. Day two I held court at his desk. I sat on it with my back to him sitting in his chair and entertained his peers for about ten minutes. I intentionally chose his nest to dirty with him in it. We came to an understanding. We never became friends, but we got a lot of good work done together. A partner with a firm I do work occasionally is famous for his belittling of the workers. He's just a jerk sometimes. He tried it with me early and found that tool bit back when used inappropriately with some people. We have become friends and care about each other. He's still a jerk with newbies or oldbies that haven't stood up to him. When I see him on a tear I blame them as much as him for his behavior. So I don't see bullies as evil or necessarily bad. They're an obstacle that we have to learn to deal with because they're everywhere. They're also an important teaching point for a parent. They provide the adult with the opportunity to define a bully as something to be understood. Understanding a bully helps us work with or around them. We might even learn to love one, love one enough to help them get over it. It isn't magic. It's about accepting that it's about tools and every tool requires some training. Speaking of tools. I have to share my good fortune. Sunday and yesterday I worked all day creating a three dimensional rose out of steel on a steel stone that I'm making for a sign for a stone yard. If in your sojourn to work today you pull beside a box truck or van large enough to drive you car into look at the side of it. Now imagine a rose stem starting at the lower front corner angling over to a large bloom in the upper far corner. Imagine leaves and the whole thing being a raised pattern from the background. Now see that as monochromed into the background a stone color with graphics pasted over the whole thing. Tools, the only thing better is ideas.

Harvey, There are countless people walking around who learned the lessons you describe without ever encountering a bully in middle school. Some lessons need to be learned by some people in certain ways. In general, though, pain is not a requirement.

Well, Harvey, for my reading you've done an excellent job rechanneling your inner bully. That's only a bit facetious, the rest is sincere. I'm going to go soft on you and agree with you... but point out that nothing I wrote contradicts your stated position. The results are observable; the value we put on things is what's under dispute. The "me generation" is demonstrably and significantly different from previous generations. The reasons for that are certainly what you've stated, but not for the motivations you state: the parents of the "mes" failed to impart to them a basic empathy, and that lack was reinforced by a growing pressure to compete and win at any cost. I'd like to see our Christian fellows comment on that development, and its impact on that grouping they consider true Christians.

Dang, wouldn't you know I'd get that famous quote wrong. "Winning isn't EVERYTHING--it's the only thing." It bugs me so much that I apparently don't want to reproduce it accurately. :)

While I was growing up, US census figures put our population at about 80% Christian, with Catholic and Southern Baptist topping the list of denominations with the highest counts. While I was growing up, there were no debates about the US being a Christian country, founded on Christian values, preserved by Christian citizens who conscientiously passed on their values to their children. While I was growing up, all businesses were closed on Sundays, especially bars. No non-Christian questioned this arrangement, or the privileged treatment of Christian holidays. They stayed low-key, or they didn't surface to begin with. Unitarians were ridiculed with much more vigor than Garrison Keillor does them today, or he does Lutherans. A Jew was a tolerated curiousity. A Negro took his physical safety into his hands walking outside the shopping district that surrounded the public transit hub on the border of the big city. At best he was stared at. Usually, he was verbally heckled. We were 100 miles north of the Mason-Dixon line. I find it exceedingly ironic, a feeling deep in my gut, that I am a non-Christian watching/listening to Christians doing two things: Claiming it was better once. Claiming that only true Christians can comprise, define and control that condition of "better". I've traveled a very long way on the path of anti-Christianity, in about as many modes as there are. The only thing I cannot claim to be is an ex-Christian. I know all the pithy phrases used by Christian bashers. I've developed a very fine sympathy for my Christian neighbors, around me physically and online. I restrict myself to the barest challenges, most of the time, because the thing I do not agree with, the thing I am most ashamed of that I did in my ignorance, is the demand to justify faith. So, there is my internal dialog, and the dilemma I face in topics like this one and the one where we are kicking the dead horse of abortion again. Define "better". Define what is worse now than it was then.

Franklin, I think our sensations when we listen to these claims are probably similar--though different, because I'm feeling it from the inside, and you are watching from outside. I'm confused, though, about who the "me" generation is. Is that the boomers (which includes me) or our children?

The only difference between the "me's" and their ancestors is opportunity, simply opportunity. I can't argue with that, Harvey, and it ties in with my general whin... complaint. :) We used to be a "better" Christian culture. I'll stipulate that there is rational description available behind that (since it is no more likely that my query will be answered, this hundredth or so time I've posed it). Given that some discussion really needs to take place, I further speculate that the very Christians we look back upon with such a rosy view are the very baby boomers who raised the spoiled brats of the me generation. Ahem. Sorry. The people contemporary complainers admire are the ones who put them in their dire straights. Sigaliris, it is our children, or rather (unabashedly patting us on the back) many of their peers who are the me generation of whom we write. Talk to your children, and ask them their view of their peers.

Ah. Thanks, Franklin. That s what I thought. I find my kids and their friends all to be pretty good people (joins in the mutual back-patting). I do remember when my elder daughter was managing a Starbucks in LA. She used to lose patience completely with her fellow employees. These people have no idea what it means to WORK, she would say severely, causing fits of ironic laughter on the other end of the phone. The only one she really got along with was an ex-Marine. Later, she and her husband owned a restaurant in North Carolina, and finally figured out that the Salvation Army was sending people over to apply for jobs after they got off the bus from prison. Not much joy there, either. But I don t know that it was generational. Californians and ex-cons have probably displayed their plumage before now. I have no nostalgia for the fifties and early sixties. I do seem to remember that there was more space, and that people were friendlier and less frantic and pushy on a daily basis. But there was also a culture of conformity, of silencing anyone who was different and tacitly enforcing certain standards of entitlement between the haves and the have-nots. Trying to make public spaces, especially the schools, more inclusive has caused much hand-wringing from conservatives who miss the old feelings of cultural solidarity. But I remember how tough it used to be for kids who were outside those boundaries. The mentally and physically disabled, for instance. I remember when they were called mongoloids and spastics. They were routinely institutionalized, and looked at with a combination of disgust and pity when they weren t. People would actually say things like a child like that should not be out where people can see him!
There were only three black kids in my whole grade in elementary school. They were very quiet, very reserved. They kept to themselves and were always cleaner and better dressed than me. When I tried to talk to them, they seemed scared of me. Black people appeared as slaves in the history textbooks, but apparently they had become invisible shortly after the Civil War. I knew nothing about Jim Crow. When I found a picture of a lynching one day, I felt as if I d been stabbed. I was sick for days. I couldn t get that picture out of my head. It was as if my whole world had suddenly become a fake. This happened HERE? In AMERICA? My America? Kids weren t supposed to know. My best friend was a Jew. Her parents were each the sole survivor of their families. I know it was emotionally very difficult for them to come to the Christmas Sing that was so jolly for the rest of us, and watch their child march around in the Christian triumphal festivities with a big Christmas Star made out of construction paper stuck on her head. There was an exclusive women s clothing store downtown. I didn t find out until later that until the mid-sixties, Jews were not welcome as customers there. They couldn t get charge accounts. I d always wondered why my friend s mother preferred to go to the city to shop in the mall. As for being gay--forget it. You could deadbolt the closet door or kill yourself. That was about it. Or leave the country. I ve gone on too long already. But if that was Christian America, they can have it. I wouldn t want to live there again.

This is an illuminating exchange you re having, Stephanie and Franklin. I had always thought that one of the unusual things about Christianity was that it was so portable--not tied to any one culture, but capable of moving from place to place and custom to custom, always changing along the way, but never becoming unrecognizable. I can see that other religions, like Islam, or the more outgoing forms of Buddhism, or even Judaism--changing as its people move through other cultures--have this same transformational capability. This puts them in contrast, somewhat, to religious forms that are more firmly tied to one place and people, like Shinto.
And yet, if I look within Christianity, I can see that many of its divisions would be just as hard for a stranger to enter into and feel at home with as Shinto. Missouri Synod Lutheranism, for instance, or the Christian Reformed Church prevalent in Western Michigan in my youth. It s hard to picture, say, an African Christian joining a church of blue-eyed, blonde Hollanders with their insular customs going back to immigrant ancestors, and feeling completely at home. I always imagined that my own Catholic church was the most welcoming to all comers, just because it was so very big, and old, and weird, that it had absorbed just about everything. But I hadn t realized how many ethnic divisions there were even within Catholicism--the Irish parish at odds with the Germans, the Italians versus the Hispanic, and so forth, as it was in many big cities. And I fear that by placing itself in the forefront of politics, as the Church has done in modern times, it has made itself more confrontational and less absorbing. Perhaps we are all wanderers now. Even the traditions of our youth, which we thought we understood, have become strange to us in the course of our journey through a changing world. Perhaps, as T. S. Eliot said, We shall not cease from exploring And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.

(Harvey, it's called [by some] the artist's moment. Relish it, learn to enjoy it, or be prepared to give up your art... or the idea of selling it, anyway.) You've opened my favorite can of worms: what is it that we are really talking about here? 1) Community, in its basic form, is when the instinct for personal survival at all costs finds an acceptable compromise with the fact that others will survive around me. Thus is born the notion of cooperation. Later, cooperation becomes a recognized value, taught rather than relearned (as with the wheel reinvention). 2) The notion that we can teach our children the necessities of survival, coupled with a history of success, gives us tradition. Also (this being a passion of mine), at some point the idea of tradition and the mechanics of it blend together. It becomes self-perpetuating. My favorite manifestation of that is folk music and dance (the two together). The collection of manifestations, and their longevity and consistency, become the defining components of culture. Rather than put in my two cents about change and such, I offer a quick example of how a culture can manifest survival at the highest level: adaptability. The Celts, from the point that they enter European awareness with the acquisition of their name keltoi from the Greeks, demonstrated a remarkable ability to assimilate ideas, traditions and mundane things from each culture they encountered in their migration west. Even when they finally became settled in Gaul and the isles, they continued to show an ability to take change as constructive. The best (and best documented) example of this is Celtic Christianity. At no point in their history could they be described as losing their basic identity. It truly is an amazing progression through history.