Every other Thursday our department, at company expense, orders from Green Mill. One wanders and varies among the offerings of the menu, but eventually will settle down. It used to be you could get a chipotle burger from Green Mill that ranked among the best, along with the black and blue burger from Applebee’s and the outstanding and peerless bacon cheeseburger at Old Chicago – for which the only competition was the guacamole burger at the now defunct Coyote Grill (a dive that died of lousy service, and, speaking of defunct, I didn’t go to the cattle company more than 3 times but they had a good something burger there too). Nowadays, however, you can’t. What some of my fellows at work have discovered, though, is the desert fire pasta. Some get it straight but some of us order DFP/Chix/no mush, substituting the shrimp. I look forward to it exceedingly. I usually don’t have supper that day either. I usually eat lunch at 10AM but on these Thursdays I have to wait till noon. It makes it all the better.

Another thing I keep looking forward to is Stannard’s two volume biography of Evelyn Waugh. These solid tomes are sitting on my dresser beside the yellow lamp with the blue shade and calling to me. I feel like taking a picture of them they are so sightly. I’ve had them for more than a month and it is very nearly time to start on them. I’ve been finishing Chesterton’s Flying Inn which was interrupted by three volumes of Lukacs – Lukacs was irresistible. But soon the Flying Inn will be over, very soon, perhaps even tonight. I can’t tell you with what eagerness I look forward, not to missionary biographies, not to political biographies, but to the biographies of men of letters, especially those of the twentieth century.

Holy minimalism is a term used to describe a group of three contemporary composers who are interested in sacred music, have left behind serialism, have re-appropriated tonality, and don’t usually mix a whole bunch of elements. Arvo Part, one of them, doesn’t really consider himself a minimalist and seems to think the term indicates more a taxonomic bafflement than a description of his music. I enjoy holy minimalism very much.

I like modern music though. I can’t play my Shotakovich or my Prokofiev as much as I’d like, out of consideration for my wife. Stravinsky? Alas, very little. I don’t believe in the silly tricks of a lot of the avant guarde stuff, but I can handle a Kronos concert with certain relish, after all, that’s pretty rare, how often are you going to be in the same place and time? But these guys (Part, Gorecki and Taverner – I’ve yet to listen to his stuff) come after what you might think of as the really modern stuff. They used to do that and now they have quit.

I’m thinking about it because I just bought Gorecki’s Miserere album. You might find the appelation minimalist sticking to him for the first piece, the Miserere, and not like it. But you will not be able not to like the rest of it. And it might prove a portal to a bit of the rest. I’ve gotten it from the library for years before I bought it, so I would think most would have a copy.

Here is a better explanation of holy minimalism. You will see there why it appeals to me so much. “The music is about the silence.”

I am fascinated by John Lukacs. I got three of his books from the library and I haven’t been able to put them down. Even Chesterton is languishing while I finish the stuff by Lukacs.

Lukacs writes really well, but it is more than that. His is so much more than a bare recounting of events. It is the fascination of his mind, perhaps. He is an independent thinker, being an outsider on a few levels (you ought to find this out on your own, it is so interesting). He is a good thinker, not just in picking up and examining the ideas of other historians taking what he takes and rejecting what he rejects, he deals with them in a trenchant way, deftly, exactly. He reminds me of Richard Mitchell in his use of language and some of his manner of examining things. Same contempt for stupid and false ideas (and people–he says the Reverend Shailer Matthews was an imbecile), same careful and sharp use of language, same adroit handling. I confess I get tired of Mitchell after a while and have to make myself keep after it. Not so with Lukacs, I can’t get enough.

Read John Lukacs. Look for his stuff at the book stores. It is worth having.

Pack your bags!

We persist with these arguments about worship. I have arrived at the conclusion that Hutchens is right. The trouble is that we are missing the real presence of Christ in our midst, and all our troubles stem from this. Why is there so much counterfeit? Why is there so much working it up? Why some much effort put into specious arguments trying to further a more casual attitude? Entertainment is counterfeit worship, and that is why it is an anti-worship. For the argument is not about organs or guitars; it is about obedience and what God will bless. It is about undivided loyalties. God must go up with us or we will not go up. The Lord must be present in our midst or we do not worship. We ought to be like Moses and insist the Lord go up with us, even at the cost of all the adherents of our movement.

He loves thee too little who loves anything together with thee which he loves not for thy sake.
—St. Augustine

Like the sun’s rays passing through a crack and lighting up the house, show up even the finest dust, the fear of the Lord on entering the heart of a man shows up all his sins.
—St John Klimakos

The conviction of which I am increasingly convinced is that from within fundamentalism the best that we can hope to accomplish is to maintain the status quo. For those who sense that the status quo is such that it can only be tolerated in good conscience by improvement, there seems no option to work from within fundamentalism if we cannot improve but only maintain the status quo.

Here is how I understand the situation (I’d like to ask various people what they think, but I only thought of doing this today, and my contact with people who can take the pulse of the movement is probably too limited to be more than very general. I am assuming that I’m looking at a movement in disintegration, so I use a wide brush):

There is an increasing number of Philistines, those whose attitude is better suited to enjoying a constant activity and bustle, who are satisfied in a superficial and reflexive sort of thinking that amounts to little more than a pretense of thought. They are not interested in considering. They are more interested in furthering careers and reputations. They are stubborn about holding onto false ideas, being enamored. The rod is made for their backs. Many of these appear to have made their way online.

Then there are the Sensibles. I wonder if there are not a lot of these filling up the silences that the blogs do not reflect. I think there are, although these are also represented online. These view the Philistine customs with some skepticism. The Sensibles maintain the status quo, like ballast. They are likely to urge “balance” or “moderation” of a more meaningful sort (the “balance” of the Philistines, I think it is safe to assume, is more self-serving). They preach sensible if prosaic sermons. They have a care but also a dullness. What I wonder is if the dullness has the greater effect of ballast or the care does. The Sensibles are concerned with orthos doxa and have sound theology, but they know not very much about orthos pathos, having shadowy and unclear notions about it. Here, in the orthos pathos, when they speak of “balance” they mean it in the most timid way, for they are groping. They are more keen on orthos doxa and I think from this they maintain a sort of orthos praxis which results in the status quo. I think they need to realize their tediousness. You cannot simply argue with them to show that the mind does not itself chose. You cannot simply use reasons with them without joining their side. You have to expose (and I can’t see how it would fail to be painful) the inadequacy, the pedestrian smallness and meager heartedness, the wonderlessness that is there. I think that any commendable affective elements that remain in the status quo are the result of a sort of inertia. Or these elements are like a building which prudent forebears built well, and which is being neglected and no longer kept up but retains some virtue in the soundness the careful work of wisdom. How many of the Sensibles are really skillful at reaching minds and hearts?

The third category is the almost empty category. Who can reason from the Scripture with winsome persuasion, showing beauty, truth and goodness in their glory so that you desire it like nothing else? I think we are more inclined to measure sermons for how much we think they give us rather than for how much they show us that we do not have. We measure facts and not desire. We need more strong desire. The trouble is that to love something keenly is also to hate its destruction all the more deeply. This is why there cannot appear, for some, any middle ground. I believe the clearest thinking can only come from the greatest loving first. That clear thinking coupled with a deep hating must be obnoxious to the Philistines, and has the effect of making the Sensibles grieve. The Sensibles do not see why reasons alone are inadequate, they deplore the hatred. The Philistines merely react to a threat.

Our prayer must be, “Lord, order in me my loves, for I love thee too little.”And as we desire it, we will not only seek those things that stir up in us love and ready zeal, we will also put away from us those things that discourage love and ready zeal; we will put away those things that encourage and feed spiritual lethargy. Entertainment must give place to worship. The orthos doxa must result from an orthos pathos. The greatest command is not to think, but to love, not to think with all our heart, but to love with all our minds. Our reins are our desires, and they must be in the hands of the Lord.

One thing I have learned from being involved in a research project for more than four months is that there is nothing like writing down your ideas and impressions about what you are reading at the time. I usually take verbatim notes so I can go back and get what I want, and I am happy with that. I also take some notes by paraphrasing and summarizing sections that will require a close reading and are the primary of the primary sources or very important secondary sources whose argument requires special attention. And these kinds of notes are very helpful for filling things in a long time after the material has been written.

But what is especially helpful to me are the sections that I wrote at the time I was full of the reading. I wrote sections on the Scopes trial when I was enjoying the transcript last winter. I have been revisiting the stuff I wrote on Machen back in November or December and I do not think I would be able to come up with anything like this at present. Now when I get an idea for the conclusion I write it out and stick it in there even though I’ve not really started on that.

I started this project not really knowing how to go about it. I think it was assumed that I knew what I would do, but I didn’t really know how to proceed. It took me months just to figure out what was expected on the formal proposal. Now I have a much better idea. I still don’t like the notion of planning it all out ahead of time. I would rather get something I’m interested in and then follow it onto the next thing, and the next, till the minimum page limit was reached. Perhaps that isn’t scholarly, but another thing I’ve learned is that I don’t really care for scholarship too much. John Lukacs has set me free of that!