Blessed Theophylact on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Galatians 3:13 states: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13).

Commenting on this verse, Blessed Theophylact states:

One might argue: “It is true that he who does not fulfill the law is accursed, and that faith justifies. But how do we know that the curse has been lifted? We fear that having once been under the yoke of the law, we still remain under that curse.” Anticipating such an objection, Paul demonstrates that the curse has been removed through Christ. He paid the price by Himself becoming the curse and thereby redeeming us from the condemnation of the law. Christ (in His human nature) escaped that curse by fulfilling the law, but we, unable to fulfill it, were guilty under the law. This is like an innocent man who chooses to die in place of a guilty man condemned to death. Therefore, Christ accepted the curse of being hung from a tree and thereby loosed the curse to which we are liable for not fulfilling the law. This was a curse that lay upon us, but not upon Him, because He fulfilled the law perfectly, committing no sin.

This comment by Blessed Theophylact echoes that of St. John Chrysostom, who centuries earlier stated of this verse:

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law” (Deuteronomy 27:26). To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22). And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

These two comments both agree in the principle of substitution, where the innocent takes the place of the guilty, dying in his place. In the place of the guilty, Christ received a curse in order to die in his place. Christ received the punishment of the curse in the place of the cursed, and so both of these comments agree on the principle of penalty. In this penal substitution both commentators also agree on the principle of atonement, that Christ paid the price of sin, delivering and redeeming sinful man from the law he was guilty of breaking, having Himself fulfilled the law perfectly. Therefore, both commentators agree to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Deal-Breaker: Voting Christian in a Democratic Constitutional Republic

In approaching the intersection between Orthodoxy and voting, it is vital to distinguish between a political personality and a political platform. In a Republic we do not vote for a personality as much as we vote for a platform. To get lost in personality in regards to political advocacy is a cul de sac.

That being said, if a platform explicitly and directly advocates sin, such as the sin of legalized and even federally funded abortion, then to vote in favor of that platform is to endorse and even participate in that sin, and therefore to be guilty of it. This kind of situation is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. A Christian cannot guiltlessly vote for a platform whose substance includes the explicit advocacy of sin.

The foregoing is different from a situation in which a platform does not advocate some sin, but where some sin may seek to attach itself as a consequence of that platform's position. For the sin which may be consequent to that platform is not necessary to the platform itself. Although the sin may be a result of that platform at the moment, it can be corrected because it is not necessary to the platform itself.

If the position of abortion is a direct platform position of some Party, then it is a deal-breaker for an Orthodox Christian. That does not necessitate a vote for any other Party if that Party also has a Platform for direct advocacy of sin, but it does at minimum remove that other Party with a Platform sin from legitimate consideration for an Orthodox Christian.

At this point a confusion may arise, for it could be the case that, say, the Liberal Party has a better policy than the Conservative Party on some important issue, such as access to medical care. Let's say hypothetically this is the case. Now, the Conservative Party does not have a platform position which programmatically denies healthcare to anyone, but perhaps makes it difficult for some people to receive healthcare as an amenable consequence of their position. In other words, the Conservative Platform does not aim to legalize medical discrimination, even if it could happen that medical discrimination might occur as a result of their policy. If in fact this discrimination was the result, then it would be perfectly consistent with their Platform to also try to solve that or any problem created by their policies.

On the other hand, the Liberal Party has a direct aim to legalize the slaying of unborn children. Therefore, abortion is not an accident, not an unintended consequence of their policy, but a directly intended outcome. Thus, even though they may hypothetically have a better position re: access to medical care, their direct advocacy of abortion makes one voting for them for the sake of medical care yet complicit in every abortion that results from their larger platform.

It therefore does not matter if they have a better policy as regards health care. Infanticide is a sin, whereas voting for imperfect healthcare policies that can be amended through further development is not a sin because one is not voting for the unintended consequences of that policy. One can only be held responsible for what the platform directly and explicitly advocates. Although one is not thereby compelled to vote Conservative because of that fact, it would seem that since no Conservative policy directly advocates for medical discrimination, then voting Conservatively in this instance would not be the advocacy of any sin. Voting for the Liberal Party and its abortionistic Liberal Platform, however, certainly leaves the blood of dead infants on one's hands.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Novel Commandment? Coronavirus, Masks, and Access to Christ

“Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers” (Isaiah 58:3).

No one can add to the Creed. No one can invent novel commandments. A Christian’s right standing with and within the Church is established on the right confession of the Faith, consistent attendance at Services, and regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. The truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and handed down in the Church is the established norm for Christian life. This is summed up in the Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, and is binding upon the conscience of the Christian. No one has any right to add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). In this light it is worthwhile therefore to heed St. Jude’s admonition to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Across the planet, our local parishes debate over issues of policy and policy-implementation. Regional bishops, local priests, and parish councils all struggle with a cacophony of concerns, and so they wrestle in their various overlapping spheres with unsettling questions concerning what is safe, what is necessary, what is wise, what is scientific, what is sanitary, what is loving, what is risk, what is authoritative, what is legal, what is essential, and so many other questions. And so bishops, priests, and laity, all seek to do what appears right in their eyes. The result? Chaos. For “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). And even this smattering of considerations only scratches the surface, and so the saying becomes true of many of us, that “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). One thing, however, which seems fundamental to the foregoing considerations, and goes beyond distinguishing between such things as churches and schools, churches and seminaries, churches and businesses, is the simple question: What is sin?

Citing the New Testament teaching found in 1 John 3:4, St. Philaret of Moscow in his Longer Catechism (Question 156) answers the question, "What is sin?" stating: "Sin is the transgression of the law."

What is the Law? In Question 65 of the same Catechism, St. Philaret states that the doctrine of charity is "In the Ten Commandments of the Law of God." Question 485 states that the means we have to know good works from bad are: "The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments." Questions 489-491 state in sum that the Ten Commandments are the chief and general commandments, and that they are binding upon all Christians.

Significantly, Question 572 asks of the extent of obedience to those in authority: "How ought we to act, if it fall out that our parents or governors require of us any thing contrary to the faith or to the law of God?" Himself quoting Acts 4:19 (and hearkening more generally to that section of verses 1-31), St. Philaret's answer is plain:

In that case we should say to them, as the Apostles said to the rulers of the Jews: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; and we should be ready, for the sake of the faith and the law of God, to endure the consequences, whatever they may be.

That being the case, it is clear that the law of God as summarily contained in the Ten Commandments, being moreover the essence of the Biblical notion of love, is explicit, established, and inviolable. Furthermore, the conscience of man, evidencing the inward law of God written on the heart of man by God (Question 486), acts inwardly as a judge to either accuse or else excuse him and so cannot be bound by that which is not of God. Of course, fallen man being subjected to ignorance, delusion, and passion, his conscience is not infallible and therefore must be conformed to God's law, in this case the explicit law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments, they being reinforced in their binding authority. In sum, the law of God understood in its objective outward and conformably inward senses cannot be superseded or suppressed by any law of man, the Apostles even refusing to cease preaching Christ but suffering rather to be jailed - as simultaneously a civil and a religious matter - than to cease publicly proclaiming Christ.

Having answered the question as to what is authoritative in the life of a Christian, it is essential to point out the divine Law's finality as an authority regarding the duty of man. For example, the Preacher declares, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And not only is such obedience to the commandments the whole duty of man, God's holy law is also irreformable, as He even commands:

“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

And again:

“You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it!” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

In other words, it is not possible to invent new commandments. Nor can new sins be invented. Only by a necessary consequence can novel circumstances cause the unchanging principles of God's commandments to be applied to novel circumstances.

With that in mind, it is worth asking: Is mask-wearing a new holy law? Or put another way, is not wearing a mask a novel sin? Can a Christian's conscience be bound therefore to mask-wearing? This is not a petty question, for some would appear to be attempting to erect a novel commandment, and bind men's consciences to something that is not found in God's commandments. Since sin means to transgress God's law, and sin alienates man from God, then identifying sin as sin is no trivial matter. For excommunication can only occur in reference to the transgression of God's law and to unrepented sin. One cannot be excommunicated for not sinning, but for sinning. As it currently stands, many are essentially adding to God's commandments, even adding to the Creed that must be confessed in order to be a Christian in right standing with God and consequently in the Church. As it stands, the path to the Chalice has a new obstacle: Masks. 

Now, there is no authority in man or council to add to or subtract from God's law, the Creed, or from God's holy Word. We must be humble beneath them. The very Gospel book is placed on the head of the bishop as he is consecrated, proclaiming that his identity and his authority are under the Word of God, submitted to it utterly. In this way the Church proclaims that the essence and content of authority in the Church, the nature of a bishop's very overseeing, is naught but an expression of someone else’s will, namely the Lord Jesus Christ's as taught in His holy Word and preserved by His Bride, the Church. (It is worth noting that in principle the canons of the Orthodox Church are expressions, extrapolations, and/or articulations of Biblical teaching, not parallel additions to the deposit of faith, not a parallel authority. See Questions 17, 23, and 24 of St. Philaret's Longer Catechism) Therefore neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor parish council can add to or subtract from what is received in Scripture and Tradition. God's commandments must remain inviolate, for “the sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

With that in mind, it is not possible rightly to bind the conscience of a Christian by adding additional criteria through which he must qualify himself so as to approach the Chalice. Not wearing a mask cannot be turned into something that must be confessed as if it were a sin, which is to say contrary to the faith. No one has the power to make not wearing a mask such a sin, and therefore the mask cannot be turned into a confessional item upon which failure to confess (i.e. failure to wear) renders one barred from access to Christ in the Chalice. It is a simple point, but incontrovertible.

Therefore, it is impossible in principle to bind the conscience of a Christian such that he must wear a mask in order to be inside the Church and thus the local parish in a right-believing manner. It is evil to functionally excommunicate a right-believing Christian for not doing something that is not a sin, that is not of the essence of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." As Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In other words, we cannot add hindrances to a faithful Christian’s approach to the Chalice for the sake of a novel commandment of men.

As Christ warns:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

As He further explains:

He called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10-11)

This teaching of Christ was expressly directed at condemning arbitrary, man-made purity laws. It is also worth considering that this revelation was in relation to questions of hand-washing, which is also today considered a matter of basic hygiene and etiquette:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:2-3, 6)

As helpful - and even necessary - as it may be to wash one’s hands (or, for that matter, wear a mask), teaching it as a commandment such that one’s conscience is bound, and one’s access to God hindered, makes void the word of God and so is flatly rejected by Christ. As God in the flesh, Jesus knew perfectly well that washing one’s hands helped reduce disease, and yet He still persisted in rejecting it as a condition of right standing with God. And this principle is inviolable. We cannot add criteria which places an obstacle between Christ and His faithful children. This means that masks cannot be rendered a necessary condition for being considered a faithful Christian, and being faithful is the only true and binding condition by which a person may rightly stand in the Church. The faithful cannot be excluded from access to God for not abiding by the “commandments of men.”

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

By excluding the faithful from access to God by attempting to force the faithful to wear masks in order to enter and attend the sacred Assembly, we invent novel conditions by which Christians must abide. This is contrary to faith, for we cannot add to the deposit of faith. We cannot write new sins on the books, establish new commandments, bind consciences, and practically excommunicate the otherwise faithful according to the fluctuating mind of fallen man’s insights and policies, no matter how helpful those insights and policies might be, for only "the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

The Hard Middle: A Way Out of Intractable Conflict

What everyone knows is that the conflicts surrounding our current understanding of COVID are legion. Generally speaking, it has become clear that there are two sides, two methods for dealing with it. Each side, naturally, has more or less extreme versions within their camp, but by and large there are two sides, and these two sides each think the path of victory is through seeing the championing of their particular viewpoint.

But as a phenomenon of political conflict, what can be gleaned from observing these two sides? In other words, What can be observed of the two sides - while not at the same time entering into agreement or disagreement with either? Can this approach afford any helpful insight? I would say so, and I would like to take the next few paragraphs to explain why I think this is the case.

Phenomenologically, what can be observed is that there are two sides, two sides reflecting on and commenting on the nature of a disease. Thus, we are immediately confronted with the significant but simple fact that both sides are centered on the same problem. That fact is both a help and a complication. It is a help because it means the argument is shared, but it is a complication in that the problem can’t be removed by simply clarifying that both parties are talking about a different subject.

Now, in addressing the problem presented by this disease, both sides see hosts of consequences that are extremely critical. Here, however, is where the complication may in fact become helpful, which will be made clearer below. Both sides are submitting empirical arguments for their respective cases. Empirical arguments and hypotheses suggest a realm of fact, which ought to take the debate out of the realm of personal opinion, but here is where a certain temptation arises.

The temptation for each side is natural enough: to win their argument by making the better, stronger case. If one can resist this temptation long enough to observe the fact that both sides are citing the same types of sources, such as doctors, scientists, medical studies, and scientific research, then one will observe that this is not a settled scientific or medical argument, a situation unlike the debate of whether the earth is round or flat. This is significant because it indicates that both sides are seeking to be responsible and relevant, respect the same kinds of sources, methods, etc. Neither is arguing their case by referring to irrelevant or outdated sources.

This is the complication that ends up being helpful, because its very intractability will end up meaning that neither side ought to be legislated at the political level. Politicians are neither doctors nor scientists, and to side with one group at the expense of the other points to an arbitrary use of power and therefore an inherent injustice. Legislating unconfirmed science is to use the power of the state to force an unconfirmed conclusion, a political act which could very well cause far more harm to the cause of discovering the actual solution through peaceful and multi-faceted debate and research. 

It is a mistake to use the political sphere to decide matters of science, or force into public practice unverified conclusions and hypotheses. The strength of both sides thus indicates that the question cannot as of yet be settled. Like pulling rocks out of a rock slide that traps people underneath, the idea of “just doing something” is obviously folly, for to pull the wrong rocks risks the greater harm to those trapped underneath. In other words, to side arbitrarily in such a medically controversial case risks the possibility of magnifying the problem beyond all proportion, even if non-action would also cause (unconfirmed) problems.

The outcome of this present dilemma therefore means that the complicated and empirically oriented medical and scientific arguments are pushed into the arena of individual persuasion, which is to say personal belief, even if that personal belief is backed by expertise and (admittedly incomplete and controversial) medical research. Too many experts disagree in diametrically opposed ways. People are confusing belief about a medical situation with political legislation and policy advocacy. Involving the machine of politics means that what is fundamentally a matter of scientific and medical inquiry becomes a matter of political force.

Both sides have abundant support for their positions; both sides see their positions as preventing doomsday scenarios; both sides are trying to act out of compassion; both sides are trying to avert injustice. This fact being observed indicates that the only viable political action is to remain politically neutral until there is greater medical and scientific consensus. Legislating the belief of the experts on only one side of an issue necessarily creates havoc, for politicizing science and medicine in this way creates political ramifications unrelated to the science and medicine, even obstructing their progress.

This is the hard middle. It is not a via media, but an attentive neutrality, which is to say it responds to the controversy by stating there is not yet enough agreement in order to move to either side. Here one must remain firmly in the middle, refusing the temptation to seek to legislate a one-sided inclination.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Black Lives Matter. Why, Then, Does That Phrase Harm Black People?

The phrase, “black lives matter,” is true. It is absolutely true that black lives matter. There can be no doubt that black lives matter. To deny that black lives matter is an absurdity, and the vast majority of people recognize this and affirm it. 

What, then, is the problem with the phrase that “black lives matter” when it is used as a quasi-mandatory public confession, a slogan, or a test of allegiance to the fact that black lives matter? 

The problem with the phrase is that it reinforces the problem it seeks to alleviate. In converting into a confession, slogan, or mark of allegiance the truth that black lives matter, one re-segregates and therefore reinforces the problem which harms people of color. How does it do this?

Everytime people convert the truth that black lives matter into a slogan, the problem of racism is reinforced. This is why many people reject this slogan, not because they reject black people, or because they subtly think black lives don’t matter, but because they intuit that the problem of racism is being reinforced by the phrase. To reject racism and segregation is to see through the lie, the falsehood that distinction based on the color of skin has any place in responsible public discourse. 

Peace and unity cannot be established on the affirmation of the very categories that create racism in the first place. 

If segregation based on skin color is wrong, then alignment based on skin color is equally wrong. This fact is the elephant in the room. Many people are raised on the idea of some sort of color-based identity, and therefore their very sense of self is erroneously attached to the color of their skin. The solution is not then to erect some sort of color-based solidarity, but to align with people who understand the truth that skin-color is not a valid category for any kind of intentional or non-accidental social grouping. 

The problem of violence against people who have dark skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black problem” or a “white problem.” It is everyone’s problem equally. The problem of color division at the conceptual level is that it is a false construct that produces both alignment and therefore division based on skin color, which necessarily produces division at the cultural and political level. The solution is therefore to systematically teach and train people not to see past color, but to see that color literally has zero place in any kind of meaningful distinction-making between human beings. 

Black lives matter. But on what basis? Their blackness? No. People do not matter because of the color of their skin. People matter because they are created in God’s image and likeness. At no point does God divide or unite people on the basis of the color of their skin. To seek to divide or align people based on skin color is therefore to oppose God, to oppose His truth and His love. To divide or align people based on skin color is to introduce a foreign and alien principle into one’s thoughts about humanity. The idea of color-based race is a tool of the Devil.

Black human lives matter not because they are black, but because they are human lives. The belief that there are different color-based races of people is unbiblical and not consistent with Christian teaching. The bible speaks of cultural groups and ethnic diversity, but not in terms of race. The idea of color-based race is therefore a false construct, and is itself the essence of racism. Racism is therefore literally delusional. To hold to the belief that there are different "kinds" of men based on skin color is itself the true and underlying racism. If people hate or love each other under the false idea that there is such a thing as a race, that is racism.

God divided men into tribes and nations, and so there are different cultural groups and therefore ethnic diversity, but this is a far cry from the reductive notion that there is a kind of man called "black man" and a kind of man called "white man." There are Irish, Scottish, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Persian, Hatian, Dominican, Ethiopian, Nigerian, Russian, Polish, etc., but there are no skin-color based "races." God made ethnic diversity through division of languages which produced accidental divisions of heredity and customs, but the idea of dividing man in absolutist categories based on skin color is not Biblical and not made by God. There is no such thing as a "black man" or a “black culture” or a "white man" or a “white culture.” To believe there are these things is itself the problem because it is rooted in illegitimate social constructs and not in God. There are men with darker or lighter skin who come from this or that place and have this or that custom, but there is no "kind" of man or culture that is some color.

A truer refutation of racism, the idea of finding justice for a black or white person therefore makes no sense because there is no such thing as a “black person” or a “white person.” There are only people, human beings equally created in God’s image who through the accidents of history just happened to pick up some color diversity in their skin tones, diversities which do not equate to different “kinds” of human beings. Problems that effect people with darker colors of skin is therefore a human problem, not a “black person” problem, it is everyone’s problem; it is our problem and not their problem, and is not solved by affirming the value of blackness, but by executing justice in reference to universal human nature. 

This is why many people of good conscience reject the phrase, “black lives matter,” not because of a reduction of the value of this or that person’s life, just not establishing it in reference to the presence or absence of this or that color. And they are correct to do so. Justice is either blind or it is not justice. Black lives matter, but the blackness is accidental and so does not matter. 

The lie and crime of people with lighter skin against people with darker skin was to convince each other that their lighter or darker skin mattered, and then to erect criminal and inhumane social constructs and brutal mistreatment on this basis. But, like a Trojan Horse, associating “mattering” with skin color is a travesty for it smuggles in the Godless lie. Sadly, this lie that skin color has intrinsic meaning is still being spread, and this is why the phrase "black lives matter" harms black people.

In conclusion, to attempt to erect a slogan, public confession, or affirmation of solidarity on the basis of the accidental features of a human person, whether their height, weight, sex, eye, hair, or skin color, wealth or poverty, place of origin, or any of these kinds of things is to reject and exclude the possibility of justice and to ensure that racism will never end, harming the very people it is attempting to affirm. Due to the constant reinforcement of sensual paradigms and cultural ignorance, however, the ideation of color-based race is a difficult lie to see through, and it takes courage and integrity to see through it. But it must be done for the sake of truth and love, for diversity of color does not equate to diversity of kinds of people.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping.

Revisioning Parenting: A Brief Manifesto

As a parent of three young children, I reflect a lot on what it means to parent. I know for sure that I am not the best parent, and I make tons of mistakes. What I am about to write, then, is not meant as criticism to any parent, but for me to express what insights have been dawning on me, and to put them together in a way that is hopefully helpful for other parents in their own reflections on what it means to parent well.

The typical American parent seems to involve their child or children in some activity, like sports, gymnastics, ballet, music, or something else along these lines. When asked the reason for this, the answer is not typically that they want their children to be professional athletes, gymnasts, ballet dancers, or musicians, but that these activities provide opportunities for self-awareness, learning to play with a team, have more appreciation for some facet of life, or some kind of other enrichment.

The problem with this is the almost totally indirect nature of these aims. The following will attempt to show how this indirect aim can and often does create some real, long term negative impact. One example, however, may suffice to demonstrate what I mean. For example, a parent sends their child to baseball, not with the intention that they become professional baseball players, but so that they can learn some hand-eye coordination, learn how to play with a team, develop focus, have fun, etc. Notice: the baseball itself is incidental, for basketball could serve the same overall practical purpose. 

Now, what is the scope of this activity? The child who plays baseball, let's say they play from eight years old to eighteen, will play and practice on average about five hours per week, often far more. Many sports go year round, and certainly gymnastics, ballet, and music lessons can, and so let’s say they average about forty weeks a year of five hours per week. That amounts to two hundred hours per year. That’s two hundred hours per year of the indirect accomplishment of the intended goal, and two thousand hours over the course of ten years.

We are now in a position to flesh the example out more. When a child goes to baseball practice and to games, the coaches largely spend their time in baseball-specific skill training, such as fielding ground balls, catching pop-ups, throwing to first base, to second base, making double plays, pitching, catching, batting, and so on. During and after practice and games they assess, and constantly assess, their performance of these skills. They don’t spend specific attention on team building, trust, effective communication, concentration, etc. These are ancillary to the principle focus which, naturally, is winning baseball games. What is more, these ancillary skills, the actual goals of sending the child to baseball, are only developed marginally and to the degree required for the production of baseball-specific skills. 

The foregoing is an incredibly time-intensive and therefore inefficient way to learn an intended skill or gain some appreciation, especially when the desired skill is not the focus of the activity. Moreover, the desired skill, let’s hone in on team building, is often sidelined and left out of focus. The team building is simply an accidental by-product of doing coordinated tasks, like throwing a ball from first base to third base, but certainly that does not teach all that needs to be known and practiced for effective teamwork. The same goes for ballet, gymnastics, and music, which in some cases may require little to no teamwork at all, or much, as in the case of playing music in an orchestra. But even here in an orchestra, the overwhelming majority of the time is spent on developing a specific skill set related to the particular task, the performance of some piece of music. How much of that kind of participation in an orchestra is required to learn team building?

If, alternatively, a company wanted to teach team building among their staff, they would hire someone to come in and directly teach team building. They would not bring in a baseball coach to teach baseball with the hope that team building would emerge as a byproduct. They would not bring in a music teacher with fifteen different instruments who would then teach them these instruments over the course of years in order to derive team building lessons along the way to the performing of some piece of orchestral music. They would teach far more directly, using tasks that are subordinated to the actual purpose for which they are there: team building. 

The same goes for physical skill building. Baseball does not teach a person how to use their body in a comprehensive way. They are not learning anatomy and physiology, they are not working through the entire range of motion of their muscles, learning how to balance strength and flexibility, except maybe for a few minutes prior to skill practice or games. The exercise they receive for two thousand hours over the course of ten years is subordinated to the specific task of baseball, to continue with that example, and so again the goal of exercise is not met in an effective way. Gymnastics may be so thorough, but how many hours on a balance beam are required to accomplish the actual parental goal? A general athletics course that balances theory and practice would accomplish that goal far more effectively.

Moving on, one of the goals of parenting is not simply to grow large children, but to foster effective habits and skills in young adults for the sake of effective and skillful living. I am afraid we are training our children for two hundred hours a year in activities that give the preponderance of their focus to arbitrary and useless skills, which is to say a skill that is not immediately useful to their life or others. This is why children’s activities can be so exhausting for a parent, because they intuit the fact that an enormous amount of energy is being expended for their children to learn a baseball, ballet, gymnastics, or piano skill that they will not use, for the inefficient delivery of the goal they are intending, such as healthy bodies, balance, gracefulness of motion, or appreciation of music.

What is the solution? Well, instead of spending countless hours perfecting them in skills that will not help them, teach or have taught to them skills that will. Not everyone needs a baseball player, but everyone needs a carpenter. Not everyone needs a ballerina, but everyone needs a plumber. Not everyone needs a gymnast, but everyone needs a mechanic. Not everyone needs a piano player, but everyone needs an electrician, a farmer, and a person who can make or repair clothes. If, over the course of ten years and two thousand hours, children were taught some or even all of these skills, with the same level of dedication as given to sports and entertainment-industry skills, if they were taught how to work together to build, repair, and make things work, then after ten years a young adult could repair almost anything, build almost anything, save enormous amounts of money, and have a tremendous and practical set of skills that would give them authentic confidence to survive in the real world. 

Instead of getting a trophy, putting on a performance, or playing in a concert, a graduation project could be the supervised building of a house for a homeless family. In other words, instead of giving children over to activities that produce a useless set of specific skills, teach them how to be skillful and effective with personally and communally needed and helpful things. Let them learn teamwork there; let them gain confidence there; let them get exercise there. I am afraid we are subtly teaching our children to be useless and helpless, to place all their eggs in the college basket and there to receive an education that still leaves them utterly dependent on the narrow demands of their field.

In conclusion, I don’t think what I said above is original, but it is a growing awareness that really needs to be spread. As everyone acknowledges, children are our future, and so instead of grooming them to be athletes and entertainers, rather groom them to be helpful, to build, to repair, and to survive. It’s time we revision parenting.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Love Casts Out Fear: Discerning Between True and False Compassion

Compassion-language is often used to conceal fear, ignorance, and manipulation. The deceptive use of compassion-language to coerce and control persons and populations, whether among families, friends, colleagues, citizens, or nations, is pervasive and must be guarded against. The motive is not always strictly nefarious, but it is nonetheless harmful. What follows are a few ways in which one can discern whether or not compassion-language is being used falsely to conceal some manipulative agenda.

One way to discern if compassion-language is being used in a manipulative way is by the use of passive-aggressive rhetorical questions that function as “traps.” These questions, really statements, can take the form: “You wouldn't want so-and-so to die, would you?” or “You’d hate for x or y bad event to occur, right?” or, more bluntly, “If you love your neighbor, then of course that means you will agree with me to do z.” These are false dilemmas that essentially function to posture as if disagreeing with that person means you either want or don’t care that so-and-so dies, or that some bad event occurs, or that you don’t really love your neighbor. To care is to agree, and yet these black-and-white scenarios are inherently manipulative because they immediately shut down differing assessments, perspectives, and concerns from being seriously considered. Since no one wants to be accused of being loveless and cruel, such a false use of compassion-language is a way to acquire or use power to “enemize” all non-conformance and bully submission, to pressure and garner support. And yet posing the entire time as compassion, love, and sympathetic concern for others, it is not but a passive aggressive way to militate certain behaviors and attitudes. It is axiomatic that love does not manipulate or coerce through the dishonest use of language, and so despite its seeming appearance of love, such pseudo-compassion rhetoric is not of love. It is thus shown to be dishonest and hypocritical play-acting because, concealing fear and/or anger and promoting manipulation under the guise of care, the means falsify the end and expose the reality of the ulterior manipulative motive. In short, it’s not love, it’s control.

A second way to tell if compassion-language is being used manipulatively is if questioning, doubting, or challenging their purportedly compassionate view does not produce a compassionate response, but rather produces anger and/or censure from the user of the compassion-language: e.g. "How dare you?!" In other words, if questioning them makes them dismissively angry or obstinately haughty, then the compassion-language is only skin deep and maintained for the sake of appearance and manipulation. In short, this compassion-language conceals a fist. Emotionally threatening people with anger and insult in the name of compassion must be treated with suspicion. If someone is, on the one hand, talking about love and sympathy, and on the other hand grows irate and hurls insult at those who disagree with their view, then this shows that the compassion-language is veiling some controlling passions. This does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is wrong, of course, but methodologically they insinuate compassion while only anger is exposed at any resistance, where to disagree is to provoke them to wrath, ridicule, impatience, irritation, haughtiness, etc. Now, it is one thing to believe something intently, even to get excited about a belief held zealously, but if a person cannot maintain a space to be questioned and disagreed with without anger being aroused, then underneath their specific use of compassion-language is not simply compassion but a desire to control, for the anger comes from the personal desire to control being resisted, and fear that the goal will not be met. In this way it is possible to hold a noble idea ignobly, and by fusing the nobility of the idea with its ignoble handling, the noble idea is being held captive by the passions. Thus, it can be concluded that if their persuasive appeal to/from compassion is excessively fragile due to its being confused with the passions, then their attempt at using compassion-language is veiling a manipulative or controlling spirit. It’s not only about being correct, but being true, and not merely right but righteous.

A third way to discern if compassion-language is being used manipulatively is if there is an unwillingness to reason about the subject at hand, or if all attempts at reasoning are met with condescension. People who try to “reason” with people to “save lives” while at the same time refusing to honestly engage with differing viewpoints, are using reason to manipulate. They will assemble facts, figures, graphs, charts, statistics, history, and any possible intellectual weapon to persuade you while all the while remaining firmly aloof to the consideration of any substantial counterargument - and yet try to make you agree and conform to their conclusion. What is more unfortunate is that they will end up using shame to manipulate people to agree with them. They will treat their conclusion as if it were as obvious as water is wet. Without compassionately explaining their position, they will ridicule or represent negatively the intelligence, motive, and/or education of those who oppose their view. The “bigger” picture is decidedly their perspective, and therefore the claim that there may be a different or unacknowledged big picture, or perhaps an even bigger picture, will be met with firm scorn. All the while there will be a refusal to listen, a refusal to expose their reasoning to examination, and all the while a use of compassion language to represent their conclusion. This is manipulative and anti-compassionate, for compassion must be used compassionately, and reason as a tool of compassion, not a bludgeon, not an instrument of intimidation, and not the expression of a hardened heart. In this and the foregoing example, it might be noted, it is not possible to tell whether the idea is being created by the passions, for it is possible to hold a correct position for incorrect reasons, or if the idea is simply being choked by the passions, for it is also possible to hold a correct idea and yet carry it impurely.

In conclusion, it is clear that not all uses of compassion-language are actually expressing compassion. Although more examples could likely be given, hopefully what has been shared above will alert people to at least some of the ways in which compassion language is often used to emotionally manipulate people and strongarm conformity to pre-given conclusions or agreement to pre-given courses of action. As has been shown, a unifying symptom revealing manipulation is that there is almost always a suppression of thought or serious consideration of themes that upset the balance of the preset conclusion(s). Not compassion, agreement and conformity are paramount to manipulation. This does not mean that the manipulator’s conclusion is necessarily wrong, logically, but that the manipulator’s use of compassion-language is hypocritical and that its deceptive nature needs to be exposed and ended. Reason must hold sway over passion. The means cannot oppose the motive or the end, and so manipulation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by its deceptive use of compassion-language. Manipulation conceals fear, anger, judgment, or some other passion(s), and often ulterior motives also. Sometimes compassion-language is even used intentionally to deceive. In today’s often fearful climate there is an enormous amount of manipulation occurring that is precisely utilizing compassion-language as the vector for leveraging, applying, or implementing whatever conclusion or action is desired by the manipulator(s). Manipulation thus secures “agreement” without reflection, freedom, or wisdom, and so is by nature an unsustainable method. A compassionless compassion, to speak manipulatively in the name of compassion is even a great evil.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping