Francis Berger's Blog, page 46
July 23, 2023
The Kid Has a Good Eye
My son is spending a week with his grandmother at Lake Balaton, which is the go-to summer holiday spot here in Hungary. He's only been there a day, but he took the time to send me this photo he snapped yesterday evening. 
July 21, 2023
And the Rooster's Name Is . . .
A short while ago, I asked readers to the new young rooster that has become a part of my flock. I requested one tough-sounding name in case the fine fellow displayed machismo and one wimpy-sounding name should he not.
Although I received many excellent suggestions, I was obliged to grant the winning name to my neighbor’s four-year-old grandson, who came into my backyard to expressly inform me that the rooster already had a name – Richie.
I can't say no to a four-year-old when it comes to something like that. So there it is; Richie, the rooster.
Richie is a strange name because it is neither macho nor wimpy but something in-between. Oddly enough, it seems to fit the rooster quite well because his behavior has – thus far – also landed somewhere between macho and wimpy.
On the one hand, Richie is incredibly wimpy, as evidenced by how the nine older hens hammer away at him and chase him around the run and the backyard. Sometimes he gets knocked around the run like a pinball, with the hens acting like flippers and bumpers.
On the other hand, Richie also shows glimmers of real machismo as demonstrated by his refusal to allow the hens’ pecking to deter him from taking his desired place on the roost in the hen house at the end of the day and by his daring escapades, which have so far involved all sorts of creative fluttering up into tree branches and to the tops of fences despite his clipped wings.
On his second day, he flew atop the fence separating my yard from the neighbor’s, paused for a moment, gave me a knowing look, and then dropped back into my yard, almost as if to tell me that he could escape any damn time he wanted should he choose to do so.
The next day at sunset, he was nowhere to be found. Assuming Richie made good on his unspoken warning, I wrote the rooster off as gone and retired for the night.
I found him perched and hidden in a plum tree in the morning. He had spent the whole night in that tree, which is a brave but stupid thing to do considering all the wood martens that prowl around the village after dark.
All of that aside, one thing is for sure – with his erratic, unpredictable, and puzzling behavior, Richie qualifies as one cockamamie rooster (thank you, pun muses)!
For this reason, I have decided to give him a surname that blends macho and wimpy. That surname is Retardo. Naturally, I won’t mention the surname to my four-year-old neighbor. I’ll keep it strictly between me and the rooster.
So there you have it; the rooster is now officially Ritchie Retardo, which sounds very similar to the Ricky Ricardo character Dezi Arnez played on the I Love Lucy sitcom series.
Come to think of it, Ritchie Retardo has a lot in common with Ricky Ricardo. If he displays less goofiness in the near future, I may drop the pejorative surname and refer to him as Ritchie Ricardo, but he’ll have to earn that.
I guess he could start by giving me his rendition of Cuban Pete.
Although I received many excellent suggestions, I was obliged to grant the winning name to my neighbor’s four-year-old grandson, who came into my backyard to expressly inform me that the rooster already had a name – Richie.
I can't say no to a four-year-old when it comes to something like that. So there it is; Richie, the rooster.
Richie is a strange name because it is neither macho nor wimpy but something in-between. Oddly enough, it seems to fit the rooster quite well because his behavior has – thus far – also landed somewhere between macho and wimpy.
On the one hand, Richie is incredibly wimpy, as evidenced by how the nine older hens hammer away at him and chase him around the run and the backyard. Sometimes he gets knocked around the run like a pinball, with the hens acting like flippers and bumpers.
On the other hand, Richie also shows glimmers of real machismo as demonstrated by his refusal to allow the hens’ pecking to deter him from taking his desired place on the roost in the hen house at the end of the day and by his daring escapades, which have so far involved all sorts of creative fluttering up into tree branches and to the tops of fences despite his clipped wings.
On his second day, he flew atop the fence separating my yard from the neighbor’s, paused for a moment, gave me a knowing look, and then dropped back into my yard, almost as if to tell me that he could escape any damn time he wanted should he choose to do so.
The next day at sunset, he was nowhere to be found. Assuming Richie made good on his unspoken warning, I wrote the rooster off as gone and retired for the night.
I found him perched and hidden in a plum tree in the morning. He had spent the whole night in that tree, which is a brave but stupid thing to do considering all the wood martens that prowl around the village after dark.
All of that aside, one thing is for sure – with his erratic, unpredictable, and puzzling behavior, Richie qualifies as one cockamamie rooster (thank you, pun muses)!
For this reason, I have decided to give him a surname that blends macho and wimpy. That surname is Retardo. Naturally, I won’t mention the surname to my four-year-old neighbor. I’ll keep it strictly between me and the rooster.
So there you have it; the rooster is now officially Ritchie Retardo, which sounds very similar to the Ricky Ricardo character Dezi Arnez played on the I Love Lucy sitcom series.
Come to think of it, Ritchie Retardo has a lot in common with Ricky Ricardo. If he displays less goofiness in the near future, I may drop the pejorative surname and refer to him as Ritchie Ricardo, but he’ll have to earn that.
I guess he could start by giving me his rendition of Cuban Pete.
July 19, 2023
All I Know Is What I Gnosis
There is Gnosticism, and then there is gnosis.
The two are not the same.
The former is a declared heresy and is, for all intents and purposes, dead. The latter is a component of at least one orthodox Christian tradition, primarily Eastern Orthodoxy.
I find Gnosticism unappealing, yet I confess that gnosis enraptures me to the core. I am not Eastern Orthodox, and I’m sure that my definition of gnosis differs from Orthodox tradition and theology. All the same, there is some overlap.
The Orthodox Christian tradition describes gnosis as spiritual knowledge obtained via theosis. It is the knowledge only saints and mystics are likely to attain – the sort of knowledge that provides insights into the divine and the eternal rather than the mundane material or natural world.
I have sometimes seen gnosis described as mature or developed understanding based primarily on spiritual knowledge or – more precisely – on experiential and intuitive knowing. Put another way, gnosis does not emanate from books or doctrine but from living and discernment.
Gnosis is the knowledge of the mystic rather than the rational thinker. It comes not from external, supposedly authoritative sources but from inner thinking, experience, and contemplation.
Gnosis is the understanding that knowledge alone cannot lead to spiritual knowledge. To know spirit is to experience spirit. The Eastern Orthodox refer to this as noetic potential. There is nothing secret or hidden about the knowledge noetic potential can access.
Again, I am not Eastern Orthodox, but I admire the tradition’s inclusion of gnosis in its theology. However, I don’t believe it emphasizes gnosis enough. More to the point, I think gnosis has become a “first and necessary thing.”
Christians can rebuke Gnostics all they want, but they would do well not to aim their chastisements at gnosis or declare gnosis a sign of spiritual pride.
To know Christ is to experience Christ.
Spiritually. Personally. Directly.
All other knowledge is merely knowledge.
The two are not the same.
The former is a declared heresy and is, for all intents and purposes, dead. The latter is a component of at least one orthodox Christian tradition, primarily Eastern Orthodoxy.
I find Gnosticism unappealing, yet I confess that gnosis enraptures me to the core. I am not Eastern Orthodox, and I’m sure that my definition of gnosis differs from Orthodox tradition and theology. All the same, there is some overlap.
The Orthodox Christian tradition describes gnosis as spiritual knowledge obtained via theosis. It is the knowledge only saints and mystics are likely to attain – the sort of knowledge that provides insights into the divine and the eternal rather than the mundane material or natural world.
I have sometimes seen gnosis described as mature or developed understanding based primarily on spiritual knowledge or – more precisely – on experiential and intuitive knowing. Put another way, gnosis does not emanate from books or doctrine but from living and discernment.
Gnosis is the knowledge of the mystic rather than the rational thinker. It comes not from external, supposedly authoritative sources but from inner thinking, experience, and contemplation.
Gnosis is the understanding that knowledge alone cannot lead to spiritual knowledge. To know spirit is to experience spirit. The Eastern Orthodox refer to this as noetic potential. There is nothing secret or hidden about the knowledge noetic potential can access.
Again, I am not Eastern Orthodox, but I admire the tradition’s inclusion of gnosis in its theology. However, I don’t believe it emphasizes gnosis enough. More to the point, I think gnosis has become a “first and necessary thing.”
Christians can rebuke Gnostics all they want, but they would do well not to aim their chastisements at gnosis or declare gnosis a sign of spiritual pride.
To know Christ is to experience Christ.
Spiritually. Personally. Directly.
All other knowledge is merely knowledge.
July 17, 2023
Bruce Charlton's Most Important Post This Year
If you have not already so, I encourage you to read Bruce Charlton's post from today concerning negative versus positive Christians.
Though the year is only a little more than half done, I sense that this will likely be Dr. Charlton's most important post of 2023.
Read it carefully. Then, when you're done, go back to the beginning and read it again. Slowly and even more thoroughly.
Some key highlights: Though vital, discerning evil is insufficient to make an individual a good Christian. The Omni-God concept that dominates Christianity is unraveling because it does not offer individuals a meaningful, comprehensible, or postive framework for good. Omni-God Christianity has no essential role for Jesus.Good cannot come from evil. Good comes from good. Christians need to be led by Jesus, not the abstract, absolute, incomprehensible Omni-God.Omni-God (negative) Christianity worked in the past because man's awareness of God, himself, others, and the world was different, but it is no longer feasible because man's consciousness has changed (developed).
Though the year is only a little more than half done, I sense that this will likely be Dr. Charlton's most important post of 2023.
Read it carefully. Then, when you're done, go back to the beginning and read it again. Slowly and even more thoroughly.
Some key highlights: Though vital, discerning evil is insufficient to make an individual a good Christian. The Omni-God concept that dominates Christianity is unraveling because it does not offer individuals a meaningful, comprehensible, or postive framework for good. Omni-God Christianity has no essential role for Jesus.Good cannot come from evil. Good comes from good. Christians need to be led by Jesus, not the abstract, absolute, incomprehensible Omni-God.Omni-God (negative) Christianity worked in the past because man's awareness of God, himself, others, and the world was different, but it is no longer feasible because man's consciousness has changed (developed).
July 15, 2023
Creation Is Not Reaction
Creation is not reaction. Reaction often feels like creation, but more often than not, it is merely an obedient response to the action of another.
Yes, obedient because the actions others utilize are usually little more than commands, incitements, enticements, and provocations. They demand a response, expect a comeback, and yearn for a backlash, all of which reaction is more than willing to supply in spades.
The commanded, incited, enticed, and provoked are not genuine actors but reactors. The script they choose to follow is not their own. They speak lines penned by others and move across the stage following directions that are not theirs.
If action is the pressing of a button, then reaction is the pathetic movement of the button returning to its original position after having been pressed.
Every reaction to incitement, enticement, and provocation is obedience to a command. It is the admission that I have allowed my thinking, action, and conduct to depend entirely on the thinking, action, and conduct of another.
A true Christian cannot allow his actions to be mere reactions; nor can he act in a way that serves only to incite, entice, and provoke others into reaction. To do either lowers him to the level of his enemy – to the mundane, average, predictable, and common ways of thinking, acting, and being.
True Christian thoughts and acts are not and cannot be knee-jerk responses or compliant responses to outside forces. True Christian thoughts and actions transcend reaction and all reactive activity. They grow organically from the depths of inner being and turn the incitements, enticements, and provocations on their heads.
Creation is not reaction. As such, it never feels like reaction because it obeys nothing external and rises above the actions of others – far above the reach of even the worst of incitements, enticements, or provocations.
If done well enough, it also provides the inciters, enticers, and provokers the opportunity to rise above their own actions.
Yes, obedient because the actions others utilize are usually little more than commands, incitements, enticements, and provocations. They demand a response, expect a comeback, and yearn for a backlash, all of which reaction is more than willing to supply in spades.
The commanded, incited, enticed, and provoked are not genuine actors but reactors. The script they choose to follow is not their own. They speak lines penned by others and move across the stage following directions that are not theirs.
If action is the pressing of a button, then reaction is the pathetic movement of the button returning to its original position after having been pressed.
Every reaction to incitement, enticement, and provocation is obedience to a command. It is the admission that I have allowed my thinking, action, and conduct to depend entirely on the thinking, action, and conduct of another.
A true Christian cannot allow his actions to be mere reactions; nor can he act in a way that serves only to incite, entice, and provoke others into reaction. To do either lowers him to the level of his enemy – to the mundane, average, predictable, and common ways of thinking, acting, and being.
True Christian thoughts and acts are not and cannot be knee-jerk responses or compliant responses to outside forces. True Christian thoughts and actions transcend reaction and all reactive activity. They grow organically from the depths of inner being and turn the incitements, enticements, and provocations on their heads.
Creation is not reaction. As such, it never feels like reaction because it obeys nothing external and rises above the actions of others – far above the reach of even the worst of incitements, enticements, or provocations.
If done well enough, it also provides the inciters, enticers, and provokers the opportunity to rise above their own actions.
July 14, 2023
Just In Case You Missed It
New World Island recently posted an excellent audio "deep dive" into Romantic Christianity, featuring an essential selection of posts from the small circle of bloggers with whom I have the privilege and honor to be associated.
July 13, 2023
Losing the Culture War May Be Good for Christians
For most of my life, I was what you might call a Cultural Christian. Like my family, ethnicity, and national identity, I was born into Christianity. I didn’t have to work at it. I simply was a Christian, as I was a white American of Central European heritage. I accepted this Christianity in much the same manner as my parents had; I appreciated and adhered to what could be termed Christian values and culture.
Of course, being born in 1971, I often question the depth and authenticity of the values and culture I adhered to and supposedly appreciated. Though my family identified as Christian, it’s safe to say that we were essentially semi-religious – perhaps even non-religious.
Yes, we were all baptized. And yes, I attended Catholic school, and we sometimes went to church – usually on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday – but for all intents and purposes, religion did not play a huge role in our day-to-day living as long as that day-to-day living cohered with and conformed to some hazy concept of decency and accepted standards of morality and behavior.
The sort of Cultural Christianity in which I was raised placed cultural considerations well before Christian considerations. More precisely, culture served to make Christianity perceptible and relevant. Without it, Christianity became difficult to define, let alone observe. Strip the culture away from a Cultural Christian, and Christianity dissolves into the ether – becomes something out there, mythical, inaccessible – perhaps even pointless and inconsequential.
Most self-identifying Christians today qualify as Cultural Christians because they place culture above Christianity or regard the two as indistinguishable. The vast majority of Christian communications – whether an official church communique or informal blog post – attests to this. The obsessive focus on culture is ubiquitous, as is the all-consuming motivation to re-establish some semblance of Christian culture adhering to decency and accepted standards of morality and behavior.
I am not opposed to that kind of Christian culture; however, I do question the “all-consuming-ness” behind the motivation to re-establish it, especially now when what remains of Christian culture are but vestiges and what masquerades as Christian culture is all but thoroughly corrupted. Like Japanese soldiers stranded and forgotten on small Pacific Islands long after the Second World War had ended, Christians carrying on about fighting the cultural war appear oblivious to the reality that the war is over and that they have been quite soundly defeated.
Most equate such a blunt assessment to a declaration of despair, but I don’t believe they should. On the contrary, I believe Christianity’s greatest hope resides in its cultural defeat because it allows Christians to step back, reassess, and put first things first.
In this particular case, putting first things first involves the understanding that Christian culture is not and never was Christianity but a symbol of Christianity. Christian culture is not and never was Christian spirit but a symbol of Christian spirit.
Christian spirit creates Christian culture, but Christian culture does not create Christian spirit.
Christian culture is the congealment, solidification, and objectification of Christian spirit. As such, it cannot contain spirit. At most, it can echo, reflect, or indicate spirit but can never be spirit itself.
This does not mean that Christian culture is insignificant, useless, or inferior – it only means that it is of secondary importance to what gave rise to it and what it points to. Unfortunately, over the millennia, Christians fell into a deeply-ingrained mode of existence that tended to place Christian culture above Christian spirit.
As with any cult, Christianity fell into the trap of venerating from below rather than choosing to participate from above.
It would be safe to assume that Christian culture has failed, but this failure cannot and must not be interpreted as the failure of Christian spirit.
Christian culture is contingent upon Christian spirit, but Christian spirit is not, has never been, and must never be contingent upon Christian culture.
Present-day circumstances offer Christians a remarkable opportunity to put first things first by personally and directly focusing on spirit rather than obsessing about culture.
Christianity should not dissolve into the ether as its culture fades. On the contrary, it should emerge from the ether as new creativity -- as a new and unknown movement of the spirit.
Of course, being born in 1971, I often question the depth and authenticity of the values and culture I adhered to and supposedly appreciated. Though my family identified as Christian, it’s safe to say that we were essentially semi-religious – perhaps even non-religious.
Yes, we were all baptized. And yes, I attended Catholic school, and we sometimes went to church – usually on Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday – but for all intents and purposes, religion did not play a huge role in our day-to-day living as long as that day-to-day living cohered with and conformed to some hazy concept of decency and accepted standards of morality and behavior.
The sort of Cultural Christianity in which I was raised placed cultural considerations well before Christian considerations. More precisely, culture served to make Christianity perceptible and relevant. Without it, Christianity became difficult to define, let alone observe. Strip the culture away from a Cultural Christian, and Christianity dissolves into the ether – becomes something out there, mythical, inaccessible – perhaps even pointless and inconsequential.
Most self-identifying Christians today qualify as Cultural Christians because they place culture above Christianity or regard the two as indistinguishable. The vast majority of Christian communications – whether an official church communique or informal blog post – attests to this. The obsessive focus on culture is ubiquitous, as is the all-consuming motivation to re-establish some semblance of Christian culture adhering to decency and accepted standards of morality and behavior.
I am not opposed to that kind of Christian culture; however, I do question the “all-consuming-ness” behind the motivation to re-establish it, especially now when what remains of Christian culture are but vestiges and what masquerades as Christian culture is all but thoroughly corrupted. Like Japanese soldiers stranded and forgotten on small Pacific Islands long after the Second World War had ended, Christians carrying on about fighting the cultural war appear oblivious to the reality that the war is over and that they have been quite soundly defeated.
Most equate such a blunt assessment to a declaration of despair, but I don’t believe they should. On the contrary, I believe Christianity’s greatest hope resides in its cultural defeat because it allows Christians to step back, reassess, and put first things first.
In this particular case, putting first things first involves the understanding that Christian culture is not and never was Christianity but a symbol of Christianity. Christian culture is not and never was Christian spirit but a symbol of Christian spirit.
Christian spirit creates Christian culture, but Christian culture does not create Christian spirit.
Christian culture is the congealment, solidification, and objectification of Christian spirit. As such, it cannot contain spirit. At most, it can echo, reflect, or indicate spirit but can never be spirit itself.
This does not mean that Christian culture is insignificant, useless, or inferior – it only means that it is of secondary importance to what gave rise to it and what it points to. Unfortunately, over the millennia, Christians fell into a deeply-ingrained mode of existence that tended to place Christian culture above Christian spirit.
As with any cult, Christianity fell into the trap of venerating from below rather than choosing to participate from above.
It would be safe to assume that Christian culture has failed, but this failure cannot and must not be interpreted as the failure of Christian spirit.
Christian culture is contingent upon Christian spirit, but Christian spirit is not, has never been, and must never be contingent upon Christian culture.
Present-day circumstances offer Christians a remarkable opportunity to put first things first by personally and directly focusing on spirit rather than obsessing about culture.
Christianity should not dissolve into the ether as its culture fades. On the contrary, it should emerge from the ether as new creativity -- as a new and unknown movement of the spirit.
July 10, 2023
Help Me Name the Rooster
Inspired by my flock, my neighbor started tending chickens this spring. When I acquired hens, I made sure to order only hens -- no roosters. My neighbor, on the other hand, went to the local poultry fair and selected twenty chicks himself. Only later did he discover that five of the chicks were roosters. He has been trying to give away some of them ever since and was kind enough to offer me one.
I have zero experience with roosters and was a little reluctant at first but finally accepted his offer. He handed the rooster over to me today, so I now have nine older hens, fifteen younger ones, and one young black-and-white rooster who looks something like the fine gentleman in the image below.
The young chap deserves a name. I'm toying with macho-sounding Latin names at the moment -- something along the lines of Rodrigo or Ricardo -- but I must confess that his behavior thus far paints him out to be more of a Raymond or a Waldo than a Rico -- Rico meaning "dominant ruler" in Spanish.
So, what should I name my latest addition to the flock?
I invite readers to offer one "macho/flamboyant" suggestion and one "wimpy/bland" suggestion. The rooster will reveal its true nature soon enough, and when it does, I want to be prepared with an excellent and appropriate name.
My two choices:
Macho/flamboyant name - Rico
Wimpy/bland name - Waldo
I have zero experience with roosters and was a little reluctant at first but finally accepted his offer. He handed the rooster over to me today, so I now have nine older hens, fifteen younger ones, and one young black-and-white rooster who looks something like the fine gentleman in the image below.
The young chap deserves a name. I'm toying with macho-sounding Latin names at the moment -- something along the lines of Rodrigo or Ricardo -- but I must confess that his behavior thus far paints him out to be more of a Raymond or a Waldo than a Rico -- Rico meaning "dominant ruler" in Spanish. So, what should I name my latest addition to the flock?
I invite readers to offer one "macho/flamboyant" suggestion and one "wimpy/bland" suggestion. The rooster will reveal its true nature soon enough, and when it does, I want to be prepared with an excellent and appropriate name.
My two choices:
Macho/flamboyant name - Rico
Wimpy/bland name - Waldo
July 8, 2023
Sometimes It's the Best Feeling
I don’t spend too much time thinking about the outside world these days – or at least I try not to – which means I often come up short concerning posts for the blog.
The summer mornings remain refreshingly cool, but the days heat up quickly. I spend most of my time in the garden, weeding and watering or picking raspberries and black currants. The cucumbers continue to be a pleasant surprise, and I can barely keep up with the zucchini. Otherwise, I tend the hens. The younger ones are growing nicely; the older ones continue to lay eggs like clockwork.
The lack of post topics gnaws at me sometimes. At other times, it’s the best feeling in the world.
The summer mornings remain refreshingly cool, but the days heat up quickly. I spend most of my time in the garden, weeding and watering or picking raspberries and black currants. The cucumbers continue to be a pleasant surprise, and I can barely keep up with the zucchini. Otherwise, I tend the hens. The younger ones are growing nicely; the older ones continue to lay eggs like clockwork.
The lack of post topics gnaws at me sometimes. At other times, it’s the best feeling in the world.
July 6, 2023
Of Course He Was
I don't usually comment on nor feature this sort of thing on the blog, but I thought the short video below presents a vivid example of a solid observation immediately followed by a . . . well . . . let's just call it an idiotic observation.
The professor of ancient history in the clip -- an ardent atheist who is most famous for his "edgy" rejection of the historicity of Jesus -- correctly identifies the beloved disciple in the Fourth Gospel as Lazarus.
And then goes on to make the claim that beloved disciple is actually code for boyfriend.
Yes. According to the esteemed professor, Jesus had a boyfriend, and that boyfriend was Lazarus.
I don't have much to add, other than . . . aw, forget it. Fools like these are not worth the effort.
The professor of ancient history in the clip -- an ardent atheist who is most famous for his "edgy" rejection of the historicity of Jesus -- correctly identifies the beloved disciple in the Fourth Gospel as Lazarus.
And then goes on to make the claim that beloved disciple is actually code for boyfriend.
Yes. According to the esteemed professor, Jesus had a boyfriend, and that boyfriend was Lazarus.
I don't have much to add, other than . . . aw, forget it. Fools like these are not worth the effort.
