Reading the Church Fathers discussion
This topic is about
City of God
Augustine of Hippo: City of God
>
Book I: Christianity and Evil
Augustine's first response to such critics of Christianity can be rephrased in one sentence."If it weren't for Christianity, you wouldn't be alive today, so stop the ungrateful (and cowardly) whining."
Aeneid and City of GodAugustines writes in his Confessions that he loved reading Virgil's The Aeneid in his youth. I think the theme in Aeneid might have inspired him in wrting City of God.
In Aeneid, Virgil traces the origin of the Roman Empire under Augustus to the fallen city of Troy, and Aeneas, who escaped with his father and son but lost his wife, and journeyed to Italy in search of a homeland.
In City of God, Augustine traces the history of the City of God to the fallen city of Jerusalem, destroyed by the Romans, and the children of Abraham journeying on earth seeking the promised homeland.
SanctuaryAugustine cites Aeneid, and other literary works, to explain how it is the custom of war that conquerors have no regard for the sanctuaries in the conquered cities. I might add that, when Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was looted and burned to the ground by the Romans, as narrated by Josephus in The Jewish War.
The translator for the Penguin's edition, Henry Bettenson, noted that some noble Greeks, such as Alexander and Agesilaus, spared the temples in their conquests. But that doesn't contradict Augustine's point at all. The clemency of these few noble Greeks were lauded by historians precisely because they were extraordinary, and not the custom of war.
(A side note: I can't help but sense Bettenson's spite for Augustine, as shown throughout the book in his footnotes. He let pass no opportunity to correct Augustine, and exhibit his superiority.)
Nemo wrote: "Aeneid and City of GodAugustines writes in his Confessions that he loved reading Virgil's The Aeneid in his youth. I think the theme in Aeneid might have inspired him in wrting City ..."
This reminds me of the book: On the Shoulders of Hobbits: The Road to Virtue with Tolkien and Lewis that explains how the theme of a journey is such a good allegory for our lives.
In §9: "For all too often we shy away from our obligation to teach and admonish them, and sometimes even to rebuke and correct them."O dear. When I read this I can't help thinking about the commotion that was raised just last week in our country when some Christians decided to publish and sign a declaration against homosexuality. They probably considered it necessary to fulfill precisely such an obligation of correcting and rebuking and teaching. It led to lots of very heated discussions and much pain.
Interesting to note that Augustine says that rebuke is only *sometimes* necessary. I don't know which things Augustine considered needing rebuke.
Later on he says that we shouldn't be silent out of fear for our possessions. But I wonder if maybe we ought to be silent out of humility? Who are we to correct anyone. If we do, we must be really sure that the correction is true and helpful.
Then, this remark about being silent out of fear for consequences reminds me very much of the abuse scandals. There it is quite clear that people should have spoken, but didn't. But I know that even that is more easily said than done.
Ruth wrote: "In §9: "For all too often we shy away from our obligation to teach and admonish them, and sometimes even to rebuke and correct them...I think rebuke is “sometimes” necessary when gentler approaches have proven ineffective.
"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers," (1 Timothy 5:1) "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." (1 Timothy 5:20)
Ruth wrote: "I wonder if maybe we ought to be silent out of humility? Who are we to correct anyone. If we do, we must be really sure that the correction is true and helpful. "
Good question. If we're silent, how do we know that we're acting out of humility, not fear or something else? If we can discern whether or not our humility is genuine, then by the same token, we can discern whether or not our admonition is true and helpful.
Hello everyone. I will be joining you in your reading of Augustine's City of God . Thank you Nemo and Ruth for your leadership and comments to date in linking the text with issues of relevance at both the spiritual/personal and communal levels, as well as the linkages to other literary works. I really appreciate your comment Ruth," But I wonder if maybe we ought to be silent out of humility? Who are we to correct anyone. If we do, we must be really sure that the correction is true and helpful."
My best takeaway quote from Augustine thus far comes at the end of Ch. 8, " This shows what matters is the nature of the sufferer, not the nature of the sufferings." Having just read Pierre de Chardin's The Divine Milieu, I am reminded of de Chardin's idea of "passivity", our response to an action done to us ( including suffering), to be either an occasion of spiritual diminishment or spiritual growth.
Ruth wrote in another thread (I'm responding here because the topic belongs here): "That the Goths saved people who fled to churches is new to me. It is certainly impressive, especially against this background of so much bloody violence. Still, you'd think that if these Goths were Christians, they might have behaved less barbarous, not only in Churches, but everywhere." Yeah, one can rephrase your last sentence this way, "If we are truly Christians, we would love our neighbour as ourselves, and act in the spirit of truth and charity, not only in Churches and only sometimes, but everywhere and always".
Off-topic: I'm reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with my brother, who is an atheist. He had a Christian coworker whose hypocrisy he detected by mere chance, and he was surprised by it. He asked me what percentage of Christians were hypocrites like his coworker, I answered that it was probably close to 100%. I further explained to my brother that Christians are what they are not because they are better than everybody else, but precisely because they realize they are wretched, sick people in need of a Physician.
AJ wrote: "Hello everyone. I will be joining you in your reading of Augustine's City of God . Thank you Nemo and Ruth for your leadership and comments to date in linking the text with issues of relevance at b..."Welcome to the group and the discussion, AJ!
I also find that passage in Ch. 8 memorable and inspiring.
"Christians are what they are not because they are better than everybody else, but precisely because they realize they are wretched, sick people in need of a Physician" Yes, true. I keep forgetting that, wanting to be perfect.
I also enjoyed chapter 8 very much. But I find chapter 10 rather lacking in empathy.A desire for wealth is worthy of tortures?
A famine teaching one to fast at greater length? What's the point of that?
O, I see now. In chapter 16 he writes : "here we are not so much concerned to respond to outsiders as we are to comfort our own"So in the previous chapters, he was responding to mockery from outsiders, therefore he didn't want to emphasize the suffering.
More on SanctuaryThe ancients, most of whom believed in the existence of divine beings of some sort or another, were familiar with the practice of taking refuge in the temples of their gods in times of trouble. The idea is that either the gods would protect them somehow or those who sought to kill them would spare them on account of the gods.
For example, there is a story in 1 Kings 2 where King David instructed his son Solomon to kill Joab, commander of the army, for shedding innocent blood. Joab fled to the altar of the Lord, so the man Solomon sent to kill him was hesitant or afraid to touch him. But Solomon assured his man that they had justice, and God, on their side, and then the latter went and executed Joab by the altar.
During the sack of Rome, the barbarians, spared those people, both Christians and pagans, who took refuge in the Christian churches, contrary to the custom of war. They would not have done so, if they hadn't believed in the Christian God, or at least had been restrained by pious fear.
Augustine started his defence of Christianity with the sanctuary, I think, because the sanctuary has both historical and spiritual significance. Christ is the Sanctuary of mankind, foreshadowed in the Old Testament by the Passover, when the lives of all who take shelter under the blood of the Lamb are spared, while the rest are struck down by the Lord.
Augustine might have seen the sack of Rome as the judgement of God, and the fact that the Christian Churches were spared as evidence of divine mercy, and ground for hope. He concludes Ch. 7 with a verse from Psalms, “I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes; nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from them.” (Ps. 89:32-33)
In chapter 11 he mentions psalm 79. I happened to read the whole psalm during morning prayer today, and noticed how indeed this also deals with God's people (and thus God himself) being mocked, see for example Ps 79:10 Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” So it's really applicable to the questions Augustine is now dealing with. Only I really do think the whole psalm is a lamentation, as many psalms, and I think it is important to remember that this has a place before God as well.
Augustine seems to say that people shouldn't ask these questions, but the psalms do.
And what does he mean when quoting Ps 116:15?
Chapter 9: "the weaker brethren who enjoy married life,"I am getting a sense that Augustine sees marriage as a weakness, a lesser state in life. Any thoughts as to why? Has this got to do with his own conversion from a life amidst the fleshpots of his youth or is there another explanation?
The footnote in my translation says : Note the distinction here and in what follows between the"weaker" married life and the "higher" unmarried life. On the superiority of virginity to marriage see The Excellence of Mariage 8,8; Holy Virginity 16, 16-19 19In the course that I followed on 'the confessions' they explained that the wildness of his youth was probably exaggerated. They argued (convincingly to me) that he was very devoted to the mother of his son, and faithful to her even if they weren't married.
But it seems to me that Augustine wants to be very rational, and sees anything that can be so exciting that you lose control must be wrong.
Ruth, what translation of the City of God are you using?
Just a few thoughts. 1. I find chapter 10 convicting, as he talks about how Christians lose nothing by losing temporal goods. One quote:
Rather they should have been reminded that, if they suffered so severely for the sake of money, they should endure all torment, if need be, for Christ’s sake; that they might be taught to love Him rather who enriches with eternal felicity all who suffer for Him, and not silver and gold, for which it was pitiable to suffer, whether they preserved it by telling a lie or lost it by telling the truth.
I wonder how many of us Christians in America would fight and kill to keep our temporal comforts? How much more do we put our right to our property above Jesus' demands to give it up? Or, how much more allied to the earthly city are we than the city of God?
2. How awesome was Regullus (ch. 15) during the First Punic War who was sent to Rome to ask for peace, advised the Senate to keep fighting, then willfully went back to Carthage as a prisoner where he was tortured.
3. The whole discussion of suicide (starting in ch. 18) reminds me however much value we find in people like Augustine, it is not the final word. I mean, its not that I disagree with him. It just seems he doesn't have an understanding of depression as a mental illness that we do today. It reminds me of GK Chesterton's similar words on suicide - it was after a famous person committed suicide the Chesterton Twitter account was tweeting his quotes on the evil of suicide. It seemed very untimely and unsympathetic to me. Augustine (and Chesterton) seem to discuss suicide in a quite rational manner. There is a place for that, of course. But are actual people suffering from depression in a rational place where argument will convince them otherwise?
I guess the question is, if you have a friend who is suicidal, do you seek to rationally argue them out of it? Practically, will that help? Maybe it will in some cases, I don't know. But maybe there's more going on psychological (and spiritually)?
AJ wrote: "Ruth, what translation of the City of God are you using?"https://www.newcitypress.com/the-city...
https://www.newcitypress.com/the-city...
(I use the ebooks, see the links on those pages)
David wrote: "I guess the question is, if you have a friend who is suicidal, do you seek to rationally argue them out of it? Practically, will that help? Maybe it will in some cases, I don't know. But maybe there's more going on psychological (and spiritually)? "Well, I have such a friend, and no, not really. Although I did once say to him that I firmly believed that he has a place with God. I hope it helped. Anyway, perhaps better not get too much into that.
I agree that these chapters aren't very applicable to mental illness, but he isn't addressing such issues.
I have just written a heartfelt praise for the chapters starting at 18, because I think these are very wonderful. I will post it hereafter.
I finished book 1 yesterday. It's much easier reading than I expected, after The Trinity.I have to say, I think it's a masterpiece of pastoral care. At first I had some reservations, I agree with David that the chapters on suicide might not be the best things to say to someone suffering from a depression. But he is not doing that. He is countering social pressure on people who already have suffered very traumatic events.
(at least, this is what I take away from it, I'd love to hear what you all think)
It must be very difficult to speak in such situations, and really address the issues without causing more pain. I can sense his careful approach when he starts saying: "Here, however, it is not faith, not godliness, not even the virtue of chastity, which faces any problem, but rather our argument, which must find a way to negotiate the narrow line between the claims of modesty and the claims of reason. Here we are not so much concerned to respond to outsiders, as we are to comfort our own."
So, first the reasons. For he is dealing with people who think they have reasons to kill themselves, or perhaps they have family who think they ought to do that. Augustine is referring to people who were praised for committing suicide. And the footnotes to my translation say that even bishop Ambrose praised some women for drowning themselves before they could be raped. So it seems to me that there was a lot of social pressure, seemingly backed up by reason, that it was better to die even at your own hands, than be raped. Augustine counters all these reasons, so he is protecting these women's lives!
Then there is the issue of the extreme sense of guilt and shame after such an experience, a very delicate topic, but it needs to be adressed, otherwise it will only keep lingering in the back of your mind. First, he keeps repeating over and over that suffering abuse is not the victim's fault! That's his main argument against suicide, it would be killing an innocent person.
I also appreciate the way he invites these women to question honestly their own souls. And his respectful attitude when he says: "I make no accusations where I have no knowledge, and do not hear what your hearts say in reply to your questioning", and then he just deals with all the possible answers in such a way that it allows them to live on freely.
Ruth, I agree with you 100%. Context is key.I am mostly just curious on how/if these words on suicide were interpreted throughout history. I meet college students (I work in campus ministry) and others who have been taught people who commit suicide automatically go to hell. Is that the traditional Catholic position? But yeah, you're right, my thought drifted more to that connection to later teaching and the harm that might do to people.
AJ wrote: "Chapter 9: "the weaker brethren who enjoy married life,"I am getting a sense that Augustine sees marriage as a weakness, a lesser state in life. Any thoughts as to why?..."
A few thoughts...
First, the context of this chapter is on the duty of admonishing and rebuking Christians who are not living as they ought, these are called "weak brethren".
If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, ... because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith...
If marriage is a weakness, Christ would be weak in taking the Church to be His bride. Augustine is not saying that marriage per se is a weakness, but that being "entangled in the meshes of married life" is a weakness. One can both be married and not be entangled. In other words, it is not the station of life one is in, but *how* he lives in that state as a Christian. I think this is why Paul exhorts husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church.
In the same chapter, Augustine also points out other weaknesses of Christians, who "relish the flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the people, and the pain or death of the body". Similarly to marriage, being socially connected to other people in the world in and of itself is not a weakness, but being so bound by them as to lose Christian liberty is definitely a weakness.
Ruth wrote: "I find chapter 10 rather lacking in empathy.A desire for wealth is worthy of tortures? A famine teaching one to fast at greater length? What's the point of that?
Augustine is addressing the problem of suffering in Book I, and, as you wrote later, responding to mockers as well as comforting Christians.
The point of Chapter 10, which follows from chapter 8, is that, although both the godly and the ungodly suffer, “all things work together for good to them that love God”, even torture, famine and hideous death.
Studies have shown that people endure suffering much better and more willingly if (they believe) they suffer for a purpose, no matter how insignificant that purpose may be. The cruelest thing the Nazis did to the Jews in the Holocaust is not inflicting torture and death, but depriving them of the sense of dignity and purpose of their lives and sufferings.
I think Augustine’s treatment of suffering is well grounded in psychology, as well as philosophy and theology. It is, as you wrote, “a masterpiece of pastoral care” indeed.
Nemo wrote: "If we're silent, how do we know that we're acting out of humility, not fear or something else? If we can discern whether or not our humility is genuine, then by the same token, we can discern whether or not our admonition is true and helpful. "I had missed this comment of yours. But now I remember also that Augustine said some more about this only a few lines further on in chapter 9.
If anyone refrains from rebuking and correcting evildoers because he is waiting for a more propitious moment or because he is afraid that, by doing so, he might make them even worse or because he fears that, if he does so, they might start obstructing others who are weak and need guidance to a good and godly life, putting pressure on them and turning them away from the faith, this does not appear to be a pretense of desire but rather the counsel of love.
I thought this was something to remember, because sometimes I get the feeling that Christians think they must always speak about their faith and not be cowards. The latter is true, but that doesn't mean that it is always helpful to force your opinion on others.
Nemo wrote: "Studies have shown that people endure suffering much better and more willingly if (they believe) they suffer for a purpose, no matter how insignificant that purpose may be."Yes, I know. I have also read Man's Search for Meaning, where he explained that in a profound way.
The trouble is that precisely this knowledge makes me doubt the arguments for meaning in suffering. It makes me afraid that people (myself included) make up meanings because we need it to survive.
Modern science is also undermining my sense of meaning. I just read in the (not so good) book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself: At the moment, the dominant image of the world remains one in which human life is cosmically special and significant, something more than mere matter in motion. We need to do better at reconciling how we talk about life's meaning with what we know about the scientific image of our universe.
Actually I don't agree with this writer, I think the dominant view is that life has no meaning. I wish we could state so confidently as Augustine that suffering has meaning. O, well, half of me is as confident. The other half doubts everything ;-)
Perhaps I should read book I of the City of God again and see if I can detect his reasons for the meaning he gives. (as you said, meaning only helps if you really believe in it, my rational side just wants to understand)
Ruth wrote: "Modern science is also undermining my sense of meaning. "I once asked a professor how a scientist like herself could believe in the existence of God. (I was very curious because I had thought only ignorant folks were religious before that.) She smiled and said that the more she studied nature, and was awed by its beauty, the more her faith in God was strengthened.
Science itself is completely reticent on the question of the meaning of life, and the existence of God for that matter; a scientist, on the other hand, is free to interpret the universe as presented by science within his/her own worldview. This is related to what Augustine writes in chapter 8: The same traumatic event may have the exact opposite effects on different people; so the same scientific image of the universe may be interpreted differently by people of different belief systems.
Modern science neither supports nor undermines the meaning of life. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
Ruth wrote: " that doesn't mean that it is always helpful to force your opinion on others.."There is certainly much talk about it these days, but I have to admit I don't understand what "forcing your opinion on others" really means.
Nemo wrote: "AJ wrote: "Chapter 9: "the weaker brethren who enjoy married life,"I am getting a sense that Augustine sees marriage as a weakness, a lesser state in life. Any thoughts as to why?..."
A few thou..."
Nemo, I appreciate your response to my question if Augustine "sees marriage as a weakness, a lesser state in life." You have made some good points about distinguishing the married state in itself from it being "entangled in the meshes of married life".
And while Augustine outlines the value and goodness of marriage, in all humility, I would still posit that he does not view the married state as having the same degree of goodness or as high a standard of life as that of a life of continence (chastity).
In the same Chapter 9, the paragraph following his comments on the "weaker brothers, in the married state he writes , "Even those who have a higher standard of life who are not entangled in the bonds of marriage..." And when I came across his work entitled "On the Good of Marriage" he writes in paragraph 8 "but marriage and continence are two goods, whereof the second is better". In paragraph 13 he goes on to add, "Wherefore that was said according to the greater sanctity of the unmarried than of the married, unto which there is also due a greater reward, according as, the one being a good, the other is a greater good: inasmuch as also she has this thought only, how to please the Lord." As well in paragraph 28, "Therefore, if we compare the things themselves, we may no way doubt that the chastity of continence is better than marriage chastity, while yet both are good: but when we compare the persons, he is better, who has a greater good than another."
Now I realize I am just extracting statements holus bolus in a manner that appears to be at a non-critical level, but nonetheless, I am getting the sense that Augustine does not view the married state of his time and place on par with chaste Christian celibates.
AJ wrote: "while Augustine outlines the value and goodness of marriage, in all humility, I would still posit that he does not view the married state as having the same degree of goodness or as high a standard of life as that of a life of continence (chastity). ."AJ, I understand and agree with you to some extent. One could also argue that Augustine wouldn't have chosen to remain unmarried, if he hadn't believed that it was more beneficial to him in some way.
Having said that, I think we need to think more carefully about the "standard", What standard is Augustine using to compare marriage vs. celibacy, when he says that the latter is better? Is celibacy always better than married life, or only under certain conditions? Is celibacy a "greater good" than marriage in all aspects, or in certain aspects? The passage you quoted suggest to me that it is the latter.
Either way, it is certainly a profound topic worth studying in depth. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Nemo wrote: " I don't understand what "forcing your opinion on others" really means. "I keep thinking about this. It sounds indeed quite impossible. I've also been thinking lately that someone can only be said to force his/her opinion as long as the receiving party is willing to be forced.
Perhaps it has more to do with a lack of opinion. If I don't really know what I think myself, I can feel as if others force their opinion on me.
And also perhaps it is related to a deep wish to be in unison. A fear of disagreements. Whereas in reality it ought to be possible to disagree and still be friends.
There are so many materials to unpack in Book I. Even at this slow pace, I think we're only scratching the surface of the subjects Augustine addressed or alluded to. The subject of marriage vs. celibacy is a case in point. In ch. 11, Augustines solemnly reminds Christians of their two-fold duty to the community. Being members of the same civic community, we are responsible for the lives of others. IF we only practice piety "in private", while watching our neighbours stray from the Way of life, we are failing to keep the commandment to "love our neighbour as ourselves", and therefore merit chastisement.
Accordingly this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community. They are punished together, not because they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example, might lay hold of life eternal. ... These selfish persons have more cause to fear than those to whom it was said through the prophet, “He is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”
Having addressed the loss of material goods in ch. 10, Augustine addresses the suffering of the body from ch.11 to ch. 16, which then transitions into a discourse on suicide, i.e., an evil affecting both body and soul. I’ll postpone the discussion of suicide till next week (starting tomorrow), as Augustine covers the topic in quite some depth from ch.17 to ch. 27I find the following passage in ch. 13 moving.
For if the dress of a father, or his ring, or anything he wore, be precious to his children, in proportion to the love they bore him, with how much more reason ought we to care for the bodies of those we love, which they wore far more closely and intimately than any clothing! For the body is not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man’s very nature.
...
These instances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that God’s providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the resurrection.
Ruth wrote: "It makes me afraid that people (myself included) make up meanings because we need it to survive. ."That's one of the arguments against religion in general. Having come from a materialist upbringing, I tend to have a "been there done that" reaction to them.
Everyone, atheist and theist alike, need meaning to live, it doesn't follow that the meaning of life is an artificial construct with no ground in reality. To use an analogy, we need food to survive, it doesn't follow that our feeling of hunger is made up, nor that imaginary food can keep people from starvation.
To me, man-made meaning is like the writings of men that are not divinely inspired. The vast majority of them are not terribly profound, and sooner and later you'll outgrow them. By contrast, meaning grounded in God is like nature itself, it is profound beyond the comprehension of man, and one can never outgrow it, but is constantly compelled and invited to "press on".
(I quoted C.S.Lewis, who expressed a similar sentiment more eloquently, in another thread)
David wrote: "It just seems he doesn't have an understanding of depression as a mental illness that we do today...."I'm not sure we understand depression better than the ancients, other than labelling it differently. But I'm willing to be persuaded. :)
if you have a friend who is suicidal, do you seek to rationally argue them out of it? Practically, will that help?
As long as that friend still has use of his rational faculty, yes.
More often than not people choose to commit suicide for a reason. Augustine writes to the effect that people kill themselves not because they want to cease to exist, but because they want to make things better for themselves and for others. One of the reasons (young) people become suicidal is because they think they have messed up their lives so badly and caused their loved ones so much trouble and pain that it would be better if they no longe lived. So it would help, if you could reason with them and help them see the (potential and actual) value of their lives, and how devastated their loved ones would be if they kill themselves.
Ruth wrote: " meaning grounded in God is like nature itself, it is profound beyond the comprehension of man, and one can never outgrow it, but is constantly compelled and invited to "press on”.Your statement reminds me of Gregory of Nyssa (335-384) and his concept of epektasis, meaning roughly, "upward striving" or “constant progress” in godliness and virtue. The notion appears in Paul: "Forgetting those things that are behind, and reaching forth [epekteinomenon] unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark" (Phil 3:13). The upward striving towards God (spiritual progress) never ends, whether in this life or the next.
And of course, there is Augustine’s own restlessness of the heart of which he wrote in The Confessions (Book 1), "You move us to delight in praising You; for You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."
Where would we be if our hearts were not restless, did not press on in the search for meaning and fulfilment in God?
AJ wrote: "Ruth wrote: " meaning grounded in God is like nature itself, it is profound beyond the comprehension of man, and one can never outgrow it, but is constantly compelled and invited to "press on”.Yo..."
For a moment, I thought huh? when did I say that? But it was Nemo, quoting C.S.Lewis!
Nemo wrote: "if you have a friend who is suicidal, do you seek to rationally argue them out of it? Practically, will that help? As long as that friend still has use of his rational faculty, yes. "
No, No, no.
I am sorry, but I have been wondering what to do with this group-discussion. I had not expected this book to start out with such traumatic things right away. I have seen people, including myself, going through very traumatic things. I have explained before about my cult-like church in which I grew up.
The book touches on all these issues. Suicide, obviously reminds me of my friends. Then secondly the remarks about how we must warn people of their sinful behaviour reminds me of the spiritual abuse that I have seen. (speaking about forcing your opinion.. the way to do that is this: be convinced that God gave you a better knowledge, and then start telling other people how to live, based on this God-given authority).
The people I know who contemplate suicide, or have done so in the past, are all people who suffered from a lack of empathy in my cult-church. Therefore I react as stung by such words as that we should reason them out of it, or that perhaps they have lost their reason. They haven't, but we grew up in a culture that valued theory over people.
Now, I do realize that in this group, we only know each other superficially. That makes it strange to be talking about things that run so deeply, but well, that's what the book is about!
I dearly love Augustine, I have read other books by him as well, but some of the things he said sound really bad when taken out of context. Like his remarks that you cannot repent of suicide, or that torture is a deserved punishment for wanting to keep your possessions.
Nemo wrote: "So it would help, if you could reason with them and help them see the (potential and actual) value of their lives, and how devastated their loved ones would be if they kill themselves.."I see now that you also wrote this. That is of course a different kind of reasoning than saying that you end up in hell if you kill yourself
I remember how people talked about someone after a failed attempt. How important it was that he would confess this sin and receive absolution.
Nemo wrote: " To use an analogy, we need food to survive, it doesn't follow that our feeling of hunger is made up, nor that imaginary food can keep people from starvation."That's a good one, I'll remember that.
To follow the analogy, you'd think that if some idea of meaning gives you a sense of fulfillment, then it must be truly meaningful.
(reminds me of Psalm 63:1-5)
Ruth wrote: "Nemo wrote: "if you have a friend who is suicidal, do you seek to rationally argue them out of it? Practically, will that help? As long as that friend still has use of his rational faculty, yes. ..."
No, No, no."
I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction... Let me expand my answer a little and explain what I mean by that.
To reason with a person, in my view, is to respect that person as an autonomous and rational being, capable of thinking for him/herself and making his/her own life decisions. So if a person hasn't lost his/her rational faculty due to serious injury or illness, we should reason with him/her, and persuade him/her from harmful decisions.
Reasoning with people is the opposite of forcing one's opinion on people. In the latter case, people are not treated as autonomous beings but as subordinates, even slaves, for they are not allowed to think for themselves, but forced to accept and abide by the views of others. For example, when people verbally and emotionally insult those who disagree with them, boycott and sanction businesses whose practices they object to, they are trying to force their opinions on others.
Forcing one's opinions on others is only one among many symptoms of what Augustine calls "lust of dominion". By contrast, "the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield".
Back to the topic of suicide, there are drugs that might relieve depression in some cases, but the ultimate healing is restoring the person to full health, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. This cannot be done by drugs, or even empathy alone. The emotional, intellectual and spiritual support of the community is needed.
Ruth wrote : "For a moment, I thought huh? when did I say that? But it was Nemo, quoting C.S.Lewis! "My error and my apologies. aj
Nemo wrote: "I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction... Let me expand my answer a little and explain what I mean by that."Thanks very much for your expanding your answer. That really helps.
I know I have the habit of flaring up at seemingly innocent remarks. I hope it isn't too disturbing!
Sometimes I think that all the words mean something different for me than for the average Christian. It gives misunderstandings. I am grateful for the opportunity to clear things up this way.
I understand you now, but for me the word reason is more associated with the explanation given by someone higher up in the hierarchy that you must therefore accept. (no, not blindly of course, ha ha, you must try and understand, but disagreeing or deviating or asking critical questions would be very dangerous, it might lead to confusion/heresy/divisions).
Authority is another such word that I tend to misunderstand. Perhaps you remember a few weeks ago you explained that authority comes from "helping to grow". That was also quite a new viewpoint for me.
I see Augustine also as a person in authority (because he was a bishop), but he is different. Therefore also I was so moved when he said "I do not hear what your heart says". It shows openness for what the other might say, it is respect for the dignity of a person, an acknowledgement of the autonomy of that person.
I'm not sure we understand depression better than the ancients, other than labelling it differently. But I'm willing to be persuaded. :)I know suicide is a touch subject. Augustine, as this thread has said, seems to be discussing people choosing suicide for rational reasons. He's not discussing clinical depression.
In the ancient world, there was no understanding of mental illness. Was there? The question mostly comes up in terms of Jesus healing from demonic possession - is what we call mental illness today the same as they called demonic possession back then? I don't think any reasonable Christian would say that today. While we don't want to eliminate the idea of the demonic, we also don't want to say all mental illness is demonic.
I mean, to take an ancient view of things, I'd imagine we'd avoid going to doctors, taking medicine, seeing counselors and all that. We'd just go to a priest and pray. That is exactly what I mean when I say we have a different understanding of psychological issues. Augustine couldn't see a depressed person in his church (or a schizophrenic, bipolar, etc.) and recommend they see a professional counselor.
It is a tangent, but I'd see alcoholism in a similar vein. Its not like an alcoholic can simply choose not to be as if the sole driving factor is reason. It is a matter of addiction, there are bigger forces at work. And again, I am skeptical the ancients (including Augustine) had an understanding of addiction.
That said, I do know Augustine was no modernist in terms of reason. He does speak later about our desires and loves driving us.
I think you're on to what I'm saying here: "So if a person hasn't lost his/her rational faculty due to serious injury or illness, we should reason with him/her, and persuade him/her from harmful decisions" I'd argue someone suffering depression to the point of being suicidal has lost his rational faculty and cannot simply be reasoned with. And I totally agree with this statement - "The emotional, intellectual and spiritual support of the community is needed. "
So I imagine we mostly agree. Like I said, what stuck out at me was not so much what Augustine said as much as how it was interpreted in the later church down to the stories today of people who refuse to get their kids medical treatment because, they say, all they need is prayer.
AJ wrote: "Your statement reminds me of Gregory of Nyssa (335-384) and his concept of epektasis, meaning roughly, "upward striving" or “constant progress” in godliness and virtue... "Yes, the early Church Fathers seem to be in unison on this point. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 2.28:
while we hope ever to be receiving more and more from God, and to learn from Him, because He is good, and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom without end, and instruction that can never be exhausted.
David wrote: "In the ancient world, there was no understanding of mental illness. Was there? The question mostly comes up in terms of Jesus healing from demonic possession - is what we call mental illness today the same as they called demonic possession back then?"Well, in a way, I suppose they did, but here also it all comes down to what one means with words.
Recently I came across an interview with someone who runs marathons, and he said it was all about fighting with your inner demons. He just meant unhelpful thoughts like 'you'll never make it' and so on.
In some Christian circles (including where I grew up), the word 'demonic' means something very different. It is much more malicious, and also there is the suggestion that you must have done something very bad indeed to become infested with some demonic possession.
About the ancients and depression, there is a very helpful book Acedia & Me: A Marriage, Monks, and a Writer's Life where Kathleen Norris describes her own struggles with depression, and the help she found in old classic texts on 'acedia' which would be the term that the Church fathers used for depression.
Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "I wonder if maybe we ought to be silent out of humility? Who are we to correct anyone. If we do, we must be really sure that the correction is true and helpful. "Good question. If we're silent, how do we know that we're acting out of humility, not fear or something else? If we can discern whether or not our humility is genuine, then by the same token, we can discern whether or not our admonition is true and helpful."
The way I understand it, we Christians are encouraged to correct others because we love them. The Christian definition of love is to will the good of the other (as other). Love in the Christian understanding is not a sentiment or a feeling but an act of the will. So, if one is corrected in true Christian charity, to desire what is good for the other, it is not a rebuke in the sense of putting someone down, but exactly the opposite. Sometimes we call this "tough love."
Ruth wrote: "I also enjoyed chapter 8 very much. But I find chapter 10 rather lacking in empathy.A desire for wealth is worthy of tortures?
A famine teaching one to fast at greater length? What's the point of..."
Chapter 10 is all about detachment from worldly goods. Thomas Aquinas summed them up as wealth, honor, pleasure, and pride (if I remember correctly). Not that there is anything inherently wrong with any of them per se, if rightly ordered or prioritized, but we get into trouble when we are attached to them too much. The old-fashioned word for it is concupiscence, today a better translation would be "addiction." In other words, if we make worldly goods our highest good, we will never be satisfied. How much wealth is enough when wealth is your highest good? Only God can ultimately satisfy the deepest yearnings in our hearts, and if we want to have them answered we need to be detached from worldly addictions.
Does this make sense? I am pulling together what I've learned from Bishop Robert Barron here, and I don't have his eloquence. He talks about this all the time.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (other topics)Acedia & Me: A Marriage, Monks, and a Writer's Life (other topics)
Man's Search for Meaning (other topics)
The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (other topics)
The Aeneid (other topics)
More...
In Augustine's time, Rome was sacked by the barbarians, and some people blamed Christianity and the ban on pagan worship for it; More than 1600 years later, there are award-winning books published arguing that Christians destroyed the classical world.