Very thoughtful and interesting. To step outside the Christian tradition for a moment, for Rome, of course, the institution of king does become bad per se (and Caesar is, famously, thrice offered the crown); even when what we categorise as a monarchy comes about under Octavian, it is hedged about with non-royal language (“imperator”, “princeps”). But the shift to the East perhaps eases the internal conflict, and once you are happily using “basileus” then the Republic seems a very long way away, chronologically, geographically and ideologically.
The talk of “values” often seems to imply someone valuing - it’s a subjective measure, and couldn’t be further from the true, the good, and the beautiful, which call out to you and compel you to follow them.
Beauty calls. Alas, we of the West have become so used to understanding law in a strictly voluntaristic sense that we misread ancient texts, and especially the Bible. God’s Law, the Torah, isn’t the subjective whim of the being who happens to be the biggest and most powerful - it’s not a case of “God’s values” versus ours, as though the moral order were a matter of personal taste enforced by power. It is the nature of things, reflecting the nature of God, whose will is in harmony with his essence and does not contradict it. The divine law is beautiful, to be savoured and digested from within so that we become one with it, rather than merely obedient to it as an external set of values for us to weigh and judge one by one. Taste and see that the Lord is good!
Excellent post! Especially like the distinction you make between “values” and Christ’s offering of Himself as “the singular Way…of virtue which leads to the fullness of life and truth.”
Thank you. The virtue/values distinction is really important. Values are imbibed, practised and learnt so that they become instinctive. Kant therefore has no time for them. Moderns know that virtue is necessary but are so stuck in the system of intellectually apprised rights and duties that they can’t see what is really necessary: good habits!
Yes! Subset of kings?
Very thoughtful and interesting. To step outside the Christian tradition for a moment, for Rome, of course, the institution of king does become bad per se (and Caesar is, famously, thrice offered the crown); even when what we categorise as a monarchy comes about under Octavian, it is hedged about with non-royal language (“imperator”, “princeps”). But the shift to the East perhaps eases the internal conflict, and once you are happily using “basileus” then the Republic seems a very long way away, chronologically, geographically and ideologically.
And with St Constantine, the synthesis is complete.
The talk of “values” often seems to imply someone valuing - it’s a subjective measure, and couldn’t be further from the true, the good, and the beautiful, which call out to you and compel you to follow them.
Beauty calls. Alas, we of the West have become so used to understanding law in a strictly voluntaristic sense that we misread ancient texts, and especially the Bible. God’s Law, the Torah, isn’t the subjective whim of the being who happens to be the biggest and most powerful - it’s not a case of “God’s values” versus ours, as though the moral order were a matter of personal taste enforced by power. It is the nature of things, reflecting the nature of God, whose will is in harmony with his essence and does not contradict it. The divine law is beautiful, to be savoured and digested from within so that we become one with it, rather than merely obedient to it as an external set of values for us to weigh and judge one by one. Taste and see that the Lord is good!
Very nicely phrased!
Excellent post! Especially like the distinction you make between “values” and Christ’s offering of Himself as “the singular Way…of virtue which leads to the fullness of life and truth.”
Thank you. The virtue/values distinction is really important. Values are imbibed, practised and learnt so that they become instinctive. Kant therefore has no time for them. Moderns know that virtue is necessary but are so stuck in the system of intellectually apprised rights and duties that they can’t see what is really necessary: good habits!
are not warriors also a masculine type in scripture as well?
Yes! A subtype of the king, perhaps?