James Theodore Holly

Even during the years right before the Civil War, most white people in the north refused to believe that black people could be their intellectual equals.  They might be adamant in their opposition to slavery, but this rarely meant that they were willing to cede to black people full political equality, or entertain the notion that men like Alexander Crummell or James Theodore Holly were as capable of profound thought or religious enlightenment as they were.  In his fantastic new book 1861: The Civil War Awakening, Adam Goodheart tells the story of Abby Kelley, the brilliant Quaker abolitionist who converted whole communities to her cause, but who also “nearly lost her audience when she declared that black men and women were no different from whites under the skin” at an anti-slavery meeting.  Given these prejudices even among their allies, men like Crummell and Holly felt that they had something to prove.  They and other black intellectuals  felt that their accomplishments, and the accomplishments of African peoples throughout history, were constantly ignored or understated by white authors.  They wanted to influence the way that history was taught and thought about by correcting the prejudices that constantly regulated the history of their ancestors to the negligible sidelines.  When they thought about the history of Africa they emphasized the brilliance of Africans such as Saint Augustine and Tertullian.  When they thought about the history of the African diaspora, their thoughts turned to Haiti.

They emphasized that Haiti was the second independent nation in the New World, having declared independence from France on January 1st, 1804.  They raised up the name of Toussaint Louverture as a patriotic hero on the same scale as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  They pointed to the aid that Haiti had leant to Simon Bolivar in his struggle to free Spanish colonies from imperial rule.  For them Haiti, an independent country ruled by the descendants of Africans, represent proof that blacks were capable of self-rule, which in turn proved that they were as able, politically and intellectually, as any white.  James Theodore Holly would refer to his contemporaries in Haiti as “the sable heroes and statesman of that independent island of the Caribbean.”  The black abolitionist William Watkins Jr. called Haiti “an irrefutable argument that the descendants of Africa were never designed by their Creator to sustain an inferiority, or even a mediocrity in the chain of beings.”   (You can read about this in Benjamin Quarles book Black Mosaic: Essays in Afro-American History and Historiography, p. 121-122).

James Theodore Holly was remarkable in that he decided to live out his admiration of Haiti and his determination to prove the whole equality of black people.  He was born in Washington D.C. on October 3rd, 1829, the son of Roman Catholic parents.  His parents were free, his grandfather having come to D.C. from Maryland in 1799 to work on the capitol’s construction.  The family moved to New York when James was fifteen years old, and there James was befriended by Father Felix Varela, a Spanish priest who gave him his first Bible.  Roman Catholics had long proven themselves to be allies of African-Americans who were trying to reclaim their history from the negligence of white authors.  Several of the books that were written about African history and heroes were penned by Catholic priests.  But, according to Holly’s own testimony, it was the gift of that Bible which was to lead him away from Roman Catholicism.  Being able to read scripture without mediation convinced him that Roman Catholics practiced “unscriptural ways.”  He withdrew from the church when he was twenty-two, only to become an Episcopalian two years later.  He later stated that “I became a member of the Episcopal Church in Detroit, Michigan, and was immediately admitted a candidate for Holy Orders (http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/jtholly/facts1897.html).”

He was ordained a deacon in Michigan, and requested his bishop to recommend him for missionary work in Haiti.    He was sent by the Episcopal Church’s Foreign Committee to explore the feasibility of a mission in Haiti, and spent two months there in 1855.  When he returned, the committee agreed that he should be sent as a missionary as soon as funds could be raised.  However, the raising of those funds took six years.  In the meantime he was ordained a priest and served as Rector of Saint Luke’s Church in New Haven, Connecticut.

He finally set sail for Haiti in May of 1861, just a few weeks after Frederick Douglass himself was supposed to leave for the island nation.  Holly had known Douglass since his time in New York, and some of the same desires motivated the two men.  Douglass’s intended move to Haiti was motivated by disgust at an America that was preparing for Civil War but not, apparently, for emancipation.  Douglass changed his mind at the last minute.  But Holly sailed forth with about a hundred others, including his wife and seven children.  They were greeted by President Fabre Geffrard, who had seized power in a coup but who ended his reign by attempting to establish a constitutional government.  Geffrard gave the American missionaries some of his own land for the establishment of their mission.  It was about three miles from Port-au-Prince, and it soon proved to be unhealthy.  Contagion broke out during the next nine months, and many of the missionaries died, including Holly’s wife and five of his children.  Many of the survivors chose to return to the United States.  Only about twenty chose to remain.

An American living in Port-au-Prince gave the missionaries a large hall to relocate to, and Holly returned to the U.S. in 1862 to gather funds, leaving his “two motherless boys behind me, in the care of a member of the colony, as a guarantee of my return to Haiti, and to assure them that I would not desert them.”  He returned with a missionary stipend, which had been granted him by the General Convention, and rented a house in the city.

Given the suffering, the uncertainty, and the poverty of the situation, it’s amazing that Holly managed to accomplish so much during the following years.  He oversaw the building of a church, schoolhouse, and rectory in Port-au-Prince, and an expansion of missionary efforts into Haiti’s rural districts.  By 1897 he had established or helped to cultivate schools and hospitals.  He had ordained priests and deacons, the majority of whom worked at several jobs, farming and helping to administer the government.  Chapels were built in the mountains, and lay readers went out from them to minister to a scattered flock. “They make missionary visits from house to house, and like Saint Andrew, they return, bringing their brethren to the Lord Jesus,” Holly wrote of them.  The main church in Port-au-Prince burnt down twice during those years as fires spread through the city.  Again and again, Holly came up against hardship and disaster, but he always stayed true to his vision of educating and healing in Haiti, of spreading the church, and of proving the full of equality of the children of the African diaspora.  He died on March 13, 1911, having established a lasting mission in Haiti and served as Episcopal bishop there for thirty-seven years.

The Will, The Force of Habit, and Enlightenment

David Brooks started his March 1st New York Times column by saying that

In the 19th century, there was a hydraulic model of how to be a good person. There are all these torrents of passion flowing through you. Your job, as captain of your soul, is to erect dams to keep these passions in check. Your job is to just say no to sloth, lust, greed, drug use and the other sins.

He went on to contrast this to an emerging model of human behavior (I won’t call it morality) built around habit formation.  For years psychologists, sociologists, and advertisers have studied habit formation, discovering tools for the manipulation of behavior that we can use and that others can use on us.  It seems that most of us respond automatically to a three part cycle of cue, routine, and reward.  Charles Duhigg, who just wrote a book about this, uses his own cookie eating habit to describe how this works (see video below).  Every day at around three-thirty he would feel the urge to eat a cookie (cue).  So he’d go to the cafeteria, buy a cookie (routine), and spend about ten minutes chatting with his friends (reward).  But before he started thinking about this process, he didn’t really know what cue he was responding to or what reward he was truly seeking.  He discovered that the cue was time – he always began his trip to the cafeteria at around 3:30.  The reward was harder to figure out.  He tried varying his routine.  Maybe he just wanted to stretch his legs at 3:30.  He tried walking around the block.  That didn’t work.  Maybe he was hungry.  He tried eating an apple.  That didn’t work.  Finally he realized that the reward he was seeking was the chance to socialize after a long afternoon working at his desk.  So instead of trekking down to the cafeteria at 3:30, he would stand up, survey the office, find someone to talk to, and after about ten minutes of chit chat, return to his desk.  And this worked.  He lost eight pounds.

These unthinking habits account for about 45% of our daily choices.  We like to think that we’re morally alert, judging and weighing every decision, but the truth is that we’re morally awake for less time than we are actually awake every day.  And knowing this has to effect the way we think about the Ten Commandments.  Some of them are so stark that only psychopaths and nymphomaniacs would habitually break them.  You shall not murder.  You shall not commit adultery.  But some of them can be broken habitually.  Advertisements often attempt to train us to covet our neighbors’ cars, clothes, even cleaning products.  Its easy to fall into habits of neglect and not honor aged parents with visits, or not so aged parents with phone calls, or into habits of annoyance, where we visit and call our parents, but only to criticize and berate them (and if you don’t think this is habitual, think of the most tense relationship you have with any other person, and ask yourself why you fall into sniping and arguing with that person so easily).  Misusing the Lord’s name is often habitual.  And idol making is probably the most habitual thing we do.  For me the main idol is my own sense of self-importance, which causes me to check my e-mail every time the little bell dings and to constantly check to see how many hits I’ve gotten on this blog.

If we sleep walk our way through our transgressions, what chance do we have to change them?  I don’t think that the 19th century model that Brooks describes is the right way to go – those captains of their own souls in the Victorian era also managed to exploit child laborers, cudgel poorly paid workers, sanction domestic violence, and lynch African Americans.  They trusted to their own wills, and the human will is a very untrustworthy shipmate.

I know that there are strong advocates for the idea that community ethics should guide personal ethics, that in a Christian community individuals will act in keeping with that community’s ethics because they love the community and don’t want to damage it by behaving badly.  But when, in all of human history, has this ever succeeded?  Consider Ananias and Sapphira, who in Acts 5 break the community’s ethic by refusing to share the proceeds from some property that they’ve sold.  They drop dead when Peter confronts them with his knowledge of their actions.  Shame certainly works to right the wrong.  But it doesn’t work to prevent the wrong.  It didn’t work to keep the Puritans on track, it didn’t work for the Oneida community or any other attempt at utopia, and it doesn’t even always work for the Amish.  And love of community, and the shame that comes from failing in that love, can at times be a bad thing.  The people who resisted the Nazis chose a greater moral good over a love of community.  So did abolitionists who lived in the slave states in this country.  Communities, even those that claim to be Christian, are sometimes wrong.  And it’s foolish to claim that such a model would work in the ideal Christian community, because that community doesn’t exist.  You end up sounding like the mid-twentieth century radicals who kept claiming that communism would work if it was only given a fair chance.  Ways of life that require ideal conditions to prosper won’t help us in the here and now.

So what chance do we have to actually be moral?  I think that the main error that those 19th century captains-of-the soul made was to believe that their own willpower would suffice.  What is important here is not our own will, but God’s.  There’s a reason why God comes first on the list of commandments, and that loving the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul is the first clause of the Great Commandment.  The first step in acting ethically for a Christian is to humble oneself before the Lord and submit to the will of God.  And in truth, aligning oneself to this morality is very simple.  You simply ask God to enter into you every day.

About a month ago, I was reading a book about ancient forms of prayer (Rodney Werline’s essay “The Experience of Prayer and Resistance to Demonic Powers in the Gospel of Mark,” which can be found in Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity).  The author suggested that, for the Jews of Jesus’s time, the soul was a battleground where God engaged in struggle against the world’s many demons.  To pray was to invite God onto this field of battle, to invite God into the soul.  I realized, after reading this, that my form of prayer has always been something akin to a visit to a high school guidance counselor.  I would lay out my problems and worries and ask for guidance, but in the end I would retain my right to choose.  My will was still the abiding concern, and God was just there to occasionally nod and make quiet suggestions.  But what if I tried praying in this other, more ancient way?  I began to spend just a minute or two in the morning, inviting God to enter into me and engage in my daily battles.  And I began to find that I had much more resistance to all my usual sins.  Because I couldn’t pretend that I was making choices by myself anymore.  I couldn’t pretend that I was alone in those choices, and safe from prying eyes as I made them.  If God has really entered into me, and is really present during the day, then there is no place that I can go to hide from God.  Some of this is about shame.  But a lot of it is also about joy – knowing that God loves me and is willing to inhabit my soul, even though that soul is vastly imperfect.

A self and a world that is inundated with God calls us to action.  The psalms describe this world, although we don’t often think of them as poems about morality.  “The fear of the Lord is clean and endures for ever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.  More to be desired are they than gold, more than much fine gold, sweeter far than honey, than honey from the comb.  By them also is your servant enlightened.” (Psalm 19)  These are songs about setting one’s own will aside, and accepting God’s will.  In the end, that is the habit that Christians must try to cultivate.  That’s why Jesus put it first, when he gave the Great Commandment.  “You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart and all your mind and all your soul.  And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  The second clause is dependent on the first.  To submit to love of God is to submit to love of neighbor, because  if God loves us in our imperfections, God loves our neighbors in their imperfections, as well.  If we are to think of the world in terms of habit, this habit of daily enlightenment is the one that matters most.  Love God and feel grateful for the world and the life that God has given you (cue).  Invite God in to fight on the battlefield of your soul (routine).  Find yourself acting morally as you go about your daily life (reward).

Perpetua and Her Companions

Perpetua was a young mother when she was arrested in 203 A.D.  She had become involved with a group of Christians, and was walking with her fellow catechumens through the town of Thuburbo Minus when she was taken into custody.  The crime of these early Christians was a refusal to sacrifice to the gods on behalf of the emperor.  The Emperor in this case was Septimius Severus, who had risen to power in 193, a year that was so politically chaotic that it was know as the Year of the Five Emperors.  Septimius Severus was the son of a freedman, which showed how quickly the Roman Empire was changing.  It used to be that Emperors had to be born into the senatorial classes, but not any more.  The Empire was so desperate for stability that the son of a former slave would do, as long as he could provide that stability.  Septimius Severus managed to do just that.  He waged successful wars in Africa and against the Parthians in the East, he built triumphal arches, and he put an end to the venal corruption that had been destroying Rome.  And he had two sons, Caracalla and Geta, which meant that when he died he would have a natural successor and the Empire could avoid more civil war.  Since the stability of the Empire depended on one man, it was natural for people to wake up every morning worrying about his health and to run to their temples to beg the gods that he might have long life and prosperity.  But it wasn’t natural for Christians, and because of this they were persecuted.

Perpetua was imprisoned in Carthage.  She spent her first days of incarceration without her baby.  The baby was still nursing and she worried about its nourishment, and suffered pain in her breasts because she couldn’t relieve the pressure of the milk.  Her father came to beg her to recant and make sacrifice to the Emperor.  He would appear again and again during her time in prison.  He wasn’t a Christian himself, and when Perpetua said that she was, “he moved towards me as though he would pluck my eyes out.”  When she next saw him, he was “worn with worry,” and instead of violence he tried persuasion, begging Perpetua to have pity on him in his old age.  He kissed her and wept at her feet.  But it was clear that his concern wasn’t only for her.  “You will destroy us!” he said.  “None of us will ever be able to speak freely again if anything happens to you!”  Again Perpetua refused him.  A few days later, she and her fellow Christians were dragged before the governor, Hilarianus, who passed judgement on them in the forum.  Her father appeared, this time with her infant son in his arms, and shouted to where she stood in the prisoner’s dock – “Perform the sacrifice – have pity on your baby!”  He made himself so obnoxious that the governor ordered soldiers to push him down and beat him with rods.

Up until this point, Perpetua’s baby was a bargaining chip between her and her father.  After his first visit to her, her mother came and brought the baby with her.  The warden allowed the infant to stay locked up with Perpetua so that it could nurse.  This relieved her mind and seems to have changed the very nature of prison for her.  “At once I recovered my health, relieved as I was of my worry and anxiety over the child.  My prison had suddenly become a palace, so that I wanted to be there rather than anywhere else.”  In her recount of her martyrdom, she doesn’t mention how the baby came to be in her father’s arms there in the forum.  But after Perpetua and her companions were sentenced to death, and her father, despairing, left the forum, he kept the baby with him.  However, as Perpetua says, “As God willed, the baby had no further desire for the breast, nor did I suffer any inflammation: and so I was relieved of any anxiety for my child and of any discomfort in my breasts.”

What did she do while she was waiting for execution?  Mostly, she and her companions had visions.  These must have been odd, shining, God-struck days.  Some of the places they were kept were very dark and horrible.  But they prayed together ceaselessly, and when they slept, they were given intimations of their futures.  Perpetua’s first vision occurred when she still had the baby with her.  She saw a narrow bronze ladder reaching to the heavens, with sharp weapons attached to it that would cut a climber if she didn’t stick to the middle of the rungs.  There was a dragon at the base of the ladder, but it was so cowed by Perpetua’s faith that it stuck out its head so that she could use it as her first step up the ladder.  When she reached the top, she found a gray-haired man milking sheep, who was surrounded by thousands of witnesses in white garments.  He welcomed her and gave her milk which she drank from cupped hands, a ritual action which ended in the crowd saying “Amen!”

After she had been sentenced and her father had made off with the baby, she had a vision of a younger brother who had died when he was seven years old.  This boy, named Dinocrates, had cancer of the face, “and his death,” Perpetua writes, “was a source of loathing to everyone.”  In her vision, she saw him in a kind of limbo, forever trying to drink from a pool of water that was just above his head and out of reach.  The poor child had been ostracized in life because of his illness and was now sentenced to eternal misery.  This tells us something about the dearth of compassion for sick people in the Roman Empire.   But it also tells us something about the harshness of the Christian vision of the afterlife at the time, the apparent belief that unbelievers would be sentenced to eternities of sorrow.  Perpetua resolved to try to save him from this misery by praying for him every day.  And on the day when she and her companions were transferred to the military prison, from which they would go to their deaths, she had a vision of her brother in which he was clean and refreshed and had lost the cancerous sores on his face.  The pool of water had been lowered and he could drink from it, and there were other children there for him to play with.  After she had this vision, her father came to visit her one last time.  He tore out his hair and rolled, sobbing, on the ground, and Perpetua felt pity for him.  It’s hard not to sympathize with this father.  From his perspective, his daughter was involved in a death cult.  And his repeated entreaties and fervent appeals demonstrated how much he loved her.

Perpetua and her companions were to be killed by wild beasts in the arena, in celebration of the birthday of Septimius Severus’s second son, Geta.  Death in the arena was a kind of highly ritualized state murder.  On the day before their executions a public feast was held for them, called ‘the free banquet,’ because the crowds who would jeer at them the next day could eat with them at the expense of the state.  There was, in the arena, a gate called the Porta Sanavivaria, ‘the Gate of Life,’ through which gladiators who had been victorious and people who had been spared by the crowds could leave.  That ‘Gate of Life’ featured largely in Perpetua’s last, and strangest, vision.  She saw one of the deacons who had been regularly visiting the prisoners come through the prison gates.  He led her by her hand into the arena, where she found herself facing a huge Egyptian, whom she understood to be the devil himself.  She was supposed to fight him in gladiatorial combat.  And when her clothes were stripped off so that she could fight, she found that she had become a man.  A giant came into the arena to judge the match.  Perpetua defeated the devil, and walked in triumph to the Gates of Life, as the crowd sang psalms.  What to make of this vision?  Perhaps she became a man simply to ensure her modesty.  Or maybe it was because gladiators were men, and if she was to be one in her vision, she had to be a man as well.  But maybe her transformation had to do with her role in the community of catechumens.  She was clearly one of the two leaders.  Her own account of her imprisonment up until the day of her martyrdom is one of the earliest Christian works written by a woman.  In her life and in her death she obviously assumed a role that was normally reserved for the opposite gender.

In one of her companion’s visions, the martyrs in heaven were greeted by God and given a preeminent position over the priests and the bishops.  They professed to be surprised by this, but it’s obvious that in early Christianity the martyrs role was becoming all important.  Much of this had to do with the peace and composure with which the martyrs went to meet their deaths.  While in prison, their prayer and evident love for each other so impressed the warden that he became a Christian.  When Perpetua and her companions were led out for the free banquet, they turned the meal into an agape feast.  They preached to the mob that had gathered to watch them eat.  The next day, when they were led out to die, they thought of it as “the day of their victory.”  Their jailers tried to mock their faith by dressing them in the robes of the priests of Saturn and the priestesses of Ceres.  But Perpetua stared them down and shamed them, and the military tribune ordered that they should be left alone.  When they were led out onto the sands of the arena, the screaming crowd demanded that they be scourged, and they excepted this whipping gladly, since it allowed them to share in the scourging of Christ.  Animals were used in horrifying ways into the arena.  Some of the martyrs were tied to posts and mauled by enraged bears.  Some were tied to the backs of wild boars, which dragged them through the arena, turning to gore them as they went.  One of the martyrs endured this, and then had his throat ripped out by a leopard.  Perpetua and her companion Felicitas, who had just given birth, were brought out naked in a net, so that they could be trampled by wild heifers.  But the crowd rose to their defense, shocked to see new mothers with milk at their breasts treated in this way.  So they were taken back in, dressed, and then given to the wild heifers.  Perpetua was thrown up in the air, but not badly injured, and when she was led through the Gates of Life for a reprieve, she came out of a trance and asked when the executions were to begin.  She had been praying so deeply that she hadn’t noticed what was happening to her.  Goring and battering by animals rarely killed anyone outright, and so at the end of their ordeal the martyrs were led back into the arena to have their throats cut by the gladiators.  The young gladiator who was assigned to Perpetua was trembling and he missed with his first stroke, so she steadied his hand and led the sword to her neck herself.  Her last act was one of pity for her young executioner.

What can we make of this gruesome story?  The faith of these martyrs was so deep, so profound, that they were willing to leave behind home and family, even infant children, in order to remain true to that faith.  And those who witnessed it were awed by their fearlessness.  In a world that was full of chaos and calamity, such calm perseverance must have seemed deeply hopeful.  People died all the time, in civil wars and random street violence, from disease and hunger and childbirth.  Yet almost everyone still feared death.  They feared it so much that they subjected other people to torture, just so that they could taunt death and fool themselves into thinking that if it happened to the poor suckers in the arena it wouldn’t happen to them.  But in the Christian martyrs they found people who didn’t fear death one bit.  Death had truly lost its sting.  And what was the source of that fearlessness?  Curiosity sparked interest, and interest sparked conversion.  The church grew because of the martyrs, and they were considered the great heroes of early Christianity.

Unknown. “The Passion of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas.” Medieval Saints: A Reader. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1999. 21-32. Print.
Also check out the iTunes U course, “History 106B – Spring 2008: The Roman Empire,” taught at UC Berkeley by Professor Isabelle Pafford (available through iTunes).

Some Thoughts about the Cheddar Man, Ray Kurzweil, and Jesus

In 1903, a human skeleton was discovered in Gough’s Cave in the Cheddar Gorge of Somerset, England.  It was an unusual skeleton, very old and bearing marks that suggested it had belonged to a man who had died from a blow to his head.  Scientists determined that this wasn’t a recent murder victim at all.  In fact, the skeleton belonged to the most ancient murder victim in the British Isles, a man who had lived and died seven thousand years before the birth of Christ.  The body of this ancient man was positioned near a cave that was full of animal bones.  Presumably it had once been his store house.  The man’s bones bore the same kinds of marks as those of the animals, suggesting that the flesh had been stripped from them in the same manner as theirs had been.  In other words, he was killed, butchered, and eaten by other human beings.  He was about 23 years old when he died.

Ninth thousand years have passed since the murder of the Cheddar Man, as this skeleton came to be known.  In those nine millennia, human life has changed significantly.  There are very few cannibals left in the world.  It is rare for someone to die before they are twenty-three years old.  We don’t know what kind of social system the Cheddar Man lived in, but it’s safe to assume that his day to day life and his interactions with other people were very, very different from our own.  This paleolithic man was a hunter gatherer, who had never heard of hunting, who moved about the land following grazing animals and collecting nuts and berries, rarely running into other people who weren’t part of his little family group.  The technology he used was entirely different from our own.  He used stone tools and bits of hide and sticks to catch his pray and make his clothes and carve out his dwellings.  Physiologically he was different, shorter than we are, less well nourished.  The resemblance between his humanity and ours was minimal.

In terms of time, Jesus is much more our contemporary than he was the Cheddar Man’s contemporary, but in terms of technology he would find the Cheddar Man understandable and us incomprehensible.  When Jesus appeared two thousand years ago, he told the disciples that he was the Son of Man.  He was claiming his humanity, stating that he had come to show us what God is like, but also to show us what a true and perfect human being is like.  True humanity consisted of service to others (Mark 10:45), forgiveness (Mark 2:10), bringing justice to others (Luke 18:8), and giving himself up as a ransom for other people (Matthew 20:28).    That, for a Christian, is what it means to be human, and it’s important for us to remember it, because so much in our humanity is changing.

Let’s consider, for a moment, changes within our own lifetimes.  I just recently read Zilpha Keatley Snyder’s book The Bronze Pen to my daughter.  It’s protagonist, Audrey Abbott, finds herself isolated from her friends and classmates because her father has a heart condition that requires bypass surgery. Now, this book is set during my own childhood, in the 1970s.  Bypass surgery was still experimental surgery, and in order for Audrey’s father to get an operation he has to find the rare doctor who was willing to do it, and go to San Francisco for a week for surgery and recovery.  So he malingers, always ill and sad and not expecting to live much longer, and Audrey rushes home from school every day so that he won’t be alone while her mother works an afternoon shift at a bank.  These days, this scenario couldn’t really drive a plot.  Bypass surgery is routine, and can be performed almost anywhere.  People still do linger in the grasp of malign and seemingly incurable illnesses, but the numbers who do are much, much fewer.  Our attitude to health has, correspondingly, changed.  We expect modern medicine to be able to fix us, no matter what our illness is.  We don’t expect death to reach out and grab us without a fight.  And I think this changes our inward, spiritual attitudes.  We are less complacent with the world, less accepting of fate.  We’ve lost a sense of the accidental.  When an accident happens, when someone dies, our first instinct is to try to determine who is to blame.  Our expectations as human beings have changed.  It used to be that we expected the universe to control us.  Now we expect to control the universe.

These physical, spiritual and mental changes to our humanity are only going to accelerate as history moves forward.  In 2005, Ray Kurzweil published a book called The Singularity is Near.  In it, he predicts all sorts of wacky changes for the future of humanity.  He believes that human beings and computers are going to merge at some point in the near future to make a new, augmented humanity.  Software will be able to mimic human intelligence by the mid-2020s, and then it will keep expanding, getting smarter and smarter.  Tiny little robots called nanobots with travel inside the capillaries of our brain and help us merge with machine intelligence.  More than that, they will manipulate our very cells and molecules, helping to heal all of the incurable diseases and even reversing human aging.  They’ll create virtual realities from inside our own nervous systems, telling our eyes that they’re seeing things that aren’t really there, and our ears that we’re hearing things that aren’t really there.  And there will be little nanobots floating in the air all around us, that will join together and form themselves into foglets, swarms of tiny robots that can alter sound waves and light waves and create virtual realities in the world outside of our nervous systems as well.  Supposedly, our human-machine intelligence will just keep growing and growing until, Kurzweil says, “the entire universe will become saturated with our intelligence.”

This reminds me of nothing so much as the scientific enthusiasts of the mid-19th century, particularly Auguste Comte.  Comte was the founder of positivism, which held that science would come to replace all other systems of thought.  He was so sure of science and rationality’s ascendency over the human spirit that he wrote to the Pope, suggesting that the Catholic Church consider folding itself into his new religion of science (you can read about this in Henri de Lubac’s The Drama of Atheist Humanism).  He saw the technological potentials of the human race and forgot about our seemingly unending moral limitations.  In the following century, after the holocaust and the dropping of the atomic bomb, it became much harder to believe that science represented human salvation.

I don’t know if Ray Kurzweil is right (although futurists rarely are), but even if he is, I have doubts that the future he describes is actually good.  He assumes that machines will treat us nicely, and that we’ll treat machines nicely, and that human-machine intelligences will treat each other nicely.  He forgets that we’ve never really learned the thing that Jesus came to teach us.  We’re all ready to become extra-human, but we’ve never learned to be truly human.  The truth is that the Cheddar Man isn’t that different from us.  In 1997, scientists in England sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of the Cheddar Man.  They found that they could trace patterns in his DNA to modern day people.  To one particular person, in fact, a history teacher named Adrian Targett who was living in Cheddar Village.  Here were two men, relatives separated by nearly 9,000 years, who lived within a few miles of each other.   Now I’m sure that Adrian Targett is a perfectly nice person, but he is still part of fallen humanity, as am I, as are you, as was the Cheddar man, so many millennia ago.

What does it profit us to gain the whole world, or the whole universe, and forfeit our lives?  Before we go rushing ahead into the future, we need to learn how to be of service, how to forgive others, how to bring justice to others, and how to give ourselves as a ransom, if need be, for the lives of others.  And we can only do that if we stop fearing death so much, and stop thinking of ourselves as masters of the universe.

How do we do that?  Carl Gregg, who wrote this week’s The Hardest Question blog post, suggests an answer.  He quotes Richard Rohr, who says this:

Once we have learned to discern the real, disguised nature of both good and evil, we recognize that everything is broken and fallen, weak and poor, while still being the dwelling place of God — you and me, your country, your children, your churches, even your marriage. That is not a put-down, but finally a freedom to love imperfect things! As Jesus told the rich young man, ‘God alone is good!’ (Mark 10:18). In this, you may have been given the greatest recipe for happiness for the rest of your life. You cannot wait for things to be totally perfect to fall in love with them or you will never love anything. Now, instead, you can love everything.

When we think about what it means to be truly human, it’s not excitable visions of the future that should draw us.  It’s not the hope that some technological improvement or new way of thinking about the universe will finally make us perfect.  It’s the fact that we have a chance to love the imperfect, here and now.  Just as Jesus did.  God loved imperfect humanity so much that he came down from heaven and dwelled among us.  To teach us how to be good, but also to teach us that our goodness depends on our ability to love imperfections.  Jesus turns to Peter and chastises him: “Get behind me, Satan!”  But he never stops loving Peter, imperfect as he is.  Because to be human is to be immersed in life, invested in it, here and now.

John Cassian

John Cassian was only twenty years old when he set off to Bethlehem with his friend Germanus.  Germanus was older, although how much older is unknown.  I imagine that John was a pious and enthusiastic young man, attracted, like many were, by the stories of monasticism, especially Egyptian monasticism, that circulated in his native Scythia.  Justo Gonzalez says that there were, at one time, more than 20,000 people living as monks and nuns in one region of the Egyptian desert alone.  Many of the people who showed up at the monasteries, hoping to live as desert ascetics, needed to be baptized first, since the allure of monasticism was so powerful that even pagans were drawn to it.  But John and Germanus went to Bethlehem before they went to Egypt.  They lived there for five years, sharing a cell and a life of prayer and devotion.  It was there that they met a fugitive abbot from Egypt, one Pinufius, who had fled from the administrative tasks of his position.  Still, he must have spoken in glowing terms about life in the desert.  When his fellow monks showed up to take him back to Egypt (and it’s hard not to imagine this as a comic scene), he left John and Germanus in a state of eagerness to follow.

John and Germanus were very popular in Bethlehem.  Their fellow monks made them promise to return there after they’d gone to Egypt, and they did, but only for a short visit after seven years.  And when they had fulfilled this obligation, they scooted right back to the Egyptian desert.  What made life in the desert so attractive to so many people?  To begin with, this was an uncertain time for the Roman Empire.  Visigothic invasions were rendering things unstable.  And the establishment of Christianity as the state religion was changing the daily practices of Christians and leading people to seek power in a way that was far removed from the apostolic ideal.  The monks represented a purity movement.  They were pioneers at the far reaches of habitable land, and pioneers in the far reaches of the soul.

They lived either as hermits or in communities.  If hermits, they lived by themselves, although within walking distance of other hermits, whom they would gather together with on Sundays for church.  They cultivated small patches of land and wove baskets, singing psalms and reciting scripture as they worked.  They ate mostly bread, owned almost nothing, and slept on rough mats, which John Cassian found sufficiently comfortable.  If the monks lived in communities, they lived in walled enclosures that were divided into many small buildings, which included a church, a meeting hall, a storehouse, and a refectory.  Everyone shared in performing even the humblest tasks, and they prayed ceaselessly as they did so.  Whether they lived as hermits or in communities, most of the desert monks were illiterate.  This meant that the scripture they learned was memorized and spoken aloud with great frequency, so that others could memorize it.

John Cassian was not illiterate.  He was fluent in two languages, Latin and Greek. And as he went among the desert fathers, he recorded their sayings.  It’s because of him that we know so much about their spirituality.  Its clear from the discussions that he and Germanus had with the monks that the men and women who lived in the desert were seeking purity of heart above all else.  Abbot Moses puts it best.  The ultimate goal of a Christian is to live within the Kingdom of God.  But human beings need more concrete, less idealistic goals to aim for in our everyday lives.  The metaphor that Moses uses is that of an archer.  If one wants to learn marksmanship, it doesn’t do any good to shoot arrows into the blank sky.  One needs to shoot at a target that is visible.  Purity of heart, for the monks and nuns, was the visible target.  We might find this to be a fairly idealistic goal in itself, but the desert fathers and mothers lived in a way that made it attainable to them.

At least some of the time.  Because they were isolated and largely illiterate, they weren’t always aware of what was going on in the wider world of Christianity.  Ideas that the church councils had rejected still drifted among them, and gained traction.  And because the monks lived in a way that was considered more holy than the sophisticated, city dwelling Christians’ say of life, they couldn’t understand why decisions made by those urban Christian councils should trump their own understanding of orthodox faith.  In 399 A.D., the theological divisions between the monks and the bishops exploded, and monks who held Origenist views were driven out of Egypt.  Origenists believed in the pre-existence of the soul and that Christ would restore everything when he came again, rescuing even those parts of creation that had been proven to be evil.  John and Germanus apparently sympathized with this point of view, or were at least disheartened to see the persecution of the monks, because they left Egypt in that year and went to  Constantinople to seek refuge from John Chrysostom.

But John Chrysostom had problems of his own.  He was in a life and death struggle with the Imperial family, and although he paused in his struggles to ordain John as a deacon, it wasn’t long before he was exiled and sent on the enforced march that took his life.  But before Chrysostom died in his own wilderness he sent John and Germanus to plead his case before the Bishop of Rome.  They never went back.  In fact, at this moment Germanus disappears from John Cassian’s life.  We don’t know if he died or if they simply parted ways.  The next eleven years of John’s biography are a blank.  John, the most private and reticent of men, didn’t return to the attention of other people until 415 A.D., when he went to Massilia (present day Marseilles) to found a monastery of his own.  It was there, during the next ten years, that he wrote the two books that he is famous for.  The first was The Institutes, which create a rule of life for his monks to live by.  The second was The Conferences, which recorded his conversations with the desert fathers so long ago.

Why was John so shy of talking about himself?  It puzzles historians, who look to the example of Augustine and sigh, wishing that John had been more like him.  But John wasn’t just self-effacing.  He may have been wounded by the Origenist controversy, and hurt by what happened to John Chrysostom.  Seeing the end effects of the church’s political and theological disputes may have convinced him to stay out of them.  Still, I think there’s more to it than that.  If John truly believed what he reported in The Conferences, then what was the merit of his going into details of his life?  He didn’t want to do anything for human glory, or lay up treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume.  He was seeking purity of heart, with the ultimate goal of living within the Kingdom of God.  When he was convinced to enter into a controversy, by writing a series of tracts that were opposed to the Nestorians, he failed miserably.  It’s hard to imagine that he had much enthusiasm for the task.  He was content to live at Massilia with his monks, and the rule of life that they established there had more influence than any theological argument he ever made in a public dispute.  Saint Benedict would read his Institutes a hundred years later, and use them as the basis for creating the Benedictine rule.

Further Reading

Cassian, John, Colm Luibhéid, and Eugène Pichery. Conferences. New York: Paulist, 1985. Print.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. Print.

Harmless, William. Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.