Yes, I have access to The Cellar Door’s social media accounts, including the Facebook page and the Twitter account. It was I who clicked the bugged links which the author of a recent blog post alludes to— I can only assume that this is one Todd Whitworth, a man who contacted The Cellar Door via Facebook messenger. It was I who responded in sinful anger and derision to those messages. I have a bad habit of referring to people as “sodomites” when I think that they’re defending ideas and/or people which are deeply perverse.
I no longer have any way of contacting Todd Whitworth directly at this point in time, so I’ll just say right here, in the hope that he reads it, that I’m sorry, Todd, for foully insulting you. You were correct in noting that I am not very sanctified, and you were correct in saying that my lashing out at you was hypocritical in light of all that I say I am concerned about, i.e., rank antinomianism, lack of love for God’s Law, Lutherans aping the worldly, etc. I do not merely say that I am concerned about those things— I am very concerned about them. But I am a sinner, and as such I am worse than my principles. Thus I agree that the Law is holy, righteous, and good, and I am not. So please forgive me, Todd, not only for my hypocrisy but also for my sinful words against you. It is much easier to rail against antinomianism “out there” than it is to root out the antinomianism in one’s own heart. I would like to say that I would have eventually apologized for those words on my own, but I don’t know that I would have. It’s good to be found out, for that very reason.
I entertain no delusions about the fact that I have lost credibility because of this private outburst that was made public. All sin has consequences, and that is one of them.
I also imagine that, in the minds of some, this post sidesteps the “main issues” with The Cellar Door blog, namely the anonymity/pseudonymity of its authors and the blog’s putative “breaking of the eighth commandment.” I can’t comment on that. I’m not the sole author of content here at The Cellar Door, and I don’t presume to answer for anyone but myself. Anonymity can certainly be abused (as I recently and regrettably demonstrated), but for reasons which are adequately summarized elsewhere, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it.
Ronan McCabe here. That’s the Ronan McCabe to you. I’m your guide for today’s fun activity. All you’ll need is your computer, tablet, or smartphone, with internet access—I know you’ve already got the equipment, or else you wouldn’t be reading this.
No, it’s not because we started using a VPN—we didn’t, and we don’t need to. It’s because this is a WordPress blog and WordPress’s servers are in or around Silcon Valley.
Perhaps you’d like to graduate to Mid-Level Pet Detective and track the IP address from one of our specific posts. You wouldn’t have access to this information ordinarily, but I’ll let you peak at a screencap:
Go to the IP geo-location lookup tool on the same site, type in 22.214.171.124, and…
Marina Del Rey, CA. Without doxxing anyone, I can assure you that no one from our masthead lives there. But WordPress’s servers do.
So, a few days ago, we get this message from one Chris Rosebrah in our inbox (apparently we solicited feedback the other day), and it’s got this screencap of an IP address out of Cheyenne, Wyoming, at the top, with “The Cellar Door” typed out above it. And then, in this gay script-font, like what a kid would use for his ransom note if he didn’t want to go to the trouble of cutting letters out of a magazine, there’s this invitation…to “parley”! Get it? Parley, like, what pirates do. Then there’s this stream of ball-clicking gibberish about how “you think you know the things that you know but you totally don’t know them and I have documents and data to prove it”—basically, a variation on the same theme he was playing in a totally wigged-out Facebook message that he sent to us earlier:
O-K. Well, I don’t know about any “events,” but I suppose if I were a scandal-monger like you I’d be really interested right now.
Anyway, I’m sidetracking myself: I don’t know who it was who opened this thing first—the email, not the above screencapped FB message—but soon we were all reading it. Much merriment ensued, let me tell you. Here’s the working theory:
Rosebrah assumes that by monitoring the IPv4 addresses of visitors to his own website(s) and looking for patterns, he is going to “catch the culprit” in some big conspiracy that’s afoot to bring him down, a conspiracy which is presumably headquartered here at The Cellar Door. But you know what they say about assuming: it makes an ass out of Chris Rosebrah.
So the same night that we get this message, Rosebrah is on Twitter and Facebook just wetting himself, saying that he “tracked the Cellar Door’s IP address to Wyoming.” He posted this on Twitter, and we managed to gank it before it mysteriously disappeared:
This actually happened. Your favorite “discernment ministry” Pirate Cap’n and Issues, Etc. guest…
(a) puts words from a Star Wars movie in the mouth of Jesus Christ.
(b) slanders an entire town.
(c) does stuff like this, and then throws a tantrum when people don’t take him seriously.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”—unless it suits your small-man purposes. What’s a little casual blasphemy, after all? The honor of Christ is a small thing to sacrifice for the sake of ROOTING OUT THE GRAND CONSPIRACY. What an impious child-man. In the above “meme” you see Chris Rosebrah’s entire M.O. in microcosmic form: there is nothing this grifter will not submarine to exalt himself and his pathetic little brand. The Word of God, the honor of Our Lord, the honor and dignity of the pastoral office, the honor of Holy Church—all of these he will gladly deep-six in his quest to control the narrative in his little adventure story.
Needless to say, we’re not “parleying” with Rosebrah because we’re not little boys playing pirates. I’m not even interested in whatever scandals he thinks we all know about. We’re not a hivemind, you know—I didn’t post the tweet that rustled his jimmies, but I’ve read it, and it sounds plausible. But I don’t really care. I don’t mean that I don’t care about people being harassed and threatened—insofar as I can care about such things in the abstract, I’ll do my best. What I mean is that, for my part, I don’t care about Chris Rosebrah. I see him as thoroughly discredited and transparently idiotic, and I don’t have any interest in his little dramatic spats (except for this one, which was too good to pass up commenting on). Philopponus wrote about Rosebrah once, like a year ago, and he wasn’t even the main topic, Higher Things was. Recently we published a guest post about his…um…”online church,” which, as far as I could tell, contained nothing that someone with decent Google Fu wouldn’t be able to uncover in two minutes. And that’s it. I will shed not a tear if no forthcoming content on this blog features anything about Chris Rosebrah. In general, you don’t have to expose exhibitionists. They expose themselves.
“Experience had taught me that innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does. Innocence is a mighty shield, and the man or woman covered by it, is much more likely to answer calmly: ‘My life is blameless. Look into it, if you like, for you will find nothing.’”
– Whittaker Chambers, Witness
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – Queen Gertrude (Shakespeare’s Hamlet)
“Generalizations, like brooms, are supposed to sweep.”
– John Lukacs, The Last European War
Hat-tip to Philopponus for these absurd and hilarious screenshots. These comments absolutely define logomachy.
Best comment, although I don’t know if the guy who made it knew how truly apropos of Price it was:
Perhaps I should have heeded the Proverb: “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.”
I mean, woof. By their fruits and creepy tank-tops shall ye know them. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were a preacher-man cult-leader type who was trying to convince people that I hadn’t in fact cheated on my wife and banged one of my female disciples, I’d probably try to look a little more presentable/less chi-mo-ish. But, oh wait— I forgot that the “broken” grunge-potato look is part of this group’s bag. Cue 3EB, “Misfits,” which I’m sure they all headbang to during “worship” when they’re not raving to gospel-tarded EDM. These people are such idiots.
Over the last year I have gotten to know several ex-fans of this passing dog’s crapulous output. Listen to any one of Price’s signally “sermons,” and you’ll find a consistent subtext: “Why it’s OK that I’m still a pastor.” Which is good, in a way, I guess, as it indicates that he still has nagging doubts. For the sake of his soul, he should entertain those doubts and let them sink in a bit more. A “preacher-man” he might be, but a pastor he is not: as many a scarred Scottish sheep could tell you, the mere fact that a man has gathered a flock around him by no means makes him a shepherd.
CPH’s latest attempt to claw and grasp at ‘popular culture’ or ‘relevancy’ is titled ‘Being Lutheran.’ Now, besides the ontological and metaphysical questions raised by the title of the book which are certainly never addressed, it’s quite a confusing compilation of sentences. I’m not just trying to use interesting language when I say ‘compilation of sentences,’ though, because that seems to be the style that Rev. Sutton has chosen to use. For the purposes of this review, I won’t be discussing anything other than the free chapter available online, not because I haven’t read more of the book, but because this is the portion which assumedly the author, editors, and publisher have decided is the best ‘hook’ to get the young, trendy, Lutheran hipster kids to buy the book. You can download it here: http://books.cph.org/being-lutheran-download
It’s tough to understand where Rev. Sutton is going with this book without him telling you himself. This is because apart from the vague title (Is it prescriptive? descriptive? questioning? Etc.), the flow of thought is very scattered. When I decided to write this review I realized that I couldn’t quite nail down what the structure and flow of the book was, so I went to the CPH website and found this helpful and yet confusing description: ‘Thus, he divides his book into two parts: what Lutherans challenge (being closed, lukewarm, confused, lazy, and ‘pastel’), followed by what Lutherans cherish (the new, the ordinary, the unresolved, purpose, and the local.’
On the surface, one could look at this and twist and contort your mind in order to say ‘Well the Lutheran Confessions speak this way. “They speak specifically about what we agree and disagree with.” But one of the main problems I have with this is that these listings of what we challenge and cherish are weak at best and misleading at worst. In my reading of the book, it seems to be rhetorically geared towards 5th-8th graders. The sentences are simple and utterly devoid of any nuance, especially when it comes to speaking of aspects of Lutheran theology where the nuance is crucial. Take for example this passage from the book: ‘Uncertainty fueled the selling of indulgences. The Church during that time in history taught that God’s grace was a spiritual steroid for doing good works. Grace empowered believers to reach salvation. Forgiveness was earned by doing good works as repayment for sin.’ While this is not explicitly incorrect, it certainly keeps alive and actively promotes this Lutheran caricature of Roman Catholic doctrine that involves confession and then paying for an indulgence which grants absolution. This was not Roman doctrine at the time of Luther, nor is it the case now. The indulgence merely was seen as a remittance of the temporal consequences of sin which remained after the sin was forgiven by a priest. This is not a challenging thing to present in simple language (2 parts vs 3 parts to forgiveness).
In presenting things this way at multiple points in the first chapter alone, the author does a serious disservice to all of the seemingly intended target markets. The young or inexperienced Lutheran will now be given insufficient glosses of their own theology. The ‘other’ Christian will either see no difference between their Baptist roots and Lutheranism or, if they are Catholic, they will say ‘That’s not what my church teaches.’ For the unchurched individual, the purpose, characters, and Reformation itself will seem trite and simple.
I can hear the objections now: ‘But sir, this isn’t a book for theologians! It’s for the youth and the under educated…’ Indeed! We need more resources for that area! Train up a child in the way he should go… and so on! (That’s Proverbs 22) This is why we need to be so strict about the quality of such publications! It was the book of the month for our seemingly only effective Lutheran public outreach! This is important!
The other objection which I feel could be raised against my review is that of ‘context.’ Any Lutheran who has debated or investigated church doctrine knows that in everything ‘context is key.’ This book provides many simplistic statements followed by a related anecdote, and the topic moves on. This means that there is no context by which the simplistic statements can be saved. The result is that the book gives young people what they should have (proverbs which they can extrapolate from in their daily life) but rarely gives them the best or most discerning.
So we come back to the stated structure from the foreword: “what Lutherans challenge (being closed, lukewarm, confused, lazy, and ‘pastel’), followed by what Lutherans cherish (the new, the ordinary, the unresolved, purpose, and the local).” I repeat this because it so perfectly encapsulates how the book reads. Speaking as a theologically trained Lutheran, I can read those lists and in my head complete them ‘Lutheranly.’ For example, I as a Lutheran cherish the new (Adam), the ordinary (ordinaries, actually), the unresolved (tension between the reality of the now and not yet), the purpose (honestly, I can’t shoehorn this one) and the local(ized presence of Christ Himself in the Eucharist). However, since the printed words on the pages are empty platitudes with no self-contained linguistic identity within the Lutheran tradition, anyone could read them, apply their own theological tradition and ‘be Lutheran.’
Also, let’s be honest here, Lutherans don’t ‘challenge being closed,’ unless of course your communion policy advocates for being pretty gosh darn open. Lutherans cherish closed-ness because Christ did as well. He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. Nobody will reach salvation without Him. In order for us to comfort those within the fold of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, we need to retain ‘being closed’ as a virtue. It is not those who advocate for closed communion who are the problem, in fact, in my experience they are often more effective at bringing people to the faith than those who equate ‘closed’ with ‘close enough,’ (see above)which is a false and harmful thing to do.
As Lutherans (not Being Lutherans….) we have a great tradition of doing things well. Luther was a great writer, translator, preacher, and scholar. Paul Gerhard and Bach are remembered and honored outside of the Lutheran church even in our modern age for their contributions to music. Countless great churches have the title ‘Lutheran’ engraved upon their cornerstones. I would in fact argue against Gretchen Jameson in her review and say that we need much more ‘blatant Lutheran grandstanding,’ because we do actually have countless grand treasures on which to stand.The aesthetics, style, writing, and tone of this book take the pressure-formed and highly polished diamonds of Lutheran history and theology and presents them not as valuable treasures, but rather as bubblegum machine trinkets.
Hullo. Stanislas the Webmaster here. This is a message for Captain Roseborough:
You know what it is to assume. It’s to make an ass out of u and me. In this case, though, your assumptions regarding the authorship of a recent certain post here at The Cellar Door make only one person an ass: you. Since you are already a thundering ass, assuming further will simply push you past ass-saturation to a point of severe volatility. Don’t risk it.
Submit comments if you wish. None of them will be posted – you have been blacklisted. This is not an open discussion forum. That is, it is not open to vexatious and double-minded men such as yourself.
It appears my fellow writer here at DoorCellarTheCellarDoor or however you wish to make reference in your Facebook posts (Personal fave so far was the comparison to Christian News. Keep’em coming, guys. 1000 points to the most creative slams), has stirred up a bit of a ruckus. Now, I’m not sure that I personally agree with all of his assertions or style (and have told him as much), but good golly did some people get their Hanes in a bunch. Among the responses which I watched with half-hearted interest, there was one complaint which came up several times with which I took personal umbrage: the charge that writing under a pseudonym was a) cowardly, b) weak, or c) invalidated whatever was said in the piece.
These objections struck me as odd. It’s a well-known fact that a sizeable number of writers, poets, theologians, and philosophers throughout history have used some sort of pseudonym. Kierkegaard himself had at least 9 known pseudonyms. Mathias Flacius had over 15. Give me a few minutes and I’ll hop in my time machine to ask them why they were such cowards.
Ok. I’m back. I realized when I got there that I haven’t kept my Danish skills up to snuff, but I’m pretty sure Soren answered the accusation with the Copenhagen equivalent of “That’s the dumbest set of objections I’ve ever heard.” Flacius was too busy trying to put sugar in Melanchthon’s gas tank to respond, but I’m sure he’d agree.
These men and the many other great publishers of essays and treatises like them did not write with false names because they were timid. They had a multitude of reasons from grouping their works by thematic aim, avoiding their own previously known reputations, and sometimes even personal safety. Hell, even Stephen King started using a nom de plume for a bit to see if people were buying his books because they were good or because they had the name King on the cover. Turns out that there’s a lot in a name. The book sold 10 times better when the secret was out.
You see, when it comes to opinions, thoughts, writings, musings, and other types of literary diarrhea which get posted on the internet, their inherent nature is usually ridiculously egotistical. The thoughts, arguments, points, and rhetoric get immediately weighed and measured before they are read and processed. The measure of a man and his ideas in this age of glowing screens and smartphones is no longer his capability of communicating, but rather the little blue name next to his attempted Facebook wit or Twitter blather. Not only that, but those who build their own little following in the world of the tubes begin to get careless with their method and statements and, like the American Church, begin to say and signal whatever will continue to grow their number of likes and retweets. It’s all pretty disgusting.
It’s then no surprise that the loudest complaints about the pseudonymous nature of DoorCellarThe came from those among the Lutheran milieu for whom the descriptor “self-aggrandizing” is an all too perfect fit.
Cowardly? Eh, maybe, but not likely. That’s not the reason for the editorial choice for fake names. Instead, we aspire to be a place where ideas, poetry, essays, and just plain suggestions can be floated out among the web-o-sphere without the weight or curse of nonymous reputations. The ideas have to stand for themselves because that’s the only thing any reader will know about what he’s reading. Maybe you’ll be able to read into the choices different people have made for their pseudonyms, maybe not. Maybe you’ll be convinced you know who wrote this or that. Maybe you’ll be right, but more than likely you’d be surprised. To tell the truth, I know that there are several accounts for this little e-think tank of whom I am unaware of the “real” identity. It’s more fun that way. We are Cellar for we are many….or at least several.
So maybe some of you will get offended by some of the things presented there. Feel free to respond, but be aware that since the nature of the Cellar is one centered on rhetoric and discussion, you may wish to check your emotional reactions and self-importance at the door.
I am not a libertarian— far from it. Still, I believe that the featured essay, “Isaiah’s Job,” by the renowned twentieth-century libertarian Albert Jay Nock, contains much wisdom, no matter what you think of his philosophy on the whole. While Nock uses the story of Isaiah to make a more analogical point about the unreflective, anti-philosophic temper of modern American society, his conceit serves equally well in a religious frame—after all, it’s Isaiah we’re talking about, so such a frame is hardly a Procrustean bed. Indeed, his essay is a fit and proper heuristic aid for reflecting upon the temper of the denizens of the New Israel, the Church of God, particularly that aspect under which we might contemplate her as a unique human society. Of course, the ecclesia militans is much more than a human society. But she is exactly that, too.
Nock’s words here remind me of something Josef Pieper writes in Leisure: The Basis of Culture (which book was stumped earlier at the Cellar Door here). Pieper writes:
[W]e need not only direct our attention to the extreme instances of crisis that show themselves today: I mean simply the everyday working world, where we must go about our business, where very concrete goals are advanced and realized: goals that must be sighted with an eye fixed on the things nearest and closest at hand. Now it is not our purpose here to condemn this world, from the standpoint of some “holiday-world” of philosophy. No words need be wasted on saying that this work-a-day world is very much with us, that in it the foundations of our physical existence are secured, without which nobody can philosophize at all.
Nevertheless, let us also recall, that among the voices which fill the workplace and the markets (“How do you get this or that item of daily existence?” “Where do you get that?” etc.) — in the midst of all these voices suddenly one calls out above the rest: “Why is there anything at all, and not nothing?” — asking that age-old question, which Heidegger called the basic question of all metaphysics.
Must we explicitly state how unfathomable this philosopher’s question is, in comparison with that everyday world of needs and purposefulness? If such a question as this were asked, without introduction or interpretation, in the company of those people of efficiency and success, wouldn’t the questioner be considered rather…mad?
Yes, rather. The questioner and those like him—men who, like Isaiah, demand that we give attention to questions of ultimate import at awkward and “inopportune” moments—are “idealists”, we say, and we mean it pejoratively. They’re not “practical”, etc. They do not “accept the world as it is.”
But just how is the world, really? What is the “world”, and what do we mean by “really”? (What is the meaning of “is”? It’s a good question—just wasn’t the right one for Bill Clinton to ask when he did.) Doesn’t the adverb “really” presume knowledge of the “real”? And is there no connection between the “ideal” and the “real”?
In our postmodern torpor, we have forgotten even how to entertain or contemplate—let alone answer—such questions. In our ignorance, we feel superior. We dismiss, mock, and murder the “idealists.”
Part of the reason for this is that we are genuinely stupid. We haven’t learnt. We have instead grown myopic staring at high-definition images which flicker on the scrollable haptic-display-walls of our caves. “The world” presents itself at our fingertips. Why would we want to leave?
So enamored of the means we possess in mounting superabundance—our techne and all the hills of beans which we can count with it—we have lost consciousness of ends. We do not know what anything is for.
Since we eschew studying the arts of reason and know nothing of philosophy, we think that “ideal” means “perfect” rather than “pertaining to ideas.” We then can only deride “idealism”, rather than distinguishing between good and bad ideas, and thus good and bad idealisms, wise and foolish idealists. We imagine that an “idealist” is someone who attempts fanciful and rote repristination of this or that Golden Age. However, this is a most profound misunderstanding. “[T]he return which the idealists propose is not a voyage backward through time but a return to center,” writes Weaver, “which must be conceived metaphysically or theologically.” Idealists…
…are seeking the one which endures and not the many which change and pass, and this search can be only described as looking for the truth. They are making the ancient affirmation that there is a center of things, and they point out that every feature of modern disintegration is a flight from this toward periphery. It is expressible, also, as a movement from unity to individualism. In proportion as man approaches the outer rim, he becomes lost in details, and the more he is preoccupied with details, the less he can understand them. A recovery of certain viewpoints associated with the past would be a recovery of understanding as such, and this, unless we admit ourselves to be helpless in the movement of a deterministic march, is possible at any time. In brief, one does not require a particular standpoint to comprehend the timeless.
This and this alone is the vital work of the “idealist.” Yet the idealist—Pieper’s “questioner”—must keep out a weather eye: “Let us remember all the while,” Weaver cautions, “that the very notion of eternal verities is repugnant to the modern temper.”
Repugnant, yes. Also embittering and enraging.
Isaiah was a deemed a madman and for his troubles was sawn in half. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting of the youth and was forced to take the hemlock. Our Lord Jesus Christ was decried as a raving wine-bibber and, ultimately, crucified as a blasphemer. The apostles, His lunatic proxies, followed in His train. So it has ever been, and so it will ever be this side of Dies Irae. Any who cry “Return!” “Repent!” “Restore!” and “Remember!” must be regarded by the mass of men as foolhardy “idealists.”
Albert Jay Nock
One evening last autumn, I sat long hours with a European acquaintance while he expounded a political-economic doctrine which seemed sound as a nut and in which I could find no defect. At the end, he said with great earnestness: “I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I am called to get the ear of the people. I shall devote the rest of my life to spreading my doctrine far and wide among the population. What do you think?”
An embarrassing question in any case, and doubly so under the circumstances, because my acquaintance is a very learned man, one of the three or four really first-class minds that Europe produced in his generation; and naturally I, as one of the unlearned, was inclined to regard his lightest word with reverence amounting to awe. Still, I reflected, even the greatest mind can not possibly know everything, and I was pretty sure he had not had my opportunities for observing the masses of mankind, and that therefore I probably knew them better than he did. So I mustered courage to say that he had no such mission and would do well to get the idea out of his head at once; he would find that the masses would not care two pins for his doctrine, and still less for himself, since in such circumstances the popular favourite is generally some Barabbas. I even went so far as to say (he is a Jew) that his idea seemed to show that he was not very well up on his own native literature. He smiled at my jest, and asked what I meant by it; and I referred him to the story of the prophet Isaiah.
It occurred to me then that this story is much worth recalling just now when so many wise men and soothsayers appear to be burdened with a message to the masses. Dr. Townsend has a message, Father Coughlin has one, Mr. Upton Sinclair, Mr. Lippmann, Mr. Chase and the planned economy brethren, Mr. Tugwell and the New Dealers, Mr. Smith and Liberty Leaguers – the list is endless. I can not remember a time when so many energumens were so variously proclaiming the Word to the multitude and telling them what they must do to be saved. This being so, it occurred to me, as I say, that the story of Isaiah might have something in it to steady and compose the human spirit until this tyranny of windiness is overpast. I shall paraphrase the story in our common speech, since it has to be pieced out from various sources; and inasmuch as respectable scholars have thought fit to put out a whole new version of the Bible in the American vernacular, I shall take shelter behind them, if need be, against the charge of dealing irreverently with the Sacred Scriptures.
The prophet’s career began at the end of King Uzziah’s reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however – like the reign of Marcus Aurelius at Rome, or the administration of Eubulus at Athens, or of Mr. Coolidge at Washington – where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.
In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.” He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”
Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.”
Apparently, then, if the Lord’s word is good for anything – I do not offer any opinion about that, – the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it. This is a very striking and suggestive idea; but before going on to explore it, we need to be quite clear about our terms. What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant?
As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, labouring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.
The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass-man – be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper – gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak-minded and weak-willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass-woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass-man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury-products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly “smart” periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name “flapper gait” and the “debutante slouch.” It may be fair to discount Isaiah’s vivacity a little for prophetic fervour; after all, since his real job was not to convert the masses but to brace and reassure the Remnant, he probably felt that he might lay it on indiscriminately and as thick as he liked – in fact, that he was expected to do so. But even so, the Judean mass-man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass-woman utterly odious.
If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character – too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.
But Isaiah was a preacher and Plato a philosopher; and we tend to regard preachers and philosophers rather as passive observers of the drama of life than as active participants. Hence in a matter of this kind their judgment might be suspected of being a little uncompromising, a little acrid, or as the French say, saugrenu. We may therefore bring forward another witness who was preeminently a man of affairs, and whose judgment can not lie under this suspicion. Marcus Aurelius was ruler of the greatest of empires, and in that capacity he not only had the Roman mass-man under observation, but he had him on his hands twenty-four hours a day for eighteen years. What he did not know about him was not worth knowing and what he thought of him is abundantly attested on almost every page of the little book of jottings which he scribbled offhand from day to day, and which he meant for no eye but his own ever to see.
This view of the masses is the one that we find prevailing at large among the ancient authorities whose writings have come down to us. In the eighteenth century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass-man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which “society” is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favourable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.
On this side of the ocean a whole new continent stood ready for a large-scale experiment with this theory. It afforded every conceivable resource whereby the masses might develop a civilization made in their own likeness and after their own image. There was no force of tradition to disturb them in their preponderance, or to check them in a thoroughgoing disparagement of the Remnant. Immense natural wealth, unquestioned predominance, virtual isolation, freedom from external interference and the fear of it, and, finally, a century and a half of time – such are the advantages which the mass-man has had in bringing forth a civilization which should set the earlier preachers and philosophers at naught in their belief that nothing substantial can be expected from the masses, but only from the Remnant.
His success is unimpressive. On the evidence so far presented one must say, I think, that the mass-man’s conception of what life has to offer, and his choice of what to ask from life, seem now to be pretty well what they were in the times of Isaiah and Plato; and so too seem the catastrophic social conflicts and convulsions in which his views of life and his demands on life involve him. I do not wish to dwell on this, however, but merely to observe that the monstrously inflated importance of the masses has apparently put all thought of a possible mission to the Remnant out of the modern prophet’s head. This is obviously quite as it should be, provided that the earlier preachers and philosophers were actually wrong, and that all final hope of the human race is actually centred in the masses. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that the Lord and Isaiah and Plato and Marcus Aurelius were right in their estimate of the relative social value of the masses and the Remnant, the case is somewhat different. Moreover, since with everything in their favour the masses have so far given such an extremely discouraging account of themselves, it would seem that the question at issue between these two bodies of opinion might most profitably be reopened.
But without following up this suggestion, I wish only, as I said, to remark the fact that as things now stand Isaiah’s job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass-acceptance and mass-approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses’ attention and interest. This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, that one is reminded of the troglodytic monster described by Plato, and the assiduous crowd at the entrance to its cave, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favour, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.
The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one’s doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.
Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.
If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one’s resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it; and that makes a good job.
In a sense, nevertheless, as I have said, it is not a rewarding job. If you can tough the fancy of the masses, and have the sagacity to keep always one jump ahead of their vagaries and vacillations, you can get good returns in money from serving the masses, and good returns also in a mouth-to-ear type of notoriety:
Digito monstrari et dicier, Hic est!
We all know innumerable politicians, journalists, dramatists, novelists and the like, who have done extremely well by themselves in these ways. Taking care of the Remnant, on the contrary, holds little promise of any such rewards. A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse-proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it. Isaiah’s case was exceptional to this second rule, and there are others, but not many.
It may be thought, then, that while taking care of the Remnant is no doubt a good job, it is not an especially interesting job because it is as a rule so poorly paid. I have my doubts about this. There are other compensations to be got out of a job besides money and notoriety, and some of them seem substantial enough to be attractive. Many jobs which do not pay well are yet profoundly interesting, as, for instance, the job of research student in the sciences is said to be; and the job of looking after the Remnant seems to me, as I have surveyed it for many years from my seat in the grandstand, to be as interesting as any that can be found in the world.
What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.
The fascination and the despair of the historian, as he looks back upon Isaiah’s Jewry, upon Plato’s Athens, or upon Rome of the Antonines, is the hope of discovering and laying bare the “substratum of right-thinking and well-doing” which he knows must have existed somewhere in those societies because no kind of collective life can possibly go on without it. He finds tantalizing intimations of it here and there in many places, as in the Greek Anthology, in the scrapbook of Aulus Gellius, in the poems of Ausonius, and in the brief and touching tribute, Bene merenti, bestowed upon the unknown occupants of Roman tombs. But these are vague and fragmentary; they lead him nowhere in his search for some kind of measure on this substratum, but merely testify to what he already knew a priori – that the substratum did somewhere exist. Where it was, how substantial it was, what its power of self-assertion and resistance was – of all this they tell him nothing.
Similarly, when the historian of two thousand years hence, or two hundred years, looks over the available testimony to the quality of our civilization and tries to get any kind of clear, competent evidence concerning the substratum of right-thinking and well-doing which he knows must have been here, he will have a devil of a time finding it. When he has assembled all he can and has made even a minimum allowance for speciousness, vagueness, and confusion of motive, he will sadly acknowledge that his net result is simply nothing. A Remnant were here, building a substratum like coral insects; so much he knows, but he will find nothing to put him on the track of who and where and how many they were and what their work was like.
Concerning all this, too, the prophet of the present knows precisely as much and as little as the historian of the future; and that, I repeat, is what makes his job seem to me so profoundly interesting. One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet’s attempt – the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe – to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job. He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat. The Lord replied that he need not worry about that, for even without him the True Faith could probably manage to squeeze along somehow if it had to; “and as for your figures on the Remnant,” He said, “I don’t mind telling you that there are seven thousand of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are.”
At that time, probably the population of Israel could not run to much more than a million or so; and a Remnant of seven thousand out of a million is a highly encouraging percentage for any prophet. With seven thousand of the boys on his side, there was no great reason for Elijah to feel lonesome; and incidentally, that would be something for the modern prophet of the Remnant to think of when he has a touch of the blues. But the main point is that if Elijah the Prophet could not make a closer guess on the number of the Remnant than he made when he missed it by seven thousand, anyone else who tackled the problem would only waste his time.
The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it; in fact, if he tries to do anything about it, he is pretty sure to put them off. He does not need to advertise for them nor resort to any schemes of publicity to get their attention. If he is a preacher or a public speaker, for example, he may be quite indifferent to going on show at receptions, getting his picture printed in the newspapers, or furnishing autobiographical material for publication on the side of “human interest.” If a writer, he need not make a point of attending any pink teas, autographing books at wholesale, nor entering into any specious freemasonry with reviewers. All this and much more of the same order lies in the regular and necessary routine laid down for the prophet of the masses; it is, and must be, part of the great general technique of getting the mass-man’s ear – or as our vigorous and excellent publicist, Mr. H. L. Mencken, puts it, the technique of boob-bumping. The prophet of the Remnant is not bound to this technique. He may be quite sure that the Remnant will make their own way to him without any adventitious aids; and not only so, but if they find him employing any such aids, as I said, it is ten to one that they will smell a rat in them and will sheer off.
The certainty that the Remnant will find him, however, leaves the prophet as much in the dark as ever, as helpless as ever in the matter of putting any estimate of any kind upon the Remnant; for, as appears in the case of Elijah, he remains ignorant of who they are that have found him or where they are or how many. They did not write in and tell him about it, after the manner of those who admire the vedettes of Hollywood, nor yet do they seek him out and attach themselves to his person. They are not that kind. They take his message much as drivers take the directions on a roadside signboard – that is, with very little thought about the signboard, beyond being gratefully glad that it happened to be there, but with every thought about the directions.
This impersonal attitude of the Remnant wonderfully enhances the interest of the imaginative prophet’s job. Once in a while, just about often enough to keep his intellectual curiosity in good working order, he will quite accidentally come upon some distinct reflection of his own message in an unsuspected quarter. This enables him to entertain himself in his leisure moments with agreeable speculations about the course his message may have taken in reaching that particular quarter, and about what came of it after it got there. Most interesting of all are those instances, if one could only run them down (but one may always speculate about them), where the recipient himself no longer knows where nor when nor from whom he got the message – or even where, as sometimes happens, he has forgotten that he got it anywhere and imagines that it is all a self-sprung idea of his own.
Such instances as these are probably not infrequent, for, without presuming to enroll ourselves among the Remnant, we can all no doubt remember having found ourselves suddenly under the influence of an idea, the source of which we cannot possibly identify. “It came to us afterward,” as we say; that is, we are aware of it only after it has shot up full-grown in our minds, leaving us quite ignorant of how and when and by what agency it was planted there and left to germinate. It seems highly probable that the prophet’s message often takes some such course with the Remnant.
If, for example, you are a writer or a speaker or a preacher, you put forth an idea which lodges in the Unbewußtsein of a casual member of the Remnant and sticks fast there. For some time it is inert; then it begins to fret and fester until presently it invades the man’s conscious mind and, as one might say, corrupts it. Meanwhile, he has quite forgotten how he came by the idea in the first instance, and even perhaps thinks he has invented it; and in those circumstances, the most interesting thing of all is that you never know what the pressure of that idea will make him do.
For these reasons it appears to me that Isaiah’s job is not only good but also extremely interesting; and especially so at the present time when nobody is doing it. If I were young and had the notion of embarking in the prophetical line, I would certainly take up this branch of the business; and therefore I have no hesitation about recommending it as a career for anyone in that position. It offers an open field, with no competition; our civilization so completely neglects and disallows the Remnant that anyone going in with an eye single to their service might pretty well count on getting all the trade there is.
Even assuming that there is some social salvage to be screened out of the masses, even assuming that the testimony of history to their social value is a little too sweeping, that it depresses hopelessness a little too far, one must yet perceive, I think, that the masses have prophets enough and to spare. Even admitting that in the teeth of history that hope of the human race may not be quite exclusively centred in the Remnant, one must perceive that they have social value enough to entitle them to some measure of prophetic encouragement and consolation, and that our civilization allows them none whatever. Every prophetic voice is addressed to the masses, and to them alone; the voice of the pulpit, the voice of education, the voice of politics, of literature, drama, journalism – all these are directed towards the masses exclusively, and they marshal the masses in the way that they are going.
One might suggest, therefore, that aspiring prophetical talent may well turn to another field. Sat patriae Priamoque datum – whatever obligation of the kind may be due the masses is already monstrously overpaid. So long as the masses are taking up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun, their images, and following the star of their god Buncombe, they will have no lack of prophets to point the way that leadeth to the More Abundant Life; and hence a few of those who feel the prophetic afflatus might do better to apply themselves to serving the Remnant. It is a good job, an interesting job, much more interesting than serving the masses; and moreover it is the only job in our whole civilization, as far as I know, that offers a virgin field.
This essay first appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1936.