 |
 |
At 12:25 PM 10/7/99 -0400, you wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [log in to unmask] >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bunbury >> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 9:24 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: RE: history and apocalyptic prophecy - was Book of Revelation >> topics >> >> >> At 12:19 PM 10/6/99 -0400, Michael F. Hynes wrote: >> >All we can do is have faith that at the >> >level of the transcendent our experiences do indeed have >> meaning. The locus >> >classicus of all this is R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History and >> Society in the >> >Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge, 1970). Augustine's views won out in >> >large measure because of the power and cogency of his argument. >> >> And perhaps in small measure because historicist apocalypticism no longer >> served an institutionalized church that enjoyed increasing social >> dominance? >> >> Tom Long >> > >Tom, it may be true that Augustine's position ultimately served >institutional interests, but the issue here is the motivations of >individuals who made up the "institutionalized church." Now that it served >these interests (and for the sake of argument I'll concede the point) may be >clear from 20-20 hindsight but was by no means obvious to those who adopted >the Augustinian position, unless, of course, they happened to possess a >crystal ball. i don't understand. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that augustine's arguments are conservative politically, supporting the ecclesiastical institution against threats from purists and millenarians and allowing for the less than stellar performance of people in power, from priests to emperors. he meant them that way. no one, as far as i can see, needed a crystal ball to see what their political implications were. what they did need a crystal ball for was to side with him immediately, in an age where every political, natural and celestial sign pointed to the fact that whatever A. said about not knowing it was the end, it sure looked like the end (see the correspondance with Hesychius, 418-9, Epp. 197-99). >What they were in a position to do was to evaluate the >relative merits of Augustine's argument and these were considerable. what merits? you speak as if, in matters of theology and politics, reason wins. >I know >of no one who adopted rather cynically Augustine's reasoning because it >served some institutional interest. Perhaps you can offer evidence (besides >hindsight) that this was not the case. i don't see why we have to imagine that someone who adopted augustine's reasoning because it served institutional interests wd have to be cynical. the classic conservative, aristocratic reading of these matters is that, for the sake of order, we must do unpleasant things. if one thought augustine's position wd help order (esp an order one was in charge of assuring), then that wd me more than enuf reason to adopt augustine -- indeed the best reason. r %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%