Union and Division

And now I am thinking of the disease which is spiritual pride. I am thinking of the peculiar unreality that gets into the hearts of the saints and eats their sanctity away. . . . As soon as they have done something which they know to be good in the eyes of God, they tend to take its reality to themselves and to make it their own. They tend to destroy their virtues by claiming them for themselves and clothing their own private illusion of themselves with values that belong to God. Who can escape the secret desire to breathe a different atmosphere from the rest of men?

This sickness of most dangerous when it succeeds in looking like humility. When a proud man thinks he is humble his case is hopeless.

Here is a man who has done many things that were hard for his flesh to accept. He has come through difficult trials and done a lot of work, and by God’s grace he has come to possess a habit of fortitude and self-sacrifice in which, at last, labor and suffering become easy. It is reasonable that his conscience should be at peace. But before he realizes it, the clean peace of a will united to God becomes the complacency of a will that loves its own excellence.

The pleasure that is in his heart when he does difficult things and succeeds in doing them well, tells him secretly: “I am a saint.” At the same time, others seem to recognize him as different from themselves. They admire him, or perhaps avoid him — a sweet homage of sinners! The pleasure burns into a devouring fire. The warmth of that fire fells very much like the love of God. It is fed by the same virtues that nourished the flame of charity. He burns with self-admiration and thinks: “It is the fire of the love of God.”

He thinks his own pride is the Holy Ghost.

The sweet warmth of pleasure becomes the criterion of all his works. The relish he savors in acts that make him admirable in his own eyes, drives him to fast, or to pray, or to hide in solitude, or to write many books, or to build churches and hospitals, or to start a thousand organizations. And when he gets what he wants he thinks his sense if satisfaction is the unction of the Holy Spirit.

And the secret voice of pleasure sings in his heart: “Non sum sicut caeteri homines” (I am not like other men).

Once he has started on this path there is no limit to the evil his self-satisfaction may drive him to do in the name of God and of His love, and for His glory. He is so pleased with himself that he can no longer tolerate the advice of another. . . When someone opposes his desire he folds his hands humbly and seems to accept it for the time being, but in his heart he is saying: “I am persecuted by worldly men. They are incapable of understanding one who is led by the Spirit of God. With the saints it has always been so.”

Having become a martyr he is ten times as stubborn as before.

Its is a terrible thing when such a one gets the idea he is a prophet or a messenger of God or a man with a mission to reform the world. . . . He is capable of destroying religion and making the name of God odious to men. (Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation [New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961])

Cultist Fables

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one an evangelical Christian, and the other a Kultist. The Kultist stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, reign down judgment upon my enemies because I want them to be my friends so much that I harass them daily, but they repent not.” And the evangelical Christian, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

A Happy Compromise

As West of Paris faces a showdown with PETA, the editorial staff here at Cultists in Hats suggests this happy compromise that should satisfy all parties, including those gaggles of geese.

In lieu of serving foie gras, West of Paris should offer fresh cornmeal to its customers, served via a hand-held funnel manned by the wait staff. As proposed, it would work like this: one waiter would grab the customer by the throat and shove the funnel down his esophagus, holding it firmly in place. Once secure, another waiter would pour the cornmeal into the funnel until the customer starts vomiting. When the convulsing ceases, the wait staff would immediately resume the force-feeding and thereby insure a complete dining experience.

While this compromise is labor intensive, it is considerably cheaper than the huge overhead required to harvest goose livers. Nevertheless, it would still create logistical issues, such as the amount of resistance waiters should tolerate from customers before knocking them silly and when to clean up the vomit (before or after dessert?), etc. But in the main, this appears to be a very wise solution to a rather nasty problem. Take the culture war to the customer instead of the beast.

Take the Duck and Shove It

Few images capture life in the Christ Church Cult better than a hand covered in vomit shoving a funnel down a caged duck’s throat, force-feeding it cornmeal to fatten it for the slaughter. And few PR blunders capture the Christ Church Cult’s relationship with society better than Francis Foucachon’s smash-mouth turnaround, cramming pâté de foie gras in Moscow’s face after promising to remove it from his menu.

Francis Foucachon owns West of Paris, the gourmet restaurant francais that replaced Zumé Bakery, the high-end French bakery that closed up shop after eating hundreds of thousands in American dollars. West of Paris occupies the ground floor of New Saint Andrews College, where Foucachon plans to go out of business when he’s done offending the folks he hoped to feed.

Foucachon justified his about face in typical CCC fashion by casually dismissing the public outcry as part of the community conspiracy to persecute the Cult: “This is a group that was looking for something to use against my business and they found something.” Never mind that Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Poland, Denmark, California, and Chicago have banned the product — this group was looking for something to use against his business. So he’ll give them more.

Not ironically, Foucachon contradicted himself as he explained his position. According to the Daily News, first he claimed the menu that sparked the controversy was “outdated,” suggesting that he never intended to serve foie gras. Then he claimed he nearly sold out of the dish, suggesting that he gave his customers outdated menus on opening night. Then he agreed that the goose-stuffing process is “questionable,” and finally he changed the subject to lobsters, chickens, and why activists should protest grocery stores — after declaring he would still serve the liver.

Perhaps Foucachon could put side orders of foot in mouth on his menu too — right next to red herrings. Better yet, he should offer chickens with their heads cut off; then he could coordinate it with his PR. But most importantly, he should proudly display the vomit-covered hand so that all may see where the problem lies.

Now, if you really want something to feast on, eat this.

Shun Thy Neighbor as Thyself

One of the most difficult things for a Christian to learn when they join a cult, or when they belong to a factious sect emerging into a cult, is the Amish practice of shunning. Of course the Amish are those radical Anabaptists well known for their stylish sixteenth-century hats, hook & eye clothing, and horse-drawn buggies — you could never mistake them for postmodern. They don’t even have cell phones. Anyway, this cutting-edge Christian culture gave birth to shunning, which in its elementary form is the religious ritual of intentionally avoiding someone to show your allegiance to your sect. In cults, however, the rite oftentimes takes on various nuances unique to the particular sect.

For example, in the Christ Church Cult, they practice shunning in coordination with imprecatory prayers because, as the Cultmaster said, they really want those people (i.e. the “targets”) to be their friends. And we all know that the best way to befriend someone is to treat them with contempt and pray that God would kill them. It really says that somewhere in the Bible. But these things are beside the point. As noted, shunning is not easy to learn, so here are some important tips to remember as you grow in your shunification:

1. First, if you see your neighbor — whether driving on the road, walking through the neighborhood, or nose to nose in the market — then make your face like flint, stern & unforgiving.

2. Second, look away and be as mean as possible. You must remember that you do not approve of this person and they must know it. More importantly, your Cultmaster rejects that person, and the Cultmaster’s opinion carries more weight than God.

3. Third, ignore them. Do not say “Hello” or offer any kind of greeting. You must resist the temptation to be kind — especially if you see them in need. You are superior to them, so let them know it. And if you succumb to temptation or if your natural reflex overwhelms you so that you initiate a greeting, then make sure you grunt it with a begrudging tone. You’re a miserable soul, don’t hide it.

4. Fourth, if you feel awkward, you should. The practice is unnatural, unbiblical, and it makes you look like a jackass. But don’t worry about it; you’ll get over it as your conscience erodes with further indoctrination from the cult. Pretty soon you’ll learn to like it.

5. Fifth, teach your children to be as mean and nasty as yourself so that the world can be a better place for everyone.

6. Finally, don’t forget that the Cultist Bible says, “He that shunneth not knoweth not God.”

If you do these things, your heart will continue to harden and you’ll enjoy the rich fellowship provided only by your cult. So carry on and dread naught.

Existential Liar

TO and I once debated the subject of Doug’s dishonesty. TO held the position that Doug is not guilty of “lying” when he delivers a bald-faced lie, because, according to TO, Doug really believes the lie when he utters it. In other words, since Doug really believes his lies when he tells them, he is therefore not guilty of lying. To TO, it doesn’t matter if Doug says one thing and five minutes later completely contradicts it; TO believes this involves consistency and competence, not honesty.

I do not deny that Doug believes his own lies at any given time, even when he contradicts them within a 5-minute window. However, I hold that Doug has studied the finer points of rhetoric and he understands the importance of closing the deal, i.e. a salesman, or con artist, will not bag the customer unless he prevails upon him with his sales pitch, which relies not only upon the content of his words but their delivery. Therefore, Doug taught himself how to use persuasion in order to lie, and he learned that he could not persuade others unless he persuaded himself, or at least appeared persuaded. Of course, self-persuasion, or the appearance thereof, is not without cost. Scripture teaches that hypocritical liars scorch their scruples to a stub: “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4:2). But I digress.

TO’s analysis correctly identifies the reason that Doug is a successful liar, i.e., he deceives himself before he deceives others (TO does concede that Doug is guilty of self-deception). But TO fails to explain why self-deception should be exculpatory. Consequently, his analysis boils down to a ridiculous question: “Which came first, the deceiver or the self-deceiver?” as if the liar who depends upon self-deception to successfully mislead is somehow not culpable. Who cares?

If Doug predicates his lies on self-deceit, then Doug’s self-deception reveals premeditation, which only aggravates his sin. It certainly doesn’t justify him. He lies, and he calculates his lies to exonerate him. He does this by design. It’s all planned — every word. Therefore, if Doug has disciplined himself to actually believe his lies before he tells them, then he is simply an existential liar, but a liar nonetheless.