Saturday 8 September 2018

Preserving culture versus direct Christianity

In these End Times, there are some difficult decisions looming; one is the conflict between preserving culture and doing Good.

At some point, the culture will not be salvageable - yet it will (like everything) still retain Good aspects; because nothing can ever be wholly evil, and most evil things have a fair slice of Good (e.g. loyalty, hard-work and obedience are Goods (albeit minor ones), but when harnessed to an evil agenda they make evil more effective).

Those who read this blog will, no doubt, value a great deal about the 'culture' of Albion; as I do. Yet, as things become ever more corrupted, there will come a time (many times) when there is a stark choice between doing something to preserve what is left of culture and doing what is right; and we will have to sacrifice the cultural remnants.

These situations will, no doubt, be deliberately engineered; the 'deal' being that if we wish to preserve some-thing cultural and well worthy of preservation - a lovely landscape or architecture, a venerable school or college, high quality performances of Shakespeare or Tallis... - then we would be doing so at the cost of strengthening (eg by funding, publicity, subsidies, propaganda, privileges, laws) the active institutional agents of corruption.

As an obvious example: the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company) does valuable work in preserving and promoting Shakespeare in performance; but at the cost of advancing directly, (and, more importantly), covertly and implicitly; exactly that thoroughly corrupt, anti-Christian, leftist-materialist-globalist agenda that is killing English culture. Funding, supporting, sustaining the RSC therefore does good to culture; but does far more harm than good.

Another instance: The Church of England sustains a tradition of choral singing which is very valuable; and if the church goes, then so will this tradition. The CofE is indeed going - it is being very rapidly and purposively self-destroyed by its secular-materialist Establishment leadership (archbishops, Bishops and their offices), and inevitably this destruction will include the choral tradition.

If we try to preserve the choral tradition; then - as well as any short term benefits to the choirs - in practice a substantial proportion of any such resources (probably the bulk of them) will be redirected to the net anti-Christian purposes of the church leadership: to sustaining management, political policies and ideology, systematic personal corruption of the clergy and laity; lies, smears and cover-ups etc. Also the prestige of the choirs, their beautiful music, serves to maintain the public reputation of an otherwise increasingly-obviously despicable corporation.

Thus short term protection of the culture fuels the same evil agenda that endangers culture in the first place.   

When the world is owned and controlled almost wholly by the forces of evil, this crux is magnified and made unavoidable. Everything done to protect the Good, will also have immediate and negative impact in causing harm. And our totalitarian bureaucracies ensure that this is always maximally the case - in face of reduced support; officials will cut provision rather than administration, will cut good/core functions while preserving the evil/ political functions.

Therefore, while we would certainly want and hope simultaneously to pursue Direct Christianity and preserve and advance the Culture of Albion - it is likely that this will be made impossible; and we will be compelled to choose one or the other.

The right choice is not difficult to discern; but it is very difficult actually to do.



William Wildblood said...

A very important distinction you make there, Bruce. Culture is being taken over and hollowed out by the forces of anti-good and there will come a point when to fight to preserve it will serve the purposes of those forces more than anything else. It's a great pity but we just have to remember that all that is truly good about what we love exists uncorrupted in the higher worlds.

Chiu ChunLing said...

In other words, the culture has been taken hostage. If you would save it, you must first rescue it.

Bruce Charlton said...

@ccl -That's it in a nutshell.

Stephens said...

Another case in point is the National Trust whose leadership tried to bar volunteers from public-facing duties at a Norfolk stately home if they refused to wear rainbow gay pride badges.
Part of the reason I joined the HHA instead, this year.
When State/National institutions, in entirety, are corrupt and a force for evil, any good has to be done either personally, or on a very small scale with like minded individuals.
Doing good, with vigour, is the best form of "treason" to such a State. I suspect to give up would be to surrender to evil!

Avro G said...

"These situations will, no doubt, be deliberately engineered; the 'deal' being that if we wish to preserve some-thing cultural and well worthy of preservation ... then we would be doing so at the cost of strengthening ... the active institutional agents of corruption."


Nils said...

Good point. However, I would like to add another perspective.

I sometimes compose and perform choral music (late medieval or renaissance style) for the extremely progressive Swedish State Church. Its visitors are often moved to tears by the beauty of the pieces, in stark contrast to the ugly, uninspiring modern songs that otherwise dominate there.

Is this a good or a bad thing? I have wrestled with that question. But where should I go with this lantern, this special gift, if not where it is much needed as well as appreciated?

If this music, by the Grace of God, can give these people even a short glimpse of Eternal Beauty, and inspire them to look further for The Lord, then how can it be bad, even if the setting is administered by a corrupted establishment?

Should I rather try to find some other, more traditional community, and reserve my works for it, leaving the Swedish Church visitors to the ugliness of modernity? Would they then abandon it and follow the beauty elsewhere? I think not. They would stay put, not knowing what they miss.

Spreading a little light in the dark corners of this poor world can’t be a bad thing.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Nils - " can’t be a bad thing. "

The point of this post is that it Can indeed be a bad thing - and we need to use discernment for each specific situation to judge whether iot is, or is not, a bad thing. In these times, general rules don't apply.