Christ is in our midst!
I was recently asked in the comments of a post to explain why I post the things I do on my blog.
1. Very simply, if I find something of personal interest on the WWW I post it. It's not always something purely "theological," even though everything goes back to that (Something Within Something) eventually anyway. This is not a website, but a blog, a web-log. Different folk have different styles for their blogs which is fine, but this is my style. I respect your freedom in choosing to participate in it if something provokes you.
2. The most important posts on this site are the ones in the Classic Posts. The articles/interviews they refer you to are consistent with what I consider to be the very best available from what I have been able to find on the WWW.
3. La Nouvelle Theologie or Ressourcement is a "living tradition." That's why I have the folks in the title picture that I do. They represent both the past and the present. My views are very consistent with those whom I consider to be the leading thinkers today in this school or movement, including Pope B16, David L. Schinder, Tracey Rowland, Julián Carrón, etc. This includes looking at and evaluating a variety of topics from modernity to liberalism, from capitalism to the War in Iraq, etc. All of these things I find a great personal interest in exploring. Why? Because this is reality. This is the world we live in, the good with the bad.
4. The disposition that I desire to hold to the best of my fallen human abilities is that of embracing all of reality. This includes judging everything including current events in politics, economics, international relations/foreign affairs, etc. Together with my friends I verify what is true, beautiful and good. This is the method that Christ taught us. Everyday I beg Our Lady for the ability to live life as she did.
5. I reject the ideologies of the left and right. I desire to have the mindset of the Church on all matters. I take the teachings of the Magisterium seriously and accept them. If I do not understand them, I study them begging for insight from Sacred Scripture and from the writings of the Saints. I approach all the teachings of the Magisterium with great humility. I recognize that I am a sinner, the chief among sinners. I am saved only through the grace and mercy of God.
16 comments:
David~
Thanks for the reply!
As I have displayed in the past (in my post on Gil Bailey, entitled "Kneeling Theology", and in my post referring readers to an article of Shawn McElhinney on Ressourcement methodology and real life application) I am in accord with the gist of your thought when you said:
La Nouvelle Theologie or Ressourcement is a "living tradition." That's why I have the folks in the title picture that I do. They represent both the past and the present. My views are very consistent with those whom I consider to be the leading thinkers today in this school or movement, including Pope B16, David L. Schinder, Tracey Rowland, Julián Carrón, etc. This includes looking at and evaluating a variety of topics from modernity to liberalism, from capitalism to the War in Iraq, etc. All of these things I find a great personal interest in exploring. Why? Because this is reality. This is the world we live in, the good with the bad.
Leaving behind my opinions (at least for a moment) on the lack of discretion David Schindler has in regard to promoting thinkers as "Ressourcement"—thinkers that in reality promote nothing more than his personal social/political opinions as a theologian, which he is quite capable of defending—I would like to offer this to chew on:
You have been blessed with the opportunity to use the given talents and knowledge you have and combine it with the deep appreciation you have in regard to the “Ressourecment” tradition, and help make people aware of that on your weblog.
To a large degree, you are doing that. You did that for me, and I know that others would join me in applauding you for that. Thank you!!
However, I have noticed—especially in the last couple months—that you have been referring people to a lot of information (links, books, blogs, etc.) which, from face value, has nothing to do with the Ressourcement. It would be one thing if you were willing to offer some sort of theological justification for correlating Ressourcement theology with the social/political concerns you have (concerns which are worth discussing!), but you mostly do not.
My concern is that people who are not familiar with Ressourcement theology will think:
To study the “Ressourcement” thinkers will lead to these social/political concerns, and, subsequently, to these particular views in relation to those concerns.
Back to Schindler, because I think that it serves as a good analogy…
I am very much in debt to the work that Schindler has done. In fact, I wrote a formal letter to the editors of Communio--Schindler included—thanking them for the work that they done with the journal, publications, translations, conferences, etc. In particular, I am thankful for Schindler’s Ressourcement: Retrieval and Renewal in Catholic Thought series.
However, despite all the accolades that I could throw toward David Schindler—which are many!—I have DEEP reservations about his inclusion of Dorthy Day (for instance) in the collection he has been editing.
I have read Dorthy Day, and I appreciate a lot of what she has to say. To invoke the term you used above, I “hold fast to what is good” in her work.
But, her work has no more claim to Ressourcement “thought” or “theology” or (not that I agree with the term) “living tradition” than Thomas Merton—someone else that I appreciate as an isolated thinker, but someone that I would certainly not include in the “Ressourcement tradition”.
Personally, when I see “Dorthy Day” in that series, I see the propagation of Schindler’s social/political ideology coming in through the back door and I am more than uncomfortable with it! Much more…
Back to you.
I have talked to you, written you, and have been a reader here for a while. I appreciate very much the initiatives that you have made in regard to the Ressourcement thinkers, and for even inspiring me to take the steps to create my own humble site.
However, you are a “voice”, both for the Church at large, and for Ressourcement thought in particular. Both of us are a voice in that regard.
For any informed American Catholic, the social/political bents that you have within your links/book recommendations/etc. are plain to see—especially when the person reading your site looks at it every day like I do, and a lot of other people do as well.
However, I would suggest that the vast majority of people who come here are really learning from you. Some might not be Catholic’s. Some might be. Some might be familiar with Catholic theology, but know little about the Ressourcement thinkers.
I think that you should consider whether or not your are inadvertently promoting a particular bent on certain social/political affairs through the back door of a site which people associate with the Ressourcement theology.
“Well, Justin,” someone objects, “what about your reference (again) of Shawn McElhinney and Gil Bailey? Do they not promote particular social/political ideology under the umbrella of the Ressourcement”
Different issue for many reasons (addressing only Shawn M.):
1.
Any careful reader of the post that I put up in relation to Shawn (of rerum novarum blog) would see that I said, “Shawn McElhinney of Rerum Novarum, understands the model that von Balthasar, and the Ressourcement built. He does an excellent job of implementing Ressourcement theology into "life"--politics, cultural affairs, modern ethical questions, etc. In that, he engages the theology on "practical" (though not limited to "practical") levels, which is an essential aspect of the task Ressourcement thinkers were trying to achieve.” But I also said, “You may not always agree with (or understand what) he is saying, but, again, he offers an interesting interpretation on how Ressourcement principles are to be applied to modern questions throughout his blog, both explicitly and implicitly.”
The point is that in his WRITING he (often) engages social/political concerns with an attempt to implement Ressourcement methodology. After all, is that not what theology at large is supposed to do anyway? Theology should set us into “action”, mold our “thoughts”, and prepare us to interact with those “social/political concerns”. There are times that I will disagree with a point of Shawn’s, but I see his intention through implementing those concerns and methods.
B.
A site like his (and many others that we both read) make no indication to be as specific as you and I both are in our weblogs, which are devoted to ressourcement theology—though we both, rightly, have different formats and personal touches throughout…
You mentioned, “a living tradition”, in respect to the ressourcement theology.
Well, to an extent, I see your point. However, the “living tradition” that I can see is the continuous implementation of Ressourcement methodology/tasks that particular contemporary theologians (such as Paul McPartlan, Edward T. Oakes, Aidan Nichols, etc.) are currently engaging in. To that extent, my vision of a “living tradition” is a little less vague and more concrete. I shy from a proposition (not that you are offering one) of a looser “living tradition”… after all… is that not what the neo-Thomists did to Thomas… is that not the problem that the Church is facing in the post-Conciliar era… a “living tradition”… the “spirit of Vatican II”? I think so…
I fear that Schindler’s personal social/political ideology, which is taking on more concrete form in the publication of Dorthy Day within the Ressourcement series, could (possible “is”) tarnish the identifiable method and achievement of the Ressourcement school of thought in a time when the implementation of that thought is JUST BEGINNING to take off, and could really find fruition in the pontificate of our beloved Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.
This is a fear I have, though to a different degree, with your website.
Despite all of the good you are doing, and the talents that you have gained through grace, there are some who are going to interpret your social/political concerns as an endorsement in the name of these theologians…
This is why I do NOT discuss social/political issues on my site. Some have asked what my opinion is on the matters of debate between you, Blosser, Hand, McElhinney, etc. and I say little to nothing, even via email. This is not because I have no opinion on such matters. I actually have rather STRONG and REFINED opinions about judicial nominations, boarder control and immigration, the war in Iraq, economics, etc. etc. etc.
BUT, unless I am willing to backup those opinions (in this public forum) by tying them into the theology of (for instance) de Lubac or von Balthasar, I am not going to discuss such issues out of honor for those theologians and out of respect for the people I am addressing through the blog.
I do not want Eric from Arizona (the person whom I wrote the list of books for), for instance, to think that my appreciation for Ressourcement theology has led to a position, for instance, on the war in Iraq. It would be one thing if I had a broader website/weblog… even a site that was devoted to theology “at large”, where I could hammer out my own theology in regard to how I feel about issues such as the war in Iraq.
But, for some people (possibly, like Eric) I run the risk of giving an impression that DOES NOT EXIST, unless I am willing to try and make the case for it’s existence.
The many points that you brought up in your post, responding to my inquiry, are beautiful and hold much truth. However, as a brother in Christ and as someone who shares, to an extent, the mission you have in helping promote the theology of de Lubac, von Balthasar, Daniélou and the rest of the Ressourcement school, I would strongly encourage you to think about the concerns I have raised herein. I hope that they will be received in the spirit that they are intended on my part: fraternal … “suggestion”.
Again, I do appreciate your weblog, and I have loved getting to know you in the last few months. You are a great guy with many gifts.
Blessings,
Justin N.
Amen and Amen.
...to David's original post that is, looks like Justin and I posted almost simultaneously. Haven't even read his post yet.
Justin,
1. this is a blog, a personal journal, and thus has certain idiosyncracies.
2. The "ressourcement" was never a coherent school of thought, but a number of folks who fought and disagreed (see, for example, Henri de Lubac's Theology in History).
A. Along these lines, I find the comments questioning Dorothy Day strange. Are you considering Dorothy Day in her self or are you also including Peter Maurin, the cofounder of the Catholic Worker movement, as well? Maurin introduced a great vein of the French Catholicism that nourished Charles Peguy to American soil. Take away Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (as well as Fr. John Hugo, Virgil Michel, and the Maritains) and ressourcement had no impact on the US except for liturgical novelty.
B. The volume you criticize is also introduced by Mark and Louise Zwick, who are certainly not academic theologians (I may not agree with every word, but I look to the center of their work), but are deeply immersed in Balthasar and other thinkers in the ressourcement tradition. See for example, their roots of the Catholic Worker movement.
3. Why is it that so many of the ressourcement thinkers loved Peguy, but that few of those who promote the whole abstract academic theology thing have read Peguy and if they have, why is it that they so rarely think about Peguy or quote him?
Fred:
Thank you for your kind reply.
1. Yes, there is, to an extent, a personal element in “the blog”, but I don’t think much of it being a “personal journal”. A “blog” and a “website”, practically speaking, have very little difference except for the fact that they are “dumbed down” and serve as a medium for the “average Joe” to “tell the world” what he ate for lunch and explain why his dog looks very similar to Bob Dylan. Given that it is on the “World Wide Web”, I don’t think that it is very personal. While some people put (unfortunately) a lot of “personal information” on them, I think it too much to call it, simply, a “personal journal”. Nonetheless, you are right: they do have “certain idiosyncrasies”, which are appropriate and reflective of the author of the site (David, in this instance). I hope that my comments were more than a strike against “idiosyncrasies”. I have no intention of suggesting that he loose his personality, but that he think about the endorsements that he is making behind the theme of a particular school of theology.
2. Coherent school of thought?
To an extent you are right, and to an extent you are wrong, practically speaking. De Lubac always denied that there was any “school of thought” amongst his associates, but many people have always disagreed. I have outlined that on my own blog before. While I see where de Lubac was coming from, I also see where de Lubac scholars, such as Susan K. Wood, is coming from when she respectfully disagrees with de Lubac on the point. The terminology commonly associated with the “school” or “movement” is was once used in a degrading fashion (“new theology”), and the other term was used to describe the commonality among them in a more positive manner (“ressourcement”). Today, both terms are commonly used as descriptive of the particular “school”. Was there as school? I think that we would be beginning to step out of the appropriate conversation within this thread if I were to dive into this too deeply, but yes, I would say that our ability to look back now on the “ressourcement” would show a common theological methodology and concern amongst the thinkers associated with the “school”.
2A On Dorthy Day, I merely wish to reiterate that I appreciate her in and of herself, but find it bizarre that she was included in the series. At the same time, it doesn’t surprise me. I think of it as propaganda, but I am sure that many people whom I respect (like your self, and David) would respectfully disagree with me. Given that, I think that your response is the kind that I would like to see from David himself. An inclusion as “unorthodox” as that demands justification, I think. But maybe I am alone here, no?
2B I don’t think that my comments were a “criticism of the series”. Rather, I offered a lot of praise throughout my post for the good work that David Schindler is doing. I can greatly respect somebody like Schindler (or David), and yet disagree with them on a point.
3. Well, the Peguy comment seems off topic. But I want you to know that I do read and appreciate your site, and linking to it when I have the chance. What other people do, I can’t speak for. As for me, I am personally more interested at the moment in continuing to dive through the rest of the corpus of just von Balthasar, de Lubac, Daniélou, Bouyer, Congar, Ratzinger and a dozen other theologians. Someday I hope to get more active in a study of their “sources”, but I have not the time right now, and can only do so much. Given that, your work is appreciated!
Justin N.
Briefly...
I agree with Fred.
Consider another school of theologians in which there is no small amount of disagreement: Thomism. And those disagreements extend/ed into the "practical" realms of politics, economics, etc.
I *think* David sees his political, economic, and cultural perspectives as flowing from the theological tradition in which he has aligned himself, and as such, he has rightly titled his blog.
You bring up a good point with your "school of Thomism" comment. I actually meant to use that as an example, but I forgot.
Anticipating many objections, I too commented on this in my original post (at least implicitally). Alligning himself with the social/political trends he does on a site that is titled "la nouvelle theologie" demands an explanation, in his own words, of how this theology "informs" his contience in these matters.
Personally, most of my social/political views come from my other studies in theology, biblical studies, and catechetics. I have never found warrent for correlating the ressourcement tradition with many of the ideologies implicitally promoted on this site, and sites that David refers to often (like Stephen Hand's TCR site).
I see no warrent for the implicit propositions made herein, relating the Ressourcement with the particular social/political bent that David seems to often hold, which I assume often agrees with the Zwicks and S. Hand, to mention only a couple people.
Hand, the Zwicks, etc. have something to offer. I have no problem reading what they have to say, and pulling out the good within them, but I do have a problem with the (possibly unintentional) fusion between these thinkers and the ressourcement which could give readers the wrong impression.
Justin
David's entitled to think and do as he ought with his blog.
Nevertheless, I think some clarification is necessary. For a blog that specifically announces an intent to "explore both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology", it does not follow that all the positions on various political issues adopted therein are part and parcel of ressourcement theology.
For example, to be a Balthasar scholar doesn't necessarily entail this or that position with respect to the foreign policy of the Bush administration, for instance (ask Dr. Schindler and you'll get one answer, ask Edward T. Oakes and you'll get another -- plumbing through an old issue of First Things I was mildly suprised to see Oakes take a position which David Jones or Stephen Hand might be tempted to label neocon).
It was pointed out to me off-blog that Dorothy Day could be considered ressourcement in the sense that the Catholic Worker movement was seen as a revival of the Franciscan position.
Personally, rather than a blog be simply a kind of information-aggregator, posting one link after another (see Instapundit, one of the most famous bloggers, for an example) I would offer the humble suggestion that David might offer his own thoughts on the pieces he links to. Sometimes the mere posting of a link w/o commentary can be taken as a personal endorsement where none is actually intended, and a reader might come to erroneous conclusions as to where David stands on the issues.
Commenting on and working through the material might then serve as an incentive for others to dialogue on these matters.
Christopher here, I think, respectfully expounds key aspect of what I was trying to say.
It would be completely different if we (at least occasionally) saw how some of the thinkers commonly associated with the "Ressourcement" informed his particular ideas on current affairs facing the country and the world. As it is, the continuous reference of Links does leave a sort of disconnect.
Shawn makes clear his his views on particular social/political issues and, when applicable, often shows (explicitally or implicitally) how ressourcement methodology informs him in regard to those ideas. This is something that is less pressing for him because he makes no pretention in his format to be a discussion of "Ressourcement thought".
But David and I have a rather specific purpose.
As I can applaud Shawn for implementing ressourcement methodology into his social and political commentary when applicable, I could (and WANT TO) applaud David for the same. But I have little to go on because I don't see much of David's own thought explicated on the site. When that time would possibly come, I would wholeheartely applaud him in the same way I have for Shawn, even if I disagree with particular points or entire outcomes of both men.
Another thing... David shouldn't be expected to "introduce" every link that he places in his blog... I think that Christopher would join me in saying that this would be rather time consuming and unnecessary. However, when applicable, and on occasion, I think that everyone who is a regular to David's site would find it much appreciated and informative, only working to David's advantage, and subsequently, his faithful readers--like myself.
:)
Justin
Christopher makes an excellent point about quantity of links vs. quality of posts. Perhaps some other of us 'members' could assist David will presenting some more substantial content.
A blog is literally a web-log. It is a return to the personal dimension of publishing that has been mostly lost in book publishing (I have heard some in the publishing business lament this loss dearly). Nevertheless, the personal tradition of publishing continues in Bill Eerdmans's press, a Calvinist house and in the Ressourcement Series edited by David Schindler. I would respectfully suggest that the publication of the Zwick's introduction to Day's book has much more to do with friendship than with ideology, but I can offer little that would dissuade the cynical.
Fred
This is the most interesting post and collection of comments. Perhaps my thoughts will be useful, perhaps not.
I really enjoy this blog, and I have been reading it regularly for several months now. I am probably not as familiar with ressourcement theology as most of the other commenters here. My academic work focused primarily on modern and post modern philosophy, not theology, so I am most familiar with Husserl, Scheler, Stein, Heiddeger, Jaspers, Satre and Merleau-Ponty. What I know specifically of Ressourcement Theology I have learned in conversations with my friend from graduate school Dr. Greg Sadler of Ball State, who is an expert on Blondel.
Now that I have been away from the academic world for so many years and have the responsibilities of family life (number 7 is due in Jan.) I do not have the time to digest a whole new field of academic inquiry. I have time to read articles (I love my First Things subscription) and not many books. As such, I really appreciate the service David provides. He links to a lot of shorter pieces that are both informative and thought provoking (and free). This is what I have time for in my busy life, and it has done me some good. I don’t have a chance to read the books he links to.
Perhaps it is because I have been away from the academy for so long, but I don’t expect this site to be academic and give a thorough presentation of la nouvelle theologie. Again, perhaps this is owing to my present state in life, but I really appreciate the practical elements of this blog. I enjoying getting different perspectives informed by ressourcement thought as to how to pray, live, work, vote, and consume in our modern America.
Praxis is important, as Christians we believe that faith without works is dead, and that we are all called to carry our crosses. Hopefully I’m not being too presumptuous when I say that I think that the Christian call to work is what motivates David to post so much on politics and economics that seem to have a less direct connection to ressourcement traditionally understood.
It is nice to be reminded that we are to test everything and hold fast to what is good. I had let go of some good things, and this blog has helped me to grasp them once again. For example, the recent entries on McCarraher, especially the one on “Marxists for Christ,” got me thinking about the old Communist again. I had forgotten what a pleasure the young Marx is to read, especially the stuff he wrote between 1844-46. It was Marx who said “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it,” which may be a reason to stretch the theological speculations of those long dead to see if they might inform our behavior at the office, in the supermarket and at the voting booth.
Justin,
I want to thank you for this comment in particular:
"As for me, I am personally more interested at the moment in continuing to dive through the rest of the corpus of just von Balthasar, de Lubac, Daniélou, Bouyer, Congar, Ratzinger and a dozen other theologians. Someday I hope to get more active in a study of their “sources”, but I have not the time right now, and can only do so much."
I hadn't thought of this much, but at certain point, I became much less interested in Balthasar and the others and much more interested in their sources. It has struck me that Balthasar's method, in particular, of looking to the Church Fathers, drama, poetry, and literature for insights on human questions was brilliant, striking a blow against the fragmentation of knowledge. I also wonder about a Christianity that does not embrace or especially generate culture.
And here's Peter Maurin's Easy Essay on the same topic:
Catholic scholars
have taken dynamite
of the Church,
have wrapped it up
in nice phraseology,
placed it in an hermetic container
and sat on the lid.
As a long-time student, I am most concerned about sitting on the lid. When the Bridegroom returns, I do not wish to be found without my lamps and oil at the ready.
Fred
I have to admit, I tend to agree with Justin. I've been reticent to say something, frankly, because I consider myself such an inadequate newbie with respect to the works of the ressourcement thinkers. I've read only a little of the works by a couple of them, mainly having been exposed to their work through my exposure to CL.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't comment (despite my agreement with what I think is a very humble and nuanced critique by Justin) because I defer to David's freedom as the author of the blog and largely think he's well into the upper echelon of explaining what he means and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt about the reason for any "omissions". However, since the blog has now become a group blog, with me included, I've had to evaluate it more seriously.
Economics is an important subject to me. I intended to make it my life's work, but was very troubled by the state of play of academic work in the subject and the assumptions it made and reinforced about the nature of man. I think we can all agree that it is an area that is ripe for serious discussion and exploration, particularly in light of Church teaching. But it is also an area where we have fewer clear guideposts versus other social policy areas.
I originally appreciated David's reference to attempts to apply Church teaching to economic matters being made by CWM, etc., because it was a healthy exposure to other views than the much more publicized Action Institute et. al. viewpoint. (I've long been troubled by certain individuals claims to have the right interpretation of Centesimus Annus, for example.)
I don't know if I can adequately describe it, and don't suggest by this anything nefarious on David's part, but I've perceived a tonal difference in how links and passages regarding economics have been presented recently, such that where as before it seemed like an airing of the debate, it now seems more advocacy oriented. I don't have a problem with that, but like Justin, do wonder if a few more words are in order, given that it is being done in the context of a weblog devoted to an exploration of ressourcement theology and what many would infer from that context (despite the few guideposts I perceive in Magesterial teaching I spoke of earlier).
I think this is important discussion to be had and wish I had more time to devote to it (see my sad attempt long ago to start a Rethinking Economics blog).
I think I understand Justin's concern (I'm from San Diego by the way), but I don't think you have to worry about me too much. I'm too well-versed in blogdom (having had a silly one since 2001 that has become more and more serious, but not totally ;) to acknowledge that not everything that one links to in one's blog posts is a full or even partial endorsement of that subject matter.
I think the occasional comment might be helpful with how a link may or may not intersect with Ressourcement, but I don't always expect it.
What draws me to this blog (as well as nouvelletheologie.blogspot.com and religionandliberty.blogspot.com), aside for my deep appreciation and curiosity to Ressourcement, is the level of dialogue that takes place. For the most part (although there are the occasional unfortunate exceptions), it is ridiculously respectful, and that comes as a breath of fresh air to what I'm used to reading, or to what I'm used to being leveled at me in the past.
As far as me personally as someone who is not a Roman Catholic (but still catholic! ;), and for those who wonder if I will mistake Ressourcement with domestic and foreign policy ideas, I don't think anybody has anything to worry about. I'm not really interested in the policy of nation states (as long as they're not engaged in killing God's gifts!). I don't have any utilitarian suggestions for foreign or domestic policy anymore. I do have suggestions about how the Church can be Church, though (which may occasion an intersect with the state where possible, but I don't particularly have a good taste for it as I'm rather convinced the state tries to be a parody of the Church soteriologically and otherwise).
What I am interested in concerning Ressourcement, is how it will better help me to understand God (if at all possible through the retrieval of our rich traditions), but mainly to see and experience through tradition how I can better love God and neighbor through the works of mercy. That's all, really.
It's not particularly important I guess, but I also used to be a fundamentalist protestant who was very anti-Catholic not too long ago (of the Jack T. Chick, trying-to-be-so-anti-modern-based-on-modern-criteria- *breath* -that-it-ends-up-steeped-in-modernism variety, if that rings any bells), and so I feel like I've kind of found an "in" through Ressourcement towards a kind of penance for my sins of hatred of brother and sister in my past. I'm finding that many of the discussions are similar to what goes on in Protestant circles, but framed in slightly different ways and using different people as sources (for instance, the "Augustinian Thomas" vs. "Whig Thomist" debate isn't too dissimilar from the Radical_Orthodoxy/Hauerwas vs. Jeffrey_Stout/Chris_Insole debate as far as the Church's involvement (or not) in modern liberal democracies).
I understand Justin's suggestion, but as far as me personally, I don't think I'll be confusing Ressourcement with policy initiatives any time soon -- something I'm not particularly interested in anyway (although that doesn't mean I'm completely disinterested ;).
Peace,
Eric
I confess that I am one of several folks that sends lots of links to David without much comment. For my penance, I suppose I should tag each one with a sentence or two that he could pass along . . .
But Eric is dead on when he calls attention to the quality of the dialogue around here. As Martha would say, "it's a good thing."
Fred
PS. I just saw Eric's post below, which inspired me to figure out how to post. I'll have one up soon!
Post a Comment