-G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

Chesterton describes the war between Rome and Carthage as a battle between gods and demons.  In the ancient world there was indeed a division, not between monotheism and polytheism but between a good and a bad sort of Paganism.  Moloch and Baal, the gods of the ancient Philistines and of Tyre and Sidon were the demonic forces that were embodied by the merchant, materialist, ruthless civilization of Carthage.  Chesterton takes a stand that most “objective” historians are not willing to take: Rome, for all its faults, was better than Carthage.  Because Carthage was founded on a “cosmic vision” of materialism it had some very serious flaws that rendered even its great military and commercial might ultimately futile.  Chesterton says, “By disbelieving in the soul, it (Carthage) comes to disbelieving in the mind. Being to practical to be moral, it denies what every practical soldier calls the morale of an army.  It fancies that money will fight when men will no longer fight.”  Carthage fell because of a failure of the spirit, not because of a failure of military might.  The Punic empire lost interest in the final defeat of Rome and they failed to support Hannibal on his final victory march, leaving a window open for the return and eventual victory of Rome.

            The troubling thing about this pattern is that we see today in America a division between Rome and Carthage.  We have on one side those who see the war as abhorrent because of the cost, in money and in human terms.  They are representative of the Punic mindset, “too practical to be moral.”  On the other side we have Rome, full of the gestalt of empire, fully assured of their god’s favor, committed to fighting a war no matter what the cost, with little or no hope of real success.  Chesterton points out that both these options are entirely Pagan options, the gods of both sides are mythical and multiple.  But the gods of Rome are somewhat moral, perhaps even benevolent, household deities, the gods of home and hearth.  The gods of Carthage are demoniac spirits that require the sacrifice of children on their fiery altars.  Moloch was a god who ate his children, thus the religion of Carthage was a “religion of despair, even when their practical fortunes were hopeful.”  It is indeed difficult to look at the situation of modern Americans, with such abundant wealth and convenience, and determine why we are so terribly pessimistic.  It is equally difficult to look at the world situation and determine why the Roman faction seems to find encouragement in such desperate situations.

            There is a certain illogic to either Pagan mindset, both of which are abundantly manifest in our politics and culture.  But the One True God has conquered the entire pantheon of Pagan deities.  He conquered Baal and Moloch long ago, even using the hammer of imperial Rome to do so, then in turn he conquered the legion of Roman gods through the ultimate exhibit of hope and morality in the face of demoniac despair.  The Cross of Christ toppled the golden eagle of Rome by using a greater measure of the very hopefulness that lifted Rome over the Punic princes.  Rome could hope in hopeless situations because their gods appealed to a sense of duty and morality that went beyond the material.  Their gods promised to protect their homes and families rather than demanding their sacrifice, thus they had hope even when money and resources failed, the spirit of Rome fought on beyond logical, material limits.  The Cross shows the One God transcending the despair of death itself. 

            As Americans we have choice: to support or oppose the war.  Most come to their particular position on the issue via the mindset of Rome or Carthage but as American Christians we should approach the decision from the perspective of the One God, not the gods of Rome or Carthage.  The purpose of this article is not to espouse either of the Pagan options but to raise questions from the perspective of faith in Christ.  As is the case with most political arguments, we are offered a choice between two equally unacceptable options.  Moloch or Jupiter, Baal or Apollo, but the Cross seems to indicate a third way, a way that doesn’t require us to sacrifice our children to Moloch or lead us into a religion of despair, a way that relies on a more hopeful God than even the contrived deities of family and domestic bliss.  What that way is will depend largely on our individual conscience but at the very least it should be a conscience that is aware of what the One True God has done for us.

October 13, 2006: On Being Rome

 Burdened like all mortal things with all mortal sin and weakness, the rise of Rome had really been the rise of normal and especially of popular things; and in nothing more than in the thoroughly normal and profoundly popular hatred of perversion.

-         G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

We are Rome.  Whether we like it or not, we are the almighty empire of the age.  We are the ones who impose our will on others and live in luxury, founded on the sweating backs of others.  We are the ones whose culture is automatic and irresistibly imperialistic, even where our military is not.  We are Rome, “burdened like all mortal things with all mortal sin and weakness.”  Our politicians disappoint us and scandalize us, our idols wallow in amorality, we take our freedom for granted at times and misuse it the rest of the time.  Worst of all we are losing the soul that made us great; we are ashamed to be Rome, the terminology of empire makes us blush and cringe into a corner, “we are not, we cannot be, we shouldn’t want to be.”  We have lost our will to say that our way is the best way; we lack the courage of our convictions.  But our way produces the best standard of living for the most people; it allows freedom within broad (some would say too broad) boundaries; it is our way that has made us empire, it is the decline of that empire that makes patriotism difficult.

            Rome’s strength lay in the people.  The sickness, even insanity of its leaders is well documented.  Enshrinement of the “normal” and “popular” things as the center of society was what led Rome to glory.  The atomic structure of the Roman Empire and of the American Empire is the basic domestic unit, the family.  Unlike political, military and even societal “machines, the family cannot abide perversion.  As Chesterton notes the “hatred of perversion” is “normal and profoundly popular.”  Why?  The answer is simple, perversion generally has a victim; every prostitute and porn star is someone’s daughter.  In the most recent snafu in Washington we are reminded that those congressional pages are somebody’s sons.  The family of the victims will be outraged; in a society based on popular support, if enough families are outraged, the power structure will be forced to change.  Or so we hope.

            When Rome’s power structure finally spun out of all contact with the needs of the people, the Empire crumbled.  The stages of any nation will remain the same, and the inexorable forces that cause their rise and fall will continue to bear down on us as an Empire State.  If we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will be doomed.  We should not take any present outrage at the immorality of a Floridian Congressman as a sign that all is well in the Empire.  We tolerate and even embrace such perversion in many other arenas of our society.  Morally speaking, what President Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was perhaps more reprehensible than what Foley did with those pages (on the basis that there was actual physical contact).  In the court of public opinion though the Congressman is in much more trouble; first because of the page’s status as minors, which presents a legal issue, and second because of the homosexual orientation of these acts. 

            There is a difference between what the people will accept and even embrace on T.V. sitcoms and entertainment and the sordid reality of situations like this.  The American public will collectively laugh and nod at the flamingly gay behavior on Will and Grace but there is still a distinction to be made between Jack sashaying across the living room making bawdy comments about another man and the reasonably disturbing thought of a 50 something year old man in the top echelons of governmental power making passes at a teenage intern.  The Romans were known for some fairly ribald behavior in the bathhouse but the thought of their son being conscripted into one of Emperor Tiberias’ “pleasure gardens” probably still raised a hackle or two.  So where are we on the trajectory of empire?  How do our morally bankrupt politicians and the out of control government that they are now riding like ticks on a hound dog stack up against the truly disastrous regimes of Nero and Caligula?

            Well, okay, I guess we haven’t crossed the boundary from crooked to insane just yet but culturally speaking we are developing a curious sort of schizoid disorder.  We accept outrageous immorality in our entertainment yet we hem and haw when life imitates art.  Our celebrities and entertainers have launched into a sort of hedonistic stratosphere, far beyond what common folk would tolerate in real life.  We accept the world of Hollywood and Broadway in much the same way the Romans accepted the Coliseum and the Circus.  We accept it because it entertains us and keeps us titillated but we rarely stop to question the consequences of such things.  We wink and nod at pornography and other licentiousness then act shocked when it turns out our children are becoming porn addicts and victims of sexual predators.  Don’t you see the connection?  It’s a lot more obvious than the lead pipes that carried Nero’s drinking water.  In the glory days of empire the citizens and the leaders took their duty to the nation seriously.  In decline the masses intoxicate themselves with spectacle and vice and the politicians run amok.  Where are we?  Long live Rome!