Now That's A Dinner Party

Recently, some friends - who, sadly, do not live near us - invited some "other friends" to a dinner party to celebrate a birthday. The invitation itself should be a meme, but the response of one of the invited guests may even be better.

First, the invitation (really, a follow-up email to the invitees):

Dear All,

Since we will be having a group of like-minded folks, please come armed with one theological, philosophical, historical, literary, or political question to discuss over dinner (however -- house rules -- any discussion of Obama is strictly verboten.)

Some examples just to get you thinking are:

Why was the Renaissance a mix of great sensitivity to beauty and great violence?

Wine: French or Italian?

Why are all the women named Mary in Jane Austin Novels poor characters?

Should the Christmas tree come down before Epiphany?

Has Hobbes' goal of transforming life from "nasty, brutish and short" triumphed in our tidy, humane and long life? Is this an improvement?

Who is better for the soul? Bach or Mozart?

Is it possible to appeal to the modern American without the explicit graphics of Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy?

Is tithing necessary when your pastor doesn't wear a cassock?

And now for one of the guests' answers (only slightly redacted):

I likely won't be able to attend, alas, but heaven forbid that there be any sort of gathering where I can't be present to trumpet my humble but correct opinions. So, here are my answers; I realize that this means that there's no need to have a discussion over dinner, since you will have all the correct answers in advance, and that consequently ***'s birthday will be ruined, but such is the price we pay for truth, justice, and the *** Way.

At 01:23 PM **/**/2009, *** wrote:
Dear All,

Since we will be having a group of like-minded folks, please come armed with one theological, philosophical, historical, literary, or political question to discuss over dinner. (However -- house rules -- any discussion of Obama is strictly verboten.)

Some examples just to get you thinking are:

Why was the Renaissance a mix of great sensitivity to beauty and great violence?

• Well, if you're referring to religious or political wars and executions, people feel strongly about things that are worth feeling strongly about; passions are not wrong, but what we do with them is what gives them moral value. In an era where men felt strongly about the faith, this was certainly the case, plus politics and religion were inextricably intertwined. Not to mention the old dictum corruptio optimi pessimi also applies - it's a shorter step for someone who is willing to commit to good to be committed to evil, in a sense, because commitment is not foreign to him. CS Lewis makes reference to this in The Screwtape Letters when Screwtape laments the blandness of modern evil souls compared to the Pharisees. Or, conversely, St Paul was a firebrand for Phariseeism, and brought that same zeal to Christianity.

Wine: French or Italian?

• Hmm, I don't know. Is Gallo a French or Italian name?

Why are all the women named Mary in Jane Austin Novels poor characters?

• Anti-Irish prejudice?

Should the Christmas tree come down before Epiphany?

• That's a tough one.....couldn't you ask something easier, like "describe the Beatific Vision"?

Has Hobbes' goal of transforming life from "nasty, brutish and short" triumphed in our tidy, humane and long life? Is this an improvement?

• Hmmm. In certain ways, it could be argued that we have traded physically nasty, brutish and short lives for morally and spiritually nasty and brutish lives. We have more comfort and heightened "tolerance" in our day...but no one in Hobbes' era would have endorsed widespread infanticide or sodomy, and certainly not under the banner of being more humane. I could go on, but I think you see the point at which I'm driving.
  

Who is better for the soul? Bach or Mozart?

• Palestrina. However, Bach was more religious (despite subscribing to the Lutheran heresy) and wrote music that was more profound and less focused on merely stirring the emotions as opposed to stirring the soul.

Is it possible to appeal to the modern American without the explicit graphics of Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy?

• Of course. How this would happen is a bit long for me to type, but I have ideas . . . that don't involve Oompa-Loompas.

Is tithing necessary when your pastor doesn't wear a cassock?

• ABSOLUTELY NOT.

All this - dear reader - leads me to ask just one question: is it really possible to have other friends than Lizz and me?