Enslavement by Category
The Wisdom of Dorothy Sayers
“Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32 ESV).
Dorothy Sayers (1893-1957) should be remembered as one of the great 20th-century novelists. However, despite her remarkable literary achievements, Dorothy Sayers is frequently recognized as a Christian apologist. That may be so because she was so good at both, but she was especially noted for her role as a female theologian. Located in “the same section of the library” as CS Lewis and closer to GK Chesterton, Sayers distinguished herself by calling “balls and strikes” as she saw them in a day of increasing compromise by the Church. Her words have proven prescient. Her pearls of cultured wisdom and doctrinal insight are gifts for our time. Oh, that we would receive them. Oh, that we would even bother looking for them. For we desperately need her clarity of thought. However, I do recognize that her logic is so precise and the calculations of her Christian theological reflection so sharp that many of our contemporaries might find her insights doctrinaire or, more probably, quite indecipherable. For ours is a gutted age, an era of T. S. Eliot’s “hollow men,” and a time marked by spiritual (and, thus, real) regression, outlined with Spirit-inspired accuracy by Paul the Apostle in Romans 1:18-32. These people resist the light and slowly move into the darkness of unbelief. In the darkness, the blind man wanders unprotected across the unforgiving moors and mountains until, inescapably, he trips into a sudden point-of-no-return, the gravitational pull of self-incrimination, and incurs an over-the-edge, steep plummet into the sharp-edged rocks of utter madness.
Nevertheless, for those who will “hear, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” (Cranmer, BCP, 1549) the clarion call of the Gospel, a gift of a branch, appears, stopping our fall. Such ragged mercy protrudes from the craggy mountainside and snags us to safety despite ourselves. That is the prevailing context for the Gospel, “despite ourselves,” or as Scripture puts it, “but God.” “They would have slipped, but God.” Lord, send Thy grace to stop our fall. Save us from ourselves.
Κύριε, ἐλέησον. Χριστέ, ἐλέησον. Κύριε, ἐλέησον. “Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.”
Because of her prominent position, Dorothy Sayers was invited to speak at a women’s gathering and address the matter of feminism. Sayers produced a characteristically provocative title for her presentation: “Are Women Human?” Her talk was nothing short of ideological feminism turned upside down. She rejected any further category than male and female. I would argue that in this thinking, she was supremely feminist and irreducibly human.
Given the inability of a Supreme Court nominee (now Justice), a woman by the way, to define her sex in United States Senate confirmation hearings, and the proclivity to celebrate sin-sick men dressing as women, practically emasculating themselves, or, worse still, masquerading as women to diminish women in sports, or traumatize children in “reading times” at school, we need to hear from Sayers. This princess of the pen resisted the term “feminist” in the same way that an intuitive gazelle avoids the apparent refreshing bath in a calm river that conceals the stealthy crocodiles. Indeed, the ladies might have been surprised – they should not have been — but Dorothy Sayers took the opportunity to remind them that human beings are images of God. To go beyond man and woman—that is, male and female within mankind—young and old, adult or child—is to create classes that not only dehumanize but also leave an open door for crouching totalitarianism, dictatorships, despotism, and other forms of State bondage (viz., Statism, that beastly power described in Revelation). For this reason, I have chosen to publish part of her speech on this blog. Thus, Dorothy Sayers and her word for today:
Hardening of the Categories and the Death of the Individual
“Indeed, it is my experience that both men and women are fundamentally human and that there is very little mystery about either sex, except the exasperating mysteriousness of human beings in general... If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base it—not on classes and categories, for this will land you in a totalitarian State where no one may act or think except as a member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick, and Harry, on the individual Jack and Jill—in fact, upon you and me.”
Imagine: a nation of individuals without categories. Such a dream is not Utopia. It existed in the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. To reject the individual one must reject God. Arbitrary and artificial categories will have a greater and more devastating effect on the human condition than COVID-19 ever could. Everyone seems to want to get in on their game of dividing people, even deciding which creature is more worthy of life than another (an uncanny fulfillment of George Orwell’s metaphoric analysis of the origins of the Soviet Union, Animal Farm, 1945). From corporations to advertising and even to federal forms, one must agree with someone’s cracked idea of categories of human beings, even when the ideas are insanely wrong. Those who advocate such distinctions within humanity have cleverly assigned a moral value to this subversive initiative, showing that the one who denies the categories is unfairly labeled (further categorized) as "mean.” But let us be clear: One is not impolite or “mean” because one refuses to entertain a madman with his lunatic ideas. Proverbs 26:4-14 reminds us, “Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are” (NLT).
“If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base it—not on classes and categories, for this will land you in a totalitarian State where no one may act or think except as a member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick, and Harry, on the individual Jack and Jill—in fact, upon you and me.”—Dorothy Sayers
Do Ethics have Meaning?
There is a proposed ethic to the nonsense. It is an untethered balloon floating above us, a thin membrane of plastic inflated by foul air. The aimless object has no destination, and can, thus, change course—more precisely, “have its course changed,” for it is an unpowered “ethic”) by the first new breeze that blows. How does the new ethic function? I will show you one way. Public service posters featuring Miss Ellen DeGeneres are taped on painted cinder block walls of public schools across the nation. The message? “Don’t be mean.” Don’t be mean. When we planted a church in Weddington, North Carolina, a lovely town and country suburb of Charlotte, we first worshipped in a high school. So, we saw the posters each week. A biblical verse is outlawed from public schools, but Ellen’s sainted secular wisdom is welcome. I would pass the oversize poster of the lauded lesbian pointing at me like Uncle Sam. “Don’t be mean, YOU.” I always thought, “So, there is an ethic at work” in so-called progressive ideologies. Of course, we know all too well that the meanies are the “traditionalists” who still believe and, thus, live out of the centering the power of a theistic, specifically Judeo-Christian, worldview. The meanies are the anachronistic ones who refuse to admit ridiculous categories such as third or fourth genders, menstruating males, or other such dangerous nonsense. They not only practice these things but demand that you approve (from Romans 1:32). We don’t. Not in a million years. However, because of an understandable but misplaced open butterfly valve in the conscience, some believers feel compelled to go along with this farce out of a nod to supposed Christian manners. I would respond that admitting lunacy as normative is the opposite of kindness. Moreover, coddling confused characters fosters delusional thinking and catastrophic societal degradation. We are under no moral or civic duty to concede absurdity. We have mentioned Romans chapter 1 verses 18 through 32. We must do so again because the passage is tragically relevant to the crisis of fast-moving currents of polluted canals threatening the polis. Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 accurately depicts the downward spiral we are witnessing in our day. The depiction of the broad highway from unbelief to insanity is painted with the bristly brush of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the plain and undeniable evidence of a Creator. The runaway train picks up steam through the noxious smoke of willful denial of God (insufferable creaturely rebellion). At length, the suicidal engineers exhibit a deranged disregard for God’s law (predictable creaturely anarchy) and, finally, codify the track to suicidal madness. The Apostle of the Heart Set Free describes a devastating human regression set in motion by the rejection of God, and, therefore absolute truth, triggering an inevitable breakdown. The warning signs from the denial of God to the deification of self are unmistakable: "God gave them up (24)" "God gave them over (26)" and "God gave them over” (28). By the third sounding of the warning bell, the tragic end becomes inescapable.
Responses
Polemical responses to the downward spiral are positively ineffective. The reason is clear: In the latter stages of the Romans 1:18-32 scenario, the God-denier is hopelessly delusional. So, arguments, however reasoned they may be, are not the answer to such a self-induced mania. There is a reversal of the condition and remedy of the disease only in the name of the Lord Jesus. “Jesus, save me” is a plea made not in meaningless incantation. The authentic prayer of utter helplessness is the desperate voice of a dead man awakened to his condition. Prayer for salvation is the only Truth capable of reaching through the hardened layers of atheistic sap and the diabolical guanos to pull the emergence cable. I say again, “But God.” Salvation by divine conjunction is our only hope. For with God, nothing is impossible (Matthew 19:26).
It is the opposite of unkindness to assert the truth. Not only that, but it is also the antithesis of virtue to signal the approval of foolishness.—M. A. Milton
We will increasingly need to talk together and cooperate for the common good, to help save our loved ones from the centrifugal forces of the downward spiral. Recovering and reading spiritual guides such as Dorothy Sayers is a good place to start. The Church, for instance, will do better reading the Church Fathers (who lived among such madness) than reading experts telling us how to speak the language of cosmic sociopaths.
So, Then
Following Dorothy Sayers, we ask, “Are the homeless people human?” “Are transvestites human?” Yes, they are. “How about Republicans?” I hope so. Wait. I know. “Are elderly people on their last breath human?” “Are unborn children human?” The ridiculous questions are necessary because of the unceasing demonstrations of dark inhumanity. The truth is that even human bodies devoid of the breath of life are human. For the human body bears the image of God and deserves honor and respect. The idea of a “decent Christian burial” is grounded in the Imago Dei, viz., the image of God in mankind. This is why believers in the early Church ran into the Tiber to “rescue” human bodies thrown away by Romans.
We need boys to be men who leverage their God-given male attributes to guard the sanctity of the family against the vile forces of evil. Strong and virtuous men will exalt womanhood and protect childhood. There is nothing toxic about what God created as good. —M. Milton
Back to the present dangers of suspending reality to advance an ideology. We owe those sad men pretending to be women (and vice versa) our prayers and unapologetic disapproval of their mindless charade. We also owe humanity our voices: Leave our women alone. Cavorting in drag is hurting not only the perpetrator but, especially, our women and children. Aberrant sexuality invariably seeks to diminish motherhood and femininity, and, thus, assaults all that is pure and lovely in life. If I could speak to someone reading this who may be engaged in cross-dressing, homosexuality, heterosexual promiscuity, polygamy, and similar sexual sins, I would plead: “Let us help you find the healing for whatever it is that hurts you.” I would say to those who enable their behavior, “Stop demeaning our girls with unisex locker rooms, competing as males in women’s athletics, and dismissing the beauty of authentic femininity.” I would add, “Leave our boys alone and let them grow to be strong men who will use their strength to be husbands, fathers, and leaders.” We need parents to rear boys to become men who leverage their God-given male attributes to guard the sanctity of the family against the vile forces of evil. Strong and virtuous men will exalt womanhood and protect childhood. There is nothing toxic about what God created as good.
It is time to assert that we are human, and we will not play along with those who seek to deny it. It is the opposite of unkindness to assert the truth. Not only that, but it is also the antithesis of virtue to signal the approval of foolishness.
A Prayer by Thomas Cranmer
Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning, grant us that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them; that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our savior Jesus Christ (The Book of Common Prayer, the Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent).
Reference
Calvin, Jean. Calvin's Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Cranmer, Thomas. “The Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent.” The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, 1549.
Orwell, George, and George Orwell. Animal Farm, and Nineteen, Eight-Four. 2021.
Sayers, Dorothy L. “Are Women Human? Address Given to a Women's Society, 1938.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, vol. 8, no. 4, 2005, pp. 165–178., doi:10.1353/ log.2005.0040.