Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Leithart

Home
Evangelical
On Seneca, de Beneficiis, Books 1-2

On Seneca, de Beneficiis, Books 1-2

Last updated on: September 7, 2017 at 12:05 am by Peter Leithart

1 Comment

On Seneca, de Beneficiis, Books 1-2 2017-09-07T00:05:27+06:00 Peter Leithart

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Seneca suggests that ingratitude is the worst of vices, and nothing is more “harmful to society” than ingratitude (I.1). Later in Book I, he lists a series of moral ills that plague society – “homicides, tyrants, thieves, adulterers, ravishers, sacrilegious, traitors” – but concludes that “worse than all these is the ungrateful man” (I.10). The only things that might be worse are the crimes that flow from ingratitude, “without which hardly any great wickedness has ever grown to full stature” (I.10).

Near the beginning of his treatise, Seneca makes the observation that benefits can be given in such a way as to make the recipient more ungrateful. One problem, the one that he isolates at the beginning of the treatise, is the failure to choose recipients with care, like the farmer who sows seed in “a worn-out or unfruitful soil” and “without any discrimination we scatter our benefits at random rather than bestow them” (I.1). Bestowal, then, is not merely a transfer of property from one hand to another, but a conscious and thoughtful act, considering the recipient’s character, the timing, the nature of the benefit, and so on. But we can also increase ingratitude by benefaction if we give benefits unwillingly: “no one is glad to owe what he has not so much received from his benefactor, as wrung out of him” (I.1). The attitude expressed in bestowing the benefit is mirrored in the attitude of the recipient; if given carelessly, it will be received carelessly; if given after a long delay, it will be received as an unwilling benefit and the recipient will respond accordingly.

Yet, the possibility of ingratitude should not deter generosity. Seneca gives two principle reasons for continuing to give even when there is the possibility, even probability, that some of the recipients of our benefits will be ungrateful. First, generosity can soften and improve a person – as kindness to a wild animal makes the animal docile (I.2). Second, in giving without expectation of return we are conforming our generosity to the generosity of the gods. Benefits should be bestowed, “not put . . . out at interest” (I.1). The man who refuses to give because he does not expect a return is justifying ingratitude, since he is making the gift dependent on return, as the ungrateful man does not return when he able to do so. The virtue of generosity is manifested in “bestowing benefits for which we are not certain of meeting with any return, but whose fruit is at once enjoyed by noble minds” (I.1). We should bestow carefully, but also recognizing that we will bestow gifts on the unworthy; but one well-bestowed gift makes amends for many ill-considered gifts (I.2). If we believe that benefits bestowed are wasted, then they are; but if we give in spite of having no return, we “force out gratitude” from even “a hard and forgetful beast” (I.3). Note the connection of benefit, gratitude, and memory, a link that Seneca returns to later.

Seneca offers this delightful allegory of the Three Graces (I.3): “What is the meaning of this dance of sisters in a circle, hand in hand? It means that the course of a benefit is from hand to hand, back to the giver; that the beauty of the whole chain is lost if a single link fails, and that it is fairest when it proceeds in unbroken regular order. In the dance there is one esteemed beyond the others, who represents the givers of benefits. Their faces are cheerful, as those of men who give or receive benefits are wont to be. They are young, because the memory of benefits ought not to grow old. They are virgins, because benefits are pure and untainted, and held holy by all; in benefits there should be no strict or binding conditions, therefore the Graces wear loose flowing tunics, which are transparent, because benefits love to be seen.” Note that the circle of benefits leads back to the giver of benefits. And note too that Seneca assumes gifts are given to be known as given, given to be seen of men. This raises an issue that will come up later, namely, the motivation behind benefaction.

Seneca claims that benefits are “the chief bond of human society” (I.4). Comparison might be made to Paul’s treatment of the body of Christ, united by the Spirit (who gives abundantly without reproach, and no need for return) and also by the mutual benefaction of the members of the body, who bestow benefits from the Spirit to one another in the form of charisma (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12; Eph 4). For Seneca, benefits must steer between careless openhandedness and a circumspection that kills generosity (I.4). Training in giving and receiving gifts must aim not only at equally but at surpassing the gift, “both in good offices and in good feeling” (I.4). Seneca does not explain why the recipient must aim to surpass the original gift in his response; Aquinas will later explain this by reference to the gratuity of gifts in general: The original gift is not a response to any prior gift, and thus has a gratuitous character; if the return gift is to be just, it must have a gratuitous character as well. But since the return gift is a response to a prior gift, the gratuity cannot arise from the “unmotivated” character of the return gift, but must instead be manifest in the surplus of value in the return gift.

Seneca makes the crucial claim that a benefit is something “which exists only in the mind,” and distinguishes between the sign of kindness/ the kindness itself, the subject-matter of the benefit / the benefit itself, the good will expressed in a gift/ the actual gift bestowed (I.5). The wise recognize this distinction but the ignorant do not. The benefit is a “means” for manifesting kindly feeling. Thus gift-giving is bound up with the signum-res contrast that is so important for the architecture of Western thought, including Christian thought. Why does the benefit reside in the mind only? For Seneca, the reason is that the subject-matter, sign, or literal gift is transitory and can be lost. But he wants to say that losing the matter of a benefit does not deprive one of the benefit itself: “a kindness lasts even after the loss of that by means of which it was bestowed; for it is a good deed, which no violence can undo” (I.5). Presumably, this is partly intended to emphasize that gratitude and obligation do not evaporate when the gift itself is gone.

He offers several examples that illustrate the difference between receiving a benefit and continuing in the enjoyment of that benefit: “suppose that I ransomed a friend from pirates, but another pirate has caught him and thrown him into prison. The pirate has not robbed him of my benefit, but has only robbed him of the enjoyment of it. Or suppose that I have saved a man’s children from a shipwreck or a fire, and that afterwards disease or accident has carried them off; even when they are no more, the kindness which was done by means of them remains. All those things, therefore, which improperly assume the name of benefits, are means by which kindly feeling manifests itself. In other cases also, we find a distinction between the visible symbol and the matter itself, as when a general bestows collars of gold, or civic or mural crowns upon any one. What value has the crown in itself? or the purple-bordered robe? or the fasces? or the judgment-seat and car of triumph? None of these things is in itself an honour, but is an emblem of honour” (I.5).

Later, he argues that “the actual thing itself is not of much importance, because it is not regarded as a benefit at all, if you do good when you intended to do evil; in such a case the benefit is done by chance, the man did harm” (II.19). That is, benefits must be intended as benefits to be such. Further, he argues that a forced benefit is no benefit, since to be a tru

e benefit the giver must first grant the recipient the power of choice: “you must first give me personal freedom of decision, and then your benefit” (II.19).

Seneca defines a benefit as follows: It is a) the art of doing a kindness that b) gives pleasure and c) gains pleasure by bestowing it d) out of “natural and spontaneous impulse” (I.6).
Given this definition, Seneca believes that the actual thing bestowed is morally neutral, and the value of the benefit comes from “the spirit in which it is done or given” rather than in “the thing which is done or given” (I.6). The giver bestows the value of the benefit upon it, specifically the “mind of the doer or giver” (I.6): “while a benefit is necessarily good, yet that which is done or given is neither good nor bad. The spirit in which they are given can exalt small things, can glorify mean ones, and can discredit great and precious ones; the objects
themselves which are sought after have a neutral nature, neither good nor bad; all depends upon the direction given them by the guiding spirit from which things receive their shape” (I.6). He employs a religious analogy: The honor paid to the gods does not come from the victim we offer on the altar, but from the “pure and holy feelings of the worshippers” (I.6).

The “artistic” dimension of this is worth noting. An artist aims at several things when he makes a work of art: “there is the consciousness of having made it, which he receives when his work is completed; there is the fame which he receives; and thirdly, the advantage which he obtains by it, in influence, or by selling it, or otherwise” (II.33). Similarly, a benefactor gains consciousness of a benefit, receives credit for doing it, and also might receive a return gift. This means also that when a gift has been received with grace and good cheer, the giver has received gratitude in return, and though the benefactress continues to be obligated to repay when he has opportunity, in a sense repayment has been made (II.33, 35).

Now, this raises a whole series of questions. It is true that different people might have different responses to the same object. And that seems to detach the benefit itself from the thing given – the benefit being the goodwill expressed in the gift. And Seneca is right to want to preserve the obligation of gratitude for things that are no longer present. But Seneca’s method of doing this does not seem necessary. He seems to be assuming that the beneficiary needs to have the benefit in present possession if he is going to be grateful for the benefit (even if he does not have the present enjoyment of the benefit). But that doesn’t seem necessary at all; I can be grateful for a benefit bestowed yesterday, even though the benefit itself (a ham sandwich, say) is long gone. The memory of the benefit is sufficient ground for obligation, without having to say that the benefit itself must be present. Seneca’s claim that things themselves are neutral, and receive their valuation as benefits only from the mind of the giver, is far more problematic. Seneca makes the claim absolutely, speaking of benefits “only” in the mind and emphasizing the “great distinction” between sign and thing. But this surely cannot be sustained. When I leave a horse head at my neighbor’s door, my intentions don’t matter – it’s not going to be received as a gift, a benefit.

It’s true that what is a blessing for one person might be a curse for another, but that doesn’t mean that the value is only located in the mind of either the giver or the receiver. Rather, it’s precisely the character of the thing given that makes it a blessing or a curse. Suppose I have a deep bitterness toward potted plants, which are associated in my mind with various kinds of childhood traumas and my parents’ bizarre methods of discipline. If given a potted plant as a gift, I will react with horror. That is surely subjective – it depends on my own experience and memory. But it’s the specific potted-plantedness of the potted plant that arouses my horror. Seneca will later emphasize that a thoughtful bestowal involves careful attention to the character and circumstances of the recipient (I.12), but the founding emphasis on the neutrality of benefits weakens that later affirmation.

Seneca divides the types of benefits into three groups: 1) Necessary benefits, those that we cannot live without; 2) useful benefits, those without which life is hardly worth living; and 3) pleasant benefits, those that are dear because of connection and long use and custom (I.11). The organization of this section is somewhat obscure; it’s not clear where he ends a discussion of one issue and begins a discussion of another. Here’s my best reading: As examples of the first category, Seneca lists liberty and deliverance from the various perils that threaten life. Among the useful benefits are liberty, chastity, and a good conscience. We can maintain existence without these useful benefits, but we cannot live a full human life, a moral human life. Money, office, and advancement are also useful benefits, though these must be enjoyed in moderation lest they corrupt the recipient. Finally, pleasant gifts are those that are superfluous, that meet no need or use. It’s particularly in connection with this last category that Seneca emphasizes the need for a benefactor to attend to the character of the recipient. Giving books to an illiterate man is inappropriate, as are hunting weapons to a woman (I.11). Benefits should also not “insultingly remind our friends of their failings” (I.11). Timing of a gift is also an essential element of wise bestowal of benefits, apparently especially those benefits that are for pleasure.

Seneca claims that it is better to give gifts that are permanent than consumables, because a permanent gift remains to remind the recipient of the benefit (I.11-12). The gift is an aid to memory, and “even the ungrateful remember us by our gifts, when they are always in their sight and do not allow themselves to be forgotten” (I.12). The presence of the gift is the presence of the giver. It is gauche to remind a beneficiary of our benefits to them; we should leave that work to the good itself. This gives us some hint of what motivates the giver for Seneca. As he says, “I am no advocate of slackness in giving benefits: the more and the greater they are, the more praise they will bring to the giver” (I.15). Gifts are made to be known and seen, especially by the recipient, and are given to bring praise to the giver. This at least is one of the motivations behind benefaction.

But this is not the deepest of Seneca’s motives for giving, and in fact he cancels out this motive later. We should give quickly, even anticipating what our friends are going to ask for, so as not to put them through the shame of asking (II.1-2). And this is based on the assumption that the sweetest part of a benefit is the kindness of the giver (II.1). The ultimate approval for the gift is not from the praise we get, but from the approval of our own conscience – that at least is the wise man’s motivation for giving (II.10). Because the conscience is the court of approval, it is not necessary for gifts to be bestowed publicly – on the contrary, it is often best to ensure that benefits are given privately, so as not to shame the recipient and cause him pain. It is always wrong to remind the recipient of the benefit bestowed, which turns the benefit into a loan or some other kind of transaction. The “first and most essential rule” of benefits is: “never to reproach a man with what you have done for him, and not even to remind him of it. The rule for the giver and the receiver of a benefit is, that the one should straightway forget what he has given, the othe
r should never forget that he has received it” (II.10). Further, “The best man is he who gives readily, never asks for any return, and is delighted when the return is made, because, having really and truly forgotten what he gave, he receives it as though it were a present” (II.17). In this, Seneca exactly reverses the attitude of Aristotle’s magnanimous man.

Further, benefits should have a goal in view, the goal of actually benefiting the recipient. Seneca cautions against bowing to the pressure of entreaty; the fact that someone passionately desires something does not mean it would necessarily be a benefit to him (II.14). A good man gives only what is genuinely beneficial to the recipient, considering the usefulness of the gift and not merely the desire of the person who receives it. There is a double aim: to be of service and to gain the pleasure of doing good. A truly generous man wants nothing in return, even thanks: “If he does what he wishes, if his purpose reaches me and fills us each with joy, he has gained his object. He does not wish anything to be given to him in return, or else it becomes an exchange of commodities, not a bestowal of benefits” (II.31).

At the same time, the giver should not give in a way that exposes him to shame. He should not impoverish himself by seeking to help others, or kill himself in his efforts to save another life (II.15). Seneca provides an interesting contrast to Christian ethics, which arise from the shameful self-sacrifice of Jesus, His willingness to endure exposure and shame for our benefit.

The causes of ingratitude are three: Pride, greed, and jealousy. A proud man thinks he deserves more than he got, and is always calculating whether the benefit matches his deserts. A greedy man is always looking for more, and never satisfied with whatever benefits he has. Jealousy is the worst of the three, inciting men to compare their own benefits with benefits bestowed on others (II.26-28). Some even show ingratitude toward the gods, because the gods have not bestowed on man the qualities they bestowed on animals (II.29).

Several other issues arise in Book II. First, Seneca urges people to choose creditors carefully, as carefully as they do debtors, since receiving a benefit from an unworthy man might obligate you in ways you want to avoid. Second, Seneca develops the fairly obvious point that a forced benefit is no benefit at all (II.18). If someone accidentally aids me, against my will, I owe no gratitude. Third, Seneca draws intriguing connections between friendship and gratitude, arguing that friendship “arises” from gratitude, and in the same context suggesting that gratitude-benefit is a “most holy bond” (II.18). Finally, Seneca interestingly distinguishes between benefits that are actions and benefits that are objects. The first obligates the recipient to goodwill in return, while a material benefit requires a material return.

The key difference here between Seneca and the NT is not that the NT teaches us to renounce rewards, to avoid being seen entirely. The key difference is that the NT introduces a transcendent heavenly reward and teaches us that we give and receive in the sight of our heavenly Father who sees in secret. The NT (as CS Lewis wonderfully points out) does teach us to hope for praise, for “fame” and reputation; but the NT teaches us to hope for praise from our Father, for the “well done” from our heavenly Lord.

Classics

Previous Post

March 22, 2006

Prospero the Magus

Next Post

March 23, 2006 Thomas on Merit

Recent Comments

1 Comment | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1-2 Samuel 1968 Abelard Abortion Abraham Acedia AD 70 Adam Smith Addiction Advent Advertising Aeneid Aesthetics Africa African Christianity African Church African religion Age Aging Agriculture Airline industry Alabama Alasdair MacIntyre Albania Alcohol Allegory Alms Alternative Medicine Ambrose America American Christianity American culture American economy American Evangelicals American Foreign Policy American history American Literature American Military American Politics American Religion American Revolution Anagogy Analytic Philosophy Anamnesis Ancient Egypt Ancient Greece Ancient history Ancient Near East Ancient Religion Angels Anglican Church Anglicanism Animism Anointing of the Sick Anselm Anthropology Anthropomorphism anti-Catholicism Antiquities Antonio Lopez apocalypse Apocalyptic Apocalyptic language Apostles Creed Aquinas Archeology Architecture Arianism Aristotle Ark of the Covenant Art Art History Ascension Aseity Assurance Athanasius Atheism Athens atonement Attention Attributes Augustine Austin Farrer Authority autonomy Avant-garde Awe Bach Ballooning Balzac Banking Bankruptcy Baptism Baptists Baseball Basketball Bavinck Beatitudes Beauty Behavioral Economics Being Benedict XVI Benjamin Benjamin Franklin Beowulf Berkeley Bernie Sanders Bertrand Russell Bestiary Bible Bible - criticism Bible - NT Bible - NT - 1 Corinthians Bible - NT - 1 John Bible - NT - 1 Peter Bible - NT - 2 Corinthians Bible - NT - 2 Peter Bible - NT - Acts Bible - NT - Colossians Bible - NT - Ephesians Bible - NT - Galatians Bible - NT - Gospels Bible - NT - Hebrews Bible - NT - James Bible - NT - John Bible - NT - Jude Bible - NT - Luke Bible - NT - Mark Bible - NT - Matthew Bible - NT - Paul Bible - NT - Philippians Bible - NT - Revelation Bible - NT - Romans Bible - NT - Thessalonians Bible - NT - Timothy Bible - OT Bible - OT - Amos Bible - OT - Chronicles Bible - OT - Daniel Bible - OT - Deuteronomy Bible - OT - Ecclesiastes Bible - OT - Esther Bible - OT - Exodus Bible - OT - Ezekiel Bible - OT - Ezra-Nehemiah Bible - OT - Genesis Bible - OT - Habakkuk Bible - OT - Hosea Bible - OT - Isaiah Bible - OT - Jeremiah Bible - OT - Job Bible - OT - Joel Bible - OT - Jonah Bible - OT - Joshua Bible - OT - Judges Bible - OT - Kings Bible - OT - Lamentations Bible - OT - Leviticus Bible - OT - Malachi BIble - OT - Micah Bible - OT - Nehemiah Bible - OT - Numbers Bible - OT - Pentateuch Bible - OT - Proverbs Bible - OT - Psalms Bible - OT - Ruth Bible - OT - Samuel Bible - OT - Song of Songs Bible - OT - Torah Bible - OT - Zechariah Bible - OT - Zephaniah Biblical Law Biblicism Billy Graham biography Biology Biololgy Biotechnology Blasphemy Blindness Blog news Blogging Blogroll Bloomsbury Group Bob Dylan Body Body symbolism Boethius Boko Haram Bonhoeffer Book of Common Prayer Books Botany Boundary Brexit Britain British History British Politics Bruce Springsteen Buddhism Bureaucracy Burial Business C. S. Lewis C. S. Peirce Calendars Caliphate Calvin calvinism Camille Paglia Canon Capitalism Cappadocians Carl Schmitt Catholic Social Teaching Catholicism Catholicity Causation cemeteries Cervantes Charism Charismata Charity Charles Dickens Charles Hodge Charles Simeon Charles Taylor Charles Williams Chaucer Chermistry Chess Chesterton Chiasm children China Chinese Exclusion Act Chivalry Chopin Chretien de Troyes Christendom Christian Democracy Christian reconstruction Christianity in Britain Christianization Christmas Christology Chronology Church church and state Church architecture Church Calendar Church history Church of England Church Year Cicero Circumcision Cities City of God Civil Religion Civil Society Civil War Civility Classical Theism Classics Climate Change Clothing Coleridge Colloquy of Marburg Colonialism Color Comedy Comenius Commodity Communio Communism Community Comparative religions Computer Science Confederacy Confessionalization Conflict Congregations consciousness Consecration Conservatism Constantine Constitution consumerism Contra Faustum Conversion Coriolanus Cormac McCarthy Cosmology Cosmopolitanism Council of Trent Counter-culture Counter-insurgency Courage Courtly love Covenants Crafts Craftsmanship Cranach Creation Creativity Creator-creature Credit Crime Crime and Punishment Crisis Critical scholarship Criticism Cross Cubism Cultural theory Culture Culture War Dance Daniel Dennett Dante Darwin Dave Eggers David David Foster Wallace David Hume David Jones Deadly sins Death Debt Dechristianization Decolonization Deconstruction Defoe Deja vu Democracy Denis de Rougemont Denominationalism Derrida Descartes Developmental psychology Devils Diocletian Discipleship Disenchantment Disgust Diversion Diversity Divine energies Divine Impassibility Divine Simplicity Divine Warrior Doctrine dogma Dominion Donald Trump Dostoevsky Douglas Campbell Douglas Farrow Dreams Dualism Durkheim Dystopia E.M. Forster Early Christianity Early Modern Europe Easter Eastern Europe Eastern Orthodoxy Ecclesiology Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Eden Edgar Allan Poe Edmund Spenser Education Egypt Election Elites Emergence Emma Emotion Empire England English History English Reformation Enlightenment Entertainment Entrepreneur environmentalism Envy Epic Epiphany Episcopals Epistemology Epistles Equality Erasmus Ernst Kantorowicz Eros Eschatology Eternity Ethics Eucharist Europe Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Catholics Together Events Evil Evolution Exile Face Fairie Queene Fairy Tales Faith family Family and Marriage Fantasy Farming Fashion Fasting Fatherhood Fear Femininity Feminism Fertility Fetishization Feud Feudalism Feuerbach Fiction Figs Film Finance Finland Fire Flag Flags Flannery O'Connor Flood myths Folly Food football Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Foreknowledge Forgiveness Foucault Fracking France Francois Mauriac Franz Rosenzweig free will Freedom Freedom of God French Revolution Freud Funerals Future G. K. Chesterton Gambling Gaming Gay Marriage Gender gender identity Genealogy Geography George Berkeley George Eliot George Herbert; Poetry George Romanes Gerald Manley Hopkins Germany Gethsemane Gift Gifts Giorgio Agamben Global Christianity Global economics Globalism Globalization Glorious Revolution Gnosticism God's sovereignty Gods Goethe Golf Good Friday Gospel Gospels Gothic Gothic architecture Grace Grammar Gramsci Gratitude Greek Literature Greek Philosophy Greek Religion Greek Science Gregory of Nyssa Guillermo del Toro H. Richard Niebuhr Haiku hair Hamann Hamlet Handicap Handles Hands Hans Urs von Balthasar Happiness Harold Bloom Harper Lee Harvest healing Heaven Heavenly treasure Heavenly treasure Hebrew Bible Hebrew language Hegel Heidegger Hell Hellenism; Judaism; Revelation Henri de Lubac heresy Herman Dooyeweerd Hermeneutics Herod Heroic Heroism Hesiod Hidegard of Bingen Hierarchy Hieronymus Bosch Historicism Historiography History History - Early Modern History - Middle Ages Hoaxes Hobbes Holiness Holy Saturday Holy Spirit Home Homeless Homer Homosexuality Honor hope Horror Hospitality Housing Hugh of St. Victor Human Rights Humanism Humor hylomorphism Hymns Hypocrisy. Iago Iconoclasm Identity Ideology Idleness Idolatry Iliad Images Imagination Immigrant churches Immigrant Religion Immigration Imperialism Improvization Imputation Incarnation Incest India Individualism Indonesia Inequality Inerrancy Infant Baptism Infant mortality Infanticide Ingratitude Innovation Inspiration Institutions Insult Intellectual History Intellectuals Intelligent Design International Politics Internet Intimacy IQ Iran Iran-Iraq War Iraq Ireland Irony Islam Islamic State Islamism Ismail Kadare Israel Ivan Illich J. Gresham Machen J.N. Figgis Jacob Jacques Lacan James Bond James Jordan James Joyce James KA Smith James Wood Jane Austen Jane Jacobs Jealousy Jed Perl Jeff Koons Jeroboam Jesus Jewish War 66-70 AD Jihad Johann Georg Hamann Johannine Epistles John Ashbery John Behr John Bunyan John Calvin John Donne John Frame John Howard Yoder John Knox John Milbank John Milton John Owen John Rawls John Ruskin John Stuart Mill John the Baptist John Webster John Wesley John Williamson Nevin Jonathan Edwards Jorge Luis Borges Joseph Conrad Joseph Ratzinger Journalism Joy Judaism Judaize Judgment Judith Butler Jurgen Moltmann Justice Justification Kalevala Kant Karl Barth Karl Marx Karl Polanyi Karl Rahner Kazakhstan Kazuo Ishiguro Kenneth Lonergan Kierkegaard King Lear Kingdom of God Kitsch Knighthood Knowledge Korea Labor movement Lactantius Lamech Lament Landscape Language Latin America Laughter Law Law and Punishment Leftism Lent Les Murray Levi-Strauss Levites Leviticus Liber Mundi Liberal arts Liberal Theology Liberalism Light Lighthouse Linguistics LIstening Literacy Literary structure Literature Liturgics Liturgy Locke Logic Love Luther Lutheran Lutheranism Lying Lytton Strachey Macbeth Machiavelli Machines Madness Mainline Manhattan Manicheanism Manners Manufacturing Manuscripts Mao Zedong Maps Marcion Marilynne Robinson Marketing Marriage Martha Nussbaum Martin Bucer Martin Chemnitz Martyrdom Marx Marxism Mary Mary Douglas masculinity Mass Materialism Mathematics Maundy Thursday Max Weber Media Mediation Medication Medicine Medieval Church Medieval exegesis Medieval Literature Medieval theology Medieval Thought Medievalism Memory Merchant of Venice Mesopotamian Religion Messianic Metaphor Metaphysics Methodist Mexican-American War Michel de Montaigne Michel Faber Middle Ages Middle East Midwifery Mikhail Bulgakov Military Millennium Mind Miracles Miscellaneous Mission missionaries Mixed constitution Modern self modernism Modernity monasticism Monotheism Monroe Doctrine Monsters Montaigne's Essays Moral philosophy Mormonism Moses Mother Teresa Motherhood Motive Mount of Olives Movies Multiculturalism Murder Music Musicals Mutability Mutability Mystery Mysticism myth N. T. Wright Narrative Nation-State Nationalism Natural Law Natural-Supernatural Nature Nature and culture Nature and Grace Nazi Nazirite Necrophilia Nero Nestorianism Neuroscience Nevin Lectures New Atheism New Testament New York City Newbigin News NGOs Nibelungenlied Nicholas of Cusa Nicholas of Lyra Nietzsche Nigeria Nihilism Nobel Prize Nobility Nominalism Norbert Elias Norman MacCaig nostalgia Novels Numerology Obama Objectivity and subjectivity Occasionalism Odysseus Oil Old Testament Oliver O'Donovan Ontology Origen original sin Orthodoxy Othello Owen Barfield Pacifism Pactum salutis Paedocommunion Paganism Pain Painting Paleoconservatism Palm Sunday Pannenberg Parenting Pascal Passions Passivity Pastoral Care Pastoral theology Patrick Modiano Patristics Patronage Paul Peace of God Peace of Westphalia Penal substitution Pentecost Pentecostalism Perichoresis Pericles Persecution Person Peter Peter Enns Petrarch Philip K. Dick Philip Melanchthon Philosophy Philosophy of Action Philosophy of History Philosophy of language Philosophy of science Phone booth Photography Physics Pictures Pierre Bourdieu Place Planned Parenthood Plants plato Play Plot Plotinus Pluralism Pneumatology Poetics poetry Poetry & Stories Poland police Political Philosophy Political theology Political Theory Politics Pop Culture Pope Francis Popular Culture Populism Pornography Porphyry Post-Colonial Theory Post-Structuralism Postmodernism Postmodernity Potential Poverty Power Practice Pragmatism Prayer Preaching Predestination Prediction Prehistory Premillennialism Presbyterian Priesthood Prince Charles Prison Reform privacy Private Prodigal Son Progress Progressivism Property Prophecy Prophet Propitiation Prosperity gospel Prostitution Protectionism Protestantism Providence Prudentius psalms Pseudo-Dionysus Psychological Warfare Psychology Public intellectual Public Life Public Philosophy Public Theology Publishing Punk Rock Pure nature Puritanism Purity Pushkin Putin Pythagoreanism R.J. Rushdoony Race Racism Radical Orthodoxy Rape Rationality Reactionary reading Realism Reason Red State Blue State Reformation Reformational Catholicism Reformational Philosophy Reformed theology refugees reinhold niebuhr Relationality Relativism Relics Religion Religion and science Religions Religious Freedom Religious Liberty Religious Right Renaissance Rene Girard Republican Party Resurrection Resurrection. Revelation Revelations Revenge Revivalism Revolution rhetoric Richard Flannagan Richard II Richard III Richard Wagner Richard Wilbur Righteousness Ritual Robert Frost Robert Herrick Robert Jenson Robert Mugabe Robert Spaemann Robinson Crusoe Rock n' Roll Rod Dreher Rodin Roman Catholicism Roman Empire Roman Religion Romance Romanticism Rome Rootedness Rosenstock-Huessy Rousseau Rowan Williams Rural America Russia Russian literature Russian Orthodoxy Rusty Reno Rwanda S. Y. Agnon Sabbath Sacrament Sacramental theology Sacraments Sacred Sacred Space Sacrifice saints Salt Sam Harris Same-sex marriage Sanctuary Satan Satire Saudi Arabia Scapegoat Scarcity Schism Schleiermacher Scholarship Science Science and Theology Science Fiction Scopes trial Scotland Scott Adams Scott Cairns Scottish Reformation Scotus Scripture and tradition sculpture Sea Second temple Secularism Secularization Self-Help Self-trust Semiotics Semper reformanda separation of church and state Sermon on the Mount Sex Sex Trafficking Sexual abuse Sexual Politics Sexual Revolution Sexuality Shakespeare Shame Culture Shema Sherlock Shopping Silence Simone Weil Simplicity Simpsons Sin Sincerity Sixties Skepticism Slavery Slavoj Zizek Sleep Sloth Social capital Social change Social Imaginary Social Science Socialism Socialization Sociology Sociology of Knowledge Sociology of Religion Sola scriptura Sonnets Sophocles Soteriology Soviet Union Space Spain Speculation Spinoza Spirit Sport Sports Star Trek State State-formation Stephen Masty Steven Bannon Strangers Structuralism structure Subject-object Substitution Suburbs Suffering Suicide Super-Rich Superheroes Supersessionism Supplication Supreme Court Surveillance Symbol Synagogue Taberancle Tabernacle Tax Taxes Tears Technology Teens Teleology Television Temple Ten Commandments Terence Terrence Malick Terrorism Thanksgiving The South The West Theodore Roosevelt Theogony Theological Education Theological Language Theology Theology - Anthropology Theology - Christology Theology - Covenant Theology - Creation Theology - Ecclesiology Theology - Eschatology Theology - Liturgical Theology - Pneumatology Theology - Soteriology Theology - Trinity Theology proper Theopolis Theopolis Institute Theosis Theresa May Thomas A. Clark Thomas Aquinas Thomas Carlyle Thomas Mann Threshing Thucydides Time Tocqueville Tolerance Toleration Tolstoy Tom Wolfe Tools Torah Torture Toscanini Totalitarianism Trade Tradition Tragedy Transhumanism Translation Transubstantiation Travel Trees Trinitarianism Trinity Trinity House Tristan Troilus and Creysede Trump Trump Truth Turkey Twelfth Night Two Kingdoms Typology Ukraine Ulysses Uncanny Uncategorized Uniform Union with Christ United States Unity University Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Value Vatican II Vengeance Vico Victorian Age Victorian Literature Vienna Violence Virgil Virgin Birth Virginia Woolf Vladimir Nabokov Vladimir Solovyev Vladimir Solovyov W.H. Auden Walls Walt Disney Walt Whitman Walter Benjamin Walter Lippmann War Wars of Religion Washington DC Wealth Weddings Will William Carlos Williams William Gilpin William Golding Wine Wisdom wonder Word of God Wordsworth Work Works World Council of Churches World History World War I World War II Worldview Worship Wrath Writing Youth Youth Ministry Yuja Wang Yves Congar Zimbabwe Zwingli Zygmunt Bauman

Select a Month January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the Bible say about rest?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Only rest when you're old Avoid rest God rested on the seventh day Rest is evil