Whenever I talk or write about stewardship, I honestly admit that being naturally generous doesn’t come easily to me. Deep in my Scottish roots, there’s a bit of a miser lurking. While I was working full-time, I automatically set aside 10% of my salary, which made it easier to remember to give. In retirement, my income comes from many different sources, some of which are irregular. It’s been a challenge to stay generous under these new circumstances. But I am grateful that this Lenten season gives me a special opportunity to work on becoming more generous.

The Catholic and Greek Orthodox traditions highlight three main Lenten spiritual disciplines for both laity and religious: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. These practices have deep roots in Christian history and faith. The main purpose of the Lenten disciplines is to cultivate the virtues of faith, hope, and love in believers. The virtue of almsgiving is connected to the virtue of love. The roots of the words for alms in both Greek and Latin are linked to the words for love or charity. [1]  Traditionally, Lent has been a time when people are encouraged to give money to those in need.

The Biblical Basis for Almsgiving

Almsgiving, which means giving to the poor and needy, is a meaningful theme throughout the Bible. It shows God’s love for justice, mercy, and compassion. This act of kindness is a heartfelt part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, highlighting how important it is to care for those who need it most.[2]

Old Testament Context. In the Old Testament, almsgiving was associated with righteous living and the provision of justice to the widow, poor, and oppressed. The Torah includes numerous provisions for the care of the poor, widows, orphans, and foreigners. For example:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You must not strip your vineyard bare or gather its fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:9-10).

The theme of generosity for the poor appears in Psalms:

It is well with the man who deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice. For the righteous will never be moved; he will be remembered forever. He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steady, and he will not be afraid until he sees his desire on his adversaries. He has distributed freely, given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever; his horn is exalted in honor (Psalms 112:5-9).

Wisdom literature also highlights generosity, teaching, “Kindness to the poor is a loan to the LORD, and He will repay the lender” (Proverbs 19:17). The prophets continue this theme, “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Thus, the theme of justice for the poor and needy is a constant in Jewish literature both before and after the exile to Babylon and became increasingly important during the intertestamental period.

New Testament Teachings. Jesus and His followers extended beyond the Old Testament teachings in emphasizing the importance of generosity in the Christian life. By the time of the New Testament, it was increasingly influenced by the Pharisaical belief that almsgiving earned merit from God. In the New Testament, almsgiving is viewed as a spiritual discipline. Jesus emphasizes the importance of giving with the right heart. In the Sermon on the Mount, he is recorded to have said:

So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have already received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving remains secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you (Matthew 6:2-4).

The New Testament church embraced almsgiving as a central part of their communal life. Acts describes the generous spirit of the early Christians: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone in need” (Acts 2:44-46). The significance of almsgiving is emphasized in Acts, where the first dispute involved collecting for the poor (Acts 6). Additionally, the story of Ananias and Sapphira highlights the dangers of pretending to be more generous than we truly are (Acts 5).

This call to charity appears often in the New Testament, emphasizing its significance. Paul took up a collection for those suffering in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8). The writer of Hebrews describes acts of charity as sacrifices that are genuinely pleasing to God (Heb 13:16). Both James and John remind us that a generous attitude toward those in need reflects a profound spiritual connection. Such actions demonstrate that a person truly has a living faith (James 2:14-17) and serve as an important test of authentic Christian commitment (1 John 3:16-18). [3]

The Church Fathers on Almsgiving

The Catholic emphasis on almsgiving is deeply influenced by the experience of the early church, as reflected in the teachings of the early post-apostolic Church Fathers Here are just a few quotations from the Church Fathers on almsgiving:[4]

Do not be ready to extend your hands and receive, only to pull them back when it’s time to give. You should not hesitate to give, nor complain when you do. “Give to everyone who asks you.” Barnabas (c. 70-13)

If someone in need receives alms, they are guiltless. However, if someone receives alms without need, they will face punishment. They will be scrutinized for their actions and will not escape until they repay the last coin. Regarding this, it has been said, “Let your alms stay in your hands, until you know to whom you should give them.” Didache (c. 80-140)

Do not be someone who extends his hand to receive but pulls it back when it comes to giving. If you have anything, you shall give with your hands as a ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give. Didache (c. 80-140)

Alms should be given to those who deserve it, using good judgment. This way, we can gain a ‘reward from the Most High. But woe to those who have enough but accept alms dishonestly. Woe to those who try to help themselves but want to take from others. For he who takes… out of laziness will be condemned. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195).

Although we have a treasure chest, it is not made up of money spent on purchases, like a religion that has a cost. Instead, on the designated day each month, if he wishes, every person can contribute a small donation—but only if it is his choice and he is able. There is no pressure; everyone participates voluntarily. These gifts are meant to support and care for poor people, to provide for boys and girls who lack resources and parents, and for elderly individuals confined to their homes. They also help those who have faced shipwreck. And if any of us happen to be in the mines, banished to the islands, or imprisoned—for no reason other than their faithfulness to the cause of God’s church—they become the recipients of their confession. Tertullian (c. 197).

If we give alms to others with the intention of appearing charitable before people, and if we seek to be honored because of our generosity, we only earn the praise of humans. In truth, everywhere, anything done by someone who is aware that they will be glorified by men has no reward from Him who sees in secret. For He gives the reward in secret to those who are pure. Origen (c. 245).

By giving alms to the poor, we lend to God. When it is given to the least, it is given to Christ. Therefore, there are no reasons for anyone to prefer worldly things over heavenly ones, nor for considering human matters before divine ones. Cyprian (c. 250).

Our particular duty to care for the poor

The purpose of almsgiving is to care for the poor and those in need. Thus, Lactinius, who could be quoted many times on the need for generosity, says:

Why do you discriminate between persons? Why do you look at bodily forms? Be generous to the blind, the feeble, the lame, and the ‘destitute. For they will die unless you bestow | your gifts upon them. They may be useless to men, but they are serviceable to God. For He preserves life in them and endows them with I breath. Lactantius (c. 304-313, W), 7.175.

The early Apostolic Constitutions of the church contain the same teaching:

What if some persons are neither widows nor widowers, but stand in need of assistance— either because of poverty, disease, or the responsibility of a great number of children? It is your duty to oversee all people and to take care of them all. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.427.

From the righteous labor of the faithful, provide for and clothe those in need. The sums of money collected in the manner mentioned above should be designated for the redemption of saints, the liberation of slaves, captives, and prisoners. They should also be used for those who have been abused or condemned by tyrants to single combat and death because of the name of Christ. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled around 390, E), 7.435; extended discussion: 5.476-5.484, 5.530-5.533.

It should be clear that the early church was focused on almsgiving and caring for the poor and needy. This concern involved not only Jesus but also the apostles and those who later became witnesses to the Christian faith and practice.

 Conclusion

Almsgiving beautifully reflects God’s loving character and the core values of the Christian Church worldwide. It is a heartfelt way to show love and obey God’s call to care for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40). Giving becomes a meaningful expression of faith and a way to gather treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). Additionally, by sharing what we have, we participate in God’s amazing work of redemption on earth. When we help meet others’ physical needs, it opens doors to share the gospel and demonstrate Christ’s love through our actions.

Almsgiving is a heartfelt aspect of Christian life that inspires us to show compassion and be willing to make sacrifices for others. We are encouraged to give with joy, just as Paul reminds us, “Each one should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not out of regret or compulsion. For God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) At its core, almsgiving is a genuine expression of Christian love and faith, deeply connected to biblical teachings and our cherished traditions.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] The English word “alms” is an abridged form of the Greek word, eleemosune and the Latin elemoynam. (from which our word “eleemosynary” derives. The word appears in gradually reduced forms in German Almosen, Wyclif’s Almesse, Scotch Aw’mons, and finally the English Alms.

[2] I am indebted to several sources for this blog, including Bible Hub https://biblehub.com/topical/a/almsgiving.htm (downloaded March 7, 2026).

[3] See, Biblical Training. Org  https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/alms-almsgiving (downloaded March 7, 2026).

[4] See, Puritan Publications, “The Early Church and Ideals about Alms-giving: Articles on Christian Stewardship” https://www.apuritansmind.com/stewardship/earlychurchalmsgiving/ (downloaded March 7, 2026). I have included only a few of the many quotations this site provides. I have also made more contemporary some of the quotes. The source for most of them is the Ante-Nicene Fathers series or the Apostolic Fathers Greek-English editions.

One of the benefits of fasting, and Kathy and I are observing a fast this Lenten season, is that it reminds you that you need God’s mercy. Every morning around 6:30 am, I get up and make a pot of coffee. Usually, I go to the refrigerator, pour half-and-half into my cup, and go back to bed while it brews. During this Lenten season, I get up, make the coffee, and remember I can’t have my half-and-half. It’s an immediate reminder that I need to pray for God’s mercy (as well as the quick arrival of Easter morning!). Until this year, Kathy and I have observed what might be called a “Protestant Lenten fast.” In other words, we fasted from something, usually wine (Kathy) and crackers (Chris). This year, we decided to experiment with the Orthodox Church’s “Great Lent” fasting rules. It has been an experience, made more difficult by the fact that we have traveled with people who are not subject to similar fasting guidelines.

The Great Lenten Fast

All Christians understand that fasting should be practiced in secret, without the need to show off or criticize others (Mt 6.16; Rom 14). It serves to purify our lives, free our souls and bodies from sin, and strengthen our natural ability to love God and others. Additionally, it helps illuminate our entire being, fostering a deeper connection with Christ. The Orthodox rules for Lenten fasting are monastic in nature. No meat is allowed after “Meatfare Sunday” (two weeks before Lent begins), and no eggs or dairy products after “Cheesefare Sunday” (one week before Lent begins). [1] The basic diet is sort of Vegan, with the addition that there is to be no olive oil or wine during the fast.[2]

This Lenten fast is not supposed to be some kind of work that earns one some special relationship with God, but as an ideal to be striven for; not as an end in itself, but as a means to spiritual perfection crowned in love. In fact, an American Orthodox priest that I heard speak about the fast reminded his parishioners that, if we make fasting a work or if we meticulously follow the rules, it is simply a bad diet.

The Great Lent is observed from Meatfare Sunday through Easter Sunday, ending after the Paschal Divine Liturgy on that day. Recognizing the dedication required, Christians are encouraged to keep their fasting practices private, trusting that God will see their sincere efforts and bless them openly with a holy life. Everyone is invited to sincerely do their best, guided by their own faith and conviction.

Although in Orthodoxy Saturdays and Sundays are never days of fasting, this  refers only to the weekly fasts. During Great Lent, , the ascetical fast continues through the weekends. However, the weekend rules are slightly different.

Three Pillars of Lent

Fasting is one of the Three Pillars of Lent, which are also central to the faith of those who practice it. These Three Pillars are:

1. Prayer. Prayer is such a meaningful part of the Lenten season. It’s a special time when we’re invited to reflect on our relationship with God and nurture our spiritual connection with the divine. Whether it’s through daily prayers, joining in church services, or engaging in devotional activities like the Stations of the Cross, these moments can truly deepen our faith and bring us closer to God.
2. Fasting. Fasting is an important part of Lent. It involves giving up certain luxuries or desires for a period to focus on spiritual growth. This can include various practices, such as skipping meals for a day, avoiding specific foods for a time, or giving up other items like television or social media. The goal of fasting is to help individuals get closer to God by recognizing their dependence on Him and stepping away from worldly distractions.
3. Generosity. Giving generously (or almsgiving) is a special practice during Lent. As we reflect on our own shortcomings, Lent reminds us to assist those in need. Whether it’s donating to charities, volunteering at a local soup kitchen, or helping a neighbor in need, these acts of kindness are genuine expressions of compassion and love. Embracing almsgiving throughout the season encourages us to focus on our responsibilities to others, fostering a spirit of selflessness and service.

The “Three Pillars of Lent”—prayer, fasting, and almsgiving—highlight how important spiritual growth and reflection are. By practicing these, we can strengthen our faith, build our relationship with God, and live a more meaningful and intentional life.

Pastoral Flexibility

There is a lot of pastoral flexibility in the way the Lenten fast is administered in any given parish. Those who have health issues that might be exacerbated by the fast are always given a dispensation to dispense with it. In addition, those with health issues that makes certain aspects of the fast difficult are easily given permission to not fulfill all of the obligations. For example, a member of my family has hypoglycemia and really needs a diet with a bit more protein every day. This person is also in an occupation requiring physical labor, and the priest has given him permission to eat certain foods that otherwise would not be permissible.

Neither Inquirers nor Catechumens are required to observe the fast. They may do so if they wish. Additionally, many people, myself included, observed certain parts of the fast as they get used to fasting for long periods. Finally, and this year has been a good example, our priest advises that, when traveling and in it would inconvenience those around you, the rules can be loosened to prevent bad feelings. In other words, the Lenten Fast is not a law, it’s a spiritual practice intended to draw people closer to God and one another.

Purpose of Fasting

Fasting has many important purposes. One website I visited had a very helpful summary of the reasons for fasting.[3]

1 To express repentance and a return to God

2. To humble oneself before God

3. To strengthen one’s prayer life

4. To seek God’s guidance

5. To express sorrow or grief

6. To seek deliverance or protection

7. To express concern for the work of God

8. To minister to the needs of others

9. To overcome temptation and dedicate yourself to God

10. To express love and worship for God

All these reasons are present in the Great Lenten Fast and the long Advent Fast practiced among Orthodox Christians.

Biblical Practice

Protestants sometimes feel that fasting might not be completely biblical. However, the Old Testament is full of examples of people observing fasting. Devout Jews fasted during specific times and seasons designated for such practices. For example, on the Day of Atonement, everyone was required to fast from sundown to sundown (Lev. 23:32). During special holy days, people also fasted until evening (Judg. 20:26). When King Saul died, the armies fasted for seven days (1 Sam. 31:13). Nehemiah and the people fasted together as an act of repentance and mourning (Neh. 1:4; 9:1). Fasting was a meaningful way for people to humbly depend on God and seek His mercy and grace.

For Christians, it is important to consider New Testament teachings. I believe it is crucial to note that the New Testament describes Jesus fasting for forty days and forty nights before he was tempted (Matt. 4:2). The passage reads like this:

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he became hungry. The tempter approached him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Jesus replied, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus told him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him (Matthew 4:1-11).

This passage was important enough that other gospel writers included this teaching in their writings.[4] We see no other instances of Jesus fasting, and we are told that his disciples did not fast during his earthly ministry. Jesus explained this by saying that wedding guests don’t fast while the bridegroom is present (Mark 2:18-19). However, he added, “The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast” (v. 20). The disciples’ choice not to fast was not due to laziness, lack of piety, or rejection of fasting; rather, it symbolized the Lord’s presence and the joyful arrival of God’s kingdom. Jesus himself predicted a time when they would fast (see Acts 13:2-3). Another key teaching about fasting is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:16—18), where he criticized the public fasting of the Pharisees, done to be “seen by men,” and instructed his disciples to fast in secret, so that only the heavenly Father would see and reward it. Clearly, the Lord criticized the motives and manner of fasting among the Pharisees, but not the practice itself. It is a misinterpretation of Scripture to believe that Jesus did not intend for his church to practice fasting.

The Practice of the Early Church

The early church adopted the popular Jewish custom of fasting twice a week, with a small but meaningful change: instead of Monday and Thursday, Wednesday and Friday became the usual days for fasting. This demonstrates how fasting was a valued part of the earliest Christian communities and how Orthodoxy simply incorporated this ancient practice into its liturgical traditions. The church fathers practiced and encouraged fasting. For example, Basil the Great taught:

There is both a physical and a spiritual fast. In the physical fast the body abstains from food and drink. In the spiritual fast, the faster abstains from evil intentions, words and deeds. One who truly fasts abstains from anger, rage, malice, and vengeance. One who truly fasts abstains from idle and foul talk, empty rhetoric, slander, condemnation, flattery, lying and all manner of spiteful talk. In a word, a real faster is one who withdraws from all evil. As much as you subtract from the body, so much will you add to the strength of the soul. [5]

Both Origen and Augustine supported fasting, prayer, and giving to those in need. It appears that the early church followed the Jewish tradition, which saw piety as a balanced trio of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. However, reflecting Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6, the early church highlighted that fasting’s true purpose isn’t to seek applause or showcase piety. Instead, fasting, like prayer and giving, should be done sincerely for the heavenly Father alone.

Conclusion

When I advise people on budgeting, I often warn them that the first year is both the hardest and least successful, but if they stick to the discipline by year three, they will have a workable budget and be able to live within it. I have been telling myself that fasting is probably similar. The first year or attempt at fasting is sketchy at best (ours has been), but it will improve with time. Our hardest time was during an extended trip visiting friends and family who were not fasting. Everyone was understanding, but we did not feel comfortable insisting on a diet no one else was following. I suspect we are not alone in this feeling. Otherwise, when we are at home, it seems to work just fine. Finally, it is not enough to fast. Fasting is a way of deepening prayer and repentance. Without prayer, as a priest told me this month, the Lenten Fast is just a bad diet. Therefore, we will discuss Lenten prayer in a future post.

Copyright 2026, G> Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] I have taken this introduction from the American Orthodox website and its See, “Lenten Fasting” at https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/lenten-fasting (downloaded March 6, 2026).

[2] The rules are actually a bit complex in some cases, and I don’t want to mess up this blog with a lot of detaisl that interested people can find out on their own if they become interested.

[3] See the NIV Bible Website, at https://www.thenivbible.com/blog/10-biblical-purposes-fasting/ (downloaded March 6, 2026)

[4] See Luke 4:1-13. See also Hebrews 4:15, Philippians 2:5-8, which provide support for Jesus’ identification with the human race, including temptation.

[5] Orthodox teaching on fasting, found at https://www.crkvenikalendar.com/post/post-fathers.php (downloaded March 6, 2026). The number of possible quotations is enormous—too many to include in this document.

Creating and maintaining a free society is complex. Whether it’s a profession, a religion, a legal system, or any other kind of society, it relies on a foundation of self-policing discipline that helps its members keep it running properly and smoothly. These polices and discipline also permit innovations that enable the society to adapt to changing circumstances. Both elements are essential for a society to thrive and grow.[1] Where this does not occur, there is an inevitable decay. Nothing is more damaging to such a society than a deterioration of its fundamental values and the emergence of either moral inversion (upside-down morality).

Diverse Expertise in a Free Society

In his book, Meaning, Polanyi begins his discussion of the requirements of free society with an analogy from the administration of law and the search for justice. The book imagines a lawyer sitting in his office, pondering a specific case. Consciously, the judge is thinking about many aspects of the case, including the law’s precedents, the specific facts of the case, and his instincts about the justice of the parties’ causes, etc. Subconsciously, or tacitly, the judge is also bringing to bear all of his years of experience in the practice of law.

In his deliberations, the judge is generally an experienced member of the legal community, that group of experts responsible for administering the law in his society. Although this judge may be alone in his chambers, he or she is engaged in a kind of conversation with the parties in the case, their attorneys, relevant case law, and the entire tradition of law. The process of the judge’s thinking is a kind of internal dialogue in which he must weigh various views, precedents, the unique features of the case at hand, and other factors as he seeks to reach a decision.

In order to reach a fair decision, it is essential that the judge be free to exercise his own personal judgment. This freedom is not unlimited because it is also bounded by the law itself, the various cannons of ethics that govern lawyers and judges, and the political realities, the judge faces in deciding the case. It is an active judgment that involves the entire person.[2]

This process is not fundamentally different from those occurring in his society across a variety of professions. Scientists, seeking the truth, are part of a community bound by rules, procedures, and tradition. Business, although very different from an ethical point of view, is conducted according to its own traditions, rules, procedures, and laws. Medicine has its own professional standards.[3] Taking matters away from the widely-recognized professions, the same thing is true of electricians, plumbers, and others in the trades. They were first apprenticed as members of a trade; they learned certain techniques and processes; they came to understand the laws, codes, and rules that govern the free exercise of their professions, all until they had reached the requisite level of proficiency.

The Collectivist Error

In our society, there is a rich diversity of individuals, professions, trades, guilds, artistic communities, and educational institutions. They all carry out their activities according to their own rules, helping society to thrive and adapt to the constantly changing environment. One area where totalitarian societies fail is in their attempts to eliminate the freedom that allows professionals, tradespeople, and others to conduct their daily lives without centralized control. However, there is a price for this freedom: those who have it must uphold their standards of conduct, or external controls will inevitably be imposed.

During the most bizarre years of Soviet communism, nearly everything was managed by a central authority in Moscow. The result was a complete economic and social failure. Agriculture collapsed. There was industrial inefficiency. (There were either too many nails or not enough nails. There were either too many housing units or not enough housing units.) Time and time again, the bureaucrats in charge misjudged society’s needs. This was even worse in the area of the professions. As the Soviet Union began to direct scientific research, it often favored ideas that, from a scientific point of view, were nonsense. It was this particular defect in the Soviet system that led Polanyi to begin his own thinking about a free society.[4]

The Freedom that Supports a Free Society

If freedom is necessary for the functioning of society’s most important components, it is crucial to ask what kind of freedom is needed. In Western society, we often think of freedom as the ability to do whatever we want. In other words, we think of freedom as freedom for self-assertion. Freedom for self-assertion not the kind of freedom a scientist, lawyer, doctor, or other professional has when performing their duties. In this context, freedom means the absence of external restraints that allow an individual to exercise their judgment in their tasks, as long as they adhere to the professional and moral standards of their field.[5]

Polanyi is careful to distinguish freedom in a free society from mere self-assertion:

By a simple and obvious analogy, a free society must exist within the context of a tradition that provides a framework within which members of the society may make free contributions to the tasks involved in the society. The freedom of mere self-assertion can lead only to disintegration of our standards and institutions.[6]

Thinking of a free society as a carefully tended family garden is helpful: it thrives within a nurturing framework of shared traditions that guide and support everyone’s contributions. Without cooperation from those who tend the garden, simple acts of self-assertion can sometimes threaten the carefully maintained standards of our institutions. If many family members neglect their responsibilities, the entire project can collapse. Not long ago, I tried to save some azaleas dying in our front yard. It took years of effort and care, and one azalea was particularly weak. I went on vacation, and a family member who was supposed to water that azalea daily failed to do so. The azalea died. This illustrates what happens when members of a free society neglect their tasks diligently, morally, and effectively. Eventually, the culture or some part of it withers and dies.

Spiritual Foundation of a Free Society

When it comes to the needs of a free society as a whole, it is clear that such a society requires a spiritual foundation: a common belief in truth, justice, and beauty, which are the ethical standards by which people pursue their personal objectives within a community. This is true of every kind of community, whether it be scientists, scholars, lawyers, doctors, judges, artists, or even religious professionals. Without a general devotion to spiritual objectives, free communities cannot continue to exist.[7]

The path to a totalitarian society begins with the loss of these spiritual or, what I would call, noetic, transcendental values. Eventually, in the absence of the free and disciplined exercise of judgment, some central authority must begin to legislate and enforce standards for this society in order to maintain some kind of order. This results in an empty and meaningless society run by a set of rules that no one follows because they want to, but because they have to, enforced by a police state.[8]

Enclaves of Self-Policing Freedom

As indicated, a free society is made up of many sub-communities, each managing its own affairs according to its own rules, ideally in harmony with the broader needs of society. Polanyi helpfully describes this as a “bottom-up emergent order.” By this, he means that the overall order of society is shaped by the decisions of countless subgroups and individuals within it. This emergent order is something that no one could fully predict or plan.

Polanyi makes his point as follows:

It is our contention that a system that develops from the bottom up, through free interaction of its parts upon one another (subject only to a free, common dedication of its participants to the value of certain standard standards, principles, and ideal ends), is the only social system that can meaningfully be called free. The alternative is to control social affairs essentially from the top down, and so established a corporate order which is the essence of totalitarianism.[9]

This is one aspect of constructive postmodern thinking that is at odds with a mechanical view of the universe. A mechanical view of the universe treats it as something that has been built and is being built by conscious choice. It’s like a machine. An organic or postmodern view of the universe holds that the universe is unfolding from a quantum level throughout each of its levels as a process by which fundamentally independent parts emerge or evolve from prior states. This is true at the subatomic level, and Polanyi is asserting that the same phenomenon needs to occur at the level of society as a whole.[10] Societies develop and continue due to countless decisions of its members.

This highlights the issue of antisocial behavior and the tendency of groups to seek dominance over each other; in its most obvious form, it is the problem of oligarchy. The problem with oligarchy involves a small group of people, driven by their own self-interest—usually wealth—who take control of society. At this point, Polanyi’s use of the word “oligarchy” for all such cases differs from Plato’s understanding of the nature of oligarchy. Oligarchy is a degenerate form of aristocracy where social status is not based on achievement but on wealth and power. A danger of any kind of aristocracy, especially one of wealth, is the risk of degeneration into oligarchy.

A free society must avoid oligarchy, which is the rule of society’s affairs by a small group of powerful or wealthy individuals. However, it should encourage aristocracy, meaning leadership within its various sectors and over the whole that has earned such a position through merit and ability. I believe discussing Christian virtues like servanthood and love is helpful here. Without wise and moral educational institutions and moral training provided by churches and other religious groups, it seems inevitable that society will be governed by some elite oligarchic group—whether political, economic, military, or bureaucratic. Polanyi, who is generally cautious about expressing religious views, does not address the issue of love because it falls outside of his epistemological framework. However, from a practical standpoint, I think it’s unavoidable. Ultimately, without the self-giving servanthood that social love can encourage, maintaining a free society becomes very difficult if not impossible.

Dialogue and Mutual Adjustment

For a free society to last, it must achieve social harmony and progress through a gradual process of mutual adjustment. This system of mutual adjustment involves continual change as society reaches higher levels of harmony, flourishing, and meaning for its members.[11] Unlike reliance on raw power, this adjustment process uses dialogue, compromise, conversation, and the steady development of positive change for society. From this viewpoint, the modern approach of power-based social engineering is likely to fail and lead to some form of totalitarian regime.

The progress of this system of continual reflective adjustments cannot, of course, be known before it is known and therefore cannot (logically cannot) be planned for. But this does indeed seem to be the ontological situation of man in the world; if it is not so for all time, as it certainly seems to be, then at least it is his situation as of now.[12]

Here we see the practical implications of a rejection of the kind of millenarian perfectionism that characterizes every type of totalitarian regime: The attempt to create a perfect world in one fell swoop, as for example, Soviet communism tried to do, is doomed to failure. It flies in the face of human historical experience and our limited capacities. The result of any attempt to preemptively achieve a perfect or substantially better world will always be human suffering. Therefore, a wise society puts up with a certain amount of disorder and failure to achieve its deepest goals in order to protect its ability to freely adjust and create a better future.[13]

Conclusion

This is where I must pause for now. It would surprise me if I did not return to the issue of moral inversion. Not a day goes by without witnessing this remarkable phenomenon in academia, business, media, and government. It exists wherever people have abandoned traditional morality and started to create their own to justify the self-interest of their particular group. I am not convinced that our society will avoid the consequences; however, it can if good people work hard to uphold a kind of moral order and resist those who seek to undermine it.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] This entire blog is inspired by and largely drawn from Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 198. This book was written shortly before Polanyi’s death in 1076 and brought to its final form by Harry Prosch. Meaning was the culmination of Michael Polanyi’s philosophic endeavors. In the book, Polanyi investigates the meaning of this work as grounded in the imaginative and creative faculties of the human person. There is some controversy surrounding the book and Prosch’s interpretation of Polanyi’s thought. This dispute, which centers on Polanyi’s religious convictions, does not affect this analysis. The relevant chapter is Chapter 13, “A Free Society.”

[2] Id, 198-199.

[3] Id, 199.

[4] Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946).

[5] Meaning, 202. Unfortunately, the legal profession increasingly sees the emergence of decadent judges and others who have embraced a kind of nihilism and do in fact believe that their positions are a license for unlimited self-assertion.

[6] Id.

[7] Id, 203. I have written of the noetic, gradually emerging realities of truth, beauty, justice, goodness, etc., in G. Christopher Scruggs, Illumined by Wisdom and Love (College Station, TX: Virtual Bookworm, 2025). It is not necessary to think of these as pre-existing qualities, but as gradually emergent qualities brought into existence by a community of inquiries, dedicated to the pursuit of truth, beauty, justice, or other values.

[8] Id.

[9] Id, 204.

[10] Id, 204.

[11] Id, 207.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

Over the past six weeks, I’ve taken a deep look at the issue of “moral inversion,” which refers to how moral reasoning and judgment seem to be deteriorating in our late modern/early postmodern world. This week, I shift gears from discussing this problem to exploring solutions. I started this series with a quote from a physicist and philosopher warning us that the modern worldview has now been replaced by a very different one, especially after Newton, which we often refer to as “the Enlightenment.” For three centuries, this worldview shaped Western civilization, but by the early 20^thcentury, it was challenged first among physicists and then more broadly among writers, artists, philosophers, lawyers, and others. Sadly, its full (and potentially positive) effects haven’t yet been fully explored in fields like politics and law.

What is a World View?

A worldview is an all-encompassing way of looking at reality and understanding the world.[1] We all need a way to organize reality and make decisions. What we believe about the fundamental nature of the world profoundly shapes how we think and act. For example, if I think the world is inherently unknowable and governed by invisible, angry, and irrational little green men, I will think and act differently than if I believe the world is an orderly creation that operates by regular laws embedded in nature.

From Newton’s time until the modern quantum revolution in physics, people organized their lives and conducted their thinking within a common worldview we call “mechanistic materialism.” As the term indicates, such a worldview holds that what exists is material and that the world operates something like a machine. What exists are physical objects (fundamental particles at the most basic level) and the forces that act upon them. The world is something like a gigantic four-dimensional billiard table with the balls “hitting” each other in subtle ways as they are acted on by forces.

With the advent of quantum physics, this worldview became outdated. At its most basic level, reality is not material. It is built up of disturbances or waves in a fundamental field, or what is called a quantum field. The world is not so much a machine as it is a gigantic, organic process of becoming. One way to look at reality is as a great river flowing out of a sea. The sea is a vast (infinite) field of multidimensional potential. Out of that sea flows (or unfolds as David Bohm puts it) the reality as we know it. Fundamentally, this reality is not material but rather disturbances in a quantum field. Our universe with its characteristics of space and time, of matter and energy, arises out of this quantum field.[2]

If the world is not solely or fundamentally made up of forces and matter, the way is open for a new and different kind of ontology, one that is not fundamentally materialistic. From a physical perspective, quantum physics indicates that the ultimate reality (the “ultimate being” from a scientific point of view) is that particles are not material bodies but disturbances in a universal field. There are even physicists who believe that the ultimate reality is information. In the famous words of John Wheeler, “The ‘it’ is a’ bit’.” [3] This means that ultimately the universe might be composed of information. However ultimate reality is to be visualized, science no longer supports a purely materialistic approach to solving problems, because reality is not fundamentally material.

Einstein’s Relativity Theory describes a deeply relational universe, in which time and space, ultimate attributes of reality in Newtonian physics, are known to be related to one another, and in fact cannot be separated. There is one “Space/Time Continuum.” At a quantum level of reality, there is a deep interconnectedness that is revealed and symbolized by so-called, “spooky action at a distance,” or what physicists call, “entanglement.” Reality is deeply connected at a subatomic level. Even at the level of everyday reality, there is a deep interconnectedness that is evident in so-called open systems and their tendency toward self-organizing activity—the so-called “butterfly effect.” [4]

Overcoming Moral Inversion

As mentioned, one implication of what some call “postmodern physics” is that the days of naïve materialism are over. We must not think of the world as fundamentally material or of non-material things as unreal. We must instead see a world made up of immaterial realities. Though not a political philosopher, the logician and philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce set out to reconstruct a sound understanding of the world in post-Darwinian America—an account relevant to political thought. A distinction between “physical existence” and “reality” is fundamental to Peirce’s view of universal ideas. Things that lack physical existence, such as the equations of science or the theories of philosophers, are nevertheless real. They are noetic (ideal) realities, constantly refined and extended in meaning by human endeavor. As such, the ideal of justice and the feeling that the justice of a particular society is imperfect are part of a never-ending process of development that continues throughout human history.

The status of abstract notions, like justice, as real is essential in constructing a political philosophy that can respond to the issues of our society. As mentioned earlier, modern thought has been fundamentally nominalist. Concepts such as truth, beauty, goodness, and the like are considered mere names or labels humans put on their subjective preferences. This results in the inability of modern societies to reason about moral issues, for they involve matters to be resolved by power and confrontation, not by reason.[5]

Peirce believed that disbelief in the reality of universals was a defining weakness of modern thought, leading to the dysfunction we experience in our culture. The nominalism of contemporary thinkers undermines, among other things, the search for scientific truth, which Peirce was primarily interested in. Science depends on the critical analysis of a reality that scientists seek to understand, a reality existing outside the scientist’s mind. This understanding is expressed in the laws of science, which practicing scientists discover through research and analysis. In the same way, the search for Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Justice requires that humans believe these exist, in some way, beyond the personal preferences of individual minds and the manipulative potential of human actors. In the words of Peirce, certain truths exist whether we want them to or not.[6]

Steps to Renewal of our Culture

Recover the Reality of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. Michael Paul was known to say that all that was necessary for the recovery and maintenance of a free society was belief in the truth. Here is how he puts it in Science, Faith and Society:

A community which effectively practices free discussion is therefore dedicated to the four propositions (1) that there is such a thing as truth; (2) that all members love it; (3) that they feel obligated, and (4) they are, in fact, capable of pursuing it.[7]

While I believe recognizing the truth is central to keeping a free society alive, I feel it’s just as important for us to rediscover our belief in Beauty, Truth, and Goodness as real and meaningful parts of human life, essential to human floursinng. It’s fascinating how modern physics often treats beauty as a sign of truth—physicists often say the elegance of an equation is part of what convinces them a discovery is true. Albert Einstein once remarked that “the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones.”[8] Additionally, Polanyi points out that goodness also plays a role; if we feel compelled to pursue the truth, it’s because seeking it is inherently good. In other words, our desire for truth is rooted in a moral obligation to pursue what is right and true.[9]

Tolerance for Opposing Views. Faith that there is such a thing as truth, even in an area as abstract as morality and politics, allows a person to tolerate opposing views. One of the reasons that I am writing these blogs on political philosophy, has to do with my concern about the growing intolerance of our culture. This growing intolerance allows, politicians and others who wish to influence the public to use what we sometimes call “negative politics” to gain power. It turns out that it’s much easier to get people to vote you for you or support you because they don’t like your opponent then because they agree with what you stand for. This is particularly true when you don’t really stand for anything.

Fundamentally, tolerance is the ability to put up with people you don’t agree with. It’s the capacity to listen to what may be an unfair or even hostile statement by an opponent in order to discover any sound points that may be being made, as well as the reason behind any errors. [10] This does not come naturally to people because we are irritated by views that we regard is frankly hostile or ridiculous. Our modern negative politics makes this almost impossible. Here’s the way Polanyi puts the importance of tolerance in a free society:

Fairness and tolerance can hardly be maintained in a public contest unless it’s audience, appreciates the candor and moderation and can resist false oratory. A judicious public with a quick ear for insincerity of argument is therefore an essential partner in the practice of free controversy. It will insist upon being presented with moderate claims, admitting frankly their element of personal conviction. It will demand this both in order to defend the balance of its own mind and as a token of clear and conscientious thinking on the part of those canvassing its support.[11]

Commitment to a Tradition

From the beginning, both the Enlightenment and the modern world were hostile to tradition. In the West, this hostility was initially directed against the Roman Catholic Church and its dogmas. It wasn’t long, however, before that hostility turned to any source of authority, including family, traditional governments, legal systems, and the historic systems of morality that made possible the growth of democracy in Western civilization. Nothing more clearly illustrated the dangers of Enlightenment anti-traditional views than the French Revolution and the murders committed by its participants. Wherever a revolutionary ideology has gained power, similar tragic programs have followed. This was true in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Cambodia, and all around the world. It was also true in Nazi Germany and in other, so-called revolutions of the people.

Polanyi points out that all thinking takes place within some kind of tradition. He holds up science as a paradigm, but he also uses law as a paradigm for how people are trained to think within a particular tradition. For example, while practicing law involves specialized knowledge that can be passed down intellectually, it also involves skills, habits of work, relational skills in managing clients, and a host of habits and character traits that cannot be intellectually specified but must be learned under the tutelage of an experienced practitioner. Moreover, such life skills and habits can only be earned through an apprenticeship, where one generation trains the next in a personal relationship in which a mentor or guide teaches a subsequent generation.[12]

One of the great problems with the legal profession and government generally in the United States is the loss of confidence in the constitutional tradition of which we are apart. Under the pressure of radical thinking, and the inverted desire for a perfect society created by mechanical means, a legal profession is constantly under assault, and both judges and lawyers are forgetting the important task they have in creating adjust society.

Conclusion

I realized that this week’s blog is  too long. Therefore, I will conclude this log in another week. What I hope people will remember from this particular week’s discussion is (i) the need for a new World View that incorporates the reality of goodness, truth, justice, beauty and other intangible realities necessary for human life, (ii) the fundamental necessity of tolerance in a free society, and (iii) the importance of working within a tradition an incremental in incremental steps to improve the level of justice for all.

Although I can’t continue this week, it’s important to remember that a central aspect of postmodern science is how the world evolves through tiny, meaningful changes by everyone involved — from the tiniest quantum events to the largest social movements. We all play a small but important part in shaping the future, and we’re all connected on this incredible journey.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] See, Stephen Toulmin, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2^nd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970); Norwood Russell Hanson, Perception and Discovery: An Introduction to Scientific Inquiry (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper, & Company, 1969); Stephen C. Pepper, World Hypotheses: Prolegomena to Systematic Philosophy and Complete Survey of Metaphysics (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1970).

[2] There are many ways of describing the emerging description of reality. I have used the paradoxical metaphor of a river emerging from a vast sea of potential, a metaphor that occurred to me as one way of visualizing the notion of “implicate” and “explicate” order advanced by David Bohm. See, David Bohm, Wholeness and Implicate Order (London & New York: Routledge, 1980).

[3] Wheeler, Archibald, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links” in Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, (Tokyo, Japan: 1989)

[4] This is not the place to discuss these phenomena. For those who would like a deeper discussion, see John Polkinghorne, ed, “The Trinity and an Entangled World: Relationality in Physical Science and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010).

[5] Alisdair MacIntyre, After Virtue 2^nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 17.

[6] Charles S. Peirce, The Essential Writings Edward C. Moore, ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1972), hereinafter ECSP. For Peirce, the real is that which exists independently of our ideas of it, that is, independently of our perceptions, theories, or capacities. Id, at 57. These are noetic realities that exist not in material form but in the human mind. Such general ideas are not infinitely manipulable but subject to the rules of logic and thought appropriate to the subject matter. Id, at 60.

[7] Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 68-69.

[8] I was not able to find an exact source for this quotation, but it is repeated in the literature. For a vast number of such remarks by scientists, see Joshua M. Moritz, “Beauty, Goodness, Truth, Science, and God” Feed Your Head (September 16, 2024) https://www.feedyourhead.blog/p/beauty-goodness-truth-science-and#footnote-anchor-9-148928409 (downloaded February 9, 2026).

[9] Paul Dirac, “Pretty Mathematics,” in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, v. 21, 8/9, pp. 603-605. 1982; Clara Mokowitz, Equations Are Art inside of a Mathematician’s Brain (Scientific American (March 4, 2014), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/equations-are-art-inside-a-mathematicians-brain/ (downloaded February 9, 2026).

[10] Science, Faith and Society, 68.

[11] Id.

[12] Id, 56.