Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, July 17th

Kristof opts out of rapture

Nicholas Kristof, columnist for the New York Times demonstrates the problems of writing about religion when you don't know quite enough about it to understand what you're dealing with. Entitled "Jesus and Jihad," it uses the Left Behind series, and particularly the latest installment, Glorious Appearing as a jumping off point to equate American fundamentalist dispensationalism (though he doesn't use the latter word, I suspect because he's unfamiliar with it and doesn't know how it differs from other conservative forms of Christianity) and Islamist terrorism:

These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes.

Let me first say that I haven't read the Left Behind books, in part because I have no truck with their theology. I think dispensationalism is a serious misreading of Scripture, perhaps even heretical. But Kristof grossly misrepresents the books when he compares them to hypothetical Islamic versions. Two problems: first, I'm sure that at no point does author Tim LaHaye suggest that Christians are going to help with this supposed slaughter of the ungodly (if he had, Kristof would certainly have quoted it, and anyway dispensationalism doesn't teach this), so there really isn't any likelihood that dispensationalists are going to start chopping off Muslim heads in order to bring about or help with the Second Coming. Second, jihadists in the Muslim world have called upon Muslims to rise up and start killing off the infidels. They haven't written fictional accounts of some divine massacre–they've advocated the faithful doing it to their opponents in the here-and-now.

As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam.

This is the sort of thing only a reporter (as opposed to a scholar) could say. To put things in these kind of cartoonish, all-or-nothing terms is so disconnected to historical and present reality as to be laughable.

This matters in the real world, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic tracts in Saudi Arabia do. Each form of fundamentalism creates a stark moral division between decent, pious types like oneself—and infidels headed for hell.

Time for a bit of elementary logic here, Nick. Just because dispensationalists and Islamists each view people in terms of "stark moral division" between the just and the unjust doesn't say anything about the behavior either will use. In fact, the vast majority of the people reading the Left Behind books are just like the vast majority of the people reading Islamist tracts: non-violent believers who may think ill of those of other faiths, but who aren't about to go out killing them. Though there is one significant difference, now that I think of it–dispensationalists don't generally try to deny freedom of religion to those with whom they diagree. Wahhabists, on the other hand...

No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will ram planes into buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and abroad after 9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's harder to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and expect Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now.

Nice segue, Nick. Without any evidence whatsoever, you equate the abusers at Abu Ghraib with readers of the Left Behind books. We don't even know if any of those soldiers claimed to be Christians, much less Tim LaHaye fans. You also manage to equate those who made men wear women's panties on their heads with people who crashed airplanes into office buildings. And you managed to suggest that being a Left Behind reader makes one incapable of empathy for Muslims. That makes about as much sense as saying that being a reader of the New York Times makes one think that all conservatives are idiotic racists and homophobes, since the editors and writers do.

Listen, Nick, you know what Fats Waller said about jazz, right? Just keep in mind that the idea applies to other stuff, too.
Athanasius on 07.17.04 @ 05:42 PM EST [link]

On fundamentalisms

Kenneth Minogue, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, has a terrific piece in the New Criterion entitled "Fundamentalism Isn't the Problem." Here's a taste:

The second attack on fundamentalism is normative. It affirms toleration as the highest value. Tolerating the tolerant presents no problems. What do we do, however, when confronted with the intolerant? Should we tolerate the people whom liberals denounce as racists, sexists, homophobes, indeed even "judgmentalists"? In actual fact, liberals are highly intolerant of such people. They ostracize them socially, treat them intellectually with contempt, and invoke the law on them whenever possible. In these ways they force upon us the paradox that the norm of tolerance can lead directly to intolerance. The ideal of toleration sounds like a formal condition allowing all flowers to bloom, but it turns out on examination to adumbrate a determinate form of life no less intrusive than the Sharia or "fundamentalist”" Christianity. The liberal solution to this problem in the long term is a reversion to cognitive fantasy. It is that we must try to achieve right-thinking by "educating" the young: everyone must be taught the egalitarian doctrine that men and women, black and white, heterosexual and homosexual, Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist, and so on are all part of the one human family and must be treated as brothers and sisters.

From the point of view of this aspiration, fundamentalists are those who reject this world community. They are people who demand from society a certain cultural compatibility with their fellow citizens. And in that sense, of course, most of us are fundamentalists. This does not mean an end to pluralism, but, for those living in Western societies, it does mean a considerable resentment against the kind of narrow multiculturalism that would suppress every traditional custom on the ground that it might offend the sensitivity of immigrants. For liberal internationalists, however, any kind of cultural particularity that cannot be bracketed off as merely private blocks the path to a better world.

A better world? Which of us could refuse to sign up to such a project? But it is that very project which sets the problem. As we push forward with our lives from day to day, most of us act, according to our lights and in a small way, to make the world a bit better. But that is not what "a better world" means in this context. It means a collective project to transform the human condition. It means, in fact, playing fantasy ruler of the world, perhaps even god-like creator. It means transforming the human race. This ambition of making a better world is one we inherit from the eighteenth century, when reason first seriously embarked on its program of sweeping away prejudice, bigotry, superstition—indeed, religion itself. Christians might well regard the Enlightened as a set of people too impatient to wait for the delights of heaven. They want love and brotherhood, and they want it now! The twentieth century was convulsed by people enthused by this project, and some of them are still around. They may be wrinkled, but they are not repentant, because (so they convey to us) at least they wanted a better world. They may have supported some pretty vile causes, but at least, they cared! One ancestor of these idealists was Voltaire, who satirized Leibnizian theodicy in the character of Dr. Pangloss, Candide’s philosophical mentor, who believed that “this was the best of all possible worlds” and that every evil was a (logically) necessary evil. In our time, after the massacres of peoples, we are not likely to accept the whole program of justifying the ways of God to man, but I have always had a soft spot for Dr. Pangloss. Right or wrong, he had found the secret of happiness: this is the only world we have, and we had better accept it. It is the belief elaborated in the famous serenity prayer, which invokes a distinction between what we can change and what we must endure. The project of a better world is an ambition that loses all grip on wisdom of this kind. And it is an ambition abandoned in the ultimate wisdom at which Voltaire’s Candide finally arrives: Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Read the whole thing, and be edified.
Athanasius on 07.17.04 @ 04:20 PM EST [link]

Thursday, July 15th

Who moved my cheese font?

In the Alice-in-Wonderland world that is the Church of England, you can deny the reality of the resurrection of Christ, you can repudiate the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, you can refuse to subscribe to the unique role of Christ in salvation, but don't you dare move the furniture!

The Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield was this week considering his judgement in a case of an over-eager clergyman versus Canon Law specifications for font placements.

The rare case was brought before ecclesiastical court after the Rector of Trentham, the Rev Nigel di Castiglione, and two churchwardens landed in the hot water for moving the font without the necessary consent, according to the Lichfield Diocesan spokesman.

Local residents and the conservation officer of Stafford Borough Council launched a complaint after the unauthorised relocation of the font and the introduction of new carpeting over the church’s "rare" tiling last year.

Mr di Castiglione has apologised for breaching church planning laws, but maintains that the new position gives the font a "closer focus with the other foci–the Holy Table and pulpit."

In his testimony, Mr di Castiglione said the font’s former position posed practical difficulties during baptisms as "all witnesses...would have to turn around to see; and those in the gallery couldn't see unless they crane their heads over the gallery rail."

Architect David Slade said the Canon Law requirement for fonts to be located near the principle door into the church "had not been observed for many years."

The Rt Rev Christopher Hill, recently named as the next Bishop of Guildford, also contributed to the sensitive courtroom proceedings by giving evidence about the "theological arguments about the position of fonts."

Thank goodness the C of E has its priorities straight. We wouldn't want their bishops wasting their theological faculties on anything trivial.

(Thanks to MCJ for the link.)
Athanasius on 07.15.04 @ 08:44 PM EST [link]

Ten suggestions from the NCC

The National Council of Churches has put out a set of principles that it suggests should guide Christians as we prepare to vote in November. There's also a "study guide" of doubtful usefulness, but the main stuff is this:

Our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another. Public discourse is enhanced as we engage civic leaders on the values and ethics affirmed by our faith. At the same time, religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy will be protected as candidates refrain from using faith-based organizations and institutions for partisan gain. We offer these ten principles to those seeking to accept the responsibility that comes with holding public office.

1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.

Translation: When another nation (or private organization, like say al-Qaeda) attacks or assists those who attack the United States or Israel, no force may be used for preventive or retaliatory purposes. Only harsh language is permissible, and only then when it is culturally sensitive. We support politicians who are comfortable with that. (Remember, the NCC didn't just oppose the Iraq invasion, it opposed any use of force in Afghanistan, too.)

2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness. We look for political leaders who will re-build our communities and bring an end to the cycles of violence and killing.

Translation: Sorry, I'm stumped. I have no idea what they're talking about.

3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well-being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern.

Translation: The United States should grant veto power to the UN in deciding when we are permitted to use force to defend ourselves. That means France, home of the Oil-for-Food scandal, governed by people who don't know whether the genocide in the Sudan merits an international response, should effectively be the final arbiter of right and wrong in international affairs. We also believe that dictators, oligarchies, and kleptocracies from Iran to Syria to Cuba to North Korea should have just as much say in deciding what constitutes "global justice" as the democracies who seek to protect human rights and broad-based economic prosperity.

4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor.

Translation: We have no clue how economic prosperity is achieved or wealth created. We assume that the government does it. So we support politicians who see economics the same way.

5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone.

Translation: This is vague enough so that no one can possibly argue with it.

6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth's goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation.

Translation: We demand the destruction of the U.S. economy through adoption of the Kyoto Treaty, though no other industrialized nation, and many developing nations, have not agreed to it. This is because we accept writings such as Al Gore's Earth in the Balance as Holy Writ, and will not even consider the possibility that someoen other than evil, environment-hating corporations are responsible for global climate shifts.

7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia.

Translation: Since all the people involved in terrorist organizations that attack the U.S. are Swedish Presbyterians and Ugandan Buddhists, we see no need to restrict in any way the influx of Islamists into the U.S. We also see no conceivable reason, under any conceivable circumstances, to ever criticize any aspect of Islam. Ever.

8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.

Translation: We are in favor of national health insurance. And so is Jesus.

9. Because of the transforming power of God’s grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.

Translation: Because we have rejected those portions of Scripture that are clearly outmoded, we are free to ignore anything that suggests that there is value in the retributive theory of justice. We also have faith in the rehabiliation efforts of the criminal justice system that no amount of empirical evidence can possibly sway (otherwise, it wouldn't be faith, right?)

10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God’s children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who will advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services.

Translation: When the teachers' unions are happy, we'll be happy.

Finally, our religious tradition admonishes us not to bear false witness against our neighbor and to love our enemies. We ask that the campaigns of political candidates and the coverage of the media in this election season be conducted according to principles of fairness, honesty and integrity.

Translation: Look for us to bash those evil right-wingers every chance we get (while remaininig studiously non-partisan, of course).

So saith the NCC, also known as the Democratic Party at prayer.
Athanasius on 07.15.04 @ 07:59 PM EST [link]

The future of the gay marriage debate

David Frum of NRO hits the nail on the head regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment suggest–or insinuate–that without it, conservative states will be left alone to define marriage as they wish. This promise will be a short-lived one. Once 10 or 12 or 14 states have submitted to liberal local judges and accepted same-sex marriage, the federalist position now championed by the New York Times will be discarded. Today, federalists are the progressive heroes of the hour. Tomorrow, they will be condemned as black-hearted reactionaries. The forces of progress will demand that Illinois, Georgia, Arizona and the rest fall into line behind Massachusetts–and those who wish to defend marriage as it was will discover that they have no tools left with which to protect themselves.

On marriage, the United States will remain all one way–or else go all the other. Those who vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment are not voting for local rights. They are voting for a national policy of same-sex marriage–a policy that will be pressed upon this country sooner than almost anyone now expects.

It doesn't take any psychic abilities to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the track this debate will take. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again, sure as clockwork. We can even know what the argument federal judges will use will look like. It will be two-fold: 1) Marriage, though subject to certain necessary state regulations, is essentially a privacy issue in the same way that abortion, contraception, and sexual expression are, and so the state may not prevent anyone from marrying the person of their choice without a "compelling state interest," none of which will be found; and 2) that marriage, because of the economic and other ties between individuals that are involved, must be regulated in such a way as to minimize complications across state boundaries. This, along with the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution, will be more than enough to nationalize the legalizing of gay marriage. And truth be told, this makes sense to me. A patchwork of marriage laws across the country would be a social, cultural, and bureaucratic nightmare. Gay marriage should either be allowed in all 50 states, or banned in all 50. And the people's representatives should decide, rather than judges.
Athanasius on 07.15.04 @ 04:43 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, July 14th

Manning the barricades for states' rights

There's a lot of tendentious editorial opinion out there today about the Federal Marriage Amendment. (See the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times for three examples). One of the more ridiculous harrumphs comes from the Washington Post:

The combination of this proposal's radicalism and its consideration in the middle of an election year commands a strong rebuke from those members who retain enough shame to oppose a constitutional amendment whose express purpose is to deny equal treatment to U.S. citizens. Even opponents of gay marriage, about which people of conscience legitimately disagree, should balk at this measure, which would prevent a democratic majority in any state ever from recognizing it.

A few responses:

1) "Radicalism"? It's now radical to support the standard of marriage that has prevailed throughout the history of the United States? This is a use of the word that George Orwell would have appreciated.

2) "Deny equal treatment to U.S. citizens": Just because this line gets repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it true. All U.S. citizens retain the right to marry. To say that gays are denied equal rights because they can't marry someone of the same sex is the same as saying that a mother who is not permitted to marry her son is denied equal rights. It also must be pointed out that this line has the effect of undercutting the states' rights argument that follows. If the FMA denies equal right to U.S. citizens, then every state that doesn't permit gay marriage is doing so as well. This means that unless the Post is willing to say that it's ok for states to deny equal rights, but not the federal government, the editors are actually arguing for a nationalization of the issue, just with a different result.

3) The dedication of the Post to federalism is touching, if more than a little hypocritical. Where is their dedication to states' rights when abortion is being discussed? The idea of letting South Dakota institute restrictions on abortion that New York chooses not to sends the paper's editors into apoplexy. For that matter, consider the incredible number of things that are now subject to federal regulation, everything from wildlife protection to hourly wages to sexual harrassment in the workplace to the proportion of male/female participation in college sports. Yet marriage–the foundational institution of society, more important than government or even newspapers to the well-being of the citizenry, especially children–is the one place where the Post insists that states, rather than the nation as a whole, should make the decisions. Keep in mind, the editors aren't saying that this is a privacy issue, or something that the government should keep out of entirely. The question is where does the authority lie: with the states or with the nation? (Truth be told, the real question is whether the authority lies with the elected representatives of the people or with the courts, but the Post, along with most liberal editorial pages, has avoided framing the issue that way, knowing that an argument for judicial supremacy in this matter will carry no weight with the electorate.) It's solely because they know that they are more likely to get the result they want that supporters of gay marriage have suddenly gone all Confederate on us.
Athanasius on 07.14.04 @ 03:24 PM EST [link]

Monday, July 12th

Thanks for the advice, Bish

Via the pro-Palestinian Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) we get this deep diplomatic thinking from Episcopal bishop Barry Howe of West Missouri:

"The security that Israel seeks, and deserves, will be found in resolving the conflict through a negotiated solution with all concerned and the establishment of a Palestinian state with peace and security for all in the region."

This claptrap was uttered in response to the International Court of Justice's ruling against the security fence. One wonders: exactly what is it that Israel is supposed to negotiate with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which have repeatedly said that they will accept nothing less than the total destruction of the Jewish state? Or does one actually have to consider such questions before mindlessly repeating the PC slogans of the day?
Athanasius on 07.12.04 @ 04:15 PM EST [link]

Sunday, July 11th

The latest panacea

From the Washington Post, here's the Smart Guys' latest answer to the mainline malaise: advertising. When admen and religion get together, silliness results:

"Among 20- to 30-year-olds, everybody's heard of the gay bishop. And in focus groups, the words that keep coming up are that we are a 'progressive,' 'open' and 'nonjudgmental' church," said Daniel B. England, the church's director of communication.

Thus, the Episcopalians will launch their first national TV ad campaign on Election Day with a 15-second spot that pivots off the presidential campaign to appeal for new members.

"We think this could be a very divisive election," England said. "We're saying to people, 'If you're fed up with all the divisions, you might want to take a look at us, because we're in the business of inclusion, not division.' "

Inclusion isn't the opposite of division, but leave that aside. Is there any more ferociously divided denomination in America than the ECUSA, precisely over that gay bishop Dan England thinks is such a boon? Is there any ostrich with his head further buried in the ground than Dan England? Or, if that's not the case, is there any politician more dishonest than Dan England? (Your choice.)

The UCC's ads are especially edgy. One shows a pair of bouncers manning a rope line outside a church, admitting a white heterosexual couple but barring gays and racial minorities. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.

"Edgy" is one word for it. "Dishonest" (see a theme developing here?) is another. Who exactly is the UCC contrasting itself with? Fred Phelps' homophobe heaven? Yeah, that's takes guts. Mainstream evangelical and Pentecostal churches? They are no more racially exclusive than any mainline denomination (in fact, there are probably more of them that are multiracial than in the whole mainline put together). As far as it goes, there aren't many conservative churches that wouldn't warmly embrace any gay person who came to the door, the difference being that they would then let that person know what the biblical standards of sexual conduct are. The UCC's ads, like so many of its national actions, are not about congregational life nearly so much as making a political statement. The story quotes one UCC pastor, the Rev. Richard A. Weisenbach of the First Parish Congregational Church in Wakefield, Mass., saying that he fears the UCC "is committing suicide" by promoting itself as a church without fixed principles. "You don't grow a church by telling people you're going to do whatever they want you to do," he said.

"The main thing ads do is make your own members feel good–and that ain't a bad thing," said the Rev. Eric C. Shafer, director of communications for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which began a $7 million campaign in 1999.

Said David Strand, director of public affairs for the more conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod: "It's like Buick ads trying to make sure Buick owners stay loyal to the brand. That sounds kind of crass, but that's how it works."

Isn't that a wonderful use of God's money–to help members "feel good." And Strand of the non-mainline LC-MS simply demonstrates that the silliness isn't restricted to mainliners. Are TV ads really going to keep people in the Missouri Synod, as opposed to the Christian life that people experience in their local church? I don't expect to have a relationship with my Buick. That's why brand-loyalty ads work. Relationally-oriented community life is supposed to work a bit differently, don't you think?

"I've always called advertising fertilizer–it only can fertilize a larger effort to evangelize," the Lutherans' Shafer said. "Now I think it's Miracle-Gro."

So, what do you have to show for that seven mil, Eric?

(Hat tip: Hampton)
Athanasius on 07.11.04 @ 02:09 PM EST [link]