Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, August 14th

More on progressive partisans

Chuck Currie responded to my post on progressive partisans by quoting a portion of what I wrote and then appending the following:

(Update: I meant to add some evidence to help illustrate my point. As a church leader, I would never tell my congregation how to vote in a partisan political race–though I would offer how I might vote. The religious right doesn’t see a distinction. Take what Jerry Fallwell [sic] told CNN yesterday:

...come election day, November 2, I will be casting my vote with my family and 24,000 members of Thomas Road Church, I hope, doing the same.

Churches can take stands on issues, but they shouldn’t be endorsing candidates.)

OK, let me get this straight. Chuck can tell his congregation who he might be voting for (I suspect, based on the content of his blog, that it just might be John Kerry–but that's only a guess). Jerry Falwell, however, may not do so, nor may he hope that the members of his church will do likewise, because that constitutes an endorsement. Sounds like a bit of a double standard to me.

Of course Chuck's right that churches shouldn't make partisan political endorsements, but when a congregation and its leadership is so clearly identified with a given ideological position–whether it's Glide Memorial United Methodist in San Francisco on the left, or Thomas Road Baptist in Lynchburg on the right–it borders on the ridiculous to think that people can't guess their political preferences.

Oh, and by the way, there was a lot more to my post to which Chuck didn't respond. I'll be interested in seeing whether he'll address the left-wing connections of various mainline folks before continuing to point the finger at right-wingers.

And while I'm thinking about it, let me add that the remarks above shouldn't be construed to be in any way an endorsement of Jerry Falwell, who has done more than most to bring Christianity into general disrepute in America over the last 25 years, and who I wish would just quietly retire to Tierra del Fuego.
Athanasius on 08.14.04 @ 04:24 PM EST [link]

Speaking of qualifications...

Uber-leftie Michael Moore has an interesting take on the nomination of Florida congressman Porter Goss to be head of the CIA. Making the case that Goss doesn't deserve confirmation, Moore told Reuters:

"The reality is that Porter Goss was in charge of the oversight of the CIA during a time when the CIA didn't do its job, which in part resulted in the loss of lives of 3,000 people," he said via telephone from New York.

John Kerry and John Edwards, who are running to be the CIA director's employers, were both members of the Senate Intelligence Committe "during a time when the CIA didn't do its job, which in part resulted in the loss of lives of 3,000 people."

Draw your own conclusion.
Athanasius on 08.14.04 @ 10:56 AM EST [link]

Friday, August 13th

Nothing like having your priorities straight

Here's a wonderfully illustrative contrast. First, from the UK's Guardian:

Britain was yesterday placed at the forefront of global research into potential stem cell therapies for a range of incurable diseases as the go-ahead was given for the cloning of human embryos.

The chair of the HFEA Suzi Leather said: "After careful consideration of all the scientific, ethical, legal and medical aspects of the project, the HFEA licence committee agreed to grant an initial one year research licence. This is an important area of research and a responsible use of technology."

Jack Scarisbrick, national chairman of the group Life, said: "The decision is not unexpected given the HFEA's lamentable track record.

"We deplore this further step down the slippery slope. Therapeutic cloning involves the manufacture of a new kind of human being with the express purpose of destroying that life once stem cells have been stripped from it. It is the manipulation, exploitation and trivialisation of human life of a most frightening kind."

The UN will discuss moves to ban reproductive and therapeutic cloning in October. The UK and others are lobbying for individual countries to be allowed to decide whether to allow therapeutic cloning.

Then there's this item from the UK's Telegraph, in which a Church of England bishop takes on one of the crucial issues of this day:

The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, has urged clergy to "think long and hard" before allowing "I Vow to Thee, My Country" to be sung in church. The hymn was sung at the wedding and funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales and is one of the most popular pieces of church music. But the bishop believes it is contributing to a rise in nationalism, and even sees parallels with the rise of fascism in 1930s' Germany.

Would it be too much to suggest that the creation of human life for utilitarian purposes is a wee bit more important than whether a given hymn is used in worship services most Britons avoid like the plague? But then again, Bishop Lowe no doubt is aware that even if he or any of his fellow C of E prelates were to actually say anything about therapeutic cloning (to date none have), no one would be listening, so what's the point, really?
Athanasius on 08.13.04 @ 10:30 PM EST [link]

WARC votes for poverty

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, meeting in Ghana, declared this week, "We reject the current world economic order of global neo-liberal capitalism." The article on the WARC Web site went on to say:

The discussions were heated and at times fractitious. The council was polarized over the central words "empire" and "confession". Both terms met with strong resistance, especially from eastern European delegates.

But the wish for a show of unity proved stronger. "Please don’t play one off against the other," urged Eberhard Hitzler, an ecumenical guest from Germany.

The current world order is rooted in an "immoral economic system defended by empire", says the faith stance. Placing profits before people causes wealth to flow from the poor to the rich. "In biblical terms such a system of wealth accumulation at the expense of the poor is seen as unfaithful to God and responsible for preventable human suffering."

"Global economic justice is essential to the integrity of our faith in God and our discipleship as Christians," the general council affirms. "We believe that the integrity of the Gospel is at stake in the face of the current system of neoliberal economic globalization."

The faith stance defines "empire" as "the coming together of economic, political and military domination led by one powerful nation".

Yes, well. It's easy to criticize the global economic system, but not so easy to offer alternatives. The WARC delegates, of course, said nothing about what they'd put in its place, though their rap against "wealth accumulation" suggests some form of socialism, and we all know how successful that's been.

It never seems to occur to such people that liberal capitalism has a) lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system; b) produced a broader-based prosperity than any other system; c) offered more opportunity for upward mobility than any other system; and d) been the primary engine for bringing prosperity to formerly poor nations (think South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.). That doesn't mean that we should be blasé about poverty. Obviously there is still much to do to bring better conditions to many more people, especially in Africa. But I suspect that a large part of the problem WARC has with liberal capitalism has to do with two issues: 1) they don't understand how wealth is created, or the way capitalism ensures that it spreads widely, and 2) they are eaten up with envy of the rich, not realizing that Scripture is far less concerned with any gap between rich and poor than it is with adequate provision and fair treatment toward the poor. In fact, without the investment capabilities possessed by wealthy individuals and groups, many more people would be poor than is presently the case (think Middle Ages, when wealth tended to be static rather than grow through investment and productivity beyond subsistence level).

The terrible truth is that, especially inasmuch as they have no better alternative to offer, the WARC delegates, in condemning liberal capitalism, are actually voting for worldwide poverty. I hope their consciences are satisfied.
Athanasius on 08.13.04 @ 05:12 PM EST [link]

Thursday, August 12th

"Progressives"–partisan? Perish the thought!

UCC seminarian and liberal blogger Chuck Currie strains credulity as he seeks to distinguish between the religious right and left:

If there a difference between the political aims of the religious rights [sic] and the progressive left? Yes, and it is pretty basic. The Southern Baptists, for example, maintain close ties with Republican political candidates, like George W. Bush, and work to elect them. Their efforts often cross the line between separation of church and state and even violate IRS rules governing churches.

This is a rather serious charge for which Currie offers no evidence. Not surprising, really, since there's no evidence to be found. Are there Southern Baptists working to elect George Bush? Sure, just like there are liberal Christians working to elect John Kerry (such as Currie himself, though he admits to not being overly thrilled about it, Kerry not being far enough left for him). Nothing about that violates IRS rules. Contrary to the current hysteria on the left, conservative churches as churches are doing nothing more than what liberal churches have legitimately done for decades–registering people to vote, talking about issues that parishioners may consider when deciding who to vote for, even having candidates speak from the pulpit, as Kerry did in Cleveland a couple of weeks ago. The Christian Coalition (a political organization, rather than a church) puts out voters' guides to candidates' position (as does the NCC-connected FaithfulAmerica.org through Project Vote Smart); the National Council of Churches puts out a pamphlet on "Christian Principles in an Election Year" that reads like part of the Democrats' party platform. Perhaps the principle difference between the religious right and religious left is that the former doesn't go running off to the IRS to try to stifle other voices as do elements of the latter.

Progressive religious people tend to be tied more to causes (homelessness, poverty, civil rights, health care, etc.) than to individual candidates and almost never claim to speak for God on partisan political issues. Claiming to speak for God is a hallmark of the religious right.

Really? Take another look at those election-year principles from the NCC. Item 1 says flatly, "War is contrary to the will of God." Sounds like they're speaking loudly and clearly for God in this one. Or item 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." While God's concern for just treatment of the poor is demonstrated throughout Scripture, the "disparity between rich and poor" is a different matter, much more a manifestation of a Marxist desire for elimination of class differences than a biblical mandate. Yet the NCC suggests that this is God's goal as well. In truth, there are plenty of examples of left-wing clergy claiming to speak in God's name.

As for the lack of connection to partisanship, the NCC Web site has a link to Working Assets, whose WorkingForChange subsidiary is simply a left-wing propaganda outlet devoted to defeating George Bush. Bob Edgar is the co-chair of Win Without War, and anti-war organization that links to Democratic Party shill MoveOn.org and their petition drive to censure George Bush for going into Iraq. Organizations like the NCC, the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church and the American Friends Service Committee are part of United for Peace and Justice, along with such non-partisan organizations as MoveOn, various Green Party affiliates, the International Solidarity Movement, and the Communist Party USA. Then there's the Clergy Leadership Network, which has abandoned any pretense of nonpartisanship, explaining that "if you are ready to reach beyond nonpartisanship–that is, if you are ready to advocate political change and work every way you can to bring it about–then you can do that through Clergy Network." As I recall, Currie did a back-slapping interview with the head of the CLN, Albert Pennybacker, a couple of months ago. So maybe "nonpartisanship" isn't always the way of the left after all.
Athanasius on 08.12.04 @ 06:34 PM EST [">link]

Some lines won't be crossed

Hot off the press: a measure of sanity prevails at the California Supreme Court:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

This by no means ends the debate over gay marriage, in California or anywhere else, but it does indicate that there are lines that even the most liberal courts won't cross in imposing a new marriage regime.
Athanasius on 08.12.04 @ 01:41 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, August 11th

Oh, my...

You may not know that the Episcopal Church is seeking a new propaganda minister. You will be even more surprised to find out what out-of-work propagandist has signed on...

(From those mischievous Web Elves at CaNN.)
Athanasius on 08.11.04 @ 05:04 PM EST [link]

**You do know The Da Vinci Code is drivel, right?**

I think Lucy Magnon has missed the point in this column in today's online edition of the UK's Guardian newspaper:

And so the backlash against The Da Vinci Code begins. The main charges against Dan Brown's bestselling thriller appear to be that while the Parisian monuments and buildings he describes do exist, the routes taken by the protagonists between them do not make sense, that Harvard has no professor of symbology (the status ascribed to Brown's hero), and that the ultra-traditional Catholic group Opus Dei does not, in fact, harbour albino assassin monks for deployment against renegade cryptographers and art historians.

Actually, the main charges against The Da Vinci Code are that it mangles history, religion, and art in the pursuit of a good story, all the while claiming that it is based in fact. The book comes complete with footnotes for source material (not your standard accoutrement in a novel), and in an introductory note Brown writes that "all descriptions of documents and secret rituals are accurate," a claim he has reiterated ad nauseum, to the point where even the most skeptical reader would be convinced that he thinks it's true.

It is of course an unfortunate fact of life that if thousands upon thousands read a book written by an established thriller writer, described as a thriller and sold as a thriller, some of them will persist in believing instead that the author is speaking sooth. These people should ideally be herded into the middle of the nearest crop circle and beaten with their own copies of The Bible Code until they see reason, but thanks to a statutory oversight, this is illegal.

It would be nice if Ms. Magnon were correct that only the Tinfoil Hat Brigade takes The Da Vinci Code for an accurate depiction of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, or the nature of Opus Dei, or the history of Christian doctrine (Brown claims, among other fictions, that the doctrine of the Trinity was an whole-cloth invention of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD). Such is not the case, however. A total of 41% of respondents to a poll by Chicago Business Online said of the book that it either "contains at least a small kernel of truth" or "has finally exposed the truth." (Yeah, I know all about the reliability of Internet polls, but thousands responded to this, and as popular as it is I can't help but think that a fair percentage of people who aren't from the black helicopter crowd are at least somewhat taken in by the book.)

Much of Ms. Magnon's complaint has to do with the British literary elites turning their noses up at the popularity of a thriller, and I agree with her there. And if Brown had not been claiming historicity as the basis for his story, I'd have no problem with it. But we live in an age of historical as well as theological ignorance, and if only for that reason his blithe claims about the veracity of his mythology grate.
Athanasius on 08.11.04 @ 04:50 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, August 10th

Tell us how much you care, Reverend

I don't know where they got this, but the Institute for Religion and Democracy, in their "Quote of the Week" feature, has a priceless one-liner from the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, head of the liberal Clergy Leadership Network:

"Real religion isn't how often you pray but how deeply you care."

Not how you act, mind you, but care. Actually doing anything that might help the poor or conserve the environment or free people from tyranny or help achieve peace is secondary, if it matters at all, in Pennybackerian religion. Seeking the help of the Lord of the universe is apparently not that big a deal either. As long as one's heart overflows with fuzzy feelings, you have "real religion."

But then, we all remember what Dietrich Bonhoeffer said about "religion," don't we?
Athanasius on 08.10.04 @ 04:35 PM EST [link]

Next up: the joys of polygamy

HBO, which gave us Sex and the City, is seeking a new avenue for ground-breaking programming:

Think Tony Soprano, but without all the violence or swearing—and with a wife who doesn’t care if he sleeps with other women.

That’s the star of HBO’s new original drama series, the Tom Hanks-produced "Big Love," about a polygamous, fictional Utah family living in the present day.

Whether "Big Love" will follow that tradition remains to be seen, but it will be closely watched in Utah, which still carries some stigma for its polygamous history.

Polygamy is among the teachings of Mormon church founder Joseph Smith. But the practice was abandoned by the church more than a century ago as the territory sought statehood. The Utah Constitution bans it and the mainstream Mormon church now excommunicates those who advocate it.

But it’s believed that tens of thousands in Utah continue the practice, including the well-documented, present-day polygamists in the border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.

Many remaining polygamists describe themselves as fundamentalist Mormons, living ultra-religious lives in small, secretive sects in the West.

HBO spokeswoman Mara Mikialian said she hadn’t seen the pilot, so she couldn’t provide many specifics about the show. She said the family would not be Mormon, and the show would be shot in California—not Utah. It’s scheduled to premiere in 2005.

The most interesting thing about this to me is that the family won't be Mormon. That means HBO is likely to take the slant that polygamy isn't just something done be ultra-fundamentalist nut cases, but by normal, hard-working, Americans just like your neighbors. Consider this the likely opening salvo in the elite effort to give polygamy the same normalization treatment given to homosexuality over the last thirty years.

(Hat tip: Philippa)
Athanasius on 08.10.04 @ 09:30 AM EST [link]

Sunday, August 8th

Salman Rushdie: man with a death wish

The author of The Satanic Verses, who is still under a death sentence from the mullahs of Iran, has gone and made them mad all over again:

The writer Salman Rushdie, who was put under a death sentence for insulting the prophet Muhammad, has raised the stakes with an essay in praise of pornography.

Rushdie argues that a free and civilised society should be judged by its willingness to accept pornography.

His views, to be published alongside images of American porn stars in a book called XXX:30 Porn Star, are likely to infuriate Christians and Muslims alike. Iranian hardliners recently renewed a death sentence on him after the original fatwah was lifted.

In an extract from his essay, "The East is Blue," to be published this autumn, Rushdie implies that Muslims are avid consumers of pornography because of the segregation of the sexes.

He writes: "Pornography exists everywhere, of course, but when it comes into societies in which it’s difficult for young men and women to get together and do what young men and women often like doing, it satisfies a more general need."

He adds: "While doing so, it sometimes becomes a kind of standard-bearer for freedom, even civilisation...."

Of course the mullahs are barbarians to threaten Rushdie's life. But it's hard to say what Rushdie is trying to prove with this, other than that he is willing to live the rest of his life surrounded by bodyguards. Pornography coursens relationships between men and women, and causes men to think of women as objects to be used for self-gratification rather than people. While guarantees of freedom of speech and press may mean that a society has to tolerate the presence of porn, no healthy society ever accepts it, much less celebrates it. It is a sign of the degradation of civilization, rather than its standard-bearer.

(Thanks to Kendall Harmon for the story.)

Athanasius on 08.08.04 @ 10:04 PM EST [link]