Ecumenical Insanity

Friday, August 27th

The Borg invades Canada

Marcus Borg, one of the leading lights of the Jesus Seminar (the in-depth examination of the size of certain academic egos hosted by the Westar Institute), spoke recently in Vancouver. Hilarity resulted:

"Christians are people for whom the relationship with God as known in Jesus is central to their lives," he said. "We agree about that."

"If we agree about that then there might be some room to talk about our disagreements."

Which he proceeded to do:

At present, Borg said, using one of the main themes of his recent book, two visions of Christianity predominate. It's almost as if there were "two different religions."

He's right on the money about that.

Borg labelled these two visions the "earlier paradigm" and the "emerging paradigm." A paradigm he defined as a comprehensive way of seeing a whole.

While Christians who hold these two visions share the "basics" of Christianity, they differ on the details.

For instance, all share a belief in "the reality of God." But those who hold to the earlier vision see God as a supernatural person. Those who accept the emerging vision of Christianity think of God not so much as a person but as the Spirit that encompasses all of Creation (yet is more than Creation).

Christians see Jesus as the "decisive revelation of God." But the disagreement is between those with an earlier vision, who feel Jesus is the only decisive revelation (the Way), and those of the emerging vision, who think Jesus is one of several revelations of God.

Christians in these two camps "share the basics"? In Borg's rendering, they can't even agree with whom (or what) it is that they are supposed to be in relationship. Those with his "emerging vision" have the same kind of "relationship" with the "Spirit" that they have with electricity. Borg "relates" to "God" as an impersonal It, I relate to God as a loving Father. Borg thinks that Jesus reveals I don't know what (can an impersonal force really be said to "reveal" itself? Is what Jesus did in "revealing God" like what Newton did in "revealing" the reality of gravity?), I think Jesus is the personal incarnation of the personal God of Israel. So what exactly are the basics that we share, other than the desire of each to claim the the "Christian"?

Likewise, to all Christians, the Bible is sacred scripture. But is it somehow a "divine product" - the earlier view? Or is it a human product - how the Hebrews and early Christians experienced God, but not necessarily how we do today?

Scripture to Christians is the most important collection of documents they have, and is "foundational." "It helps us figure out what is real, how to live."

But the Bible is not historical in the modern sense of telling us what really happened, Borg said.

I certainly understand how a book can be true and non-historical at the same time. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is a true portrayal of life in the Soviet gulag, but that doesn't mean the events it depicts actually happened as Solzhenitsyn describes them. But this of course raises the question: why should the truth that the Bible teaches in a non-historical fashion be any more important to anyone than, say, the works of Dostoyevsky or Dante or Sartre? Why, if it has little or nothing to do with what God has actually done in the life of humanity, should it be "foundational" to anything?

The "earlier" vision or paradigm is not all that old, Borg insisted. It came about three hundred years ago as a response to the Enlightenment. The "emerging" paradigm has actually been emerging from seminaries for the past one hundred years, he said.

God as a personal being is only three hundred years old? The Bible as the story of God's acts of creation and redemption in human history is only three hundred years old? If I were one of Borg's students at Oregon State and heard that he'd said that, I'd demand my tuition back.

Speaking of the disputes between holders of these two paradigms currently taking place in the Church, Borg said:

Bridges can be built, Borg insisted, if Christians talk about their agreements rather than their differences.

We mustn't insist we have the "absolute truth" or fear diversity, he told the audience.

I don't know how bridges are going to be built, differences respected, or anything accomplished if the holders of one paradigm are required ("mustn't") to become holders of the other paradigm in order for dialogue to take place. This kind of fraud–"I really want for us to talk about our differences, but you have to agree to my ground rules, and abandon your most basic beliefs before we can do so, and if you don't, you're causing division in the Body"–grows more tiresome every day.

UPDATE: The Pontificator makes clear that resistence is not futile:

Borg’s ignorance and dismissal of historic creedal Christianity is simply mind-boggling. If the history of Christianity shows anything, it shows that Christians have taken doctrine very, very seriously. Christians have worked hard at distinguishing their belief-system from the belief-systems of pagan religion. Christians have worked hard at formulating authentic Christian doctrine in opposition to beliefs that they have deemed heretical. But guru Borg has the hutzpah to tell us that beliefs are irrelevant to the true religion of Jesus!

Amazingly, Borg really does not see that his “emerging vision” of Christianity isn’t Christianity at all.

Amazingly, Borg really does not see that his “emerging vision” has more in common with the religion of the gnostics and neo-gnostics than with the religion of Irenaeus, Athanasius [that's the original one–ed. :-)], and Thomas Aquinas.

If you haven't read Pontifications before, treat yourself. It's a terrific education.
Athanasius on 08.27.04 @ 05:05 PM EST [link]

Thursday, August 26th

A parent who needs to go back to school

Geoff McKee is the principal at Boca Raton High School in Florida. He's apparently in trouble with folks because when he refers to God at school, he doesn't use His name as a profanity or a verbal placeholder. He actually means to refer to God. This has got various bowels in an uproar, but one of them, from a parent, is particularly ridiculous:

He also tried to start a class this year called Introduction to the Bible. The class is approved by the state, but he canceled it because of a lack of student interest. He said he might try again next year.

Parent Vickie Capitena complained to McKee about the course and has since been monitoring his performance. She said she asked him why he thought it was important that public-school students learn the Bible.

"He said it was the greatest book ever written and, to me, that shows some prejudice," said Capitena, a Roman Catholic. "I'm not anti-religion in any way. But if I wanted my children to have a religious education, I would have sent them to Pope [John Paul II High School]."

So let me get this straight: a Catholic parent who doesn't understand the seminal importance of the Bible to the formation of Western civilization complains about a course that the state approves. She then asks why public school students should learn the Bible, and when told by the principal that it's the greatest book ever written–certainly not a unique or idiosyncratic opinion, even among secular literature teachers–thinks the principal is "prejudiced" (she no doubt would have thought the Koran deserves that title, or maybe I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings). She then expresses the opinion that a course on the Bible approved by the state, and therefore certainly secular in approach, would be a "religious education."

This is where the reflexive, unthinking secularism of the late 20th century has led us. And I think the RC Bishop of Palm Beach may need to look into the need for some remedial religious ed in Boca, too.
Athanasius on 08.26.04 @ 09:12 PM EST [link]

Academics weigh in on Iraq

The National Council of Churches has a link on the bottom of its home page for an outfit called Church Folks for a Better America. Organized by Princeton Seminary professor George Hunsinger, it includes some high-powered people among its initiators, including William Sloane Coffin, Jr., Stanley Hauerwas of Duke, David Hollenbach, S. J., of Boston College, Glen Stassen of Fuller Seminary, Miroslav Volf of the Yale Divinity School, and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners. CFBA is, in turn, a project of the Coalition for Peace Action, which includes among its sponsors such certified moonbats as Noam Chomsky, Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, Harry Belafonte, and Daniel Ellsberg. Among the "analysts we like" listed on the CFBA page are left-wingers such as Stephen Zunes, Phyllis Bennis, and the incomparable crackpot Robert Fisk.

When CFBA considers why we are in Iraq, it lists articles from a variety of sources under five headings: 1) Is it oil?; 2) Is it profiteering?; 3) Is it Empire?; 4) Is it Israel? (all of which are answered in the affirmative); and 5) Is it Democracy? (guess–among others, an AsiaTimes article is cited that refers to the interim prime minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, as "Saddam without the mustache"). The possibility that genuine belief, based on information from many nations' intelligence services, that Iraq had WMDs and links to al-Qaeda is not even considered. And the idea that maybe, just maybe, Iraq is better off (if not yet fully or permanently democratic) without one of the world's most megalomaniacal mass murderers as its fuhrer is completely off the radar.

Lots of what's on the site is the standard stuff: Abu Ghraib's just as bad as anything Saddam did, the Iraqis all hate us, we should give the country to the UN, etc. It's an advocacy site, so I wouldn't expect balance, but I would think that with such stellar thinkers among those involved (several of whom I've read and think a lot of), there would be a bit more substance than the typical International ANSWER-MoveOn-WCC blowhardery.
Athanasius on 08.26.04 @ 04:59 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, August 25th

Calling Captain Kirk

"We're all interested in the future, for that's where we're going to spend the rest of our lives." (Jeffrey Jones as psychic Criswell, from the movie Ed Wood.)

That's one of my favorite movie quotes, and it's a nice set-up for the newest piece of Internet wackiness: the Time Travel Fund:

Q: How does this work?
A: Current scientific theory states that Time Travel may be possible, however the technology is a long way off, perhaps hundreds of years in the future. Now, assume it does become possible in say, 500 years. As with any technology, Time Travel will get less expensive as time goes on. Just as the price of a VCR has dropped to less than $70 from the several hundred dollars it cost just ten years ago, Time Travel, once it becomes feasible, will initially be very expensive yet it will become more and more economical as time goes by.

Q: How does this help me?
A: The concept is that one day, it may be possible for people living far in the future to retrieve you from your current frame of reference (their past - your present) and bring you into the future (their present - your future.)

Q: Why would they want to?
A: That is the purpose of the fund. The simple answer is, we pay them to bring you into the future.

Q: How?
A: We establish a fund in current time. You make a small contribution to the fund, and in a few hundred years that small amount grows to a very large amount. From that fund, moneys will be taken and used to retrieve you, perhaps seconds after you join, perhaps even moments before your recorded death, perhaps some other point in your lifetime. Further, the fund may even pay to have you "rejuvenated" medically (assuming this is scientifically possible at that time,) and support you financially for a number of years. (Note: Retrieving you just before the moment of death is just one possible scenario, but one that would avoid any Star Trek(TM) type paradoxes. There are an unlimited number of other possibilities, and we do not know what they will do, we can only make reasonably informed guesses.)

Q: How much will this cost me?
A: Our fee is only $10, of which a percentage is placed into the fund, to grow and earn interest, and the rest is used to pay for overhead in running the website, covering legal fees, paying for your certificate, and maintaining the database of members.

Q: Only ten dollars? How is that going to get me a ride into the future?
A: Compound interest.

Your $10 can be sent to the Bank of Lagos, Nigeria any time between now and yesterday.

(Thanks to Damian Penny for the link.)
Athanasius on 08.25.04 @ 09:51 PM EST [link]

Can you feel my aura?

As you may know, the World Council of Churches is in the middle of a "Decade to Overcome Violence," complete with a US emphasis for 2004. On the Decade Web site, they include links to a variety of events and resources. One organization the DOV recommends as a source of "peace materials" caught my eye. Called the "Earth Child Institute," it is described this way:

The Earth Child Institute is an international not-for-profit non-governmental organization (NGO) that is dedicated to the development and implementation of interdisciplinary and multicultural programs for peace minded quality education. Re-introducing holistic and traditional ways of teaching and learning into a modern day context, all Earth Child workshops and curriculum materials are designed with three key principles in mind.

Individual Empowerment and Personal Accountability Community Values and Social Action Planetary Stewardship and Global Interconnectedness.

Our goal is to inspire children and young people to get involved on many different levels of awareness. Together, we face challenges relating to interpersonal conflict, misuse of power and issues of justice, as well as to Mother Earth and her life systems. Always seeking to inspire personal commitment in every individual to bring about peaceful relations and to ensure safe and adequate freshwater resources for all. [The Connecticut-based educational organization obviously needs a better translator.]

Here are a few excerpts from a sample lesson, "Is Seeing Believing?":

Lesson Objective: To develop trust in the fact that many of the things that are truly real in life on Earth today are invisible. As we connect to the energy of the earth in an intimate way we are consciously in touch with all that is. Using magnets, and the properties of physical science as a basis for understanding, we become able to "trust" some things that we cannot see.

Description of Activity: Hand out the pencils and magnets and ask the students if they know what they are. Ask them to turn one over on the pencil and see it float in mid-air. Can you make them touch? No. The space between the magnets is called an electromagnetic field. You can not see it, but you can feel it in a way, and it is very real.

Next, each person can work with a partner. Rub hands together vigorously for a few moments and then palms forward toward the other person until you feel a tickling vibration. This is the human electromagnetic field or aura. Mine and yours touching.

Take time to talk about how this feels. You can also do the same thing with plants, trees and other forms of life. Mother Earth herself is magnetic. In this moment of exploration and wonder, each participant can close his/her eyes for a moment, with feet flat on the floor, or ground if you are out of doors and feel your connection to the vibration of the Earth. (Note: I have found that about 75% of participants, children and adults are able to physically "feel" the energy)

You can take this activity to many places depending on time constraints, age and interest of the group. There are many other things that you can do with the magnets in subsequent lessons, such as showing how they work from beneath a table (or desk) and talking about polarity of the earth, and opposites.

Note: A great addition to the human energy field activity is to construct a pendulum out of string and a paper clip and talk to your body. This teaches children to trust their inner wisdom, knowing that all the answers are within.

"All the answers are within?" What are the questions? Oh, wait, I can think of one: what's the WCC doing endorsing New Agey stuff like this?
Athanasius on 08.25.04 @ 09:07 PM EST [link]

Moravian anniversary, Canadian connection

I thought my Moravian brethren would be interested in this:

Why would the dean of Toronto, Canada, feel it necessary to write a Moravian congregation in Christ Church, Barbados, to say happy 40th anniversary?

Because he has a connection with them? Yes. A very special connection.

And Dr Douglas A. Stoute, the dean, recalled that linkage in his letter read during a thanksgiving service the Bethlehem congregation held on August 15 to mark their 40th anniversary.

Members were very thrilled as Stoute, now stationed at the Cathedral Church of St James, reflected on how his association with the Moravians began through Rev. Cuthbert Pilgrim when he was the minister of Mount Tabor, St John.

"I was beginning my active journey of faith and I was invited to attend his Monday night Bible study by David and Angela Bradley."

Stoute said it was at the invitation of Pilgrim that he delivered his first sermon in a "house church" at the residence of the Williams family at Belle Haven.

The Bethlehem church at Maxwell grew out of those "house church" meetings and Stoute said: "It was from these beginnings that I was led to my vocation as a priest in the Anglican Church. I owe Bethlehem and Mr Pilgrim a deep sense of gratitude."

Bethlehem's beginnings date back to August 13, 1962, when 16 people met at the Gall Hill Social Centre in a service to discuss the establishment of a congregation in Christ Church.

Exactly two years later–August 13, 1964–the group of worshippers received formal recognition as a congregation of the Moravian Church.

And congratulations from North Carolina to the Bethlehem congregation on their anniversary.

(Hat tip: Binky)
Athanasius on 08.25.04 @ 09:23 AM EST [link]

Tuesday, August 24th

Religion of the brave new world

Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center makes the case for what is at stake in the campaign debate over embryonic stem cell research:

JOHN KERRY'S recent assertions about stem cell research are so obviously untrue and so easily refuted that he must on some level actually believe them–as only an ideologue can. He claims repeatedly that President Bush has "enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research"; in fact, the Bush administration provided over $200 million for stem cell research last year, including $25 million for embryonic stem cell research. He claims that stem cells will one day cure Alzheimer's disease, an ailment that uniquely terrifies the baby-boom generation. But leading scientists, including enthusiastic supporters of stem cell research, have made it clear that stem cells will not help treat Alzheimer's. Kerry claims that stem cell cures are "at our fingertips" and that "help is on the way," when in fact there has not been a single human trial of an embryonic stem cell therapy....

For a while, proponents of embryo research were willing to draw certain ethical lines and respect certain ethical limits. For example, when NIH proposed funding for the creation of embryos solely for research in 1994, the Clinton administration (which supported embryo research) rejected the proposal as too radical. And when President Bush deliberated about federal funding of stem cell research in 2001, stem cell advocates called for funding within limits: They argued that thousands of embryos were already frozen in storage, and that funding research on those embryos imposed no extra moral cost.

Today, the debate has moved on. Leading proponents of embryo research are more radical–demanding more public funding (without which they say research is "banned"), rejecting past limits, and promising the moon. Kerry epitomizes this radicalization of the stem cell movement. At Kerry's convention, Ron Reagan lauded "personal biological repair kits" derived from cloned embryos, and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, endorsed "therapeutic cloning."

As recently as July, John Kerry co-sponsored a bill that would allow the creation of embryos by cloning for research so long as they are destroyed after 14 days. Thus, in the name of curing disease, he would have us perfect the technology necessary to clone children. And if recent history is any guide, the taboo against cloning to produce children will erode, as the left defends it as just another reproductive choice. Even more broadly, the possibility of banning a whole range of radical new types of human procreation–producing children with genes from two men or two women, say, or producing children whose parents are dead fetuses–may disappear.

It's a good thing Kerry believes that life begins at conception, or I'd be worried that he really thinks it's moral to create life only to deliberately kill it. Oh, wait a minute–that's the part of his faith that can't be imposed on others. Church and state and all that. Forgot.

Athanasius on 08.24.04 @ 04:28 PM EST [link]

Monday, August 23rd

Go ask Alice

Words of wisdom from an unlikely source–Alice Cooper:

”If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

(Thanks to LGF for the quote.)
Athanasius on 08.23.04 @ 09:04 PM EST [link]

Kuwaiti speaks truth about Arab culture

There is clear thinking to be found among Middle Easterners. Via MEMRI, here's former Kuwaiti communications minister Dr. Sa'ad bin Tefla in an interview on Jordanian television:

"...Slaughter, destructive abuse, anarchy, and bloodshed in no way resemble Jihad according to Shari'a and resistance. These are anarchy and terrorism [and not Jihad ], and they are indications of frustration and of a culture of collective suicide reminiscent of whales.

"This culture emanates from objective and personal reasons. But I maintain there is another reason for it...and that is the spread of the extremist religious trend that intensifies the frustration of the young people because it tells them, 'You must obtain [one of] two things–martyrdom or victory.' [This trend] beautifies the culture of violence and portrays it as resistance and Jihad. But the idea of Jihad in Islam is innocent of these acts. I maintain that we must reexamine this culture…

"It is wrong to say that violence is the result of occupation. The French occupation left Algeria after a million fell, and then within less than a decade 10,000 Algerians were butchered in Algeria by other Algerians in the name of Islam–that is more than even Israel could have butchered during the period of the Intifada.

"This violence has cultural roots, and is unconnected to the occupation. And there are those who justify it. I do not want it to be understood in any way from my words that I am defending and justifying the occupation. But I say that this logic, which I reject, is [used] as justification to the [violence] that takes place in Iraq and in other places."

"Iraq was occupied [by the U.S.] a year ago. [However], before that, there was violence in Iraq that killed over one million Iraqis, Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis, and others. This was not done by the Zionists, the occupation, or America. This was done by Arabs and Muslims of Baghdad.

"The number killed in Algeria and killed by other Arab regimes surpasses the number of Palestinians killed by Israel. Those who were slaughtered in Saudi Arabia a few days ago were peaceful Muslims who were walking in the street...There is no occupation in Saudi Arabia, no American bases, no American presence or American army...

"I maintain that there is, unfortunately, a culture of violence that existed before the Americans came to Iraq and the Gulf, even before the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and before the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I take no great pleasure in what Dr. bin Telfa says. I wish Arab culture weren't as he describes it. Wishing doesn't make it so, however, and he is to be commended for his honesty, his integrity, and his accuracy.
Athanasius on 08.23.04 @ 07:46 PM EST [link]

Sunday, August 22nd

Sauce for the [stupid] goose, etc.

Oh, great. Liberals act like thugs, so conservatives think that means they have to respond in kind:

A newly-formed watchdog group in Virginia is turning the tables on liberal organizations that are sending spies into conservative churches to monitor sermons. The Big Brother Church Watch, an offshoot of the Religious Freedom Action Coalition is sending volunteers into liberal churches throughout the state.

The group has already placed volunteers in the Metropolitan Community Church (a homosexual congregation), Unitarian, and African Methodist Episcopal churches, which are predominantly liberal and support the Democratic Party.

"When Big Brother turns a church in to the IRS, we will have documented proof that it has assisted a political candidate or political party," said William Murray, the leader of this effort. Murray has set up a web site to gather information from volunteers: http://www.ratoutachurch.org. Murray says liberal pastors will not even have to mention a political candidate’s name in order for a complaint to be sent to the IRS. He said monitors will be watching for code words that indicate whether or not the pastor is supporting a Democratic candidate.

Murray says his organization is simply following the tactics of the MAINStream Coalition and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both of these leftist groups are sending spies into conservative churches to report any unlawful campaign activities.

So if Barry Lynn went over Victoria Falls in a barrel of salted herring, would William Murray?
Athanasius on 08.22.04 @ 07:37 PM EST [link]

He's baaaaaacccckkk!

It would seem that the Episcopal Church only needed the services of Baghdad Bob (see post Oh, my...) for a brief time. Araby's Great Communicator has fortunately not not been left without gainful employment for long. Here's an excerpt from his latest news conference:

Kerry Campaign Hires New Spokesman to Handle SwiftVets' Allegations

Q. It has now been established, and tacitly admitted by the Kerry Camp, that John Kerry was never in Cambodia as he has repeatedly claimed over the years. Do you believe this diminishes Senator Kerry's credibility and/or capacity to act as commander-in-chief?

A. These are a pack of crusader lies. Lies and fabrications of the warmonger Bush. John Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas. John Forbes Kerry lived in Cambodia for six months, deployed deep behind enemy lines, disguising himself for weeks on end as a disused highway men's lavatory. John Forbes Kerry lived in a pool of his own filth for months in order to secure his great victory over the Infidel Invaders of Cambodia.

His own filth, and that of others, Allah be praised.

(Thanks to CaNNet for the link.)
Athanasius on 08.22.04 @ 07:04 PM EST [link]

Wanted: Protesters to go to Tehran

Calling International ANSWER, George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and the entire cohort of anti-preemption politicos: you're needed in Iran:

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike against United States forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us," he told Al-Jazeera television when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan. We are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," he said. [Interesting admission about Iranian involvement in other countries, though he no doubt got the tense wrong regarding Iraq.]

I understand that the tinfoil hats at the International Action Center will be organizing the protests against this Iranian outrage. Soros, of course, will provide plane fare for all involved.

Athanasius on 08.22.04 @ 06:35 PM EST [link]

Can't win for losin'

Anybody else see the irony (not to mention nerve) in the following:

With Kerry taking a break from campaigning, running mate John Edwards said Bush needs to tell the group [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] to pull its ads, a step the White House and the Bush campaign refuse to take. The White House and Bush's campaign note that Kerry has benefited from more than $62 million worth of similar advertising against the president.

"This is the moment of truth for President Bush," Edwards said in North Carolina. "The American people have to hear directly that these ads need to come off the air."

Let's say the Bush campaign did exactly what Kerry and Edwards want it to. What would be the response? 1) "Look, they're coordinating! That's against the law!" and 2) "See, we told you they were in cohoots all along!" In the meantime, over $60 million is being spent by various 527 committees like MoveOn.org to attack Bush on, among other things, his military service (which John Edwards isn't attacked on because he hasn't got any, while Dick Cheney gets plastered by the likes of Michael Moore for, yes, not having any military service).

All brought to us courtesy of the McCain-Feingold Free Speech Regulation Act.
Athanasius on 08.22.04 @ 05:34 PM EST [link]