Category Archives: politics/culture

Easier to be negatively against than to articulate a positive end

Posted on by

A good article in the TimesOnline.com (UK) from Allister McGrath.
Credo: A system of belief should not involve point scoring:
The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity
Speaking of the ANC, McGrath notes that the aftermath of this recent election in South Africa saw the ANC majority shrink. One reason, he speculates, is because it was much easier for the ANC to be against something, and negatively against something like Apartheid, but now they have to articulate what they are for.
McGrath writes:

That challenge seems to be proving more difficult as apartheid recedes in the popular memory. The ANC needs to create a new, positive identity for itself rather than relying on past enemies and battles.
It’s a familiar point. Purely oppositional movements tend to find themselves in difficulties once their point of reference is removed. The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity. This often means that groups justify themselves by condemning others.

This is very true. Here in the U.S. we see this happening all over the place. President Obama presented a positive message of hope (as overworked as that word may have been) and many people voted for him even as they described themselves as “conservatives,” “Evangelicals,” “independents,” and “moderates.” We see now the primary movers and shakers of the Republican Party yelling and screaming about this and that, but all that is being presented loudly and forcefully is negative and for what they are against. Many of the leadership of the Republican Party will jump on just about anything the Obama administration does for no other reason that to try to cut his credibility, popularity, and effectiveness so that come the next election they might regain power and control.
Being the party in power is the goal of any political party, but the methods they are using at this point will only work against them, IMHO. This group of Republicans (Neo-Cons, really) do not understand what happened this past election. They still think shrill, arrogant attack is what is needed to get back into power. I think it is a profound misread of the current situation, and well demonstrates what McGrath is writing about. What is their positive message? Is fear mongering and character assassination all they have? What are their solutions and ideas that are not simply a repackaging of the Bush administrations failed policies? It is, truly, much harder to be a visionary and present a well reasoned and thought out positive message. (In some ways, the Newht Gringwich era “Contract with the American People” did that, but he is not acting in the same manner, now!)
Likewise, we see the political and sectarian goals of the Religious Right as demonstrating McGrath’s point. They talk a lot about protecting the American Family, but it is always in the context of what they are against – particularly their perceptions of the evils of homosexuality. What we see and hear in the media (even more particularly in the religious media) is all negative and victimhood. They fight against everything and everyone that does not line up with their viewpoints and goals. They may try to present in a positive way the fight to save the American Family, but to a growing number of people what they really see is nothing much more than anti-gay everything. Why, if they are so pro-family, do they not focus on the real culprits of the decline of the American family – all heterosexual, like divorce? I think because it is far easier to find a scapegoat rather than deal with the failings of one’s group, and it is easier to be negative. That is why in the longer run, I don’t think they are going to succeed in many of their efforts. Trends don’t look good. They need to re-tool and try to present to the public what they are for without the ranker and negativity and with positive, forward looking ideas.
Finally, we see this, too, in the groups breaking away from the Episcopal Church (TEC). Whether low-church Evangelicals or high-church Anglo-Catholics, their bond rests on their common opposition to the more progressive elements of the Anglican Communion, and particularly TEC. They articulate well what their common hatred is and to whom or what it is focused. They are articulating what they are for, but again in the context of what they are opposed to. It seems to be that for right now, the AMiA is the only group that has come out from under this illness. I just don’t see how Charismatic-Evangelicals claiming Anglicanism and favoring women priests are going to stay with Anglo-Catholics claiming Anglicanism who won’t have women priests. And, it isn’t just about women, but about the theologies they adhere to and the inevitable conflict that those different theologies will cause. Anglicanism has held it all in tension for a long time, but these groups are born out of schism and accusation and negative development (whether they are right or wrong).
Do they really represent anything different than the phenomena McGrath writes of?
This is partly why I am coming closer to simply declaring that I will side-step out of this eddie and quagmire that is now the TEC and Anglicanism, and devote myself to the Christian Disciplines continuing down through time and place and draw closer to God and those who are simply tired of all this negativism and accusation. In no way does that mean I am abandoning TEC or Anglicanism, surely not, but I will remove myself as much as I can from the deleterious effects of our current cultural deterioration (as evidenced in politics and the Church). Who knows…

Unexpected Consequences

Posted on by

From the blog, An Unapproved Road, here is a great piece on the effects of American Idol finalists Kris and Adam and their relationship and because of that relationship (between a Christian and the oh so talented and presumed to be gay guy) there is a shifting in the culture.
Read: We Get to Carry Each Other
A couple paragraphs:

Countless commentators wanted the Idol competition to be about more than just singing. With Danny Gokey rounding out the Top Three, many wanted to make it a tally of endorsements for, oh, shall we call it “lifestyles?” You know, Danny (and likewise Kris, the dark horse bringing up the rear), the card-carrying Christian versus Adam the flamboyant one who hasn’t said he’s gay.
Let us pause to decode that snapshot of American pop culture. In social shorthand, those characterizations imply juxtapositions, i.e. a Christian can’t be flamboyant, and the one who “looks gay” can’t (or wouldn’t) be Christian; or, the one is restrained, temperate, and “good,” the other is … not. (Alternatively, the one is open, creative, and “good” — while the other is not!)
Whatever. Moving on now, to real three-dimensional people, and the reason Adam Lambert and Kris Allen are important to our spiritual health…
I know next to nothing about Kris Allen’s non-musical life, except that he’s married, he calls himself Christian and he’s done missionary work across the world. I heard about the exchanges among the other contestants that made reference to what is supposedly “godly” and right in relationships, but Kris’s name wasn’t part of that. I don’t know what kind of Christianity he practises, or how he envisions his God. I do know this: he declares himself Christian to the television audience – i.e. to the world; and he freely, publicly, verbally, and especially non-verbally, loves Adam Lambert like a brother.

KrisAdam.jpg

For some, everything changes

Posted on by

There is a parishioner of St. Paul’s and a friend (she likes to get soaked during Eastertide when we asperge) who commented on this photograph. Her comments, wrapped up in her life as a black woman who has had (and continues to have) all kinds of connections and experiences, is just meaningful to me. She granted me permission to include her comments, here.
Recent photo of a little boy visiting the White House. He wanted to feel Obama’s hair because he wanted to know if the President’s hair felt just like his. Obama obliged. Priceless.
obama-boy.jpg
She writes:

Ya know I have seen that picture several times and did not understand the context. I am reminded of the time my knucklehead nephew (born in April 1980) was about 8, and (even though I am a Republican) I was astonished that he was very supportive of the President (Ronald Reagan) Then it hit me. That was the only President he knew in his lifetime.
When I was a small child (I was quite precocious, as you can imagine), I amused a neighbor lady with our “political discussions” about the results of the Korean Conflict (we predicted future involvement in the Asian theatre and Vietnam specfically), Brown v. Board of Ed, the emerging Civil Rights movement, and whether the President (Eisenhower) was a Negro (his mother was eventually proven to be a “quadroon”). Ah, those were heady times for this little colored child (already a Life Member of the NAACP).
My Father ran for Congress in the 50’s (as a Democrat; that is another story for another day), and remember his campaign literature: “Elect Brooklyn’s First NEGRO Representative!” He ran against Mrs. Edna Kelly, and when she won, she became the first female representative. And even though Daddy did not win, we got a new puppy after the campaign, just as he promised.
Fast forward. Of course, I loved watching and listening to eager young white young men campaigning for Obama last year. They would approach me, and ask if I was registered to vote, and when I would say I was a registered Republican, they did not skip a beat: “….but you are going to vote for Obama, right?”
And the arguments in bars! Saint Patrick’s Day 2008 at one of the more infamous Irish bars in Brooklyn, when all of the “youngsters” loudly proclaimed that they were voting for Obama, even if he was “Hawaiian”. And many of the “village elders” at the end of the bar muttered that they never thought that they would see the day that they would vote for that “colored lad”.
Because at the end of they day, folks saw that he WAS and IS the right choice.
I choose to focus on what a wonderful time we can look forward to for this generation (and the next) for most of the coming decade!
Evadne

There are and have been experiences in my life that lend themselves to a degree of understanding of what others go through in this life, in this culture, in this time and age. Yet, there are things I will never understand intuitively, inwardly, intimately. In such cases, silence and humility remain the best course to follow. I hope I have the wisdom to know.

“Waterboarding” and Southern Baptists

Posted on by

The Southern Baptist Convention’s leader for their Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, has come out against waterboarding and declaring it torture.
He said, in part:

“It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said, reflecting on the words in the Declaration of Independence: that “all men are created equal” and that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
“There are some things you should never do to another human being, no matter how horrific the things they have done. If you do so, you demean yourself to their level,” he said.
“Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,” Land concluded.” [Source: ERLC]

I originally came across this announcement from a OneNewsNow.com e-mail news summary update. OneNews is news aggregator with a intentional slant to American-Evangelicalism (really, more Fundamentalist in perspective). Here is their report. Within the article, they sponsored a poll as to whether the reader agreed with Mr. Land’s opinion. As of 7:11 AM Eastern, May 10, 2009, the results show that 85% of the nearly 18,000 respondents to the poll disagreed with Mr. Land that “waterboarding” is unethical and is torture. That is an amazingly high number, even knowing the kind of readers that regular this website. Only 9% agreed with Land, and I’m one of those respondents.
The comments to Mr. Land’s announcement are fairly typical, with some praising him and some condemning him. What I don’t understand is how those who condemn him do not realize the corrupting effect this kind of behavior has on our own national soul (let alone the individual souls of the 18 year-olds who are either commanded to or given permission to torture another person). Those who comdemn Mr. Land may not care about the soul or body of the individual being tortured, but they should be concerned about the damage done to us.
Here is one typical comment:

Jeff wrote:
Does Mr. Land not understand that we are dealing with pure evil straight from the depths of hell that is clothed in human skin? Why do I care if Satan’s own minion (aka your garden variety terrorist) has a problem with being tortured? Our responsibility to ourselves is far greater than whatever feelings of decency we have towards pure, unadulterated evil….

Jeff may be a “good” Southern Baptist, a “good” Christian family man, but Jeff doesn’t know Scripture or the elemental teachings and commands of Jesus Christ – the one to whom he would claim to have given his life.

Reflections on the God Debate

Posted on by

Stanley Fish in his New York Times blog gives a good review of a new book by Terry Eagleton, entitled: “Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.”

“…British critic Terry Eagleton asks, “Why are the most unlikely people, including myself, suddenly talking about God?” His answer, elaborated in prose that is alternately witty, scabrous and angry, is that the other candidates for guidance — science, reason, liberalism, capitalism — just don’t deliver what is ultimately needed. ‘What other symbolic form,’ he queries, ‘has managed to forge such direct links between the most universal and absolute of truths and the everyday practices of countless millions of men and women?’
“…but at least religion is trying for something more than local satisfactions, for its ‘subject is nothing less than the nature and destiny of humanity itself, in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source of life.’ And it is only that great subject, and the aspirations it generates, that can lead, Eagleton insists, to ‘a radical transformation of what we say and do.’
“The other projects, he concedes, provide various comforts and pleasures, but they are finally superficial and tend to the perpetuation of the status quo rather than to meaningful change: ‘A society of packaged fulfillment, administered desire, managerialized politics and consumerist economics is unlikely to cut to the depth where theological questions can ever be properly raised.’
“The fact that science, liberal rationalism and economic calculation can not ask — never mind answer — such questions should not be held against them, for that is not what they do.
“And, conversely, the fact that religion and theology cannot provide a technology for explaining how the material world works should not be held against them, either, for that is not what they do. When Christopher Hitchens declares that given the emergence of ‘the telescope and the microscope’ religion ‘no longer offers an explanation of anything important,’ Eagleton replies, ‘But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.’”

Read the entire thing here.

Continue reading →

The Narrative Character

Posted on by

The Narrative Character of our Faith

“Too many Christians are just pious versions of Ulysses Everett McGill protagonist in the movie Oh Brother Where Art Thou]; that is, too many Christians have bought into the modernist valorization of scientific facts and end up reducing Christianity to just another collection of propositions. Our beliefs are encapsulated in ‘statements of faith’ that simply catalog a collection of statements about God, Jesus, the Spirit, sin, redemption, and so on. Knowledge is reduced to biblical information that can be encapsulated and encoded. And so, in more ways than one, our construal of the Christian faith has capitulated to modernity and what Lyotard calls its ‘computerization’ of knowledge, indicating a condition wherein any knowledge that cannot be translated into a simple ‘code’ or reduced to ‘data’ is abandoned. But isn’t it curious that God’s revelation to humanity is given not as a collection of propositions or facts but rather within a narrative — a grand, sweeping story from Genesis to Revelation? Is there not a sense in which we’ve forgotten that God’s primary vehicle for revelation is a story unfolded within the biblical canon?”

James K.A. Smith, PhD., Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?; pp. 74-75.
Lyotard’s “computerization of knowledge” reminds my of Polanyi’s “Tacit Knowing.”

“This is why the Scriptures must remain central for the postmodern church, for it is precisely the story of the canon of Scripture that narrates our faith… The narrative character of our faith should affect not only our proclamation and witness but also our worship and formation. …we need to know the story, and that story should be communicated when we gather as the people of God, that is, in worship. That is why the most postmodern congregations will be those that learn to be ancient, reenacting the biblical narrative. Just as Lyotard’s account of narrative knowledge shows a link between premodern and postmodern, so worship in postmodernity (which appreciates the role of narrative) should signal a recovery of liturgical tales — the narrating of creation, fall, redemption (as well as crucifixion, burial, and resurrection) in the very manner in which we worship.” (pp.75-76)

They kept saying, “Show us a sign. Give us proof. Then, we will believe.” And He responded always, “No.”

Kerygmatic Vocation

Posted on by

“Our Christian faith — and correlatively, our account of apologetics — is tainted by modernism when we fail to appreciate the effects of sin on reason. When this is ignored, we adopt an Enlightenment optimism about the role of a supposedly neutral reason in recognition of truth. (We also end up committed to ‘Constantinain’ strategies that, under the banner of natural law, seek to build a ‘Christian America.’
“To put this in more familiar terms, classical apologetics operates with a very modern notion of reason; ‘presuppositional’ apologetics, on the other hand, is postmodern (and Augustinian!) insofar as it recognizes the role of presuppositions in both what counts as truth and what is recognized as true. For this reason, postmodernism can be a catalyst for the church to reclaim its faith not as a system of truth dictated by a neutral reason but rather as a story that requires ‘eyes to see and ears to hear.’ The primary responsibility of the church as witness, then, is not demonstration but rather proclamation — the kerygmatic vocation of proclaiming the Word made flesh rather than the thin realities of theism that a supposedly neutral reason yields.”

James K.A. Smith, PhD., Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?; p. 28.
I wonder whether a lot of this modern/postmodern stuff is a replying anew the differences between Platonic and Aristotelian thought? Between Augustinian and Thomistic thought?
The latter is being played out in this new world of Post-Christendom, particularly within the context of the American Culture-War dynamic. What do we make of this?
Frankly, as I continue to move into the idea of re-formation out of the “Systems” (City of the World) and into some sort of “other than” (City of God) — perhaps a move out into the desert, metaphorically speaking — the rethinking of how we perceive and live out this Christian Life in our changing national context (really this ground shift of perceptional foundations within the culture), the more I am drawn to pre-Constantinian examples of Christianity. A “kerygmatic vocation.”

Stuff

Posted on by

“… I want to suggest that, quite unlike the anti-institutional mentality of postmodern “spirituality,” it is actually a robust, vibrant, liturgical church that speaks meaning in and to a postmodern world.”
James K.A. Smith, PhD., Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, Series Preface, p.9

Shadowland

Posted on by

We look, we see, we observe images flashing, ever flashing before us. Time continues, images pass, this is our context. “Reality,” we say, for this is all we see. “Truth,” we say, for this is all we know. Shadows, all.
Up is down, right is left, wrong is correct. Orwell has his day. When all we know is shadow, unrecognized perhaps, all that we understand develops as distortion. When we point and say, “freedom-questioners,” it is the distorted shadow we choose to see passing along the wall – torturers, real. We don’t know the truth. Worse yet, we willfully turn away from the real because we like the shadows so. We are in darkness, and the light is not within us. If we say, “Do unto others whatever is necessary to make us feel safe,” who are we, really?
How can those who claim Christ justify the use of torture? When what we believe we are as a people turns to be only a shadowy distortion of the Christian Life, then what? It isn’t even just a pale image of the real dancing before us, but a further distortion of the shadow of the real as we are chained to the deleterious influence of a culture that is moving ever more steadily away from the principles of Christ, which is not and has never been Christian in reality. Do we turn to freedom or do we stay chained? Too often, we willfully choose to imbibe the misshapen dark shadows and call them… good, call them real, call them of God.
If we are to ever turn to leave the cave that is the distorted life, we must realize the need to leave behind much of what we have been enculturated to accept as a given and what we have become, inwardly. We hear cries, “America is a Christian nation…” I don’t know what to do with that statement when related to a justification of torture, unless I face that fact that too many of us want deception, want dark shadows because for some warped reason they feel “right” and “safe.”
We must be re-formed out of the corruption of our individual and common souls. Our understanding of our imagined faith in this time and within this cultural context has been left wanting, and it has resulted in a deficient faith. We see the result in a people who believe themselves to be good, god-fearing, and patriotic claiming that treatment of other people, enemy terrorists they may be, in ways that if turned upon these god-fearing people would be deplored by them as horrific and unjust, but this distorted faith has brought them to a point of willfully condoning torture. The question is not, “What have we become,” but asking whether there will be a turning from the distortion by realizing that this is what we have made of ourselves. God help us.
Update, from The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan:
The Abuse of Religion:
I’m going to read the full Senate report this weekend but I am struck by one footnote a reader directed me to. It’s a memo related to the torture of Qahtani in Gitmo, written January 17, 2003, and documented that he had been “forced to pray to an idol shrine.” One recalls similar abuse of religious freedom at Abu Ghraib, which the Senate report unequivocally blames on official policy at the highest levels:

One Muslim inmate was allegedly forced to eat pork, had liquor forced down his throat and told to thank Jesus that he was alive. He recounted in broken English:
”They stripped me naked, they asked me, ‘Do you pray to Allah?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ They said ‘F – – – you’ and ‘F – – – him.’ ” Later, this inmate recounts: ”Someone else asked me, ‘Do you believe in anything?’ I said to him, ‘I believe in Allah.’ So he said, ‘But I believe in torture and I will torture you.’ ”

This from an administration more deeply committed to public Christianity than any other in recent times; and from a military one of whose commanders had publicly pronounced:
“We’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian … and the enemy is a guy named Satan.”