Friday, May 25, 2007

Religion Writing and Me

Someone asked me recently if I ever thought about doing this writing thingy as a career. I was flattered. But I'm really not sure it's a good idea, especially since I write on religious topics so much. Let me try to explain.

If I started getting paid for giving out my opinion on religion there's a good chance that I would start viewing religion in instrumentalist terms. Think about it; if you took away my writing about religion from this site what would be left? Not so much. A few links to jokes I found and some political commentary. Maybe a few laughs worth a buck a month from Google Ads. Best go back to being a jitney driver.

And if I was getting paid or accepting donations to do this blog then I would be receiving utility from my faith? That would make me basically be a faith-based utilitarian, an FBU for short. Kind of a "whatever works" type.

I could see if I was actually really knowledgeable or was a priest or had a theology degree; if I had something to say about this whole religion thing. Naturally I teach my children about religion and I talk to friends about it when the opportunity is presented. But I don't get paid to do that.

It is so darn easy to talk about religion. Look at Madonna, for instance. She's talking about religion now that she's 96 in female pop-star years and she's not as fresh, young and perky and no one cares as much about her as the newer models coming out. If she blogged for some online magazine the editors would probably advise her to convert from Kabala to Yoga or astrology just to beef up the hit count for advertising. "Pimp yo conversion!" Madonna's probably not that hard up for cash though, so we'll most likely be spared from anything of that sort.

But we have enough writers out there who "manipulate God for their own ends"; they are the loudest about their own religions and even more so about that of others are often the least qualified to say anything and are nothing short of offensive in their pronouncements. Andrew Sullivan is ostensibly a Catholic who sees barbarous hordes of what he calls "Christianists" around every corner. He speaks of these politically conservative Christians with wild-eyed paranoia reminiscent of nativist Know-nothing hysteria. Best I can tell they are closest to Islamist suicide bombers, only they are worse because they never actually kill anyone. Damn these wily Christianists! They exploit religious faith and they don't have the decency to blow themselves up. But he has been dining out on this intriguing concept for quite some time, he even wrote a book on the topic. By his own wobbly definition, this makes Sullivan a fundy and an exploiter of a different stripe.

If that is paid religion writing, the hell with it. So say I. There's a reason why Jesus warns about the Pharisees who "strain a gnat and swallow a camel."

I apologize if there are people who really want me to do this more and make a career out of it. Sorry to disappoint you. I just really can't see the point of selling out my religious identity for material success, to "gain the world and lose my soul". If I obsessed wrote about the Catholic Church for a living, I might start taking notes on how Father X does the Consecration, roughing in an outline for my next blog post during my thanksgiving for Holy Communion. I'd ruminate on how Deacon Y said something that I'm not exactly sure I agreed with instead of meditating on the Five Wounds. I'd start noting the banal architecture in the suburbs and motes in the eyes of bishops. Worst of all, I would see all of life in business transaction-like terms: salvation, the end-product; the Sacraments, a service performed; bishops as salesmen....

You know, I think I'm getting really good at the detection of projection, and that's all I'm going to say about that. For now.

(By the way, there are people pimping Lou Reed's new meditation album from a religious perspective, belief it or not. Read it if you want the Rock 'n Roll Animal to teach you about cool stuff like tai chi and alpha states. You can't make this up.)

28 comments:

  1. Labels: Blogging Makes You Stupid, dreherrhea, poor journalism, religion, smugness

    really, you didn't even have to write this post. the labels say it all. So say I!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul

    I read your post. Let me think for a moment. Okay . . .I would describe your conclusions as a dump truck size load of horse shit. Where did this logic come from? Did the stupid bird poopie on your head this week? Take the freakin money if you can get it!

    This is nonsense.

    Why not you? You are employing Stegal logic here. Is living in the “writing suburbs” going to poison your soul or something? Are you that weak in your faith that a few bucks flowing your way are going to turn you into Deepak Chopra? I don’t think so.

    You practice your Christianity in the marketplace. So, it is okay for you to walk into the marketplace as a Christian businessman and practice Christian virtue, and because of the virtue and your native talents you are well paid. But then using that same virtue and talent to string together a few words about the faith is somehow going to lead to bedlam. That’s drehernomics, Paul. You must emancipate yourself from mental bungalowism, and take the money.

    If you are writing from your heart, and people want to give you money for writing the truth, then accept it and don’t change. You have to be a rock. You're not a pimp and you will never be one.

    Now delete this foolish post, and write something more edifcatin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cube, go read this then re-read my post in context.

    Think satire.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry I missed the joke. Didn't have time for Rod.

    Even if you were serious my comment was intended to be humours in the contrapauli sense to convey the point. I thought I had some good one liners in there. Some good enough to be enshrined in the Pauline canon.

    Gotta go. I will re-read later.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL! Dianonymous here. I promise to fix my blogger account sometime before the Eschaton. Honest!

    Kathleen--if Pauli hadn't written this post, I wouldn't have gotten to laugh out loud at that bit about Madonna's being 96 in female pop-star years. :) :)

    Oh me.

    This morning I was reading one of the many excellent books Dr. William Tighe has sent me. (If you're ever up for really interesting free books arriving in the mail at irregular intervals, like unbirthday presents, just frequent one of the blogs where Dr. Tighe hangs out.) Anyway, the author of this intriguing book was talking about the perennial purist quest for Absolute Purity in the Church and about how doomed and chimerical this quest is, how it always ends in miserable sectarian failure, because (news flash) we are all sinners, and there will always be sinners in the flock, tares among the wheat.

    Rod Dreher simply CANNOT get this. He is the quintessential sectarian purist, forever seeking that Absolutely Pristinely Pure Communion That Doesn't Exist Anywhere and Never Will Until the Second Coming.

    When he didn't find this chimera in Catholicism (because it doesn't exist anywhere), he turned on his former coreligionists like a wounded jackal. Now he regularly holds up Catholics as Poster Children for Sin and Venality and Everything Bad.

    Now it turns out that the Orthodox communion, which Rod idealized as Pure and Perfect, is actually rife with corruption--at the highest levels, too, in the case of his own jurisddiction. For some reason, though, Rod is still stuck in "Catholics as Apotheosis of All Evil" Mode. Perhaps in order to justify his indefensible defection to Orthodoxy, he refuses to acknowledge the equal corruption in the OCA, preferring to continue holding up Catholics--and Catholics alone--as exemplars of worldliness and assoted tare-ness.

    In all of this, of course, he gets to externalize sin. He gets to point the finger everywhere but back at himself. Or rather, he gets to point the finger continually toward Catholics and Catholicism...which lets him off the hook re pointing it back at himself. Let alone back at the OCA!

    As the author of the book Dr. Tighe sent me puts it (WRT the Chimerical Purist Quest): Jesus made it clear that the only people who qualify to "cast the first stone" are those who are "without sin." Somehow I don't think Rod qualifies. In which case he should shut the hell up.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, did y'all see Dr. Beckwith's response to Rod's post. It was a hoot.

    But what on earth was someone of Dr. Beckwith's stature doing slumming at Rod's blog?

    Maybe he was just there for laughs. ;)

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dianonymous, post the link to Beckwith's reply -- IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

    We all need to slum sometimes, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I read Rod's post. Wow! I guess I am not as crunchy as I thought I was. I really did not read Rod's post before I wrote my first response. I read what Pauli said thinking he sounded just like Rod. Then Pauli tells me he was joshin Rod.

    I guess if working 70 hours a week and telling myself I am doing this for God and my family (gracias St. Jose Maria) makes me a squish. I guess I am squish.

    Well, I am finally offended. It took a little over a year. If feels kind of strange.



    Rod has finally offended

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cube, yeah, you had some good lines. Very Pauliesque. My faves:

    * "Did the stupid bird poopie on your head this week?"

    * "You must emancipate yourself from mental bungalowism, and take the money." [That's beautiful. -P]

    * "...write something more edifcatin." [like Popeye's "edu-ma-cation" -- always loved that. -P]

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cube: "Well, I am finally offended. It took a little over a year. If feels kind of strange."

    Cube, I'm glad you got it. I was thinking after your first comment that this kind of post is really "inside baseball" and that maybe I need to clarify when I'm mixing one of these crazy cocktails. But then I thought it's what it is; maybe readers just have to learn to swish it around in the brain for awhile.

    I feel utterly justified regarding my early and continued disdain for Rod's Crunchy Conservatism. It's one thing to say people should grow big gardens and spend time outdoors and pick up litter. It's another to critique every Catholic or Christian or Republican or Conservative who becomes successful as an obvious sell-out. It's one thing to suggest that people might not be spending enough time at home with their families. But it's another to suggest that their homes are not shaped properly, have too many floors, not enough, are not comfortable enough, are too comfortable, etc.

    I was hoping that the temporary diminishing of the Catholic bash rate over at the belief-net blog might be evidence that the man is "turning the corner." But now I see this "Uses of Religion" post as the full revelation of Rod Dreher as an smug, intolerant, overly sensitive hothouse pansy. This is merely the culmination of his inchoate philosophy which, to give one example, leads him to practically defend the disgraced liar Dan Rather and rabbit punch Pro-life Hero Tom DeLay in his book for who knows what reason.

    We also must sliently marvel at what the attraction could be about a world-view which preaches the virtue of a diet grown within a 100-mile radius while at the same time singing the glories of over-priced imported wine.

    Rod has been pretending that the left doesn't exist for a long time now in a vain attempt to develop his weird strain of laboratory conservatism when he is not being distracted by iced tea on the veranda and Platonic chickens served to him by a wizened prelate. Would that he start pretending, please God, that the Catholic Church doesn't exist for awhile to spare us these offensive posts. He should spend time practicing his own religion rather than criticizing ours.

    And just for the record, I don't really care too much about what happens to his denomination. Not anymore than I ever cared about Ann Nicole Smith or Jonbenet Ramsey or any number of other tiresome soap-operas which we could fixate upon. I suppose if I was a bottom-feeder trial lawyer I might.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i've noticed that the purveyor of dreherrea has taken a page from the book of Shearia and refrained from deleting his own comments chastising bubba for ... (i don't know, being smarter than dreher?)... while deleting the bubba-authored comments in question. a class act as usual

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rod's behavior is so utterly disgusting that, well, words fail me.

    BTW, here is that Beckwith quote. It's from the "Uses of Religion" post, and it's safe to say that Rod is too clueless to get that it was a not-so-subtle dig:

    "Personally, I'd rather be Christopher Hitchens than an instrumentalist squish."

    For me, I will embrace my inner squish.
    Francis Beckwith | Homepage | 05.25.07 - 8:12 pm | #




    Pauli, I gotta disagree re the OCA's self-destruction. Call it schadenfreude, but I can't help feeling that it serves Rod right. And it can't happen to a better guy.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  13. smug, intolerant, overly sensitive hothouse pansy.

    You forgot insufferable self-righteous prig.

    But, all in all, a pretty good description. :)

    BTW, someone sent me the Kitlers link some time ago. Hysterical.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  14. Happy Pentecost, y'all!

    BTW--Rod pulled his usual class act wrt me. He deleted, insulted, but left his insult up intact. Right after explaining to some dude what "compassion" means. Words fail me.

    Meanwhile, Rod Grano insists (surprise!) that Rod's post is not one eensy-weensy bit anti-Catholic. Rob Grano could read the combined works of Maria Monk, Jack Chick, and Alberto Rivera and claim they're not anti-Catholic. I'm guessing he's so anti-Catholic himself that he's lost his capacity to recognize the syndrome. But that's just speculation.

    Rob Grano, honey, if you read this, come over here and fight like a man. I can't speak for Pauli, but I think it's safe to say you won't be deleted.

    BTW, speaking of "like a man": Here's Dr. Beckwith's home page: francisbeckwith.com. Note the pic. What a hunk. Now that's what I call a man. ;)

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, one more comment before I hand the computer over to the kids so they can do good wholesome fun things like vandalize Wikipedia:

    Have y'all noticed that BeliefNot now tells you how many people are online at any given time?

    I've been over to the Dreherrhea Blog only a few times since this new thingy went into effect. (Well, OK, four or five. I hadn't been over there in ages before then--thank you, guardian angel!) Anyway, what I've noticed is that there are never more than, say, four people on that blog at any time. At least as far as I've seen. Heck, the utterly obscure message board I used to frequent gets more traffic than that---and its proprietors aren't even journalists or anything.

    If the RodBlog is one of BeliefNot's more popular, then what does that say about the less popular? What kind of traffic do they get? In the negative numbers?

    We've always suspected that Rod had about as much influence as the Two Seed in the Spirit Primitive Baptist True Calvinist Church (total membership: c. 100). Now we have statistical confirmation for this. Let's just blow the little twerp off. He ain't worth the aggravation.**

    Dianonymous

    ** I still pray for his reversion, of course, along with that of various and sundry other folks, including lapsed family members. But as far as giving his incoherent blog the time of day....fuhgeddaboudit. Let him pitch his anti-Catholic hissy-fits, observed by all of four, maybe five people. The possibility that he will lead thinking Catholics (or thinking anyone) astray is extremely remote. In fact, the possibility that Thinking Anyone will ever even drop by the Dreherrea Blog, except to poke fun a la Dr. Beckwith's humorous comment, is even more remote.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is okay Diane. Keep doing what you do. It will show more and more people the bigot behind the mask of sanctity that Mr. Dreher is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you, Jonathan. :) You are too kind.

    That reminds me, though. I used to get exasperated by some of the really bigoted anti-Catholic Orthodox who hung out at the Pontifications blog. But, one time, Father Kimel wrote me privately and said not to worry, these dudes were not turning anyone against the Catholic Faith; rather, their obnoxiousness was turning people off and influencing 'em in the other direction. Seems people had been writing to Fr. Kimel, complaining about the anti-Catholic Orthodox contributors' arrogance and snarkiness.

    It's probably the same WRT Rod: No sense in worrying. If we can see the extreme obnoxiousness of his behavior, it's a sure bet other people can see it, too. Which may account for the minuscule size of his "following" these days.

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  18. OK, jes' one more thang:

    We now know that the probable reason why Rod kept mum about his conversion to Orthodoxy was that he was sewing up his deal with that much-in-demand enterprise, the Orthodox Speakers' Bureau.

    OHHHHHHHkay...what was that, Rod, about the "utilitarian" uses of religion?

    LOL. :)

    Oooooh, I am soooo bad. Time to go to Confession again. ;)

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  19. BTW, Pauli, that line about the Platonic chickens and the wizened prelate---ROTFLMAO.

    You rock, boy. :)

    Diane

    ReplyDelete
  20. For what it's worth, this is the original comment I posted, which was deleted alongside most (but not all) of the subsequent responses:

    **********

    "If you believe in religion because religion in some sense 'works' -- as opposed to believing in religion because it's true -- then in what sense can you be said to be a believer at all? What happens when law or circumstance puts your religious belief to the test, and suddenly, it costs you something substantial to hold on to your faith? If you're been a faith-based utilitarian, you compromise. Whatever works.

    "If that is religion, to hell with it. So say I."


    Oh, so now you're concerned over what you once called the "Sturm und Drang over doctrine."

    In deciding to change religious affiliation last year, Rod, you wrote that you noticed this amidst the question of doctrinal truth: "we were happy again as a family, and at peace."

    More power to you and God bless you for finding peace in your new church home, but now's a helluva time to get uppity about others' having utilitarian concerns about what works.

    Bubba | 05.25.07 - 1:26 pm

    **********

    It's not the anti-Catholic bigotry that rankled me; it was this: after Rod admitted that, in his own move to the Eastern Orthodox church, doctrinal truth was secondary to "what worked," he now presents himself as a stalwart defender of doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bubba, that is an excellent observation. Rod displayed complete craven cowardice and intellectual dishonesty in deleting it rather than engaging your point. But what else is new?

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, lovely. Rod wrote a DaMN editorial on tradition, prompted by the Catholic church's move to make Latin mass more accessible.

    Rod goes on to talk about the Eastern Orthodox church, quotes Frederica Matthewes-Green, and indulges his sing-song writing style.

    And there's this:

    "The question of truth cannot be separated from an authentic quest for tradition. Without a genuine desire for truth, traditionalism becomes merely an exercise in aesthetics and emotional gratification. If it is to have any weight, tradition must be viewed as the most trustworthy conveyor of religious truth."

    I balk at the notion that tradition is "the most trustworthy conveyor of religious truth." That seems to run contrary to -- for instance -- Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Christ appealed to Scripture as authoritative, not tradition, and what He permitted His disciples to do and what He taught them to do did not demonstrate deference to tradition as it existed in first-century Jerusalem.

    But: "Without a genuine desire for truth, traditionalism becomes merely an exercise in aesthetics and emotional gratification."

    That's hilarious, coming from him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The more I think about it, the less sense I can make out of, "tradition must be viewed as the most trustworthy conveyor of religious truth."

    If he meant a specific tradition, be it Catholic, EO, or Jewish, I would still disagree (sola scriptura, paco), but the idea would be intelligible. But since he talks about Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and Judaism, he must mean tradition in general. But since the world is full of different traditions, many of which convey messages that are irreconcilable with other traditions, the assertion is ludicrous on its face.

    It's Rod Dreher essentially talking to hear himself speak, writing things that do not stand up to any real scrutiny.

    He has a habit of doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bubba: For us Cathodox, Scripture is part of the Tradition. After all, the earliest Christians did not have a canonized NT. Thus the earliest ECFs appeal constantly to "the apostolic tradition" and the "apostolic teaching" -- not to a completd, canonized Bible comprising OT and NT.

    But your point still stands. "Tradition" in and of itself is no guarantor of Truth. Buddhists have Tradition, Sufis have Tradition, animists have Traditin, shamans in the Andes have Tradition.

    Rod's thinking is confused and inchoate. So, what else is new? ;)

    Dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  25. BTW, I'm surprised that th DMN lets Rod shill for EOxy in his editorials. I mean, we're talking about a teeny-weeny church here in America--one with a minuscule representation in Dallas, moreover. The newsworthy thing here is the pope's imminent restoration of the Latin Mass--and Rod manages to turn it into an advertisement for EOxy...? Wha'? Has he lost all perspective? What part of "1.2-billion members = Really Big" is he not getting here?

    Here's a POSITIVE story re Catholicism, and instead of FINALLY reporting something positive about Catholicism, he turns it into an opportunity to extol EOxy and FMG's silly Easternism. What a skewed perspective. And what a joke! Oy!

    OK, now I'll go read the editorial...if I can stand it. :)

    dianonymous

    ReplyDelete
  26. Actually, it wasn't that horrible an article. I only had time to skim it, but...I've certainly seen worse from the pen of the Rod-Man. Essentially, he's saying what a kajillion of other folks have already said (including B16, who said it much better but perhaps a tad less accessibly): People need tradition; you can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. (Pope B16 calls this "the hermeneutic of continuity." I.e.: The Catholic Church did not come into existence circa 1965.)

    Anyhoo, I was glad to see Rod acknowledge that tradition (small-t) must be flexible. He acknowledges that Orthodoxy is too stuck in ethnocentric tradition (a fact that was really borne in on me at our recent local Greek festival, which was a blast but ultimately kind of Greeked me out, if that makes any sense). But then he goes on to say:

    Other Orthodox churches, however, refuse to act like an ethnic tribe at prayer and are being renewed by a flood of dynamic converts.

    He's starting to get it, but he's not there yet.

    In contemporary American Orthodoxy, ISTM, there are two basic types of parishes: the ethnic-dominated ones and the convert-dominated ones.

    Neither = the Catholica. Neither resembles the fullness that Christ intended for His Church.

    The ethnocentric parishes--well, I think we can all agree on what's problematic with them. The Bible explicitly says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek--nor Mexican nor Italian nor Lithuanian nor Rwandan nor Chaldean, etc. etc. etc.

    But the convert-dominated parishes are just as problematical, IMHO. They are essentially "intentional" communities--artificial rather than organic. Their "convertitis" fervor is misleading and non-representative. Our Lord foretold that wheat and tares would grow together until the Eschaton. The typical organic territorial Catholic parish exemplifies this. We arw the Church of "Here Comes Everybody." Within our parish walls, the fervent pray alongside the tepid, and there is every degree of commitment in between.

    ISTM the Catholic Church mirrors the picture John gives us in the Apocalypse: " a great throng which no man could number, from every nation, tribe, and tongue." We are the original multiculturists: We embrace every ethnicity and every level of religious fervor.

    Neither ethnocentric nor convert-dominated parishes can claim the same. That is one reason why Orthodoxy, for all its beauties, and even for all its "tradition," has always struck me as missing something.

    Dianonymous

    P.S. I thinkRod also needs to bone up on the distinction between Sacred Tradition (capital-T) and traditions, small-t. The former is indispensable and unchangeable. The latter are not. Unfortunately, he seems to be confusing the two.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think Rod also needs to bone up on the distinction between Sacred Tradition (capital-T) and traditions, small-t. The former is indispensable and unchangeable. The latter are not. Unfortunately, he seems to be confusing the two.

    All these comments are very insightful. Diane's (above) is one I've noticed for quite some time. The "small-t" traditions are important insofar as they support the "big T" tradition. So the question to ask isn't so much "is this traditional? do I like this tradition? does it have a traditional feel to it?" but "Is this the Apostolic Tradition passed on by Christ to the Apostles?" The "small-t" traditionsare nice to have, and you can argue they are necessary, but they can be replaced. We just have to watch doing what was done back in the heady, early post-Vatican II days when these traditions seemed to be thrown out on a whim.

    GKC wrote a book that's a bit difficult to read which touches on this subject entitled "The Catholic Church and Conversion". Maybe I'll dust it off and throw out some quotes. Another great one is Thomas Day's "Why Catholics Can't Sing". It's brutal, but very insightful, unlike Rod's surface tabloid treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I have more to say about tradition -- the short version: it's useful, up to a point -- but to focus briefly on Dreher, I think this admiration for tradition really is "merely an exercise in aesthetics and emotional gratification," in part because I believe the admiration is fraudulent, or at least inconsistent, a switch to be turned off and on.

    How else to explain this post about the death of Charles Nelson Reilly, in the context of the sporadic (but predictable) indulgence in the trash of pop culture? I grow more convinced that it's all kitsch to him, both the delight in Borat and the paeans to local, organic food eaten in a "funky bungalow" and -- I suspect -- even the journalistic onanism over the incense and icons of the Eastern Orthodox church.

    Having said all this, it's possible then that this post is inauthentic, but I don't know if it's better to be a phony or to be absolutely sincere writing this stuff, because this is undiluted lunacy, Bush Derangement Syndrome without a trace of rationality, based on in part on (of all things) the very excerpt from the Downing Street Memo and the conspiracy theorists' spin that James Robbins addressed on NRO nearly TWO YEARS AGO.

    It's just a hair short of actually writing, "Bush lied, people died."

    I believe that the Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext to go to war with Iraq. I believe it decided that Iraq could be turned into a decent country if Saddam were gone, and that a regime change in Iraq would be the catalyst for a positive revolution in the Mideast. I believe the administration knowingly told whatever lies it needed to tell to win over the American people to its policy. I believe our president, for whom I voted twice, is a dishonorable man who will be ill-remembered by history. I find the manifest and catastrophic incompetence forgivable; I find the dishonor and mendacity far less so. [emphasis mine]

    And apparently, the Middle East was less dangerous with Saddam Hussein alive and in charge of an Iraq that -- regardless of what it obtained -- was seeking WMD's:

    And now America is poorer and less secure because of it, and the Middle East is a more dangerous place than ever. [emphasis mine]

    Absolutely sickening.

    ReplyDelete