My Thoughts Exactly on "Emergentitis"

HT JohnMcG for linking to this great piece by Lydia McGrew. It's short, so I'll just post the whole enchilada here.

Let's Keep the Church Political

Now that I have your attention...

My Right Reason blog colleague Dan Bonevac has a post on the "emergent church" and "church growth" movements in evangelicalism and their goal to move evangelicals to the left in political activism. To my mind this is numinously evident from overwhelming evidence, one prominent bit of which is Rick Warren's switcheroo from listing abortion as a "non-negotiable issue" in 2004 to his appearing recently with none other than Barak Obama to oppose AIDS. (Was someone in favor of AIDS?) His response when challenged is given by a commentator in Dan's thread: "Left wing, right wing. I want the whole bird!" This, to my mind, more or less defines "shallow," but apparently not everyone agrees.

What bothers me most of all as I've been googling things like "abortion" and "Brian McLaren" (guru of "emergentism") is the pretense that these folks are trying to make the evangelical church apolitical. Right. Crusading about global warming and hollering about the terrible "dominance of the religious right" on evangelical churches is so apolitical.

A couple of weeks ago I had a close Catholic friend visit. She went to Mass at our local parish, St. Monica's (on Mother's Day, which was especially appropriate) and came home mentioning how pro-life of a parish it is, how there was a special prayer at the end for an end to abortion and so forth. I guess Mr. McLaren and his friends would also deplore this as the "dominance of the religious right" at St. Monica's.

Let's admit: In the present social context, when emergentists and their ilk tell us that they want to "shift the focus away from politics in the church," here's a translation: "Let's not talk in religious gatherings about abortion, because it makes lefties uncomfortable. But rallies about poverty, AIDS, and global warming are wonderful. That's speaking prophetically to the present age."

Glad to have that little misunderstanding cleared up.

I couldn't have explained it better myself. The only thing I have to say to Mrs. McGrew is that every left-winger knows that the so-called religious right is in favor of AIDS and that Pat Robertson concocted it in his sercet lab.

Of Chariots and Planters

Sister Mary Martha speculates about the "bodies of the saints" which experienced a sort of "pre-resurrection" on Good Friday and are mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53.

But those people were not raised bodily into heaven. We actually don't know who they were or what became of them except that since they weren't raised bodily into heaven they must have died. Again.

It's okay. Funerals weren't so expensive back then.

I've always imagined that they got to go and say a few words to the relatives or whoever and then went back to being dead later that day, so as not to be any trouble to anyone. If it were me, that's what I would have done, at least. They'd definitely want to get back to being dead, since the Gates of Heaven were finally open. I'm sure that's what they came back to tell everyone.

So only Mary and Jesus and maybe Elijah, if he didn't burn up in the atmosphere. They can use his chariot as a planter.

That last line encapsulates what I love about nuns, especially Sister Mary Martha. Spiritual and practical. And funny.

Beckwith on Hewitt on Romney

This is for Dianonymous who thinks Mr. Beckwith is a "hunk". Maybe she'll vote for Romney for the same reason? Speaking of looks, Hugh looks like my dad. Well, I'm jealous of both of them for keeping their hair, which doesn't seem fair at all in my dad's case since I'm a blood relative of his.

Here's F.B.'s review. I have the book; haven't read it yet. Liked this part of the review, where he talks about how

...Hewitt addresses what I call the Creedal Mistake.

This mistake occurs when a Christian citizen believes that the planks of his creed are the best standard by which to judge the suitability of a political candidate. For example, suppose a Presbyterian votes for one of Romney’s primary opponents solely on the basis of the governor’s rejection of the Nicene Creed. An elder who did this would not truly understand the purpose of creeds: to provide church members and the world at large a summary of beliefs that one must embrace in order to be considered an orthodox member of that body. Creeds are not meant to measure the qualifications of a political candidate in a liberal democracy. Not only does the formulation of Christendom’s most important creeds predate the existence of liberal democracies, their subject matter bears no relation to assessing those attributes that we consider essential to the leadership of a political regime. In practice, most Christians already fully grasp this truth.

He uses the example of Carter and Reagan to hammer this home. He goes on to bemoan Hewitt's negligence in dealing with Kennedy's "concession" back during his run. This may be due to the fact that Hewitt left the Catholic Church for Evangelical Protestantism and is personally comfortable with what Kennedy did.

Many Protestant Christians at the time were concerned that Kennedy’s commitment as a Catholic to the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium on a variety of social, moral, and political issues would serve as his guide for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. In order to assuage Protestant fears, on September 12, 1960, Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and assured the attendees that nothing of his Catholic faith would play any role in his judgments as occupant of the White House.

Kennedy’s speech reads like a complete acquiescence to American mainline Protestant notions of privatized faith and anti-clericalism, as well as its stereotypical, outdated, and uncharitable ideas about the Catholic hierarchy and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kennedy could have argued that his Catholicism informs him of certain theological and moral doctrines that will make him a thoughtful and principled president. He could have consulted and mined from the works of Catholic scholars who were able defenders of liberal democracy and the natural law that grounds it. But he did not. Kennedy’s speech was a terrible concession. For it played to his audience’s anti-Catholic prejudices while saying that his religious beliefs are so trivial that he would govern exactly the same if they were absent.

I'm just speculating, of course. I really like to listen to Hugh Hewitt, but he does irritate me with what I call his "denominational indifference" regarding Catholicism. He made a big deal about going to an Easter Vigil Mass and his Presbyterian Easter service and how he was getting the "best of both worlds", you know, the neat-o, quaint, ancient Catholic liturgy plus the updated, superior music and singing of the nice, happy Protestants. As you can tell, I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.

Well, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir blows us all away music-wise -- what does that prove?

Atheist donates $27 million to New York Archdiocese

Hey, that'll help. Excerpt:

While he is not religious, Mr Wilson indicated a deep respect for the Catholic faith. "Let's face it," he told a reporter, "without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

Mr Wilson, who is retired and in his 80s, according to the archdiocese, is one of the nation's major philanthropists, ABC 7 says.

According to Business Week, he has also contributed millions to environmental and wildlife conservation causes, the New York Public Library and the city's arts institutions.

He reportedly made his money on Wall Street by turning a $15,000 investment into $225 million.

Say a prayer for the good man. God wants our love and devotion, not just our money, but $27 million is a good start.

Puts me in mind of what Christ said, "The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here." So don't forget to pony up when they pass the plate, Jack.

Kitlers

This is so wrong. And so funny. My pick for the best is #4 because of the "hairdo".

Funniest is the hate mail page. I'm so jealous. My faves:

I think u should die u stupid geek that is so mean to the cats its not funny its just plain mean I feel so sorry for the cats close this site down or die
- Dominic from Philip Morant School in Essex

I myself think this site is a disgrace.:( Hitler killed everything living thing there was and he would kill these cute cats if he was still here. Thank you.
- Rockell

Wow, Dominic wants people to die. Sign him up for the Kitty SS.

Sieg meow.

The Holy Angels

We're all thankful that John McG emerged unscathed from a nasty bus accident in St. Louis where he lives. John is a reader here and is very witty. I first discovered his blog during the Knights of Malta hype back in January from this post and I've been checking his stuff out ever since. Just one more plug for his style of comedy writing: "Alternative Vocation" is a must read.

I've been in many accidents in my life and near misses, totaled two cars, etc. Somewhat surprisingly, none involved alcohol. The good that has come out of it for me is a greater devotion to the God's Holy Angels. I say this prayer every morning and every night:

Angel of God, my Guardian dear,
To whom His love commits me here,
Every this day (night) be at my side,
To light and guard, to rule and guide.

Some might think of this as a "children's prayer", which, of course it is. To the Holy Angels I would guess that we're all a bunch of kids since they "always see the face of my Father". Besides, I have a priest-friend who is very scholarly and possesses two master's degrees in Hebrew and Greek, but he told me he says the this prayer every morning and every night. You could also pray the prayer in Latin, which is the official language spoken in Heaven, our true home and that of the Holy Angels:

Angele Dei, qui custos es mei,
Me tibi commissum pietate superna;
Hodie (Hac nocte) illumina, custodi, rege, et guberna. Amen.

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.)

Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

WASHINGTON (May 18, 2007) — The 18 Democrats who recently criticized Pope Benedict XVI when he answered questions about Mexico’s legalizing abortion both misrepresented the Pope’s remarks and defied freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The position was noted by Sister Mary Ann Walsh, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Director of Media Relations in a May 18 statement, which follows.

Response to 18 Democrats
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, RSM
Director of Media Relations
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

In an unfortunate May 10 statement, 18 of the 88 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning Mexican lawmakers legalizing abortion. The Representatives’ statement misrepresents the Holy Father’s remarks and implies that the Church does not have a right to voice its teaching in the public square.

The Holy See has made clear that neither the Mexican bishops nor the Holy Father have excommunicated any legislator. Rather, the Holy See reiterated longstanding Church teaching that anyone who freely and knowingly commits a serious wrong, that is, a mortal sin, should not approach the Eucharist until going to confession.

“The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision of society.” (United States Catechism for Adults, p. 442) Consequently, every Catholic is obliged to respect human life, from conception until natural death.

To suggest that the Church should not clearly voice its teaching and apply it in a pluralistic society is to attack freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Catholic Church always will and must speak out against the destruction of innocent unborn children. The right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution that all legislators are elected to uphold. Speaking and acting against abortion is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter of life and death.

The bishops urge all Catholics, especially those who hold positions of public responsibility, to educate themselves about the teaching of the Church, and to seek pastoral advice so that they can make informed decisions with consistency and integrity.