Against the Stream

Eddie Izzard's Church of England Bit

Just to lighten the mood a bit:

 

The Problem of Thomas More and Religious Liberty

I love A Man for All Seasons. It is truly one of my favorite movies and I return to it periodically in order to appreciate once more the fine writing and acting on display. Of course, A Man for All Seasons is also a play with an overtly political point about the need to stand up for one's conscience in the face of political pressure to yeild. This is a theme that Robert Bolt explores in a number of his plays and scripts, but its never more clearly on display than here.

And yet, Bolt is able to make his point about Thomas More only by leaving out some uncomfortable truths about his reign as Lord Chancellor of England, including his torture and execution of alleged heretics. Perhaps most egregious was the role he played in the capture, imprisonment, and execution of William Tyndale as punishment for translating the Bible into English.

All of which is to say that the use of Thomas More as the central figure in the U.S. Conferene of Catholic Bishops' "Fortnight of Freedom" in opposition to the proposed HHS contraception mandate somewhat problematic. Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches explains:

The United States government, unlike Henry's England, is not under the religious authority of Rome, or any religious body, for that matter. (That's in the Constitution, last time I checked.) Through the contraception mandate, or any other duly enacted law or regulation, such as the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the United States government is not flouting religious authority. That's because it doesn't answer to religious authority, like monarchs did in 16th century England. The United States is a democracy, an experiment born of events and ideas that took place long after Henry ordered More beheaded; of events and ideas that explicitly reject the notion of either monarchical or religious absolutism; and which protects Americans of all religious faiths from More's (or Tyndale's) fate. (The Bishops apparently don't like these events, or misapprehend them and their relationship to American democracy. The Archbishop of Miami, Thomas Wenski, recently said that "efforts to restrict religious liberty are seemingly founded in a reductive secularism that has more in common with the French Revolution than with America's founding.")

The very idea that providing women with insurance coverage is somehow tantamount to the terror and violence inflicted on both sides in Reformation England—or to the historical cataclysm that was Henry's schism from Rome—is so absurd I'm stunned as my fingers tap across my keyboard. If we're going to spend the next five and half months discussing whether Barack Obama is like Henry VIII, well, God help us.

We seem to live in an age of rhetorical excess. It's not enough for the Bishops to disagree with the Obama adminstration on the contraception mandate. He must be the equivalent of Henry the VII, and their decision to oppose the mandate must be seen as an act of martyrdom on par with the beheading of Thomas More. This is a ridiculous comparison on its face, not least because the mandate as it is currently constructed allows the church to keep its scruples while still allowing for their non-Catholic employees (as well as those Catholics who dissent on the issue of contraception), to continue to have access to contraception.

But as I've written before, the real issue for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not really their rights to keep their own consciences, but their insistance that everyone else, Catholic and non-Catholic, must keep their conscience as well. And it is this point that makes the Thomas More comparison strangely apt.

More died for the sake of his conscience. More also caused others to die for the sake of their consciences. He burned heretics at the stake and he pursued William Tyndale mercilessly (a fact that ought to give the Bishops' Protestant allies some pause). Like the Bishops, what he wanted was not freedom of conscience regarding matters of religion, but for his own view of religious orthodoxy to prevail. And he was willing to make others suffer for the sake of that vision. While one may admire many of his qualities as a Christian and as Henry VII's Lord Chancellor, it would be a mistake to hold him up in an American context as a defender of religious liberty. He was most certainly not, and neither are the Bishops.

Womanhood, as Defined By Celibate Men

At Religion Dispatches, Mary Hunt comments pointedly on the recent spate of examples of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops cracking down on insufficiently subservient women-folks, specifically the Leadership Conference of Women Religions and the Girls Scouts:

Several parallels with the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious lay bare the playbook here. The LCWR “doctrinal investigation” was Rome-based, undertaken by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Girl Scout “investigation” is U.S.-based sleuthing led by the bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth chaired by Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Ft. Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. Both cases are based on longterm reporting by conservative Catholics, both lay and clerical, of the groups’ supposed sins. This is a cottage industry that includes the Eternal Word Television Network and random ecclesial busy bodies who apparently report to Rome and to the USCCB on a regular basis.

What mystifies me is that with all of the economic, racial, and war-related issues at hand the bishops still choose to take on these girls and women. Gone are the days when governments, businesses, and armies worried much about what the bishops had to say. Here are the days when disgraced bishops are deposed and indicted for the sexual crimes and cover-ups that have come to define contemporary Catholicism. By contrast, nuns and Girl Scouts are powerful symbols and equally powerful advocates for justice and peace. So in a sense the bishops have really taken on those who are shaping the culture.

The bishops fretted in both cases about sex and gender, especially reproductive justice. The straw that broke the camel’s back for the nuns was the support some of them showed for a more inclusive health care policy. For the Scouts, it was the organization’s public acceptance of a transgender child into a Colorado troop. Underneath those decisions lurks the fact that nuns, not bishops, were seen as normatively Catholic, and even though a quarter of all Girl Scouts are Catholic, they didn’t consult the bishops before doing the right thing. Who would, given the men’s handling of abuse cases?

Warmongers, vulpine capitalists, and child rapists are all safe from examination by the Bishops. But middle aged and elderly women and ten-year old girls represent an existential threat that must be met with all the force a cadre of coddled, geriatric men can muster. But why bother?

The investigations are meant in large part to intimidate since they really don’t have much of a direct impact. Intimidation happens in small ways—a few nuns self-censor, the leaders of the Girl Scouts redact a few publications. But just as most nuns are going about their business undaunted, the Girl Scouts will gather 100,000+ strong for “Girl Scouts Rock the Mall” in Washington DC on the 9th of June. They hope to set a world record for the biggest sing-along in history. Their new theme song says it all: “Girl Scout ignite a dream, ignite your hope, ignite the world on fire.” Now that ought to be enough to make the bishops tremble in unison. The contrast between the girls and “the big boys” will be vivid that day.

But this is just another example of the totalitarianism of the Bishops. It's not enough to exercise unearned authority over their own institutions, they need to spread their influence to institutions that they have no legitimate authority over, both within and outside the church. And in particular, they can't tolerate the idea that there is someone else out there in the world trying to define women's nature. Particularly when the people doing so are themselves women.

Women's identity must be kept, as the Bishops see it, solely under the control of the celibate men who make up the Catholic heirarchy, and any attempt to define womens' identity apart from that heirarchy's clearly well-informed opinion must be crushed, much the same way Mr. Burns might crush an ant.

 

Denominations and Institutional Malaise

Tony Jones has a couple of posts up on the woes of the Methodist Church in the wake of it's recent General Conference. In the first, he notes (emphatically):

All bureaucracies are good at one thing: self-perpetuation. They may be good at other things, too, but the propagation of the gospel is not one of those. Bureaucracy is good at distributing drivers licenses. But bureaucracies are bad for the gospel.

I just hope that enough of you young UMC clergy have the temerity to stand up and walk out of that system. Trust me, what you’re putting up with is not worth the health insurance — you’re getting the raw end of that deal.

Apparently that got him some push-back. So today he went to the blogs to make his position a bit clearer:

I took a lot of heat from my Methodist friends last week for suggesting that young clergy forsake the denomination and go do something new. Let me be clear: I don’t expect one single Methodist clergyperson or seminarian to jump ship because I blogged about it. Puhleeze, people.

I will reiterate something: It is virtually impossible to see the dysfunction of a system when you’re inside it. Ask anyone who’s married to an alcoholic; ask a prison guard; ask Michel Foucault. Sometimes Often it takes an outsider to speak truth into a system.

I think I get what Tony is trying to say. The point, it seems to me, isn't that clergy should necessarily leave denominations that have entered cycles of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. But there is a case to be made for a kind of "inner-worldly migration" away from denominational structures that are unhelpful and even damaging in the name of a greater vision of what the denomination is supposed to stand for.

But in a very real sense, this is an inescapable reality of institutional life. Whether it's a church, a university, a government agency, or any other form of institution, they ultimately become instruments of their own self-perpetuation. To leave them for the sake of starting another, "purer" institution, is simply to start the process over again, not to escape it. Organizations and movements that are begun in a wave of charismatic fervor must ultimately either find ways to "routinize" that charisma, or else burn out when its charismatic leadership ends.

So while "schism" may always be an option when folks get fed up enough with a particular manifestation of bureaucratic malaise, it's not a cure, only  a relocation of the disease. The harder problem is how to renew the charism that motivated the creation of the institutions that have now fallen into disrepair. Having routinized its charisma to the point of death, is resurrection possible? If not, then schism or self-destruction may be inevitable. But in any event, the problems of sustaining institutional life will always remain.

TED, Taxes, and Income Inequality

 

There has been an interesting back and forth over the past few days about Nick Hanauer's recent TED talk about the idea of "job creation." Apparently TED had decided not to run the segment, and Hanauer cried "censorship," after which TED decided to go ahead and relase it. You can see the piece above.

The key element of his talk is the following passage, from an editorial he wrote on the topic:

I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”

What he says here shouldn't be controversial. It's black letter economic principle: "job creation" come about ultimately through consumer spending, in other words, it's stimulated by demand, so giving ordinary consumers more money to spend has a greater stimulative effect than giving rich people more money to spend, because the rich are probably already spending near the top of their capacity. Giving Nick Hanauer a 10% tax cut won't stimulate the economy nearly as effectively as giving someone with realtively little money one, since Nick Hanauer has almost everything he might need, whereas an ordinary middle class American will take that money and immediately spend it on goods and services that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to purchase. Again, really not controversial.

It's become controversial because of the ideological capture of the idea of "job creator" to mean "enormously wealthy." The idea is that the wealthy create jobs through their investments, which to be fair, is true to a point. But the stimulative effect on the economy of low taxes for the rich is far less potent than benefits for the poor and middle class would be. In fact, because the low taxes on the rich have necessitated deep cuts in programs to the poor and middle classes, as well as cuts in education and infrastructure around the country, the low taxes on the wealthy have actually had a counter-stimulative effect. They've actually made the economy worse, or at least, haven't helped it get better.

I'm glad to see Hanauer and a few other members of the hyperwealthy in the United States beginning to push back against this ideology, precisely because, as Hanauer notes, as a matter of social policy, it's not only good for the poor and middle classes, but it is also ultimatley better for the wealthy to live in a well-managed, just, relatively equal society with a well-maintained infrastructure and a sound educational system.

Paul Rauschenbush on Growing Up Interfaith

Paul Rauschenbush, great-grandson of the Social Gospel icon Walter Rauschenbush and of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, writes about his experiences as a Christian growing up around his Jewish cousins.

They never experienced a tension in their religious differences, he writes, because for them their different faiths were grounded in a common set of moral and social commitments:

While we were competitive with them in some areas of sports and academics, our religious differences were never brought up. I never once heard that it would be better if our Jewish cousins were Christian or that we might be better off as Jews.

This was made easier by the fact that our family as a whole had a particular approach to religion. Religion was meant to be a positive force in our personal, and communal lives by instilling moral values and a vision of social justice, a sense of gratitude and duty, and an openness to the wonder and mystery of the world. It was never meant to pit "us" against "them." My family unconsciously adopted a model of interfaith cooperation that continues to influence my understanding of inter-religious engagement as a religious person and leader.

When we were in our late twenties one of my Jewish cousins began a spiritual search and came to me for advice. My response was for her to start by going to synagogue. My approach leaves some of my co-religionists wondering if I truly believe Jesus is the only way to God--and I have to reply that I don't. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I know people can live full, beautiful, meaningful lives by practicing Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and any number of other faith traditions, or none at all. I also know that professing a certain faith tradition is no guarantee of a Godly or good existence. As far as the afterlife goes, I'm willing to trust in God enough to not have to make decisions about people down here. Not to say that I don't have thoughts on the subject. To put it bluntly: if I can't hang with my Jewish cousins up in heaven, then it doesn't sound much like heaven to me.

While I was surprised that my cousins invited me to convert to Judaism, I just laughed and took their invitation the way it was meant: as a compliment. In hearing me talk about the moral imperatives of my Christian convictions they recognized those same convictions in their practice of Judaism.

As a Christian theologian and ethicist, I think there are a lot of good reason to care about getting doctrine right. Our view of God affects our view of ourselves and the world we live in, and thus ultimately affects our ability to relate morally and justly to one another. So getting doctrine wrong can mean getting lots of other, apparently more immediate things, wrong as well.

That said, I'm often reminded of the trope from the progressive Christianity of another era, when churches were working their way toward merger with one another and trying to figure out of their doctrinal and confessional differences would be an obstacle. At that time, they coined the phrase "doctrine divides, service unites." To the degree that doctrine continues to divide us, that is no reason that service can't continue to unite us, both across denominational and interfaith lines. Particularly when religious traditions possess so much (untapped) potential to contribute to the greater well-being of humanity, there's little excuse for us to get too wrapped up in the points of disagreement we have with one another.

"Left Behind: Nicolae" Begins at Slacktivist

Fred Clark at Slacktivist, has once again taken on the burden of reading the Left Behind novels so that we don't have to. He's already worked his way through Left Behind and Tribulation Force and has now begun the third novel, Nicolae. Poor, poor man!

The key point of this first installment is, I think, embodied in this excerpt:

LaHaye can’t imagine changing his prophecies to make them even remotely possible in this world, so instead he changes this world into one in which his prophecies might have a chance. Sometimes this requires a massive revision of the structure and function of institutions like the UN. Other times it involves something even more radical — such as rewriting human nature to eliminate parental affection, national pride and religious devotion.

The world of these books bears some resemblance to our world — but only at the most superficial level. It’s easy to get lulled into a false sense of familiarity due to all the recognizable names and places. You recognize words like “Chicago” or “Israel” or “United Nations” and assume you know what they mean here. Don’t be fooled. The world of Left Behind is not our world. It is an alien universe inhabited by alien creatures and ruled by an alien god.

But Fred's real accomplishment has never simply been to tolerate a series of abysmally bad novels. I can only assume he's been able to do that by building up a tolerance over time through taking them in small doses. No, his real accomplishment is in using these truly terrible books to comment in a profound way on the state of evangelical Christianity, the invalidity of the premillenial dispensationalist worldview the books represent, and the difference between the "Real True" Christianity that they espouse and a Christianity rooted more solidly in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and the best theological traditions of the church.

It is a genuine work of alchemy to transform texts as bad as these into something that one can learn from, and Fred deserves a great deal of credit for taking on the challenge, and for doing it so well.

N. T. Wright Sings Bob Dylan

Well, this wasn't something I was expecting to see today, but well worth sharing.

 

And, as long as we're doing pop eschatology, here's Sinead O'Connor singing Peter Tosh's "Downpresser Man":

 

Obama, Gay Marriage, and the UCC

Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly reminds us that, in evolving toward support of gay marriage, Barack Obama has been evolving toward the perspective endorsed by his denomination and mine, the United Church of Christ:

When the Obamas were last regular church members, it was, famously, a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Like a lot of First Families, they have not joined a specific church in Washington, so I assume the UCC remains their spiritual “home.” As part of a decentralized denomination (hence the traditional name for their largest constituent element, the “Congregationalists”), many UCC churches have been performing same-sex marriages for years. But the entire denominationembraced the practice in 2005, adopting a resolution of support:

The resolution was adopted in the face of efforts to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It was both a theological statement and a protest against discrimination, said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the president and general minister of the denomination, which has 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members.

Religious conservatives may scoff at the UCC (or the Episcopalians, or other mainline denominations that are, to use the buzzword, “open and affirming” to gay people). But the UCC is the country’s oldest Christian religious community, and among other things, was spearheading the fight against slavery back when many of the religious conservatives of the early nineteenth century were largely defending it as a divinely and scripturally ordained institution.

One of many reasons I'm glad to be part of the UCC is its stance on marriage equality. It's good to see Barack Obama finally coming around to see the value of that stance as well. Here's hoping that the fact that his position is rooted in his Christian faith gets a lot more coverage. It's certainly worthy of it.

Looking at the Face of Hate

Jonnie Epinga at Sojourners interviews Rebecca Barrett-Fox, who has spent years studying, worshiping with, and attending protests with the Westboro Baptist Church. Some of what she learned?

What is the role of empathy in your research?

In the 1980s, feminist ethnographers started saying: We all know that all that stuff about sheer objectivity is not true. We have an emotional connection, and not talking about it is denying a traditional form of women’s language. One of the central tenets of feminist ethnography is that ethnography should be for the use and benefit of the subjects—for example, women survivors of marital abuse.

But what happens when you have some empathy with a person whose goals you can’t share, don’t share, won’t share, whose position you just generally don’t respect? Given my personality, it’s not that easy for me to turn that off. You want to connect, you want to be approved of. It was helpful for me to take new people to church services with me. I didn’t become desensitized because I could see the horror in their faces.

Taking careful field notes was helpful too. I was counting, How many times did they say “fag” today? Putting my own names to the types of people church members were sending to hell—Catholics, queer people, soldiers—was helpful: That person he’s talking about, that’s my friend Karen, my friend Alicia. We’ve learned that if you know someone who is gay or lesbian, you’re less likely to be homophobic. When you put a face to this hatred, you just can’t do it anymore.

That’s probably also true of your relationship with the Westboro members.

Yes, it is. You just can’t say these people are just awful anymore. What they do is awful, but it also illuminates how many other awful things are done under the guise of conservative Christianity. I don’t want to make a blanket statement about all conservative Christian churches—what I’m really talking about is the homophobic/political branch. You can have conservative theology that doesn’t end up here, proclaiming God’s hate. ...

What was the most valuable thing you learned from your research?

I was able to see church members more as complete people and people in a process, and that made me feel hopeful. I think about St. Paul. Look where he started: stoning people, doing more damage than Westboro Baptists have done. There’s hope here for transformation. Westboro Baptists are fond of saying that “the arm of God cannot be shortened.” That is, you can do nothing to make God do less than God will do; you cannot lessen God’s ability to save. I try to apply that concept to how I see others—that I cannot limit them, that I cannot “shorten” their potential to be loved by God, to be people of love.

The entire interview is worth reading, but registration is required.