Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham

‘ “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

—- Theodore Sturgeon

Rob has written several times recently in poignant and heartfelt terms about his disillusionment with evangelicalism, particularly what he sees as its American contingent’s contemporary deal with the devil: uncritical support for the US-led global war on terrorism. Evangelicals have condoned US misdeeds in the war, overlooked administration tergiversation in the run-up to the war, and have appeared to actively seek unilateralism and conflict and eschew collaboration and peacemaking both with our traditional political allies, other Christians of different views, and especially Muslims. Other sins that this bunch has committed include tending to blatantly misrepresent those with other points of view, including secularists, scientists, and liberals; and stirring up discord and rampant partisanship even within the ostensibly unified community; and hypocritically magnifying the problematic or ambiguous elements of the tenets and record of Islam (et al) while turning a blind eye to Christianity’s checkered past.

The offending population in question here undoubtedly includes Hugh Hewitt and his center-right-bombardier cohort and shock columnists such as Ann Coulter who claim the identification Christian, and probably also Christian Zionists (John Hagee) and other uncritical cheerleaders for Israeli military action and firmness with regard to the Palestine cause, and all their acolytes.

Not all in the evangelical camp have piled on here, but criticism of the “big stick” elements within the Christian community has come almost exclusively from the liberal anti-war wing (Wallis, Carter, Regas), as all too often otherwise reasonable evangelicals in positions of authority have quailed at taking a public stand to correct their own.

The shared problematic core here is that many Christians have become so closely identified with a political and military agenda that Rob fears the church no longer speaks prophetically to our world and nation, but simply parrots back its worst prejudices and oversimplifications under a religious veneer. Not too much of a stretch to find some application of Ex 20:7 here, eek.

Given all this brokenness and “ofness” where one might expect some “inness,” Rob is finding that the Biblical narrative, as transmitted via the evangelical tradition, no longer is the best or unique source of inspiration and knowledge of spiritual reality and now rejects its claims of universality and exclusivity. The community of believers undergoing sanctification looks depressingly just like the most warlike, thoughtless and self-seeking corners of the rest of the world. The “family” of God seems pretty damn dysfunctional, so maybe it’s time to get an apartment of his own.

Putting a label on this epiphany, Rob is backing away from identifying as an evangelical. He’s a post-evangelical, and as I smirk I wonder whether we should call him a pre-Buddhist or an accidental Taoist… Rob finds a freedom in not having to do tortured apologetics, if only in his own internal voice, for (American Evangelical) Christianity’s firmly incarnated and tightly held weaknesses.

All I want to say is: take little steps. Don’t throw out the whole thing because of a few rotten, putrid, smelly, worthless, scum-covered apples. Find the part that is right for you, and keep the rest at arm’s length, for now, maybe forever. This is the same sentiment I had and occasionally voiced to people I know (some of whom you probably know) who didn’t feel they fit in Regular Church for whatever reason. Sturgeon’s Law (above) in its strong form suggests that if there is something worthwhile in an endeavor involving humans, there will be nine times as much dross. This saw is almost Calvinist in its understanding of human mediocrity and venality.

I remember a time just a few days after one of my personally most profound encounters with the reality of God. A few people I knew pretty well from Christian circles and with whom I had sparred previously regarding various nonconformances to cultural conservatism, in particular the whole “headship” of men over women. Knowing of my experience, a couple of them presumed that I would now be on “their side” now. (I vividly recall that headship was to be properly expressed by 18-to-21 year old (lay) believing men in parachurch leadership over 18 to 21 year old believing women by forbidding them to wear two-piece swimsuits on a beach trip.) I remember thinking that I decided to follow Jesus but not to become a caveman, and I held their troglodyteness against God for awhile. And then I realized I have to find my own path.

Whatever your understanding of God, he is big enough to handle your doubts and your anger and your best arguments and your most petty petulance. Seek out the Quakers, the Mennonites, the feel-good Pentecostals, the Primitive Baptists or the Sophisticated Episcopalians (rimshot). God loves you no more when you feel like you have it all together and no less when your whole bag of faith has turned out to be a sieve and has leaked out everything you once thought was of value. I don’t mean this in the standard “God meets you in your weakness” cant where you have to get rid of the real grumpy querulous nitpicking Rob so some mythical proto-Christian tabula rasa Rob can have a good clean grassroots religious experience. I mean hold on to what authentically works and rings true, and say ciao to the rest, and when you find the place where some stuff starts making some sense, you’ll be back home.

Applying Sturgeon on the converse side: while science does a much better job of understanding the natural world, sifting through evidence, and systematically trying hypotheses, I don’t think many people, even scientists, view the world primarily through its lens. We aren’t born scientists, we are born relaters. Many of us we need something else, and it might not be great religious narratives as interpreted by learned M.Divs with appropriate simulacra of humility; but only rarely is it an explication of a biochemical pathway or a careful treatise on evolutionary psychology which turns on the internal light bulb (Richard Dawkins is allowed as a counterexample here).

A lot of Christians feel the need to suck every fence-sitter into the spiritual maw all the time. This is, in a word, the Evangelical trap. The bible talks about David and Jacob wrestling with God’s reality, we learn about Augustine and Wesley’s crises of faith, but God forbid someone we know actually act like it doesn’t work for them any more. It contributes to our treating people like cogs in a machine. Don’t be a cog; but don’t mistake the machine for God.

I heard an argument once that said that in some times and some places, it would have been sinful to convert to Christianity. Consider the case of the gospel as preached by the Protestant Reich Church in Nazi Germany; for a Jew to be converted by this Gospel to some semblance of Christianity would have meant absorbing a sense of self-hate that is inconsistent with being made in the image of God. How much more real would a decision of faith have been if the circumstances were different, if the witness were more authentic!

p.s. Although I don’t think it needs to be said, I feel compelled to state that I’m not calling Hewitt a Nazi, not today at least. I’m just saying you may be swimming upstream against a bunch of Sturgeons…

[originally published on the old TMS on 2007-01-24]

Dennis, I must respectfully disagree with you on this column. The Bible is too precious to be used as a talisman for American unity. Compelling someone to swear on a book that he doesn’t revere won’t make his any fealty any surer, will it? Maybe allowing use of the Qu’ran will embolden some Islamic radicals, yet undoubtedly forcing Ellison to use the Bible as touchstone would enrage others, but what of it? The reason to allow Ellison to use a Qu’ran oath (or affirmation) are because it would be wrong to do otherwise. I believe this is evidenced by both the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12, Leviticus 19:18) and the spirit of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. You said on-air that most of the opposing emails you received on this issue have been unreasoned and/or abusive, and that is unfortunate. While I don’t expect you to agree with me, I do urge you to recognize that some oppose this idea from a thoughtful, moral basis.

[sent by email to dennis@dennisprager.com]
[edited, reformatted on 1 dec 06]
[originally posted on the old TMS on 2006-12-01]

I’m a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state. Key insight for me is that enmeshing church and state tends to enervate the church instead of the intended effect of giving it succor. Consider the state churches of Europe vs. little sects which have to strive to even stay alive. Compare Chinese house churches vs. officially recognized and state-sanctioned churches. Theologically speaking, to be too mixed up in the day-to-day of government is to be essentially conformed to the world, and that makes it hard to be a tranforming impulse for the world. Putting an economic spin on things, I think established churches find it harder to compete in the marketplace of ideas and end up treating their privileged position as something of an “economic rent”, so they do (preach, serve, pray, engage) less with more, rather than the intended converse.

So I find the US separation “establishment” doctrine to be a pretty good rule. Good for church and good for state, because it says very little about how churches may conduct themselves. Perhaps the most important bit of “stick” to go with all the carrot above is the so-called “Johnson Amendment” authored by LBJ when a Senator. This adjunct to the 501(c)(3) charity tax exemption code allows non-profits to engage in political speech, but dictates that they may not

“participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

I guess the idea is that free speech and freedom of conscience are absolute, but the ability to do so on the tax-free public dime comes with a major string attached: you can’t say vote for X or against Y. I can see some utility here, but the gorge is starting to rise. In the past, this was interpreted by the IRS as prohibiting advocacy from the pulpit which mentioned candidates by name. In 1995 the Church at Pierce Creek of Binghampton, NY, lost its tax-exempt status for running a full-page ad in a national newspaper saying that to vote for Bill Clinton would be a sin (and asking for tax-exempt contributions to continue said, ahem, ministry). This seems over the line behavior to many, myself included, and some think this case was probably deliberately set up for the publicity and/or relished court challenge.

Two recent cases seem to indicate that the courts are drawing things a little closer on 501(c)(3) politickers.

The Sierra Club has settled a case with the feds regarding a printed piece which compared environmental campaign stances/records of two candidates, complete with check marks. It didn’t say vote for X directly; perhaps the court reasoned the Sierra Clubbers could connect the dots (who couldn’t?).

Another highly-followed case in process involves a sermon delivered at by Dr. George Regas at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, on the eve of the 2004 election. Dr. Regas envisioned a conversation between Jesus, George W. Bush and John Kerry. In this dialogue, Jesus takes Bush and Kerry both to task on the Iraq war and the neglect of the poor and vulnerable (Bush taking a series of body blows, and Kerry a few glancing blows). He concludes by asking, “who is to be trusted as the world’s peacemaker?” All Saints is contesting this one just as forcefully as Pierce Creek did a decade ago.

This case worries me a good deal more than the above. It’s not in the same league as the Sierra Club connect-the-dots exercise. It’s pretty clear who Dr. Regas had more trouble with. It would have been clear, to me, at least, even if he hadn’t mentioned any names. The fact that both candidates had supported the war to some degree, combined with his premise was that the war was itself unChristian, makes this sermon a lot more like what crusading pastors did in the past and a lot less like a thinly veiled PAC-funded attack piece. Here’s a confounding thought: I’m pretty sure that GWB does in fact think that the GWOT constitutes “peacemaking” — in other words, he’d be comfortable taking that last question and rejoining it, using pretty much the same Christian language that Dr. Regas used. This isn’t a political debate nearly as much as it is a religious one (btw, I should say I find both discussants severely lacking in analytical nuance and theology, but that’s a different post) and therefore belongs in the religious sphere. To find that Dr. Regas was illicitly campaigning for Sen. Kerry, one has to comprehend his total anti-war message, scan the political horizon to find a likely contextual referent, and then attach it forthwith. “Being pretty clear” who you favor isn’t what the LBJ statute was supposed to preclude, was it?

Consider other times and places. Was every anti-slavery sermon preached in the run-up to the 1860 election essentially pro-Lincoln propaganda? Were all the anti-communist pulpit tirades of the 1900’s unconstitutionally violative of the candidacy of folks like William Z. Foster, Gus Hall, and Angela Davis? If I preach against the evils of alcohol from my pulpit, does that mean that a city council candidate who runs a bar can sic the IRS on me? How about a pro-war/support the troops/echoes of WW II sermon in the current environment?

In all these cases, it’s pretty clear who the sympathies of the religious speaker would favor — just as in the case of Dr. Regas. That can’t in and of itself be restrained. The mentioning of names seems pretty inconsequential in his case — do you think things would have been any different IRS-wise if he had posited the interchange between the fictional characters President Tush and Senator Scary?

I’m not sure how to resolve this issue, but I do believe that our republic will be less vital if we have no more generations of envelope-pushing pastors to help drive the public debate.

[this piece was edited on 20 Nov to fix two minor typos: include->included; ast->as ]

[originally published on the old TMS on 2006-11-20]

One of the bits of conventional wisdom than came out of the Democratic losses of the 2004 elections is the idea, popularized by U.C. Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, that conservatives had seemingly become better at “framing” their message using loaded language than had progressives.

Summarizing, Lakoff contends that conservatives view the world through a “strict father” model, and end up with authoritarian, hierarchical and legalistic language in which they conduct public discourse. In contrast, Lakoff suggests, progressives have a “nurturant parent” model, emphasizing mutuality and reason, and should employ its language and frames. An example is something like the “death tax relief,” a phrase a conservative might use not only to state opposition to the inheritance (estate) tax but also to characterize taxes as a burdensome affliction and to suggest, essentially without argument, that it is unfair, since it requires the dear departed to pay taxes. Lakoff would see this as going beyond mere spin of the facts, but as using language which taps into the subconscious and augments political power using psychological sub-rational factors. Liberals need to play the same game, he argues, and has established a think tank to equip their side.

I think there is some merit to the “brass tacks” approach. If you know what you believe, you can phrase it in a way which makes sense rationally and can be sure and use language and metaphor which is evocative of your core values. Skillful politicians know this instinctively. The Office’s Michael Scott (Steve Carell) is funny because he stunningly fails to pull this off.

I think the idea of all-powerful “framing” very quickly degenerates into a condescending, even Orwellian mess. You can’t insult the intelligence of the electorate but expect to get elected just because you use focus group-tested sound bite words or images (Dukakis in a tank, anyone?). Bush’s imagery of “stay the course” regarding our Iraq war conduct, intending to invoke something like a stalwart ship captain making progress bit by bit was flipped by Democrats this year to make it seem like that same captain is foundering the USS IraqiFreedom on the rocks. The frame’s evocative context has been inverted by the events themselves — not the other way around, as Lakoff would have it.

So it was with quite some bemused interest that I read comments like this post-election wrapup which place a good deal of blame for the GOP setback on, you guessed it, President Bush’s failure to communicate the rationale and urgency of the administration’s mission. Personally, I think they communicated it pretty well and thoroughly ($4bbn worth per the WashTimes), and I think people basically have increasingly stopped buying it.

On the other hand, if the national GOP wants to spend a few soulful months trying to figure out a better way to linguistically repackage “unprecedented looming wartime deficits” and “Cheney energy task force of petro-plutocrats” and “permanent detention of suspected enemy combatants,” have at it, guys!

[This entry edited 11/10/2006 - add missing word ‘employ’]

[Originally published on old TMS on 2006-11-09]

Neil writes in defense of capital punishment:

The short version is that capital punishment was God’s idea (Genesis 9), it was for murderers and it came way before the Israelites (so it wasn’t an Israelite ceremonial or civil law fulfilled by Jesus).

Of course, Cain’s murder of Abel, in Gen. 4, was punished by banishment/disfigurement, not death…

If we were to institute OT guidelines for capital punishment in our civil society, would we do so for the hundreds of crimes that were deemed to merit it in Leviticus/Deuteronomy? Or maybe this application was mere ceremonial CP (and now fulfilled) while Gen 9 was divine, civil CP (jot and tittle law, not to be tinkered with)? Sounds pretty fishy.

I don’t support capital punishment, principally because it is irrevocable and because it is unevenly applied (more likely to be meted out to poor and minority offenders than rich white ones with high-powered lawyers and expert witnesses). I don’t call those criticisms biblical. I actually think the state needs to keep treason punishable by death, even if virtually never applied.

It’s mighty tough to “proof text” the Bible into a literal wholesale condemnation of CP. Every contemporaneous society, creed, and ruler presupposed capital punishment, and the Bible is no different in the peoples it records.

To me, the context and application of CP in the Bible is particularly instructive. The Bible’s prescription for CP (and “eye for an eye” in general) had the effect of lowering the overall level of violence in a time when clan-based blood feuds threatened to rip the loose tribal nation apart. The allowance for banishment, and substitutionary civil penalties in some cases, and cities of refuge, all show God’s mercy and his justice. I read Jesus’s words “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” not as a call for prior moral purity or for correct administration of the death penalty, but as an indictment that we are all guilty of sins that merit death and thus can’t sit in ultimate judgment. I think that much of this sort of wisdom was essentially gone by the time Jesus’ clerical opponents twisted their own law to have him unjustly put to death by the Roman authorities.

Since I don’t think applying CP makes our society safer, or more just, or more conscientous regarding human life, or brings anyone to God, I have a hard time finding it consistent with the overall Bible witness.

[originally posted to the old TMS on 2006-11-10]

‘Rob muses on the politics of commentary, where the “Fair” side of Fox news refers handily to the “Balanced” side…

You know, I think the incremental waffling confessional shuffle is perhaps a worse reflection on Christianity than the underlying core conduct. Hear me out — I’m not condoning sexual immorality, methamphetamine use, or megachurch perfect teeth smiles… Plea-bargaining and “no contest” are useful in our courts and may even be Biblically inspired. But they are no way for real Christians publicly caught in real sin to conduct themselves if they still value what they say they stand for.

Referencing Clinton (and also Swaggart, and probably many more) we find the utterly broken and self-destructive idea that to confess to something “lesser” (especially in a nebulous way) will somehow placate all those offended by hypocrisy and allow for restoration of relationships with the faithful. Doesn’t work.

Republicans were crestfallen when people took it in stride that Clinton had an affair and lied about it. But that’s more or less the conventional morality of our times. Our standard should be different, not just in the misconduct, but in the aftermath…

When Pastor Ted dribbles out little bits of truth, mamboing from “I’m leaving because the cloud of accusation makes it impossible to continue my ministry” to “I bought meth and enjoyed a massage from a gay escort, but no drugs and no sex” to “I commited (exactly which?) acts of sexual immorality,” what does that say about Christian integrity? A standard trope of this class of stories, fully instanced this time around, has been quotes from tremulous teenagers, wanting to disbelieve the media and believe their charismatic leader’s increasingly less believable account. They look like schmucks for believing their leaders. What if they could say, “Our pastor never lied to us, even when he fell short.”?

To their credit, Haggard’s church board of elders (I refuse to use the term overseer — must have watched too much ‘Roots’ as a kid) acted quickly and decisively to get to the bottom of this.

But wouldn’t it have been better, perhaps even a net positive for the Kingdom, if Haggard had just called a news conference, warned people to send their kids out of the room, and spilled all the beans, with minimal self-pity and runaround. RCC (arch) bishops hiding behind privacy and employer rights and statutes of limitations when dealing with child sexual abuse cases may have limited the size of payouts, but they have also tended to implicate the entire clerical hierarchy, so now priests are widely distrusted.

Can’t we get back into the “Let your yea be yea” business?

[originally posted to the old TMS on 2005-0803]

What’s up with GWB?

Loyalty, along with its cousin tenacity, are good qualities that we all appreciate in friends and fraternity brothers and business associates, and respect in adversaries. One illustrative proverb among several the Bible provides:

Do not forsake your friend and the friend of your father,
and do not go to your brother’s house when disaster strikes you–
better a neighbor nearby than a brother far away.

Still, why, why, why would Bush volunteer to stick up for Palmiero? Does he really think that someone doctored RP’s soup without his knowing it, and that in such an era as ours he really earned every single one of those 3000 hits sans biochemical extras? How could Bush even know? Yes, I know the two go way back to Texas Ranger days, but what real degree of relationship could there have been?

GWB is nothing if not loyal, and it has served him well. Moreover, he might well maintain that the public perception of his dad as weak or waffling could have been addressed in part if Pop had appeared a little more resolute and steadfast. But doesn’t he realize that standing 110% behind both a pretty obvious drug cheat and Karl Rove in the same confab discounts both gestures? Credibility is pretty important these days, so why get mixed up in something like this?

In classic myths, the fatal flaw that brings down the hero is often an extreme expression of a basically good quality. Achilles: pride; Hamlet: contemplativeness; Cookie Monster: appreciation of the finer things in life.

When loyalty consistently wins out over discernment, it can signal a problem. Bush’s kneejerk reaction to always back up his buddies makes me wonder sometimes whether his leadership from the heart is backed up by the head or the gut?

Proverbs 20:25 says

It is a trap for a man to dedicate something rashly
and only later to consider his vows.

[originally posted to the old TMS 2005-07-29]