Scruton on Evangelical Atheism

I had long since been meaning to blog something or other about the recent spate of proselytizing atheist tracts published over the last year or so…best-sellers by the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.  But fortunately for you, Roger Scruton got there first, making every point I had to make and several more besides.  Scruton’s essay is, typically for him, elegant, measured, and witty–and devastating to his opponents.  If at first it reads as though he’s making a Jungian “religion-as-universal-myth” argument, don’t be put off.  He’s actually using Rene Girard to move, subtly, towards a “Christianity-as-true-myth” position, as in C.S. Lewis.  Good stuff.

[Note to self: write at least one post this week without referencing Lewis.  It's getting to be a tic.]

I like English Breakfast…I love Lapsang Souchong

What Incarnatus writes below is well said, and far be it from me to underestimate the disgust that long-term contact with the machinery of government can create in even the sweetest of souls…. But wouldn’t the problem be the same with any bureaucracy anywhere? Isn’t the issue really one of human nature and human corruption? I think the search for a “sane” government (in the sense he means) short of the New Jerusalem is a Romanticism, rather like the Romantic desire for King Arthur’s return (C.S. Lewis in one of the Narnia books: “And I say, the sooner the better!”), but more tantalizingly achievable in theory.

And though Gen. Lee was a great soldier and a great man, he was no prophet in this case. I think that our vast republic–vaster now!–is, though far from perfect, neither “aggressive abroad” nor “despotic at home.” At home we enjoy more liberty than is good for our souls, most likely…and on the world stage, our economy has been the greatest engine of prosperity and our military the greatest guarantor of peace and stability of the past 100 years–for everyone else in the world! Our current state of heightened conflict notwithstanding (or perhaps I should say: “included.”) So I’m sorry, but I have to give at least 2 1/2 cheers for our “regime” as it is…

As a peace offering, however, let me state that if King Arthur does return soon I’d be happy to have him take over. I would also accept Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis IX of France (as Sec’y of State), and Queen Elizabeth I (as long as she’d reopen the monasteries her dad closed). So I do have a little flexibility on this monarchy thing.

Gene Robinson, Spreading Concord at Home and Abroad

The Bishop of New Hampshire breaks the news to a British journalist: the C of E is thoroughly pro-gay, but they just won’t admit it in public.  Note the interesting distinction the blogger draws between the behavior of homosexual RC clergy and the Anglican cohort.  Hat tip: the Anchoress.

Update: Seattle “Muslim Priest” to face actual discipline

Apparently, anyway, according to this nice summary of events from First Things, which has some other good observations on the whole embarrassing episode…

An Online Panel on “The Meaning of Suffering”

is up right now at Armavirumque, the blog of The New Criterion.  It’s definitely worth a click and a read.  The contributors include the father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl; a Muslim scholar; a Catholic priest (a Dominican, I believe); and The New Criterion’s editor, Roger Kimball, among others.  The topic is one that I think about and pray over all the time, and one that cuts right to the heart of what it means to be a believer.  It also cuts to the heart of religious differences.  For instance, I was struck once again by the way the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering (as articulated for example by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, to pick an example off the top of my head) scandalizes and repels Jewish thinkers, both religious and secular, whose central concept of dedication to L’Chaim (life, in a spiritual, holistic sense) seems to leave no room for what we might call the Christian via dolorosa. 

The panel discussion is fascinating, but does suffer a bit from ecumenical happyspeak…in any case, it’s a great opportunity to get to know the New Criterion, one of the truly indispensable journals around.

Vatican Reaffirms Central Doctrine; Journalists Shocked, Surprised

Heading the long, long list of topics about which the media refuses to report honestly has to be anything involving the Roman Catholic Church. What with the “return of the Latin Mass” and now this business of the Church claiming to be, uh, the Church–it’s like that crazy Ratzinger fellow wants to take us back to the middle ages! (I can hear Incarnatus now: “If only!!”).

In other breaking news, the Jews claim to be the Chosen People of God (“Other People Lacking, Jews Say” runs the AP headline), Buddhists claim to know Four Noble Truths (“Other Truths Lacking, Buddhists say”) and Frank Sinatra claims to have done it His Way (“Other Ways Lacking, Sinatra Says”).

Priest…Imam…whatever…

Well, by now I suppose most of you have heard about this development.

The short version is that an Episcopalian Priest in Seattle has converted to Islam, and intends to continue in her priestly capacity, since she considers herself to be “100% Christian and 100% Muslim.” The Seattle Times piece to which I link above is actually a pretty good attempt at understanding the issues involved; though it is superficial and clearly biased (respectful of the Rev Ann Holmes Redding’s New Agey syncretism and orthodox Islam both, while slighting the Christian tradition), the reporter did her due diligence and interviewed enough people to give a sense of how fundamentally wacky, to mainstream Christians AND Muslims, Redding’s position is.

And make no mistake, this is a deeply, deeply confused woman we are talking about. Even before her “conversion,” we are told, Redding 1) denied that the Trinity is anything more than an image of God with no reality behind it 2) denied the divinity of Christ except in a symbolic sense (“Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and…Jesus is divine just as all humans are divine–because God dwells in all humans”) 3) never believed in original sin and 4) considered Christianity “the world religion of privilege.” The unspoken thought behind this last formulation is made a bit clearer when she talks about the “relief” she feels upon being reminded, when she enters her new mosque, that “there are more people of color in the world than white people.” An ordained, well-educated priest, she seems unacquainted with her own traditions (such as the Liturgy of the Hours, a Christian way of structuring the day through prayer) and only partly aware of the new tradition she has–irrevocably, I might add–adopted: “I’m still getting to know him,” she says of Mohammed. I should say that this intellectual confusion on her part seems to spring from some pretty profound spiritual damage, since the article makes reference to Redding having suffered sexual abuse and being a recovering alcoholic.

But none of that is really what bothers me about this story. The portrait of Redding that emerges is that of a classic spiritual solipsist of a very American kind. A “seeker,” she really acknowledges no source of authority or truth outside of herself, which is why she can claim to be of two mutually exclusive faiths (and they are mutually exclusive) with no trouble at all. She simply defines the terms of her belief in the way that provides her with the most temporary solace from her sense of hurt and emptiness. On the evidence above, she was never an orthodox Christian to begin with, so, hey, why not add a little Islam to the mix–it’s a beautiful, misunderstood religion after all, and aren’t all faiths Really Saying the Same Thing in Different Ways? As my dad, a Roman Catholic deacon, said when we discussed this story, “every church’s got their flakes.”

No, what bothers me about this story is nothing said by this poor troubled woman, for whom I honestly wish the best. What gets me is the response of her bishop: “Redding’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.” Oh, of course he does. Redding is an abuse survivor and recovering alcoholic who is self-medicating through religion (in Dr. Amede’s diagnosis, that is). What on earth is Bishop Warner’s excuse? How was this woman–who didn’t believe in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, or original sin, and who seems to be rather bigoted against most of her own congregation–still a priest in good standing, much less put in charge of the “Faith Formation” of others? And now that she has [sound of throat clearing] CONVERTED TO ANOTHER RELIGION, how is that not an abrogation of her priestly vows? And just what is a Bishop FOR, anyway, if he doesn’t care what his priests profess…hasn’t he failed in pastoral care to Redding to let her become so far lost on his watch?

Anyway, THAT’S what bugged me. As Mark Steyn said regarding this story, the ECUSA really is beyond parody at this point. Now it’s just sad.

I’m Back Too!

Well, it’s a belated return to blogging for me as well, thanks to a recent move and a nasty virus (thanks kids!) that, among other things, completely disabled my sense of smell. I’m not saying that I suffered greatly by not being able to smell dirty diapers, coffee, or grass clippings…just that it was so darn WEIRD. As for the house move, all I can say is, if you are thinking of moving from your current digs for any reason–don’t. Just don’t. Brighten the corner where you are. It’ll save a lot of trouble.

Quick, Someone call the ACLU!

In a post below, I detail how the President of the College of William and Mary managed to turn an historic chapel into just another student activity room. Well, just a few hours north of Williamsburg, another state-run institution of higher learning, George Mason University, is showing that the process can indeed work in both directions…uh, just so long as you replace the word “chapel” with “mosque.”

More Schoriesque traditionalism!

In a nice segue from the post below, I just came across this piece about disgraced former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s newfound vocation…as a (potential) priest in the Episcopal Church. The writer links this up with his local paper’s interviews with leaders of the Religious Left in Tulsa, including the pastor of Trinity Episcopal, who’s eager to make it clear that he’s not all uptight about minor details like, y’know, the reality of the resurrection of Christ:

“When asked if he believes Christ was resurrected in the literal, bodily sense, McKee responded, “To answer that question is not important to me–’resurrection,’ to me, is, because we believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, a life of following the resurrected Jesus is a life of caring about the things he cared about. Another is that, when God gives life, he gives it forever.” As for the traditional notion of a literal, bodily resurrection, McKee said, “I just can’t believe it. There may have been a physical resurrection, and I would be very happy if there were, but it’s not that important to me.”

Yeah–it’s really no big deal.
Unsurprisingly, John Shelby Spong makes an appearance, and his comment is just too perfect not to quote:

” Spong was asked: Without a literal resurrection, a personal God and the Bible as an external standard for belief and conduct, in what sense do your beliefs qualify as “Christian”? Why not just do away with Christianity altogether?

“That’s a question that reveals a profound ignorance,” answered Spong.

“I don’t know of a single biblical scholar who takes the Bible literally or who believes in a literal, bodily resuscitation of Jesus,” he said.

It’s all just symbolism, after all, right? Part of a Mediterranean myth-structure (based on ancient fertility cults) that uses imagery of resurrection to illustrate the regenerative power of hope and forgiveness and compassion for the individual “believer.” Sure, Jesus is “risen” in that sense–he “lives on” in the hearts of those who, as Father McKee puts it, “care about the things he cared about.” Like global warming! I don’t know, though. Somehow I tend to be slightly skeptical of anyone who claims to understand Christianity more deeply than St. Paul did: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The logic of that statement seems solid, and brutally honest, to me; I suppose Bishop Spong would say that it reveals “profound ignorance” on the part of that cranky old Paul of Tarsus.