Archive for the 'Christianity' Category

Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw

Fuller President Richard Mouw is perhaps the one modern theologian who can make Five Point Calvinism seem not only winsome, but reasonable.

The first “point” of Calvinism is the doctrine of total depravity, the notion that wickedness extends to our deepest self. It doesn’t mean, of course, that each of us is incapable of doing good. Total depravity, the way most Calvinists explain it, is the idea that there is no aspect of our person that is not touched by sin. None of us can, in this life, escape from the influence of wickedness by our own efforts; grace alone is the one thing that keeps us from being totally consumed by depravity.

In a post this month, President Mouw shares how depravity manifested itself in his own childhood:

Recently I went through some old family photos and saw a picture of myself riding a tricycle in the backyard of the first home that I can remember. I know I could not have been older than four years old at the time—probably closer to three—because we moved away from that home (actually an upstairs apartment) not long after my fourth birthday. My mother planted a small garden plot in that yard, and one day she worked with me to plant some seeds. She showed me how to dig holes and do the planting, and she instructed me about regularly watering the ground. She also helped me to block off that area with sticks and string, so that no one would walk on the planted area. And she warned me: “Do not ever step on this ground where you have planted the seeds, or the plants will not grow!”

One day when I was playing in that yard, I looked to make sure my parents were not watching, and then I stepped over the stretched string, and I deliberately stomped on the ground where I had planted the seeds. I can still remember the spirit of rebellion that motivated me. I was stomping on the ground precisely because I knew it was an act of disobedience. I also remember often lying awake in my bed in the weeks after I did that, fearful that the plants would not grow and worried that my rebellion would be revealed. I even prayed some childish prayers for deliverance, although I do not think they included any elements of confession and repentance—just something like, “God, please, please, make those plants grow!” I was greatly relieved when one day the green shoots suddenly appeared in the place where I had stomped my feet.

I tell that story to say that while I did not go from a wicked lifestyle to a pattern of holy living in my youth, I did need to be redeemed from a rebellious spirit that was grounded in my sinful nature. And it was not a rebellion that was motivated by any particular angry feeling I had toward my parents. It was a spirit of rebellion against authority as such, one that was grounded in a very basic desire simply to do something that was wrong.

It’s a similar story to the one St. Augustine, writing 1600 years ago, tells about his famous pears:

There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night–having prolonged our games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was–a group of young scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart, O God, such was my heart–which thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold, now let my heart confess to thee what it was seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error–not that for which I erred but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself.

Bold emphases are mine.

My mother is a retired professor of philosophy, and was a good friend of the Mouws in the early 1960s. Year after year, she taught Augustine to her students — and though she didn’t always do so publicly, she regularly expressed exasperation with the way in which the bishop of Hippo (and now, her old friend the president of Fuller) interpreted childish rebelliousness as so inherently depraved. My mother, an atheist from adolescence on, found Augustine’s self-flagellation wildly unnecessary at best. As she pointed out, if he condemns pear-stealing with such venom and self-loathing, what vocabulary will he have left for greater sins? What words are left for murder, for rape, for acts of genuine cruelty against sentient creatures, when the strongest possible language has already been employed to describe a puerile act of third-rate vandalism? Continue reading ‘Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw’

“Enter through the narrow gate”: culture, tradition, and the Christian paradox of other-centered individualism

At the end of a long post about changing her views on abortion, Mermade asks:

…sometimes I do worry about whether or not I am indeed deviating from the narrow path (see Matthew 7:13), but no longer view the “narrow path” as being politically conservative in a secular culture. I am still trying to figure out what Jesus meant when he said to enter through the narrow path. Any interpretations you guys have of that are very much welcome.

Well, lots of folks can give interesting lectures about the various gates into the city of Jerusalem that existed in Jesus’ time. The number of treatises and dissertations that have been written about the physical location and theological significance of those entryways is mind-boggling. But since we tend to use the idea of the “narrow” and “wide” gates metaphorically in contemporary Christian culture, I’ll roll with that, and offer a reflection that doesn’t cling too narrowly to traditional interpretation.

“Wide” gates are those that many people can fit through at once. “Narrow” gates are those that, perhaps, only one person can get through at a time. A simple and reasonable reading of the passage is that Jesus is doing what he does throughout Matthew: turning conventional wisdom on its head and suggesting a radically different interpretation of what it means to live a righteous life. Matthew, of all the Gospels, is the one most concerned with reaching the Jewish listener. Jesus challenges the parochialism and ethnocentrism (these are not anachronistic terms to use here) of his followers, suggesting throughout Matthew that active commitment to loving the entire world (rather than just one “people”) is the central component of his message. Continue reading ‘“Enter through the narrow gate”: culture, tradition, and the Christian paradox of other-centered individualism’

Called to a higher allegiance: the welcome new evangelical manifesto

My father’s former student Richard Mouw (president of Fuller Seminary, philosopher, theologian and blogger) announces the release of a very fine statement that deserves more attention than it has yet received: The Evangelical Manifesto, a Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment. The full text is on the website in PDF, a summary is here. Signed by Dr. Mouw and many other leading evangelicals, it is a most welcome manifesto.

In the introduction, it says We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Amen, amen, amen. When I continue to describe myself as an evangelical — one who is pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-environment — I am regularly accused of misrepresenting the “evangelical” brand. This splendid manifesto reminds us that to be an evangelical is to believe a few key things about Jesus of Nazareth and His role in our lives and the redemption of Creation; there are no litmus tests — not even on abortion or homosexuality — that define the movement. Continue reading ‘Called to a higher allegiance: the welcome new evangelical manifesto’

The devil feeds on resentment: on marriage, sex, duty, and the “extra mile”

Jeremy Pierce posted an interesting piece yesterday: Sex and Duty. He’s taking issue with some aspects of my take on the 30-Day Sex Challenge. My basic point was that desire and duty are mutually exclusive, particularly where sex is concerned. I argued that the Pauline doctrine of mutual submission and the apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 7 do not constitute an obligation to be sexually available to a partner when one is not in the mood.

One mistake I made in the original post gives Jeremy an opening to challenge my position. Casually taking Matthew 5:41 completely out of context, I wrote: Challenging spouses to “go the extra mile” for each other is a biblically and psychologically sound notion.

Jeremy jumps on that:

This Pauline view can be easily motivated by Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, particularly by the Golden Rule (do to others what you’d want them to do for you) and the extra mile (if someone asks you to carry something a mile, do it for two miles, and if someone asks for your coat offer up your shirt too). Jesus speaks as if this sort of thing is a typical characteristic of his followers, and those who don’t do this are failing to be like citizens of the kingdom of God out to be. I can see how someone would apply such statements to the case at hand by arguing for a duty to have sex even when one isn’t interested for the sake of the sex.

But this is not duty for the mere sake of duty. It’s duty for the sake of the other person. If a person motivated by love for another person has a duty to do what’s loving for the other person, there may well be times when that involves having sex when one otherwise wouldn’t have been interested, and Jesus’ teaching does seem to include cases like that. I’m not sure why cases of voluntarily being willing to have sex when one isn’t interested should be exceptions to the kinds of loving acts he commands in those passages.

Of course, as Walter Wink and other theologians have pointed out, much of Matthew 5 is concerned not with how we treat those whom we love, but those whom we hate. Wink points out that the challenge to go the second or extra mile had a specific meaning:

Jesus’ third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the relatively enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced or impressed labor (angareia) that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples to a single mile…

It is in this context of Roman military occupation that Jesus speaks. He does not counsel revolt…

But why carry his pack a second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme of aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here… is how the oppressed can recover the initiative and assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar’s, but how one responds to the rules is God’s, and Caesar has no power over that…From a situation of servile impressment, the oppressed have once more seized the initiative. They have taken back the power of choice…
Continue reading ‘The devil feeds on resentment: on marriage, sex, duty, and the “extra mile”’

More on the “Godmen” and the heresy of the hyper-masculine Christ

In October 2006, I wrote a post about the “Godmen” phenomenon. That post begins:

Godmen is, according to the organizers, “a series of testosterone-fueled Christian men’s gatherings across the country. Their purpose: to reassert masculinity within a church structure that they (the organizers) say has been weakened by feminization.”

Uh huh. Or, in other words, Godmen is about giving men who feel overwhelmed and challenged by a Gospel message of egalitarian justice a chance to worship God without having to let go of the very things that Jesus asks them to surrender.

Now, happily, Christianity Today has a very critical piece up about the Godmen and other similar groups anxious to “reclaim Christ” as a hyper-masculine role model. (Cap tap to reader David, who sent me the link.) Brandon O’Brian, writing in CT, makes good sense here:

The masculinity movement would have us emulate the glorified Jesus—the one who will return on horseback and brandish the sword of judgment. That is certainly the Jesus we worship. But it is not the Jesus we are commanded to imitate. The only times Jesus appears in Scripture as a warrior are in his pre-incarnate debuts in the Old Testament and post-resurrection glory. Our model of behavior, then, is the suffering Son, not the glorified one.

That’s good. And further signs that Christianity Today, the flagship journal of American evangelicalism, is open to genuinely egalitarian principles:

Arguing for common characteristics between men and women is not to argue for identical roles. I don’t intend to downplay the significant differences between the genders or the distinct challenges in discipleship that men and women each face. I mean that if courage is Christlike, then men and women should both develop courage…

…we should mistrust any interpretation of Scripture that simply confirms our instincts. If it is more natural for a man to be aggressive and a woman to be passive, then a genuine encounter with Christ should challenge a man to become gentle (Gal. 5:23) and a woman to become bold (2 Tim. 1:7). The challenge of discipleship is extended equally to both men and women.

A-flippin-men. Bold emphasis is mine. And while I’m not sure how “natural” masculine aggression and feminine passivity really is, the reminder that a relationship with Christ challenges each of us to become fully and completely human is most welcome.

The enemy of desire is duty: against the 30-Day sex challenge and “Relevant Church”

Marvin Lindsay sends me a link to the 30-Day Sex Challenge, famously initiated last month at the Relevant Church in Tampa, Florida. The challenge was simple: all married couples in the congregation were asked to have sex with each other each day for thirty days. These days were specific, mind you, running from February 17 to March 16. Presumably, the couples of this congregation are resting up this week for Easter? (Marvin’s take on the whole thing is here.)

First off, the name “Relevant Church”. I can’t think of a name for a Christian gathering I’ve liked less; it’s pandering and patronizing and offensive. It’s one of those terms (”Enlightenment” is another) that immediately creates unnecessary barriers by implying that if you aren’t with us, you’re the opposite of whatever virtuous thing it is that we proclaim to be. It’s one thing to call yourself a Christian Church, as that term doesn’t automatically imply that all others aren’t; to call yourself “Relevant” reveals the disdain you hold for the poor folk down the street at “First Baptist” or “St. Timothy’s”. I think I’m going to start a congregation called “Good Looking Hipster-People Church”, and see how that goes over.

Anyhow, on to the sex. Continue reading ‘The enemy of desire is duty: against the 30-Day sex challenge and “Relevant Church”’

Running alone on Palm Sunday

It’s Holy Week, and we’re heading towards the earliest Easter (in the Roman Calendar) since 1913. Yesterday was Palm Sunday, and for the first time in a decade, I wasn’t in church to mark the memorial of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

Lately, I’ve taken to telling people I’m “between churches.” It sounds like “between jobs” or “between relationships”, and honestly, sometimes, that’s how I feel. In the decade since I came back to Christ, I’ve been in senior leadership in two churches, and twice ended up resigning that leadership as a result of butting heads with staff. When I left All Saints Pasadena last summer, I pledged I wouldn’t seek out any leadership post in my new church (whichever one that was to be.) And I went to a few churches (especially the Warehouse community), where against all of my ENFP instincts, I sat quietly in the back.

What happened was predictable: when I sit quietly in the back anywhere, I end up losing interest. My mind wanders. The only way I can honor a commitment to show up is if I’m placed in a position of trust. If I know other people expect me and are relying on me, I’m there. If it’s just little ol’ me sitting in a chair in the midst of a large group, I instantly find excuses not to go. My faith is too fragile and too individual to get me to church as a “worshipper among worshippers”; being a leader is usually the only thing that will guarantee my appearance. Continue reading ‘Running alone on Palm Sunday’

The obligatory “Yes, Virginia, you can be a feminist and a Christian without compromising the core tenets of either” post

Just in time for International Women’s Day last week, the religious right launched a pair of angry broadsides at the feminist movement. Kurk Gayle let me know about this positively bizarre op-ed by Alice Lindsey: The Paradox of Feminism. A day earlier, an only slightly-less strange piece by Colleen Caroll Campbell ran at the National Review: Faith of the Feminine.

Both essays make the same point: feminism is profoundly hostile to faith, particularly Christianity. Feminists, however, are misguided; according to both Campbell (a former speechwriter for the current president and a robust defender of a narrow understanding of orthodoxy) and Lindsey (a former Episcopal priest who has renounced her ordination and joined a church that doesn’t affirm women in the priesthood), Christianity is the great liberator of women. Lindsey writes:

History shows that wherever Christianity has spread, the treatment of women has improved. Allow me to cite but one example. My great grandfather was a pioneer missionary in India. He established a seminary there, but after time it became apparent that Christian men could not evangelize Indian women who lived sequestered lives. Therefore, my great grandfather decided to train women converts to be midwives and nurses so that they could minister to Indian women at a critical time. So he established a nurse training center and even today the majority of nurses in India are Christian females.

We’re often reminded that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Lindsey, bless her, doesn’t even bother with getting to the plural. Continue reading ‘The obligatory “Yes, Virginia, you can be a feminist and a Christian without compromising the core tenets of either” post’

Barack Obama, first-rate theologian: on Romans 1, Matthew 5, and “obscurity”

I’m watching primary results tonight with a sanguine air; I still remain conflicted about who it is I want to win the Democratic nomination, and if I had to pick tonight, I’d still pick the junior senator from New York. As I type, I’m watching one of my heroes, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (who is — and this is not well-known — one of the best friends to the animal rights movement in the House) speak in Ohio at the Clinton victory party. But I have much affection for the dynamic Illinois senator as well.

In any event, that senator, Barack Obama is taking some heat from the religious right for his interpretation of Scripture. In Ohio, last week, according to the Baptist News, he spoke about same-sex unions.

“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.”

The Baptist News notes that the Sermon on the Mount is Matthew 5; the Romans passage is from the first chapter, verses 26-32. The Baptists complain that Obama is cherry-picking Scripture. Conservative talk-show host (and Mitt Romney biographer) Hugh Hewitt writes:

…even liberal evangelicals are going to be scratching their heads of Obama’s approach to Scripture…

“Godwin’s Law” warns against the use of Hitler or Nazi analogies in arguments. A second useful law: A candidate should never cite Scripture except with great specificity and unless he or she expects and desires to return to the subject and have every reference they used parsed over by millions of Bible readers.

Well, I’m pretty confident I meet the definition of a “liberal evangelical”, and I know my Scripture reasonably well. And Obama nailed it perfectly when he described Romans 1 as “obscure“. Obscure is often misunderstood to mean “unimportant”. But it doesn’t mean that; Webster says it means “not readily understood or clearly expressed.” Ask nine out of ten New Testament theologians about what Paul’s point is in the first chapter of this, his greatest letter, and most will say “yeah, it’s obscure.” While the Sermon on the Mount was just that — a sermon to a large crowd in which Jesus makes bold, prophetic statements about how we are to live, Romans is a densely argued, tremendously complex letter that touches on issues such as grace, the necessity of the cross, and the church-state relationship. Continue reading ‘Barack Obama, first-rate theologian: on Romans 1, Matthew 5, and “obscurity”’

Grief, Remorse, and Judgment: the myth of a “right response’ to abortion

In response to my post on Tuesday, I got an e-mail from a reader who wrote that while she had come to the point where she no longer believed in banning abortion, she still considered herself pro-life. Reflecting on how she had been raised (in a conservative Christian household), she noted that she had always been taught that women who undergo abortion will invariably experience regret and depression. Faced with the reality that that is not always the case, my reader writes that she finds it harder not to judge women who don’t experience regret.

One of the hallmarks of traditional sexism is its insistence that “good women” feel certain feelings and not others. “Good girls” are expected to be interested in romance, but not in sex — especially not the latter when it is disconnected from the former. Good girls are allowed, even encouraged, to daydream about marrying their handsome boyfriends; they are discouraged (via shame) from lusting after the hot water polo players in their Speedos. These messages about what the right emotions are for women (compassion, tenderness, romantic longing) and what the wrong emotions are (ambition, horniness, anger) are taught early, usually long before puberty. And the grip of this dichotomy of good and bad feelings can be intense, lingering for a lifetime, passed on to the next generation.

I know a lot of folks who feel as my reader does. In this world view, shaped both by sexism and popular Christian teaching, remorse and regret are prerequisites for forgiveness and understanding. A young woman who has had an abortion will have no trouble finding sympathy in even the most conservative circles if she says the right words. For example, this will do nicely:

“Oh, I was so confused and scared! I had no idea what to do. I I just wanted it all to be over with, and I had nowhere else to go, so I called up the clinic and I went and ‘took care of it.’ I cried afterwards for hours; it hurt so much. At first I felt numb, and then I felt relief, and then I felt this awful sense that I had done something terrible. Every day I ask God to forgive me. I regret it so much, and I wonder if I’ll ever stop feeling so horrible.”

Say that in private — or better yet, tearfully in front of the congregation — and you can expect the outpouring of warmth and forgiveness given to a Prodigal Daughter. The pastor will use you as an example, mingling admonition with a reminder about God’s grace and a wildly inappropriate but inevitable reference to Rachel the Matriarch weeping for her children. Folks will hug you and pat you and say soothing words. “We’re praying for you, sweetheart.” “Jesus loves you.” “You are forgiven.” “Thank you for speaking out; you may have saved another girl’s baby today.” And on and on it goes. Continue reading ‘Grief, Remorse, and Judgment: the myth of a “right response’ to abortion’

“Not a Presby, nor a Luth’ran” — an old Episcopal youth camp song

On an entirely different note, this song came into my head today. My mother sang it to me when I was a child. She learned it from her roommate at Vassar in the mid-1950s; her roommate had sung it at an Episcopalian youth camp. I’ve sung it myself for many of my Episcopalian friends (including priests and the current bishop of Los Angeles), and to my amazement, none of them know it. So here it is, and it is to be sung to the tune of “God Bless America”:

I am an Anglican,
I am C.E.:
Neither high church
Nor low church,
I am Protestant and Catholic and Free!

Not a Presby,
Nor a Luth’ran
Nor a Baptist, white with foam;
I am an Anglican –
Just one step from Rome!
I am an Anglican —
Just one step from Rome!

Whether it’s theologically true any longer is debatable, but the bit about the Baptist is pretty darned good.

The Books of the Bible

I was recently sent a review copy of The Books of the Bible.

Using Today’s New International Version (TNIV) translation, TBOTB departs from “traditional” bibles in several ways: none of the artificial chapter and verse breaks (which, of course, date only from the 16th century C.E.), and the books are placed in a “sense order” that allows for the reader to connect more effectively with the intent of the original authors. For example, the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are combined into one single document; the gospel of John comes at the very end of the bible, after all the other epistles and gospels, combined with the three letters of John and the book of Revelation. It’s not a chronological ordering (though that too would require that the Pauline epistles go before the gospels) — it’s an ordering based on historic views of authorship and upon what will “work” for the reader. Each gospel now heads up a set of other texts (Acts, Epistles, etc.) that allow for a new perspective on the life of Jesus.

I’ve been making my way through the New Testament portion of TBOTB, and am enjoying it immensely so far — especially reading Luke/Acts as a single coherent document. Best of all, folks, it’s soft-bound and available for only $8.99. I only endorse what I use, and I’m using this. It’s going in my carry-on.

Lecturing on Kabbalah and Christianity in the Philippines: a report

Though I don’t often blog about it, I’ve been studying Kabbalah since early 2004. Friends of ours invited my wife and me to come to a few lectures, and after a suitable period of suspicion, I became fascinated. My initial reservation about Kabbalah was the most common of all: wasn’t Kabbalah incompatible with Christianity? Like most folks, I was under the impression that Kabbalah was the “mystical aspect of Judaism”, with roots no earlier than the Middle Ages.

The Kabbalah Centre is quite controversial, particularly among Jews, for espousing the notion that Kabbalah is more of a “practice” than a faith — and that as a practice, it is universally applicable. While the study of Kabbalah was once reserved solely for married Jewish men over forty, the Centre makes the case that Kabbalah’s teachings can transform anyone’s life. The most famous practitioner of Kabbalah is Madonna, and she and other celebrities have given rise to the popular assumption that this ancient wisdom, at least as practiced by the Centre, is trendy, undemanding, and bastardized. (Let me note that Madonna’s commitment is profound and enduring rather than transitory and superficial.)

Doing internet research is a poor way to learn about the Kabbalah Centre. The one and only scholarly study of the Kabbalah Centre in print is Jody Myer’s recent monograph Kabbalah and the Spiritual Quest: The Kabbalah Centre in America (Praeger 2007). Myers, professor of Religious Studies at Cal State Northridge, spent years interviewing the Centre’s students, teachers — and detractors. Her work is fair, even-handed, and though not without some small criticisms of the Centre’s operations, ultimately quite laudatory of the work it does in the world. I recommend it strongly to anyone interested in learning more.

In any event, I’ve worked through my initial skepticism to discover that the Centre does offer helpful spiritual tools to those who have a strong faith in Jesus. When I first came to the Kabbalah Centre, I was told “Hugo, whatever Kabbalah does in your life will only make you a better Christian. We don’t want you to try and become Jewish. We want you to use whichever tools you find that are helpful to enhance your own understanding of God and your role in the universe.” I had my doubts. But to paraphrase William James, contempt prior to investigation is a sure bar against understanding, and so I gave Kabbalah my time and my effort. Continue reading ‘Lecturing on Kabbalah and Christianity in the Philippines: a report’

Feminism, marketing, evangelism, inclusion: UPDATED

On the ongoing “Yes Means Yes!” front, Theriomorph has a thoughtful response to my post last week. In the comments section below my December 27 post, I wrote:

…feminist missiology has to operate on multiple levels. We need our radicals and our moderates, our popularizers and our theorists. We need to package our most important ideas for the mass market in a way that the mass market will find palatable.

I’d rather 97% of the people get 3% of feminism than have 3% get 97%, if that makes sense.

Theriomorph responds:

We do, however, live in a world in which a woman political activist who is white, young, economically privileged, and saying something essentially upbeat and dumbed down that is guaranteed not to rock the institutional privilege boat but instead work only on the concerns of the most privileged among us and do so in an extremely circumscribed way can sell mad books.

We live in a world in which the merit of our ideas or talents or ethical constructs is far less important than the marketing behind them, and the same people get marketed saying the same things.

First of all, let me again reject the notion that Jessica Valenti’s writing is “upbeat and dumbed down.” But we’ve been down this road before; what Theriomorph calls “dumbed down” I see as “radically accessible”; what she calls “upbeat” I see as “inspiring.” Evel Knievel on his rocket-powered motorcycle couldn’t leap the gulf in perspective that has opened up over Full Frontal Feminism. That’s disappointing.

But I’d like to expand on my short remarks about “marketing”, and the comparison between Christian evangelism and the feminist mission. In many ways, the feminist community bears a resemblance to the evangelical Christian one. Both are committed to transforming the world. Both are committed to reaching people globally with a message that is life-changing. And both communities have intense, often bitter debates about exactly how to “package the message.” Continue reading ‘Feminism, marketing, evangelism, inclusion: UPDATED’

A note on Blair’s conversion, and on missing Rome

Like most who have followed the life and career of Tony Blair, I was not surprised in the least by his decision to be received into the Roman Catholic Church, a decision made formal in a private ceremony last week. Long-affiliated with the fine old Christian Socialist Movement, his theology seemed to have been moving towards Rome for some time. (When Blair’s son Leo was born in 2000, a number of years younger than his other children with his wife, Cherie, there were very public rumors that the couple did not practice any form of artificial birth control, in keeping with Catholic teaching.)

I’ve had mixed feelings about Tony Blair for years now. But I wish him well, of course, as he moves forward on his spiritual journey. A great many Englishmen and women before him have “returned to Rome” before him, and he goes in fine company.

A little bit of me — just a little — is envious. My own religious peregrination has been fitful and dramatic, but it started with a late adolescent conversion from the atheism of my parents to Roman Catholicism. I was baptized and confirmed at the 1988 Easter Vigil, where I took the confirmation name Thomas. For a brief time, I seriously considered the priesthood — so great was my enthusiasm for the Church. My first marriage was solemnized with a full mass at St Paul the Apostle in Westwood, one of the larger Catholic parishes in West Los Angeles. During the first year of that marriage, I was a regular and enthusiastic communicant.

It was the end of my first marriage that, for me, made staying a Catholic untenable. Though we agreed on little else during the divorce process, my first wife and I were committed to not seeking an annulment, despite pressure from some of her Catholic relatives to get one. What had been done might now be undone, but we weren’t going to deny it had been done in the first place! And with the divorce came the bar from the eucharist. No more wafer and wine made into bread and blood for me, at least not in the Roman style.

I drifted away from Christ for the next few years after that 1992 divorce. When I came back, it was as a Protestant of one kind or another: an Anabaptist, a non-denominational charismatic, an Episcopalian. But here’s the rub: often, whether I’m at a Mennonite, Episcopal, or evangelical worship service, I find myself feeling as if what I’m participating in is somehow incomplete. There are churches, and then there is The Church. And while all the churches are somehow part of the Body of Christ, there is still for me a sense that the truest Church is Roman. Though I very rarely attend Mass any more, I admit that I feel something when I do that I have not felt anywhere else — and I have worshipped in more than my share of elsewheres.

I’m blissful in my fourth marriage. The chances of reconciling with my first wife are zero. I would never dream of raising our future children in a church community that didn’t see their parents’ marriage as being as licit and good as any other. As I understand it, the price of being allowed to become a regular communicant in the Catholic church would mean leaving my wife — or enduring a chaste marriage for the rest of our lives. I’ve checked this out with a few of my friends who know their canon law: without an annulment of my first marriage, or without a commitment to chastity within my current one, I’m going to have a hard time gettin’ to the communion rail. That price is much too high to pay.

It’s odd — I was a Mass-going Catholic for less than five years. That’s not even an eighth of my life. And yet Rome has a hold on me that nothing else has. And when I see the once-married Tony Blair received into the Church, my happiness for him is not untinged with envy.