Your Comments

  • Send Us an E-mail
    Comments for our bloggers may be sent by clicking the link above. Comments can be posted to the blogs themselves by clicking the comments link following each blog.
Syndicate (Full Text) XML

Syndicate (Excerpt) XML



WWW Mere Comments


Summit Ministries






« Mars Hill on Christian Speech | Main | It's the Young Asian Fundamentalists »

May 11, 2006

Some Readings

A few links from today's e-mail traffic:

On overinterpreting Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz (and what color were Dorothy's ruby slippers, really?). At the Wall Street Journal on-line.

Senior editor Wilfred M. McClay on W. H. Auden's faith, ("Grappling with God"), a review published in the Weekly Standard and posted at the Ethics and Public Policy Center's site.

Also check out their (EPPC's) publication page, which has a number of interesting articles, including a review of Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan. (Listed under "Our Conduct in War.")

Posted by James M. Kushiner at 10:27 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/4850556

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Readings:

Comments

A few months ago, I debated with a few fellow posters the morality of Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We should probably all read Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan and the reviews and other responses it receives. It is easy for later generations to forget that many more civilians were killed in conventional bombings of cities during that war than were killed in the two atomic bombings.

Whatever one's take on the morality of these bombings, we can all agree that WWII is one of history's greatest testimonies to the depravity of man.

Posted by: GL | May 11, 2006 10:53:01 AM

Okay, I apologize even before I start because I really am sorry, but just can't help myself. It's bothering me, and I should just let this go, but I can't.

W.H. Auden... homosexual about whom "No one ever said that leading such a life was neat and easy, and Auden's record of his struggle to do so may be the greatest and most encouraging of his gifts to us."

Emily Saliers... lesbian about whom was recently written, with a bit of sarcasm, "Her lesbianism has nothing to do with whatever she may have to say to Methodist women about spirituality, you see. Apparently spirituality has nothing to say about sexual disorders."

Now, there are some distinctions. Auden was a genius on a higher level, and while a seemingly unabashed homosexual was not, as far as I know, an activist.

But, would Auden be protested if he were to speak at a Methodist conference? Should he be? Of course, assuming he was still alive. He clearly should not be allowed to speak in his present state. That would be far too weird even for Methodists to consider.

I do ask this as a genuine question, without any of the snark that could be assumed in such.

Posted by: Patrick | May 11, 2006 12:51:57 PM

Fair enough: "But, would Auden be protested if he were to speak at a Methodist conference?"

As a keynote speaker to 8,000 Methodist men on spirituality? Well, I certainly hope so.

Posted by: Jim Kushiner | May 11, 2006 3:23:36 PM

Jim,

I would add the following to your reading list:

Contra-Contraception

The article appeared in the May 7, 2006 edition of the New York Times Magazine.

Posted by: GL | May 11, 2006 3:35:31 PM

Jim, thanks. I think this helps me understand what you're saying a little better.

Posted by: Patrick | May 11, 2006 3:42:25 PM

I dont know if Auden should talk to methodists but I am a little disappointed with Professor McClay's way of talking about Auden . It seems the wrenching isolation of a man not destined to be one flesh with a woman, nor deeply committed to a country in an era demanding the sacrifical duty of male citizens is someone untethered to the personal God. Of course Auden tells college seniors that we all live basically alone. Auden was not grappling with God--he was missing Him-- missing him painfully. That is Auden's cross not Professor McClay's. Professor McClay did not help the many secularists of the weekly standard crowd in describing the formalized liturgy of Catholic (and once Episcopal)tradition as an impersonal way to get in touch with the deep myths. The liturgy is precisely where man encounters a person in a communion of persons. Amoung others, the gay "love that lace" crowd sees something quite different in the liturgy. I expect that of them but not from one of touchstone's finest. Formalized liturgy is not spontaneous or celebrant dependent but that does not make it impersonal. We downplay the freewheeling of the actors so we can enter the meeting place where we encounter not only the person of Christ but those around him(presently in heaven and historically in previous liturgies)as the commmunion of saints.

Posted by: dpence | May 11, 2006 3:50:36 PM

That Contra-Contraception article is pretty amazing for the New York Times. It gives a lot of space to those who promote abstinence education, chastity, and a different mindset about sex, and is not wholly negative about them.

Posted by: Judy Warner | May 12, 2006 8:25:47 AM

I have to say that Auden came out of that article as a rather unpleasant person. I had been under the mistaken impression that he believed the major dogmas of Christianity, albeit while trying to ignore the fact that Christianity also condemned his homosexuality (sort of like the Andrew Sullivan of pre-2004 or so, before he began morphing into the "Christianist" hater he is today). But if he didn't even believe in the Trinity, in what sense was he really a Christian at all? He was a good poet, but he doesn't seem to have been a very good man. We can only hope that he found deathbed repentance.

Posted by: James Kabala | May 12, 2006 9:26:19 AM

Post a comment