Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments

"Forgive Us Our Boo-Boos"

My friend Anthony Sacramone of Strange Herring blog posted a rare serious article today, expressing his dismay over recent statements by Father Benedict Groeschel, with whom he’s personally acquainted. Father Groeschel told the National Catholic Register that victims of child sexual abuse—as young as 14—are often “the seducer.”

Mr. Sacramone says:

I have no great need to defend Catholic clergy or (heaven help up) the bishops (whose skulls, as John Chrysostom stated, pave the floor of hell). I’m not on the road to Rome, despite the best efforts of some very smart, devout, and good men. Nor do I think the sheer awfulness of what Groeschel said in this one interview should be defended in any way, shape, or form. But the man is 79 years old. Take the “excuse” about his recently hitting his head for what it’s worth (I do wonder why he would agree to an interview at all if he was not himself). About eight years ago, he was hit by a car and almost died; before that, he suffered a serious heart attack. In other words, this is a man no longer playing at the top of his game.

I don’t have anything more to add on that subject. But I note that one of Father Groeschel’s lifelong vocations has been counseling. That’s a valuable calling, but it seems to me it has its inherent dangers. The French proverb, “To understand all is to forgive all,” may work very well in ordinary situations. But not in every situation. Christians need to understand that there is such a thing as evil.

It’s easy—especially in our own time—to trivialize the issue of forgiveness. The words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,” often lose their original punch. Part of Christ’s point (it seems to me) is that when we’re ruminating on the outrages others have committed against us, we need to realize that we to have done true and lasting damage ourselves. Their sin against us was real, and needs forgiving, but ours is also real and must not be brushed away with rationalizations like, “I was only joking,” or “I was under a lot of pressure.”

The modern person with his or her high sense of self-esteem understands Christ to mean, “Remember that the other person’s sin is just as trivial as yours, and I never even noticed your sin, buddy.”

This attitude even gets translated into law. We saw a clear example recently in Norway, where the mass murderer Breivik (I refuse to use his full name) was sentenced to 21 years (it should be noted that the sentence can be recycled indefinitely) for the murder of 77 people, most of them children. Americans generally puzzled over this sentence, and puzzled even more at the considerable pride the Norwegians took in this demonstration of their “enlightened” justice system.

Norway is no longer a very religious country, but it remains a Christian country in terms of traditions and attitudes. This cultural Christianity, however, is not orthodox or historical Christianity, but a modern psychological Christianity which embraces the kind of misunderstanding of forgiveness I’m talking about.

In the view of most Norwegians, there is no substantial difference between the murderer and the murdered. All are equally victims of whatever accident, physical or emotional, damaged Breivik’s mind and forced an essentially good person (for all people are good in this theology) to commit such an aberrant act.

Thus justice itself is twisted by theological error. This trivialization of sin, the idea that sin is forgiveable because it’s not really serious in the first place, makes a mockery of the cross of Jesus Christ. Such a theology is ultimately cruel, because there is no need—and therefore no place—in it for grace.

The modern person, in his arrogance, “forgives” in a shallow manner because he cannot face confrontation with evil, in himself or in others. We need to listen to the words of One who had no such problem: “Her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.” (Luke 7:47)

 

Lars Walker is the author of several published fantasy novels, the latest of which is Troll Valley.

Instrumentalization vs. Liberation: The State's Educational Philosophy

After having read the Atlanta paper's recent story on what's about to happen here in Georgia public high schools, I couldn't stop thinking about it.  The trending isn't at all encouraging in that a number of states have already adopted the legislation.  State legislatures that adopt this way of executing public high school education will inevitably encourage students (even more so that what is currently the case) to instrumentalize their education, because the list of high school "majors" from which students much choose tilt heavily in the direction of vocational skills training.  Of course, the vision being cast here is jobs, jobs, jobs.  I'm all for job creation, but a solid high school education needs to be so much more than that.  It needs to begin to cultivate the mind of the student so that he or she can unfold further as a productive, virtuous citizen that contributes to the common good.  It is an understatement to say that the state, such as it is, just isn't competent to grasp the rich, ancient concept of paideia--or common learning--whose purpose is to liberate the human spirit in the educational process.  This law only confirms that claim.  Furthermore, if laws on the books mandate this new angle for public higher education, what is to follow for accredited private K-12 education and home-schooling? 

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-to-require-students-1257641.html#.TuwGtV-lQBY.email

The Dance of the Straw Men

If you're a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:

Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”

Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”

Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of my friend Dale Nelson):

Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).

Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.

Pretty lively for a straw man, isn’t it?

Liberals—I want to share a serious word with you, in honesty and without malice. If you have any principles—any at all—I promise you that, if you continue on the Left, you will eventually either have to give them up or move to the Right. Because liberalism is not a position. It is a process. That process evolves continually. Nothing is out of bounds for it, given enough time. That’s why so many ‘60s radicals are Reagan Republicans now.

For years, people have been telling me (to take another example) that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior because homosexuals are born that way (I’m still not convinced of that, but it’s beside the point for this discussion). The argument is, “If it’s inborn, it’s natural and right.” Christian liberals say it must be God’s will.

“Why would anyone choose to be gay?” the liberal says. “It’s penalized in our culture. So it must be inborn, and the gays have no choice in the matter.”

Bear that argument in mind when you read this, from Italy’s La Stampa.

A study conducted by neuroscientists at Turin University and researchers at the department of neurological science of the University of Milan asserts that pedophilia is caused by a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin (PGRN). The results were published in the journal Biological Psychiatry and presented during a recent convention of the Neurological Italian Society in Turin.

Now, if this theory is true, explain to me how the previously stated arguments for homosexuality don’t apply just as well to pedophilia.

And no, “You’re a Nazi,” does not count as a valid counter-argument.

 

Lars Walker is the author of several fantasy novels, the latest of which is West Overesea.

Flagging Enthusiasm

This article by Soeren Kern at The Brussels Journal reports on an effort by the growing Swiss Muslim community to remove the famous white cross from that country's red flag.

An immigrant group based in Bern has called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it “no longer corresponds to today’s multicultural Switzerland.” Ivica Petrusic, the vice president of Second@s Plus, a lobbying group that represents mostly Muslim second-generation foreigners in Switzerland (who colloquially are known as secondos) says the group will launch a nationwide campaign in October to ask Swiss citizens to consider adopting a flag that is less offensive to Muslim immigrants.

Here we have, in a nutshell (it seems to me) Europe's current cultural problem. They're desperately trying to find a continental identity, and just as desperately attempting to keep their distance from the one and only thing that historically united them in a cultural sense—the Christian religion. If Europe is not the home of Western Christendom (excluding the Americas), then what in heaven's name is it?

No one seems to have any idea.

More Like Athens or Rome?

I found this WaPo piece intriguing for a number of reasons, "Philosophical counselors rely on eternal wisdom of great thinkers." It outlines the attempts of some of those who, for various reasons, were looking for ways to make their academic philosophical training relevant and practical. They found their answer in "philosophical counseling." Read the piece for an introduction to this line of work.

Here I want to highlight what one of these "philosopreneurs" says about the applicability of philosophy today:

Colleges and universities responding to the demand for majors that students can bring to the bank have cut philosophy departments and classes, decreasing the number of teaching jobs. The last thing a parent wants to hear in this economy is that their college student hopes to makes a career of pondering life’s cosmic questions.

As Marinoff puts it, “What are the first words a philosophy graduate utters? ‘Would you like fries with that, sir?’

“See, the fries joke, that’s exactly what we are trying to change,” Marinoff said. “The Greeks had ancient philosophers at every street corner. Today, our society is more like Rome with our circus culture. It’s all very entertaining. But we have to change the public perception of a philosopher as some useless academic relic.”

It strikes me that theology faces the same challenge as philosophy in this regard. I've posted some further thoughts on the implications for higher ed over at the Acton Institute PowerBlog, but here I want to ask: Are we more like Athens or Rome? Is Marinoff right to say the latter? And what does that mean for philosophy and theology today?

On my read of Peter Leithart's Defending Constantine, he would probably agree that we are like Rome with our infatuation with blood, bread, and circuses. And on what that means for Christian cultural engagement and apologetics, J. Daryl Charles has a good bit to say in his Retrieving the Natural Law.

Getting Francis Schaeffer Right

Lately with all the talk of "Dominionism" and the scary religious right and Frank Schaeffer chiming in, I feel the need to draw attention to a biography of Francis Schaeffer that I think really portrayed him fairly and without the usual political histrionics.  I wrote the following review (which appeared in Themelios) of Colin Duriez's Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life back in 2009.

As a PhD student, I provided research assistance to the Baylor historian Barry Hankins as he wrote his biography of Francis Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]). At the time, I remember asking Professor Hankins if the family had been cooperative. They had not. Having read Colin Duriez’s treatment of Schaeffer, I think I know why. The family was cooperating with him, so much so that this book could be considered an authorized biography. Duriez’s portrayal is very powerfully personal, more so than anything I have read save Schaeffer’s own books, which are self-revelatory to some degree.

An Authentic Life features a number of unforgettable scenes from Schaeffer’s life. The reader who has a jaundiced view of Schaeffer as some kind of plastic-mold religious right stereotype will encounter a complex man who had a powerful instinct for justice. As a teenager, young Fran had a job with RCA Victor where he worked in the factory. The women posted along the production line were mistreated and overworked. One day, a woman stopped her work and began calling for a strike. She was soon joined by Schaeffer, who jumped up on a counter, yelling in his piercing voice, “Strike, Strike” (p. 24). This was, after all, the same man who would one day criticize comfortable American Christians for their addiction to personal peace and affluence and their non-compassionate use of wealth.

The pioneer of Christian worldview had a hard road to ministry. His father asked to speak to him at 5:30 a.m. on the morning he was to leave for college and pre-ministerial studies. When they met, his father bluntly told Schaeffer that he did not want a minister for a son and did not want him to go. The young man asked to go pray about it. Tearfully, he tossed a coin three times with each outcome landing in favor of going on to college at Hampden-Sydney. He informed his father, “I’ve got to go.” Just before slamming the door on his way out, his father promised to pay for the “first half year” (pp. 25–26). Time would bring the father to share his son’s beliefs.

Duriez’s book is full of similar interesting vignettes from Schaeffer’s life. One theme stands out very clearly. Francis Schaeffer was a man filled with love for the so-called “little people” who were not valued by the world. While he was still a young minister, we discover that he tutored a young boy with Down Syndrome twice each week and took great delight in every increment of progress. He felt the boy’s forward steps were just as important, in his wife Edith’s words, “as talking to any university student about his intellectual problems” (pp. 50–51). This event perfectly foreshadows his later powerful insistence upon the importance of the sanctity of life, an area in which he was far ahead of the main body of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Connecting the young Schaeffer to the more famous, older man is a great strength of Colin Duriez’s book. It has become well-accepted to break Schaeffer’s life up into segments and to characterize him as three different people. There is the young, fire breathing fundamentalist eager to “be ye separate” from the impure compromisers; the artsy, compassionate, bohemian founder of L’abri in Switzerland; and then the old man, brushing off his best instincts and returning to his fundamentalist roots to fight for the doctrine of inerrancy and “Christian America.” While it is possible to reach such a conclusion by looking at his early career and then considering the chronological development of his publications, this book rejects that approach by portraying Schaeffer as a consistent personality throughout.

The man who cared enough to tutor a little boy with Down Syndrome is also the man who told his church in St. Louis that he would resign if a black person ever came to his church and felt unwelcome. The budding intellectual who answered the existential questions of college students in Europe is also the agitator who took up the cause of the unborn and became arguably the finest shaper of and advocate for a potent evangelical critique of modern culture. Two sentences in the book make this point about Schaeffer brilliantly: “It was not a new Schaeffer that was emerging. His theology, honed over many decades since the passionate articles of the later forties and early fifties, was that of the lordship of Christ over every area of life—the womb as well as the university seminar room” (p. 182).

If one could ask for anything more from this book, it would be on the subject of Frank (AKA Franky Schaeffer). As Francis Schaeffer’s son has aged, he has increasingly distanced himself from his father’s legacy. First, Frank converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. More significantly, he wrote thinly disguised novels about his family life that were unflattering to his father and then made a massive turn left politically, ultimately supporting Barack Obama despite his laissez faire policies on abortion. One suspects this topic was left alone for two reasons. The first is that, as I wrote above, this book feels like an authorized biography with the family’s full cooperation. They probably did not want this story to include the later years of Frank Schaeffer. The second is that the book very likely neared completion during the time of Frank’s increasing heterodoxy. Regardless, readers hungry for more on this front should look to Os Guinness’s powerful rejoinder to Frank in the journal Books and Culture (March 1, 2008; available at http:// www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html).

Duriez’s book is an important contribution to Schaeffer scholarship and will challenge those who have portrayed an interesting Schaeffer with a unique voice who morphs into a conventional Christian rightist over time. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life deserves a wide readership and may well be the standard in the field for some time to come.

Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism

Another Run at the "Dominionism" Meme

In my last post, I rejected the contention by Michelle Goldberg and others that evangelical leaders such as Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are significantly influenced by the aims of the tiny Christian Reconstructionism movement.  I tried to make the point that CR has a negligible political influence on evangelicals and that it is not honest to view evangelical office holders and candidates in the light of CR’s aims.  The entire thing, I think, is a tar baby sort of trap in which evangelicals are supposed to come out of their corner talking very seriously about Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism and giving legitimacy to those who have tried to raise it as an issue.

There is a simpler way to get at this thing.  I’ll go ahead and concede to Michelle Goldberg and Ryan Lizza that they are correct in their assumption that it is nervous-making to have someone with different ideas and values than one’s own running for political office.  This raises the spectre of having that person gain power and perhaps make policies with which one would disagree.  But the simple truth is that we are all in this position all the time.

The University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock once noted that he had some concerns about the Christian Coalition gaining political power.  He quickly added that he would be equally concerned about any group with an ideological agenda (such as certain types of feminists or environmentalists) gaining power.  The simple fact is that power is a feature of politics and it is unpleasant to lose and have someone else use power to impose upon you.  This is very much the situation many have been through in the past two years.  A great many people feel that a nationalized health care system would have disastrous effects upon our society.  Nevertheless, they have had to suffer through it because the side that wanted to enact such legislation won the election convincingly.

And here’s the thing . . . It doesn’t matter what Barack Obama’s motive was in pushing for national health care.  It doesn’t matter if he had a religious conviction, a secular principle, a sentimental attachment to the idea, or a desire to be the first Democrat to ever achieve such a thing.  He gained power through politics and enacted his agenda.

There is no difference in anything Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or any other American officeholder might do.  Indeed, the likelihood is great that any laws they might enact would be far less intrusive than one mandating that every American purchase health insurance.

 

To Serve Man and Enjoy Him Forever

No doubt many of you have seen the story circulating about a NASA report, "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis," warning that unless we humans take better care of our planet, particularly by addressing the problem of climate change, extraterrestrials "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us."

I think the NASA researchers have been watching the Twilight Zone a bit too regularly, particularly the famous episode, "To Serve Man." Here's the full episode:

But you can also skip ahead to the kicker.

Maybe this is a report from the Onion that got picked up accidentally. I checked and it's not April 1, anyway, but I can't see how such a report would push public opinion in favor of increasing funding for a struggling government agency.

Worshiping the goddess of environmentalism does precisely what Rod Serling warns, devolving human beings from "dust to dessert" and from steward of the planet to "an ingredient in someone's soup."

Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" But maybe we should fear instead the word, "I'm from another planet, and I'm here to help."

It's a cookbook!

Wringing Hands Over Dominionism

Michelle Goldberg has a column up at the aptly named Daily Beast letting us all know that we really need to worry about something called “Dominionism” which supposedly prevails among Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and folks who support their campaigns.  Reinhold Niebuhr once warned of the dangers of religious illiteracy.  Here we have exhibit A.

Goldberg claims Bachmann and Perry are “deeply associated” with this “theocratic strain” of Christian fundamentalism.  Yes, they are probably so deeply associated with it that neither one of them has ever heard of R.J. Rushdoony (whom Goldberg tags as the father of this theocratic movement).

I have been part of organizations of Christian conservatives for many years and can assure Ms. Goldberg that Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism (making Hebraic law obligatory upon the broader society) exert very little influence.  In fact, I think I can probably argue empirically that Rushdoony has captured the attention of many more liberal reporters with an axe to grind than it has evangelicals.  For those of us who spend so much time thinking about political theology as to even have heard of CR, it is primarily a novelty.  To view standard issue evangelicals in the same light as Christian Reconstructionists would be like taking rank and file Democrats and comparing them to the most extreme and exotic atheistic socialists.

The overwhelming majority position of Christians around the world is that forced religion is a stench in the nostrils of a holy God.  Instead, Christians give their money to sustain people called missionaries.  We support their efforts to persuade those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ that he is the son of God and that they should enter into a relationship with him.  If those people subsequently refuse to believe in Jesus, missionaries pray for them and move on to other people.  Those engaged by missionaries join churches or just keep on doing what they were doing before.  It’s actually a pretty non-threatening business.  This is the Christian idea Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would endorse, not some fever dream of journalists hoping to bring down candidates for office.

Now, is it true that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would like to get elected and attempt to pass some of their aspirations for the good society into law?  Certainly.  This is a process called politics.  It is a feature of democracies.  And I suspect what Perry and Bachmann would like to do is reduce the size of government, which, incidentally, is not all that great a danger to individual freedom.

Of course, both are pro-life and would like to protect unborn children from being killed in the womb.  If that position is so extreme as to warrant exclusion from the political process and raving condemnations in print . . . well, in that case I’m afraid I can’t do much to help.

 

'Reduction' and Abortion-Culture Newspeak

This is difficult reading: "The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy."

I had never heard of this, certainly not as an elective procedure.

The witness of conscience apparently can't be suppressed. At least not totally. And not without a great deal of work and denial. 

Even some people who support abortion rights admit to feeling queasy about reduction to a singleton. “I completely respect and support a woman’s choice,” one commentator wrote on UrbanBaby.com, referring to a woman who said she reduced her pregnancy to protect her marriage and finances. One fetus was male, the other female, and the woman eliminated the male because she already had a son. “Something about that whole situation just seemed unethical to me,” the commentator continued. “I just couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I terminated my daughter’s perfectly healthy twin brother.”

My wife is a fraternal twin. I'm thankful to God to have her and a brother-in-law.

"They invent ways of doing evil," indeed.