“Presumably the nuns would vote Republican, so the ID requirement may help Democrats after all.”

Something tells me the commenter hasn’t met all that many nuns.

For a more theological take on the question of natural disasters in Burma, see David B. Hart’s piece on our homepage.

#1) Miami, Fla., 12-month forecast: -24.9%
#2) Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 12-month forecast: -22.2%
#3) Orlando, Fla., 12-month forecast: -21%
#6) West Palm Beach, Fla., 12-month forecast: -17.6%
#7) Tampa, Fla., 12-month forecast: -17.1%

Hmm. Too bad the data doesn’t reveal any pattern.

So, you might think, most prisoners claim they are innocent. True enough, but in this case people of unimpeachable integrity and intelligence have closely examined the matter and believe he is telling the truth. MacRae admits to two earlier instances in which he was guilty of sexual misconduct but not to the charges on which he was convicted. Among those who have critically examined the prosecution is Dorothy Rabinowitz, the Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter of the Wall Street Journal who wrote a two-part exposé of the way in which he was railroaded, with the apparent help of the Manchester diocese and its bishop, John McCormack, a former aide to Cardinal Law of Boston.

Now the friends of Father MacRae have created a website, GordonMacRae.net, which provides a comprehensive narrative of the case, along with pertinent documentation. It makes for engrossing reading and will arouse a sense of outrage among all but the morally somnolent. The website also suggests how people can help Father MacRae in his quest for justice, which is a long shot but not hopeless.

It seems inappropriate for the Jews to ask Christians to stop praying for their conversion, for converting themselves and others is what Christians do. Why don’t Catholics also pray for the conversion of the Muslims? The answer is self-evident from the text of the supposedly offending prayer:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fulness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

The prayer is not for the conversion of the Jews as individuals, but rather for the salvation of “all Israel.” In this prayer, Church declares that “all Israel” consists of the Jews — the Israel of the flesh — as well as the Israel of the spirit, that is, the Church as the People of God. It is consistent with Pope John Paul II’s declaration that the Old Covenant never has been revoked, a position reiterated by Benedict XVI. Catholics therefore pray for “all Israel” to become one and to be saved together.

The reason that the Church does not specifically pray for God to illumine the hearts of Muslims (for example) is that it Muslims do not comprise part of the family of Israel. Nor, for that matter, does the Church specifically pray for Hindus, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians. That the Church desires to convert all of humankind goes without saying; what it needs to say, through the Easter prayer, is that it hopes for the healing of the rift within the family of Israel itself. Thus it affirms precisely what the Jews ask of the Christian world, namely that it recognize their unique status as God’s people.

Christians also might observe that the Jews pray for the conversion of all the peoples of the world, not just once a year but three times a day. Every Jewish service for the past 1,700 years has ended with the recitation of “Aleinu,” which calls on the whole world to acknowledge YHWH by His Name:

Therefore we put our hope in You, Hashem our God, that we may soon see Your mighty splendor, to remove detestable idolatry from the earth, and false gods will be utterly cut off, to perfect the universe through the Almighty’s sovereignty. Then all humanity will call upon Your Name, to turn all the earth’s wicked toward You. All the world’s inhabitants will recognize and know that to You every knee should bend, every tongue should swear. (Isaiah 45:23) Before You, Hashem, our God, they will bend every knee and cast themselves down and to the glory of Your Name they will render homage, and they will all accept upon themselves the yoke of Your kingship that You may reign over them soon and eternally. For the kingdom is Yours and You will reign for all eternity in glory as it is written in your Torah: Hashem shall reign for all eternity. (Exodus 15:18) And it is said: Hashem will be King over all the world—on that day Hashem will be One and His Name will be One. (Zechariah 14:9)

It is right and proper for the Jews to desire that all the world should worship YHWH in their way, and inconsistent of them to object to the same desire on the part of Christians. But the critical point is that the dispute over the Easter prayer is a quarrel within Israel. Jews should worry only if and when Christians cease to pray for them, for that would signify that Christians had forgotten the root onto which the wild olive branches are grafted.

Well, maybe not all about. Russell Goldman’s moronic story on ABC news is chiefly concerned to pursue the question of whether Wheaton might start forcing its faculty into arranged marriages—a wonderful example of the old practice of creating imaginary worlds so you can place people you don’t like there and make them be really, really evil. (The version of the story now online is corrected in a few ways, though still littered with errors—the previous one was submoronic.)

Before I say anything else, I want to say that Kent has been a fine colleague and a truly outstanding teacher, especially of creative writing. He is also a beautiful writer and a thoughtful, meditative cultural critic, and it is hard to imagine that we in the English department will be able to find an adequate replacement for him anytime soon.

Beyond that, here are the facts. Kent wasn’t fired for getting a divorce, as so many of the headlines say. Though Wheaton, in keeping with what it believes (and I believe) to be historic Christian teaching, sees divorce as a very bad thing, indeed often tragic, it does not fire people for getting divorced. We have a number of faculty who have been divorced while employed here; in the past dozen years or more, only one has been asked to leave. But the college authorities do ask to interview employees who are getting divorced in order to understand the circumstances. It was this interview that Kent declined to accept, and that’s where things unraveled.

Does such an institutional interest in employees’ personal lives strike you as an unwarranted invasion of privacy? People, you don’t know the half of it. You can’t get a job teaching here without letters of testimony to your Christian character and commitment to church life, at least one of them from your pastor. In interviews with the faculty personnel committee, the administration, and the department you want to teach in you have to be willing to answer all sorts of questions about your theological views, your spiritual values, your devotional commitments—as well as about your research and teaching. Every year I fill out a Faculty Activity Report in which I list not only my books and articles but also my activities in church and any charitable services to my community. It’s not possible to teach at Wheaton without giving up a great deal of what most people call their privacy.

But how can this be justified? Only because Wheaton asks its faculty not just to teach our students but also to be mentors for them and models—flawed models, deeply flawed in my case, but models all the same—of the Christian life. Indeed, that’s one of the chief ways in which the Wheaton experience is supposed to be distinct from other forms of higher education. By taking on this mentoring and modeling as an intrinsic part of our job, we agree to be evaluated on these grounds. And that can’t be done unless we open ourselves to the kind of scrutiny—by our students as well as by our peers and our administrative leaders—that, frankly, violates our privacy. We give up some of that privacy for the sake of Christian community—for the sake of the difficult task of helping to shape the whole lives (spiritual as well as intellectual) of young Christians.

Some, yes—but does it have to go so far? Is it reasonable for the college to inquire so deeply into the failure of a marriage, something so deeply personal and (in most cases) inscrutable to outsiders? As Kent has commented, with considerable justification, the situation seems to invite the faculty member to blame his spouse in order to keep his job. And in any case, what relevance could that divorce possibly have to one’s work as a teacher?

The answer to that last question is, alas, “It depends.” I know nothing whatsoever about Kent’s situation, but cannot imagine that any of the following scenarios apply in his case, so these are mere thought experiments, focusing on extreme possibilities.

(1) I am getting a divorce because my wife has fallen in love with another man and is leaving me.
(2) I am getting a divorce because my wife, exhausted after years of being verbally and sometimes physically abused by me, is leaving me.
(3) I am getting a divorce because I have fallen in love with another woman, a recent student of mine as it happens, and wish to leave my wife and marry this other woman.

Would any of these circumstances affect my ability to teach English literature to my students? Almost certainly not. But at Wheaton, I have those other responsibilities I mentioned, the “mentoring and modeling” with which I have been entrusted. And in light of those obligations, it seems to me that scenario (3) would disqualify me, scenario (1) would not, and scenario (2) might or might not, depending on how I respond to what has happened to me. A man who repents and grieves over his abuse of his wife, who understands that he is reaping what he has sown, could over the long term minister more deeply and significantly to his students than someone who had not so sinned and so suffered; but a man who refused to acknowledge his fault and filled himself with self-justification could be unworthy of the college’s (and his students’) trust.

But the only way these matters could be worked out is through long and difficult conversations between the person suffering through divorce and the college leadership—and this is what Kent Gramm chose not to do. Frankly, I don’t blame him one bit. I very well might make the same choice were I in his situation, though, then again, I might not have the courage: he knew what the employee handbook said and so resigned, even though he loves teaching his students here and doesn’t have another job on the horizon. (He has asked us to keep an eye out for him the next time we’re in Wal-Mart.) I wonder if, faced with the same situation, I wouldn’t have just blamed my spouse in order to keep my job and therefore some stability in my life. What Kent did is honorable and even brave.

But I also don’t think the college authorities could have done anything other than what they did, and not just because it’s impossible to ignore, for the sake of one situation, the existing rules that everyone has signed on to. If Wheaton is going to ask its faculty to be mentors and models of the Christian life—this quasi-pastoral role—then it has to be able to evaluate, in some way, our faithfulness in carrying out that responsibility. I must admit, I find this a little scary: Will I be judged fairly? Will I be falsely accused of some sin of commission or omission? (Or, perhaps worse, will I be truly accused?) And let’s admit it: Wheaton’s administration is made up of fallible people who can make mistakes in these matters, and perhaps have made them in the past. So these matters are complex, delicate, and worrisome.

But what’s the alternative to engaging in such difficult negotiations? For the college to say, “We expect our faculty to be sound spiritual mentors for our students, but we leave it to them to tell us whether they have successfully carried out this task”? That would be both irresponsible and an invitation to lawsuits from unhappy ex-students. For the college to say, “We ask our faculty to teach their classes and do their research in ways that avoid heresy, but to have no further role in their students’ lives”? Well, that would certainly simplify my life and give me more time to write—but it would also take away one of the chief joys of teaching here, and many of our students would find the Wheaton experience less attractive and meaningful.

The current system leaves me lamenting the loss of a colleague, my students grieving the loss of a beloved teacher, and Kent cut loose from a significant part of his work and from people he cares for. When I count the cost in this way, I am dismayed, and I can’t help but wonder whether there’s not a better and less threatening way to implement the community’s standards of commitment. But I don’t think Wheaton would be improved by a wholesale rejection of its current communal bonds and their replacement by a strict and simplistic division of “public” and “private” worlds. That would alter the character of this institution far more than, say, the admission of Catholics to the faculty. But let’s not go down that path again, at least not today . . .

Postscript: Wheaton’s president, Duane Litfin, has just posted a Q&A on the college’s policies regarding divorce here.

TEHRAN, May 02 (ISNA) — Spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI in a meeting with Iran’s delegation to Vatican called for utmost cultural and religious cooperation between the two sides.

He regarding faith and reason discussed in the recent dialogues between Islam and Roman Catholic Church said “Faith and reason are the two things that the world needs them today more than any other time and this is our duty to provide this need for the society.”

He also appreciated Iranian delegation for its present “Holy Quran” calling it a precious book.

Head of Iran’s Islamic culture and relations organization Mahdi Mostafavi responded Iran is ready to expand cultural and religious cooperation with Vatican. [sic]

The message the Vatican intended to send to Tehran, however, seems quite different. Among the eight Catholic representatives at the meeting was Prof. Vittorio Possenti of the University of Venice, a signator of a 2005 open letter denouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what it called his “crazy anti-Semitic declarations” against the State of Israel. The open letter and an associated demonstration against the Iranian embassy were organized by a group that included Magdi Allam, whom the pope received into the Church at the Easter Vigil.

The Catholic and Iranian sides published seven points of agreement in the May 1 Osservatore Romano, on the subject of faith and reason. They are (in my translation):

(1) Faith and reason are both God’s gifts to humanity.

(2) Faith and reason do not contradict each other; although faith can in some cases be above reason, it never can be against it.

(3) Faith and reason are intrinsically nonviolent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; nonetheless, at times, both have been ill-used to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot place reason or faith in doubt.

(4) Both of the parties agree to cooperate in furthering authentic religiosity, and in particular spirituality, to promote respect for sacred symbols and moral values.

(5) Christians and Muslims should proceed from tolerance, recognizing differences, remaining aware of things they have in common, and giving thanks for these to God. They are called to reciprocal respect, that is, to condemning derision of religious creeds.

(6) Generalizations should be avoided when speaking of religion. The differences between the confessions within Christianity and Islam as well as the differences in historical context are both important factors to be taken into consideration.

(7) Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or passage in their respective sacred texts. A holistic vision and an adequate hermeneutic method are necessary for their correct comprehension.

The declaration is unexceptionable in itself, but it is troubling that the Holy See gave the Iranian side the opportunity to aver principles on paper that it desecrates in practice. The Islamic Republic routinely supports terrorism to further its agenda. In 2005, Argentine prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for eight serving and former Iranian officials, including former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, for plotting a 1994 bombing that killed 85 and wounded 300 at a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.

According to Catholic World News, Iran hopes that the Vatican will help it counter American and European pressure:

Tehran, Apr. 29, 2008 (CWNews.com) — L’Osservatore Romano has cited the words of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, praising the Holy See for its diplomatic efforts.

During an April 6 meeting with the new papal nuncio in Iran, Archbishop Jean-Paul Gobel, Ahmadinejad said that the Vatican has been a positive force for justice, peace, and the protection of human rights around the world, L’Osservatore reported. Iran has been maneuvering to secure the support of the Holy See to counteract hostile pressure from the US and European nations. In 2005, Argentine prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for eight serving and former Iranian officials, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, for plotting a 1994 bombing that killed 85 and wounded 300 at a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.

Although the private message the Holy See delivered to Iran was quite different, it is hard to dispute the Iranian claim of a propaganda victory. In his September 2006 Regensburg address and subsequent statements, Benedict XVI has challenged Islam with the assertion that faith must be supported by reason. The Iranian mullahs affixed their signatures to this proposition without a second thought. That is the Catch-22 of debating with unreasonable people, for the least reasonable people, in the extreme case clinical paranoids, are most persuaded that they are, in fact, very reasonable indeed.

Some highlights:

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/189-gdtr.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/187-leaving-room-for-holy-spirit-when.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/106-side-hug.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/03/96-using-gods-favorite-word.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/185-you-down-with-opp-whoops-i-meant.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/169-clapping-our-hands-step-by-step.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/116-using-let-me-pray-about-it-as.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/143-getting-your-kids-beat-up.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/130-praying-at-people.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/119-saying-in-christian-love-before-you.html

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/101-letting-anyone-play-music.html