New Yorker Ada Calhoun has a secret so perverse, so shocking, that it will scandalize her liberal cohorts:
Why am I so paranoid? I’m not cheating on my husband, committing crimes or doing drugs. But those are battles my cosmopolitan, progressive friends would understand. Many of them had to come out — as gay, as alcoholics, as artists in places where art was not valued. To them, my situation is far more sinister: I am the bane of their youth, the boogeyman of their politics, the very thing they left their small towns to escape. I am a Christian.
Oh my. I want to be sympathetic, but I have no patience for this type of whiny, faux-persecution by liberal cosmopolitan Christians; it’s simply much ado about nothing. As Mrs. Calhoun’s article makes clear, there isn’t anything about her brand of Christianity that would lead to her becoming Manhattan’s first martyr. She belongs to the most liberal wing of the Episcopalian Church—basically Unitarians who still fancy using the Book of Common Prayer.
And just in case there is any shade of doubt that she might harbor fundamentalist sympathies, Calhoun reiterates—over and over—that she’s not one of those Christians:
Unless you’re William James or Saint Catherine of Siena it’s hard to talk about any of this without sounding dumb, or like a zealot, or ridiculous. And who wants to be lumped in with all the other Christians, especially the ones you see on TV protesting gay marriage, giving money to charlatans, and letting priests molest children?. . .
I’ll give the atheists a lot: The Creation Museum is a riot. The psychos shooting up abortion clinics and telling gay couples they’re going to hell are evil, and anyone of faith has an obligation to condemn them. Abominable stuff has been done in God’s name for centuries. The Bible has a lot of crazy s**t in it about stoning people for using the wrong salad fork. Up with science and reason! . . .
Not long ago, I told a priest at my church that my friends equated religion with horrible things. I expected her to tell me I had some obligation to stop hiding my faith, but she said, pulling a scarf around her neck to hide her priest’s collar, “Those preachers on the subways make me cringe.” She said she prefers Saint Francis: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.”
(St. Francis never said that, of course, but to point that out would be to impose my True Truth view on the quote when it’s the pragmatic truth that really counts, right?)
If my faith made no demands on me and represented nothing more than stained glass, comfort in the face of death, and an “It works” pragmatism, I’d probably be ashamed to talk about it too. But it’s not really about any of that stuff at all: Christianity is about Christ. This raises theobvious question: Where in all this is Jesus? Is Calhoun ashamed of him too? I’m tempted to point out that it was Jesus who said, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” But that’s in the Bible so it may be yet another reason to be embarrassed.
If this is what it means to come out as a Christian, why bother? If you’re embarrassed to be associated with orthodox Christians, with Scripture, and with Jesus—the Jesus of history as revealed in the Gospel, not the hippie, guru Jesus of the denatured social gospel—why would you even want to be called a Christian at all?
December 22nd, 2009 | 9:57 am
If this is what it means to come out as a Christian, why bother?
This is exactly why I have never understood liberal Christianity. And the demographics suggest that fewer and fewer of them bother.
December 22nd, 2009 | 9:57 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chrisblackstone, Howard Rose. Howard Rose said: And who wants to be lumped in with all the other Christians, especially the ones you see on TV protesting gay marri… http://bit.ly/5MR6DI [...]
December 22nd, 2009 | 10:11 am
Just curious. Regarding the quote: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words,” you said “St. Francis never said that, of course, but to point that out would be to impose my True Truth…”
If St Francis of Assisi did not say those words, who did, if anyone? Thanking you in advance.
December 22nd, 2009 | 10:14 am
Ah yes, “If you can not believe as I do, then you are no Christian!” Joe that is one of the poorest arguments that anyone can advance. Jesus was not about exclusion, he was one of the most inclusive characters of history, yet today we have far to many Christians pointing fingers and declaring “You are not a Christian!”
It is a sad fact that there have been far too many bad examples of Christianity that it is a bit understandable that Ada Calhoun would have quams at being identified with. She is, however, a far better living example of Christ than most.
My suggestion? Join with her and provide a shining example of Christ in action, stop excluding others!
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:15 am
See this link about the quote attributed to St. Francis. http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj092302.asp These precise words do not appear in any of Francis’ writings, but are consistent with his thought.
The point is this: a preacher’s words and actions should be consistent with each other. Both are important, but many will remember virtuous behavior long after they’ve forgotten the words that accompanied the behavior.
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:56 am
Tom,
I believe the closest statement made by St. Francis is when he instructed his friars not to preach unless they had received permission, but stated, “Let all the brothers preach by their deeds.”
There is no evidence that he ever said anything resembling “use words when necessary.”
Mark
December 22nd, 2009 | 12:01 pm
Yeah, Joe, how did you fail to notice that the message of the Gospel is all about inclusion? Why exclude people with silly truth claims and all that controversial stuff about Jesus being God? Christ is just symbol for our new and magnificent virtue of unending tolerance. Be included, already!
December 22nd, 2009 | 3:00 pm
Thanks, Susan and Mark, for enlightening me. I agree that “actions speak louder than words…” Hmm, I wonder who said that? J Pym, or maybe A. M. Davis?
December 22nd, 2009 | 3:04 pm
RevJD, I see statements like yours from time to time, and I am always baffled by them, especially when they appear to be scoldings of folks, like Mr. Carter, who are taking issue with people like Ms. Calhoun going out of their way to distance themselves – and their understanding of Christianity – from those whom she calls “psychos,” and you refer to as “poor examples of Christianity.”
Perhaps I’m just dense, but could you kindly explain exactly what you mean? Specifically, if Jesus “was [sic] one of the most inclusive characters of history,” what exactly do you mean by “inclusive,” and which Scriptural passages inform this understanding of yours?
December 22nd, 2009 | 3:32 pm
Satan can run a church, be served by a preacher, fund media efforts, and influence politicians. Satan can say the word “Jesus”.
Humans are tragically able to ignore the smell of sulfur, if their ears are filled with flattery, their brains with dogma, and their hearts with pride.
December 22nd, 2009 | 4:24 pm
Humans are tragically able to ignore the smell of sulfur, if their ears are filled with flattery, their brains with dogma, and their hearts with pride.
When they leave out the dogma, they’re even better able to ignore the smell.
Still, this adherent of Catholic dogma wouldn’t mind a bit more flattery. In most quarters, what I get for that adherence is mostly incomprehension and/or scorn.
December 22nd, 2009 | 5:16 pm
This is a terribly jaded view of life in New York City, where there is nearly a house of worship every three blocks (ok, maybe every five, and definitely every ten). NYC is pervaded by a Jewish, Irish & Italian ethos.
I have never had a problem identifying myself as a believer, and no one has ever given me grief for it, either.
I wonder what the writer does on Ash Wednesday?
December 22nd, 2009 | 7:27 pm
Why are so many so very hard on Calhoun? We should be thankful every time someone is willing to disclose that they are people of faith. Regardless of their stripe — Protestant, Catholic, Orthdox — they have made a statement about faith that didn’t have to be made. I, for one, in this Age of Disbelief and Atheism, am encouraged anyone joins. This is a family of faith. We are thankful for the quirky uncle, the whiny nephew, the obsessive/compulsive aunt, the cousin we only see at Thanksgiving. May the Lord show mercy on us all and give us a tolerance to love and embrace those who may believe and practice differently. May he give us the grace to rejoice in the diversity of the Body of Christ. Merry Christmas, everyone! David Pendleton
December 22nd, 2009 | 10:33 pm
David Pendleton,
I think a big part of the problem is that Calhoun lives in one of the (if not just the) biggest Pentecostal, Catholic, and Jewish cities in the world; yet she feels that she has to throw everyone to the right of far left Episcopalians under the bus in order to retain her dignity as a tolerant liberal human being.
It seems that her intolerant circle of friends are the oddest myopic elitists and that she just has no sense of perspective due to her relative isolation within the far reaches of the upper classes. Similarly, she demonstrates little sense of the often-glorious historical triumphs of the Christian faith (which existed before Pat Robertson, for what it’s worth). Neither speaks very well of her capacity to comment on religion in an informed way.
December 23rd, 2009 | 12:17 pm
Steve, actually, the biggest problem with Calhoun is that she’s not alone—as a former Episcopalian, I can testify that she is not alone in her intolerant views about Mormons, Catholics and all Christians she deems “Intolerant” and “backwards”. The prevalence of this view in the Episcopal Church—WE are the excellent, liberal, tolerant Christians, all others are merely low-class bigots—is one of the reasons I finally had to leave.
As for the historical triumphs of the Christian faith, the current Episcopal administration isn’t proud of Christian, or Western, history, and wants to replace it with something they deem better—usually something progressive, Democratic party approved and “inclusive.”
Meanwhile, in the news today, some Christian churches in Iraq have been attacked, and at least three people are reported dead. There are persecuted Christians in the world today, let’s save our sympathy for them.
December 28th, 2009 | 9:38 am
Has anyone ever defined what they mean by “progressive”? Progress from what to what?
Likewise, have you ever heard any self-described liberal define “tolerance”?
They’ll casually say things like “well all cultures are equal….but the West is exclusively to blame for bad things” and not see the contradiction.
They’ll accept the a priori that all non-white male human beings on earth are incapable of sin “because they can’t help themselves” or “bush made them do it” or “society/Haliburton/white men” but then accuse white male conservatives of being patriarchical, sexist, and arrogant!
The Tzar and his nobles ruling a nation of serfs was bad, bad, bad. But a Stalin and his Politburo ruling a nation of…..comrades was a noble experiment? What other than titles, uniforms, and the justification for atrocities actually changed?
Has any liberal cared to notice the lack of toleration of conservative members or their beliefs? We must all bow before the altar of “inculturation” and accept dance, liturgical, and other changes created out of whole cloth or at least not from our culture…..but turn about is not fair play?
Do they even realize they’re not being consistent or logical? On some level at least? Could that perhaps explain the tendency of many to spontaneously combust with rage when challenged or opposed?
December 28th, 2009 | 12:47 pm
So why are you pointing your finger at Joe?
(Even granting your premise. Jesus did, after all, suggest amputation as a solution to sin.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact