Too Often Prophetic
Feb 7, 2011
David Mills
Several of the respondents to R. R. Reno’s First Thoughts item “When Reality is Unspoofable,” which offered the program for last year’s meeting of the Catholic Theological Society, noted how often the theologians used—invoked might be the better term—the word “prophetic.” The item was published last June, but Reno is the sort of writer whose lightest jotting one wants to read and reread and if possible commit to memory. My saying this has nothing to do with his being the next editor. Nothing at all. It’s perfectly, completely, sincere.
Anyway: In my years as an Episcopal activist, I duly read all the “progressive” magazines and newsletters and press releases and sat through dozens of “progressive” sermons, lectures, press conferences, and literally weeks of General Convention meetings, covering the debates both of the house of bishops and the house of deputies (which included clerics and laymen both). I was surprised, after a while, to notice not only how often the progressives used the word “prophetic,” but how un-ironically they used it.
“Inclusive” language liturgy was Prophetic! and "gay marriage" was Prophetic! and support for illegal immigrants was Prophetic! and legalized abortion was prophetic and so was that and that and that! Nothing they said or did was non-prophetic. Nothing, or almost nothing, was just a good idea or the right thing to do or simply useful or helpful.
Everything was a Statement. Every action was a bold, courageous, radical, unconventional—that is to say, prophetic—witness to a world stuck doing things the same way and unable to escape its self-interest and moral blindness.
I exaggerate a little, but not much. The sustained, the unrelenting, earnestness amazed me. As did the sustained obliviousness to the effect of their unrelenting claims to be speaking prophetically. It did them no good, other than as a rallying cry to excite the troops.
For one thing, the term was used as a claim to special virtue, if not in oneself in one’s idea, which is the modern version of “I am glad that I am not like this tax collector.” To call everything you want to do “prophetic” is the equivalent of saying over and over, “O Lord, I thank you that I am not like this worldly conservative who disagrees with me: elitist, selfish, xenophobic, sexist, racist, homophobic, comfortable, blinkered, self-satisfied, self-interested, and probably Republican to boot.”
You will not be able to engage your opponent as effectively as you can if you think he’s a knave or a fool. You'll make a better argument if you think you really have to argue with him. You might even be his moral superior, but you'll gain more politically if you assume you're not. (Though in this case, the Episcopal progressives’ political power was so great they were going to win even if they did badly underestimate their opponents, but in general, it's a bad idea.)
For another, speaking that way defeats your own purposes. As one of the respondents to Reno’s item noted: “To paraphrase The Incredibles: Saying, ‘Everything is prophetic’ is another way of saying, ‘Nothing is prophetic’.” The claim to be speaking prophetically should draw people to your side or drive them to attack you, because both know that it means a stark and crucial choice, but when you invoke it all the time and for almost every issue, all you do is make everyone yawn.
This over-use of prophetic amazed me because I assumed someone would see that it did them no good. They would eventually see that everyone else reacted to their invocation of the word “prophetic” the way they reacted to a hypochondriac’s constant claims that he’s sick. The word would become background noise the mind blocks out because it has important things to think about. But the Episcopal progressives never saw this.
When the Catholic theologians use the word, it tells everyone else that they are visiting an intellectual ghetto, and one that looks a little old and tatty. It's a sign of the day before yesterday's ideas. You would not be surprised to find people in bell bottoms and hear The Doors playing on the stereo. On the other hand, John Paul II and Benedict rarely use the word, becaues they are, in fact, more up to date and relevant.
But this kind of attempt the win the debate by declaration is not only a progressive fault. At the same time the Episcopal progressives kept calling almost everything they wanted “prophetic,” the conservative wing insisted that almost everything they wanted was “biblical.” They used the word even more than the progressives used “prophetic,” and often with no more discrimination. Theirs was the biblical morality, the biblical worldview, the biblical practice.
I generally agreed with them, of course, and on some issues was more traditional or conservative—or even, I’d like to think, biblical—than the conservatives who spoke so constantly for the biblical side. I was guilty myself of using the word too often and too glibly. Using the word so often and so uncritically did the conservatives no good for the same reasons it did the progressives no good.
They did not, for example, have to think deeply enough about what "biblical" means and does not mean. Homosexuality they declared unbiblical, and offered the verses to prove it, but they did not then reflect on what in it was wrong, and in particular what was the place of procreation in marriage and what the physical complementarity of the sexes in marriage was for. Calling it "unbiblical" settled the matter.
This left them with a position that (as a Catholic) I'd suggest was not all that different from the position of the homosexualists they opposed. Marriage does not have to be fruitful. It can be sterile. It is constituted in some way by the feelings and desires of the partners, by their love for and commitment to each other. The homosexualists objected, quite reasonably, that if this was so, their desired form of relationship ought to be accepted as well, the nature of the organs used being at most secondary to some deeper essence of marriage.
Some conservative theologians did, to be fair, write carefully and deeply on the matter. But even they never pressed the question that far, to the point of questioning the conservative movement's belief in contraception, and this meant that their case was mainly a negative case against homosexuality and not a positive case in favor of marriage. In any case, the conservatives' public and effective rhetoric depended upon this quick and easy invocation of "biblical" to declare victory in the argument.
This is something, as I say, I did myself. It is very easy to do. It is very easy to do when caught up in ecclesiastical politics, but nearly as easy to do when you on your own and feeling the need to feel superior to someone else. As, I admit, when reading the program for a theological conference and imagining all the white-haired, comfortably tenured theologians being so boldly prophetic, just before going to the expense account dinner in the nice restaurant.
Too many of us substitute being right for being good. Holiness is hard, ideology easy. A small step toward holiness, or at least away from speaking as an ideologue, can be made by avoiding our school or party or movement's pet words. That can force us to try to make an argument, and that effort can lead us closer to truths we would not see otherwise.
David Mills is Deputy Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here. R.R. Reno’s "When Reality is Unspoofable" can be found here.
Comments:
2.7.2011 | 6:23am
Fr. Hans Jacobse says:
Maybe not holier but certainly more clear thinking. "Prophetic" is a euphemism for the moral agenda of Progressive ideology for the most part. It imputes the authority of the Christian moral tradition to ideas often alien to it.
2.7.2011 | 7:32am
Douglas Johnson says:
One more point on Westphal--he gives the conservative an opportunity, when addressing an opponent, to start your response with "you're right..." And then you can turn to Isaiah 64:6, or the Prodigal Son, or many others to show the same critiques of religion found in the Bible.
2.7.2011 | 8:22am
Rob M says:
Any action or proclamation may indeed be prophetic; the question is whether it is true or false prophecy (See Jeremiah 28). Dire consequences follow in the case of the latter.
2.7.2011 | 8:22am
Martial Artist says:
"Nothing they said or did was non-prophetic." Well, of course that was the case. Having been an Episcopalian for almost 40 years (was I ever slow to learn, nicht wahr?).
Everything they do, 24/7/365¼ is done under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, don't you know. If you don't believe me, just ask them—I'm sure they will be glad to verify that assessment. I'd be willing to lay odds that even the misconduct of the Bennison brothers will soon be seen to have been done under the Spirit's guidance. < /irony >
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Everything they do, 24/7/365¼ is done under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, don't you know. If you don't believe me, just ask them—I'm sure they will be glad to verify that assessment. I'd be willing to lay odds that even the misconduct of the Bennison brothers will soon be seen to have been done under the Spirit's guidance. < /irony >
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
2.7.2011 | 8:40am
Katie says:
Excellent point, Father - the "progressives" who throw around the word "prophetic" all the time really truly seem to think that they stand in the great tradition of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Amos and ... Bishop Hanson of the ELCA?? (or whoever - take your pick, he's mine)
But Isaiah and Jeremiah and Amos and everybody else - all the "old-school prophets" were calling Israel to repentance, to be the nation, the people they already knew they were supposed to be. Oppression of the marginalized and insincere worship and dabbling in pagan traditions were already big no-no's for Israel. It's not like one of the OT prophets suddenly tripped over some brand-new revelation about ...whatever... and the Israelites heard that and said, "Really? Wow, we had no idea!"
But today's most "prophetic" leaders and activists seem to constantly be introducing brand-new ideas - see the original article for examples - that hardly anybody in OT Israel, NT Judaism/Christianity, or the Early Church would at all recognize as coming from the Lord.
When was the last time a mainstream leader declared himself to be prophetic and then launched into a monologue on the need to examine oneself more carefully before receiving Communion; evaluate not how much money one gives to the church or other worthy causes, but rather what is one's heart and attitude regarding these practices; and stop fooling around with Oprah's pseudo-religion?
Now that would be interesting...
But Isaiah and Jeremiah and Amos and everybody else - all the "old-school prophets" were calling Israel to repentance, to be the nation, the people they already knew they were supposed to be. Oppression of the marginalized and insincere worship and dabbling in pagan traditions were already big no-no's for Israel. It's not like one of the OT prophets suddenly tripped over some brand-new revelation about ...whatever... and the Israelites heard that and said, "Really? Wow, we had no idea!"
But today's most "prophetic" leaders and activists seem to constantly be introducing brand-new ideas - see the original article for examples - that hardly anybody in OT Israel, NT Judaism/Christianity, or the Early Church would at all recognize as coming from the Lord.
When was the last time a mainstream leader declared himself to be prophetic and then launched into a monologue on the need to examine oneself more carefully before receiving Communion; evaluate not how much money one gives to the church or other worthy causes, but rather what is one's heart and attitude regarding these practices; and stop fooling around with Oprah's pseudo-religion?
Now that would be interesting...
2.7.2011 | 8:54am
Michael says:
David
Thanks for this reminder. In the last couple of months, Carter and Scalia have said similar things, trying to recall readers to a more respectful and genuine conversation. I haven’t seen that conversation happen much in the comments that follow these columns. Nor have I seen much guidance from you all when you’re in the trenches.
Take your Advent post, for example (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/12/the-advent-search/david-mills).
You satirized the Unitarians for “questioning,” which was fair enough. But I was impressed that you took seriously and responded thoughtfully when a Unitarian wrote in with his thoughts. Then I was dismayed by the viciousness of the other commenters and their lack of solicitude. Finally, I was disappointed in your silence concerning these attacks.
It’s a shame that these columns don’t produce more thoughtful commentary. And as an example, we have right off the bat Fr. Jacobse’s accusation that progressives aren’t “clear thinking” and engage in “euphemism.” This is followed by Martial Artist’s cynicism. There’s a lamentable lack of desire to think out loud about the issues facing the Church.
But I see the problem also arising in your article itself. You pit “Episcopal progressives” against the “conservative wing.” First, I want to know the conservative wing of what, the Episcopal Church or Christianity? But then, you raise above the progressives and conservatives the Catholic position, which somehow knows the real meaning of both prophetic and biblical, as if there weren’t arguments within Catholicism about the meaning of both those terms as well as arguments about the issues that all Christians struggle with.
Thanks for this reminder. In the last couple of months, Carter and Scalia have said similar things, trying to recall readers to a more respectful and genuine conversation. I haven’t seen that conversation happen much in the comments that follow these columns. Nor have I seen much guidance from you all when you’re in the trenches.
Take your Advent post, for example (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/12/the-advent-search/david-mills).
You satirized the Unitarians for “questioning,” which was fair enough. But I was impressed that you took seriously and responded thoughtfully when a Unitarian wrote in with his thoughts. Then I was dismayed by the viciousness of the other commenters and their lack of solicitude. Finally, I was disappointed in your silence concerning these attacks.
It’s a shame that these columns don’t produce more thoughtful commentary. And as an example, we have right off the bat Fr. Jacobse’s accusation that progressives aren’t “clear thinking” and engage in “euphemism.” This is followed by Martial Artist’s cynicism. There’s a lamentable lack of desire to think out loud about the issues facing the Church.
But I see the problem also arising in your article itself. You pit “Episcopal progressives” against the “conservative wing.” First, I want to know the conservative wing of what, the Episcopal Church or Christianity? But then, you raise above the progressives and conservatives the Catholic position, which somehow knows the real meaning of both prophetic and biblical, as if there weren’t arguments within Catholicism about the meaning of both those terms as well as arguments about the issues that all Christians struggle with.
2.7.2011 | 9:07am
pentamom says:
This is the religious equivalent of "speaking truth to power." These days, in both cases, it's not prophetic witness, or bravely speaking truth to power in the face of having that power wielded against you -- it's much more likely to be going along with the wisdom acceptable to the new set of people in power.
It's a bit like transgressively sticking your neck out there and arguing that Herod's marital arrangements represent one of the new kinds of family that we need to embrace. You'll get some people mad, but the ones you actually have to worry about will like you.
It's a bit like transgressively sticking your neck out there and arguing that Herod's marital arrangements represent one of the new kinds of family that we need to embrace. You'll get some people mad, but the ones you actually have to worry about will like you.
2.7.2011 | 9:46am
Jason Taylor says:
The point of using the word prophetic is not that it is tedious. It is that it is in fact blasphemous unless one is literally receiving direct messages from God. Someone who claims such a thing falsely is automatically a heretic. Someone who uses such a claim as a metaphor in a church service is not only being imprudent(that is the wrong context for such metaphors because in church it is to easily mistaken for literalness) but is showing a silly and shallow mindset that does not take a claim of prophecy as seriously as is warranted. Which is why it is different from Biblical, which claim is usually made for things that are, well, Biblical. When someone says something is "Biblical" they usually assume that they can in fact flip a page to find their support in the Bible.
2.7.2011 | 10:04am
Ben says:
You're absolutely right, pentamom. Much if not most of the "prophetic witness" we're discussing here is really just power being spoken to truth -- the power of the liberal, progressive status quo butting in to shout down the prophetic speech of Christianity.
2.7.2011 | 10:09am
Mike Melendez says:
@Michael, I don't know if you are aware of the irony your comment. You fault people for finding fault in others. As a software engineer, there is something recursive in that.
2.7.2011 | 12:05pm
Michael says:
Mike,
Here’s more ironic recursiveness for you. Theologians offering prophetic or biblical criticisms are finding fault with society. Mills finds fault with both groups. I find fault with Mills, and you find fault with me because I’m lost to the irony of my comment.
Or we could look at it another way. I am engaging in serious dialogue with Mills. And you?
---
Meanwhile, a serious question here in the comments has been raised about what constitutes real prophetic witness.
Katie’s right that the Hebrew prophets called people back to familiar truths rather than offering new revelations, but I think that has been the case in each of the issues Mills raises: inclusive language, gay marriage, support for illegal immigrants, and legalized abortion. Mills doesn’t mention civil rights, which I’m guessing is the issue that brought the language of “prophetic witness” into currency in the first place.
In each of these cases, most progressives argue that they are being true to the gospel and that the justice sought in each case would be “recognized as coming from the Lord,” as Katie puts it. Whether they are right is another issue, but I would want to argue the merits of each case rather than dismiss all of these cases based on language alone, which I’m sure she’s not doing. She’s probably offering it as a convenient shorthand.
Pentamom and Ben offer up the common conservative idea that there’s some “new set of people in power,” a group that offers the “liberal, progressive status quo.” I’m never sure who this group is. Gays and immigrants are minorities. The support both gain only come from members of the majority who are willing to offer some charity toward them. Women are a different issue. They make up the majority of the population but have never held the reins of power as a group.
Mills has suggested that we put away “pet words” and “make an argument” instead so that we might be led “closer to truths we would not see otherwise.” I think Katie, Pentamom, and Ben are using different “pet words” and that there is another, more productive conversation to be had.
Here’s more ironic recursiveness for you. Theologians offering prophetic or biblical criticisms are finding fault with society. Mills finds fault with both groups. I find fault with Mills, and you find fault with me because I’m lost to the irony of my comment.
Or we could look at it another way. I am engaging in serious dialogue with Mills. And you?
---
Meanwhile, a serious question here in the comments has been raised about what constitutes real prophetic witness.
Katie’s right that the Hebrew prophets called people back to familiar truths rather than offering new revelations, but I think that has been the case in each of the issues Mills raises: inclusive language, gay marriage, support for illegal immigrants, and legalized abortion. Mills doesn’t mention civil rights, which I’m guessing is the issue that brought the language of “prophetic witness” into currency in the first place.
In each of these cases, most progressives argue that they are being true to the gospel and that the justice sought in each case would be “recognized as coming from the Lord,” as Katie puts it. Whether they are right is another issue, but I would want to argue the merits of each case rather than dismiss all of these cases based on language alone, which I’m sure she’s not doing. She’s probably offering it as a convenient shorthand.
Pentamom and Ben offer up the common conservative idea that there’s some “new set of people in power,” a group that offers the “liberal, progressive status quo.” I’m never sure who this group is. Gays and immigrants are minorities. The support both gain only come from members of the majority who are willing to offer some charity toward them. Women are a different issue. They make up the majority of the population but have never held the reins of power as a group.
Mills has suggested that we put away “pet words” and “make an argument” instead so that we might be led “closer to truths we would not see otherwise.” I think Katie, Pentamom, and Ben are using different “pet words” and that there is another, more productive conversation to be had.
2.7.2011 | 1:02pm
pentamom says:
Michael, are you suggesting that people who support the progressive social agenda aren't in power in the government and mainline churches? Have you noticed who is in the White House?
Even to the extent that some of these people fall short of the ideal of progressive perfection, and may not be pushing as hard for social progressivism as non-elected social progressives, they aren't the ones getting mad when progressive social ideas are advocated. I'm not sure who is in power in a way that threatens progressive social advocates in any real way. Can you tell me who the "speaking truth to power" crowd actually has to FEAR (as opposed to be disagreed with by, or refusing to cooperate with) when they make their prophetic utterances?
Even to the extent that some of these people fall short of the ideal of progressive perfection, and may not be pushing as hard for social progressivism as non-elected social progressives, they aren't the ones getting mad when progressive social ideas are advocated. I'm not sure who is in power in a way that threatens progressive social advocates in any real way. Can you tell me who the "speaking truth to power" crowd actually has to FEAR (as opposed to be disagreed with by, or refusing to cooperate with) when they make their prophetic utterances?
2.7.2011 | 1:07pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Michael, So you are not aware. I guess you think the claim that you are serious and others are not frees you from your own requirements.
In reference to "gays and immigrants" Michael claims: "The support both gain only come from members of the majority who are willing to offer some charity toward them."
Perhaps a silent majority? "Support" and "charity" seem to be "pet words" of yours. The claim is so vague as to be meaningless. But you are clear about whom you are against: "common conservatives". I agree with Mills, Michael, put them away and make an argument.
In reference to "gays and immigrants" Michael claims: "The support both gain only come from members of the majority who are willing to offer some charity toward them."
Perhaps a silent majority? "Support" and "charity" seem to be "pet words" of yours. The claim is so vague as to be meaningless. But you are clear about whom you are against: "common conservatives". I agree with Mills, Michael, put them away and make an argument.
2.7.2011 | 2:18pm
Don Roberto says:
Seems to me that the most common sense in which most "progressives" are prophets is insofar as they speak for the false gods of pleasure.
Setting aside revealed truth, natural law shows clearly that: abortion is the brutal taking of an innocent life in order to avoid the consequences of individual choices; sodomy and sexual obsession are patently unhealthy for the mind and body, insofar as they lead to increased incidence of STDs and, like any addiction, distract people from following productive courses and devoting themselves to productive relationships; and illegal immigration, insofar as it *forces* us to be generous or even to give up that which we are not willing to give voluntarily, is equivalent to theft.
I prefer Elijah and John the Baptist, please.
†
Setting aside revealed truth, natural law shows clearly that: abortion is the brutal taking of an innocent life in order to avoid the consequences of individual choices; sodomy and sexual obsession are patently unhealthy for the mind and body, insofar as they lead to increased incidence of STDs and, like any addiction, distract people from following productive courses and devoting themselves to productive relationships; and illegal immigration, insofar as it *forces* us to be generous or even to give up that which we are not willing to give voluntarily, is equivalent to theft.
I prefer Elijah and John the Baptist, please.
†
2.7.2011 | 2:49pm
Katie says:
To be clear: I do not for ONE SECOND believe that gay marriage and legalized abortion come from the Lord. And probably not "inclusive language," either.
2.7.2011 | 3:03pm
Michael says:
Pentamom,
The people who support the progressive social agenda are in power in some parts of some governments. They aren’t in power in Texas, where I live, except in some cities. They are in power in the White House but that’s only recently, and they aren’t in power in the House. What power they have is contested. They are in power in the mainline churches, but I’m not sure how much power that is exactly.
During the Bush era, conservatives had two chambers of Congress and the White House and still complained about the power of the liberal social agenda. As I say, I’m never sure what exactly people, conservative or liberal, are pointing to when they complain about fighting some vast conspiracy. I do know that political folk of whatever side like to claim that their side is being unfairly silenced.
As far speaking truth-to-power goes, I think the phrase is silly in an American context. It makes sense in Egypt and Tunisia right now. It made sense during the civil rights era when activists were beaten and murdered and during the Vietnam peace movement. I think it’s used now out of nostalgia. I don’t think they need fear anyone. When I was a kid, the guys in my Catholic school used to look for gays to beat up, but that behavior is becoming less acceptable.
---
Mike,
I didn’t take your first comment as serious. What did I miss?
Gays make up only 10% or so of the population. They can’t as a group out-muscle or out-vote anyone without straight allies who have decided to support their cause. Those straight allies have various reasons for supporting such a group different from themselves. I gathered those reasons under the umbrella term of “charity,” meaning they reached out to a group unlike themselves. The same is true about illegal immigrants. Their concerns can only be supported by others unlike them.
If you don’t like those terms, offer your own.
Straights and citizens do have the power that comes from being a majority that passes laws that favor themselves and not others. That doesn’t mean that that power is being abused or is immoral.
I said I was against a “common conservative idea,” not against “common conservatives.” I’ve said plenty of stupid things that can be attacked without you misquoting me.
The people who support the progressive social agenda are in power in some parts of some governments. They aren’t in power in Texas, where I live, except in some cities. They are in power in the White House but that’s only recently, and they aren’t in power in the House. What power they have is contested. They are in power in the mainline churches, but I’m not sure how much power that is exactly.
During the Bush era, conservatives had two chambers of Congress and the White House and still complained about the power of the liberal social agenda. As I say, I’m never sure what exactly people, conservative or liberal, are pointing to when they complain about fighting some vast conspiracy. I do know that political folk of whatever side like to claim that their side is being unfairly silenced.
As far speaking truth-to-power goes, I think the phrase is silly in an American context. It makes sense in Egypt and Tunisia right now. It made sense during the civil rights era when activists were beaten and murdered and during the Vietnam peace movement. I think it’s used now out of nostalgia. I don’t think they need fear anyone. When I was a kid, the guys in my Catholic school used to look for gays to beat up, but that behavior is becoming less acceptable.
---
Mike,
I didn’t take your first comment as serious. What did I miss?
Gays make up only 10% or so of the population. They can’t as a group out-muscle or out-vote anyone without straight allies who have decided to support their cause. Those straight allies have various reasons for supporting such a group different from themselves. I gathered those reasons under the umbrella term of “charity,” meaning they reached out to a group unlike themselves. The same is true about illegal immigrants. Their concerns can only be supported by others unlike them.
If you don’t like those terms, offer your own.
Straights and citizens do have the power that comes from being a majority that passes laws that favor themselves and not others. That doesn’t mean that that power is being abused or is immoral.
I said I was against a “common conservative idea,” not against “common conservatives.” I’ve said plenty of stupid things that can be attacked without you misquoting me.
2.7.2011 | 3:07pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Dear Mike Melendez,
You seem to have summed up the M shorthand well enough. In other post he argued that a person was thoughtful and reasonable insofar as he eventually opened his mind to M's way of thinking. Conversely, M does not find a person reasonable and thoughtful if he disagrees with M.
These discussions on First Things are often religious in nature, and in religion one has to look to absolutes, which for M, is M.
And for historicists like M, you'll notice he spends an inordinate amount of his life writing comments for First Things.
You seem to have summed up the M shorthand well enough. In other post he argued that a person was thoughtful and reasonable insofar as he eventually opened his mind to M's way of thinking. Conversely, M does not find a person reasonable and thoughtful if he disagrees with M.
These discussions on First Things are often religious in nature, and in religion one has to look to absolutes, which for M, is M.
And for historicists like M, you'll notice he spends an inordinate amount of his life writing comments for First Things.
2.7.2011 | 6:20pm
David Mills says:
Michael: Thank you for the kind words and helpful response. I've only just now seen it because I've been on a bus all day. To respond:
I thought that the fact that I was referring to the conservative Episcopalians who ranged themselves against the progressives was clear, but apparently not.
I didn't suggest that the Catholic Church knows better than the other two schools the true meaning of "prophetic" and "biblical." Though actually, now that you mention it, I do, though heaven knows individual Catholics might not. All I was doing was suggesting, with the explicit proviso that I was writing as a Catholic, that the conservatives' invocation of "biblical" prevented them from thinking deeply enough about the subject of marriage.
The nature of combox debates is one we have been discussing. I have usually found the discussions of my articles helpful and challenging, but there are times when they are not so.
In thinking about how they work, there is the problem that one man's insult is another man's vigorous remark, and that the evaluation of the tone of the discussion so often depends on whose ox is gored, and the judgment is further complicated because some of the worst comments are delivered very calmly and with apparent good will (I'm thinking, for example, of those who twist your words to make you look stupid or wicked, while writing in the prose of Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farm). There's not really a good answer.
I thought that the fact that I was referring to the conservative Episcopalians who ranged themselves against the progressives was clear, but apparently not.
I didn't suggest that the Catholic Church knows better than the other two schools the true meaning of "prophetic" and "biblical." Though actually, now that you mention it, I do, though heaven knows individual Catholics might not. All I was doing was suggesting, with the explicit proviso that I was writing as a Catholic, that the conservatives' invocation of "biblical" prevented them from thinking deeply enough about the subject of marriage.
The nature of combox debates is one we have been discussing. I have usually found the discussions of my articles helpful and challenging, but there are times when they are not so.
In thinking about how they work, there is the problem that one man's insult is another man's vigorous remark, and that the evaluation of the tone of the discussion so often depends on whose ox is gored, and the judgment is further complicated because some of the worst comments are delivered very calmly and with apparent good will (I'm thinking, for example, of those who twist your words to make you look stupid or wicked, while writing in the prose of Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farm). There's not really a good answer.
2.7.2011 | 6:58pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Michael
My first comment was made with a light heart in hopes of prodding you out of your complacency. This time I'll try a more direct route.
"Gays make up only 10% or so of the population. They can’t as a group out-muscle or out-vote anyone without straight allies who have decided to support their cause. Those straight allies have various reasons for supporting such a group different from themselves. I gathered those reasons under the umbrella term of “charity,” meaning they reached out to a group unlike themselves."
I agree that gay activists have straight allies. But that combination does work to out muscle others. There's the Prop 8 debacle in California where two votes of the majority have been undone by just such action. Then there is my own state, MA, where we were not even allowed to vote on the issue as all state representatives got their arms twisted so badly by that same minority. The claim was and is that "You don't vote on Civil Rights." So much for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 not to mention the Bill of Rights. Those are what are called "facts", fundamental to argumentation. So no, "charity", in its dictionary meaning, does not apply.
Note also that ideas are associated with the people that have them. Indeed, it is the people that have them that make them common. Let them speak for themselves rather than putting words in their mouths. Claim whatever you like but don't expect people to agree with you just out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly when you are not setting the example.
You are welcome to your viewpoints. You are human just like any of us. But make your case, don't just claim it. Do what you fault others for not doing. Expect that others will make their cases too, some well, some not so well. Try to be the former.
My first comment was made with a light heart in hopes of prodding you out of your complacency. This time I'll try a more direct route.
"Gays make up only 10% or so of the population. They can’t as a group out-muscle or out-vote anyone without straight allies who have decided to support their cause. Those straight allies have various reasons for supporting such a group different from themselves. I gathered those reasons under the umbrella term of “charity,” meaning they reached out to a group unlike themselves."
I agree that gay activists have straight allies. But that combination does work to out muscle others. There's the Prop 8 debacle in California where two votes of the majority have been undone by just such action. Then there is my own state, MA, where we were not even allowed to vote on the issue as all state representatives got their arms twisted so badly by that same minority. The claim was and is that "You don't vote on Civil Rights." So much for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 not to mention the Bill of Rights. Those are what are called "facts", fundamental to argumentation. So no, "charity", in its dictionary meaning, does not apply.
Note also that ideas are associated with the people that have them. Indeed, it is the people that have them that make them common. Let them speak for themselves rather than putting words in their mouths. Claim whatever you like but don't expect people to agree with you just out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly when you are not setting the example.
You are welcome to your viewpoints. You are human just like any of us. But make your case, don't just claim it. Do what you fault others for not doing. Expect that others will make their cases too, some well, some not so well. Try to be the former.
2.7.2011 | 8:09pm
Fred says:
Michael,
Any blog comment thread is going to get out of hand periodically, and all will have their share of trolls, ignoramuses, and fanatics. But have you looked at places like Daily Kos, Eschaton, Idiotarian Rottweiler, or even American Spectator? Compared to those sites, First Things is a model of rational debate and intelligence. I thoroughly enjoy these comments and watching the debates in them that I do not engage in.
Any blog comment thread is going to get out of hand periodically, and all will have their share of trolls, ignoramuses, and fanatics. But have you looked at places like Daily Kos, Eschaton, Idiotarian Rottweiler, or even American Spectator? Compared to those sites, First Things is a model of rational debate and intelligence. I thoroughly enjoy these comments and watching the debates in them that I do not engage in.
2.8.2011 | 4:11am
Michael says:
Katie,
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that you did. It’s quite clear to me that you don’t. All I was saying is that progressives believe they are acting faithfully and seriously. They are Christian to their core and are acting out their faith.
---
Douglas,
If you can show me one place that I have argued that being reasonable means agreeing with me, then I’d like to see it.
As for my time, I’m a fast reader and writer and an efficient multi-tasker, but you’re absolutely right that I’ve chosen to spend my time here unwisely.
---
David,
Thanks for taking time to respond, especially after a bus ride.
I was 80% sure the reference was to Episcopalians, but there was enough ambiguity to make me uncertain. I think you’re right that these pet words, “prophetic” and “biblical,” are used in place of thought, but I see Catholicism using other pet words as well. John Paul and Benedict have their own species.
I think you’re right that insult and tone are tough to measure, especially in a heated conversation, but a conversation is different from what I see happening here most often, which is the quick, barbed accusation of bad faith.
A word from you for Thomas in the Advent column might have restored some measure of sanity, and I would have liked to have heard Thomas explain his views at greater length. This might not be a good answer either, but I’d like to see you all try something.
---
Mike,
You said, “make your case, don't just claim it.”
I did make my case. I read Mills’ column carefully, reflected on what he said, recalled one of his other columns, indicated where I agreed with him and where I didn’t. Even when I criticized him, I noted that I might be misreading his reference. That is a good bit more thought, carefulness, and solicitude than I’m seeing elsewhere in this thread.
And I’ve responded to Pentamom and to you by making a case and clarifying my position.
Your accusation here in this latest post is that I used “charity” incorrectly. I asked you to provide an alternative, and you haven’t. So tell me, what is the right word to use to describe the motivations of members of a majority who decide to act in ways that serves the interests of a minority to which they do not belong?
You also accuse me of putting words in people’s mouths, but am I wrong to claim that what Pentamom and Ben believe, which is that there is a liberal status quo that has placed progressives in power, is a common belief among conservatives? I don’t see what I’ve done wrong here.
---
Fred,
Thanks for your comment. I haven’t read the sites you mention or their comment threads. One of my sisters subscribes to First Things, and a few months ago, she recommended that I read the site. I have been, and I’ve been commenting for my first time on any site.
If you’re right that the comments on First Things are better than those found other sites, then the bar must be quite low. While I’ve read some interesting articles and have had great conversations with my sister, I have had only a few conversations here that have taken me anywhere interesting.
I read to hear different perspectives, and I write to test ideas, but those are apparently not the practices in comboxes (a new term for me). Here people allow only a narrow range of disagreement before they get vicious. I’m liberal but of a mild sort. I’m pro-life, voted for Reagan, etc. But when I articulate a liberal position, I’m asked to defend all liberals, not my own position.
In this column, for example, Mills started a conversation about how we should make arguments that don’t rely on pet words, and I responded to that subject itself, but since then, people have wanted to attack my liberalism rather than discuss how discussion happens online. It’s a little frustrating.
The most enlightening conversations on First Things tend to be around religious issues. Here, the diversity of faiths, Christian and sometimes Jewish, becomes interesting, and people are quite knowledgeable about their own denominations. Evangelicals can get bashed, but Unitarians or Methodists like me get stomped on even more.
The worst conversations are about social and political issues. I’ve tried to articulate my liberal Christian take on these issues, but I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. There’s no curiosity about what I believe, and I’m often accused of not really believing what I say I believe. I spend more time clearing away mispresumptions about my positions than I do actually having a conversation.
It’s tiresome, and Douglas is right to ask why I spend time doing it. The answer is that my sister is worth it. Otherwise, I’m not convinced that the few good conversations I’ve had are worth the many bad ones.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that you did. It’s quite clear to me that you don’t. All I was saying is that progressives believe they are acting faithfully and seriously. They are Christian to their core and are acting out their faith.
---
Douglas,
If you can show me one place that I have argued that being reasonable means agreeing with me, then I’d like to see it.
As for my time, I’m a fast reader and writer and an efficient multi-tasker, but you’re absolutely right that I’ve chosen to spend my time here unwisely.
---
David,
Thanks for taking time to respond, especially after a bus ride.
I was 80% sure the reference was to Episcopalians, but there was enough ambiguity to make me uncertain. I think you’re right that these pet words, “prophetic” and “biblical,” are used in place of thought, but I see Catholicism using other pet words as well. John Paul and Benedict have their own species.
I think you’re right that insult and tone are tough to measure, especially in a heated conversation, but a conversation is different from what I see happening here most often, which is the quick, barbed accusation of bad faith.
A word from you for Thomas in the Advent column might have restored some measure of sanity, and I would have liked to have heard Thomas explain his views at greater length. This might not be a good answer either, but I’d like to see you all try something.
---
Mike,
You said, “make your case, don't just claim it.”
I did make my case. I read Mills’ column carefully, reflected on what he said, recalled one of his other columns, indicated where I agreed with him and where I didn’t. Even when I criticized him, I noted that I might be misreading his reference. That is a good bit more thought, carefulness, and solicitude than I’m seeing elsewhere in this thread.
And I’ve responded to Pentamom and to you by making a case and clarifying my position.
Your accusation here in this latest post is that I used “charity” incorrectly. I asked you to provide an alternative, and you haven’t. So tell me, what is the right word to use to describe the motivations of members of a majority who decide to act in ways that serves the interests of a minority to which they do not belong?
You also accuse me of putting words in people’s mouths, but am I wrong to claim that what Pentamom and Ben believe, which is that there is a liberal status quo that has placed progressives in power, is a common belief among conservatives? I don’t see what I’ve done wrong here.
---
Fred,
Thanks for your comment. I haven’t read the sites you mention or their comment threads. One of my sisters subscribes to First Things, and a few months ago, she recommended that I read the site. I have been, and I’ve been commenting for my first time on any site.
If you’re right that the comments on First Things are better than those found other sites, then the bar must be quite low. While I’ve read some interesting articles and have had great conversations with my sister, I have had only a few conversations here that have taken me anywhere interesting.
I read to hear different perspectives, and I write to test ideas, but those are apparently not the practices in comboxes (a new term for me). Here people allow only a narrow range of disagreement before they get vicious. I’m liberal but of a mild sort. I’m pro-life, voted for Reagan, etc. But when I articulate a liberal position, I’m asked to defend all liberals, not my own position.
In this column, for example, Mills started a conversation about how we should make arguments that don’t rely on pet words, and I responded to that subject itself, but since then, people have wanted to attack my liberalism rather than discuss how discussion happens online. It’s a little frustrating.
The most enlightening conversations on First Things tend to be around religious issues. Here, the diversity of faiths, Christian and sometimes Jewish, becomes interesting, and people are quite knowledgeable about their own denominations. Evangelicals can get bashed, but Unitarians or Methodists like me get stomped on even more.
The worst conversations are about social and political issues. I’ve tried to articulate my liberal Christian take on these issues, but I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. There’s no curiosity about what I believe, and I’m often accused of not really believing what I say I believe. I spend more time clearing away mispresumptions about my positions than I do actually having a conversation.
It’s tiresome, and Douglas is right to ask why I spend time doing it. The answer is that my sister is worth it. Otherwise, I’m not convinced that the few good conversations I’ve had are worth the many bad ones.
2.8.2011 | 11:11am
Douglas says:
Michael,
I'm fairly new to the First Things comment forums, but I had one response in mind in particular. After about 15 minutes of digging through old comments to find the one for which I searched, it turns out it was posted by a C Erhlich, not you. Now I did work through comments where you accused others here of "dragging out prejudices and stereotypes," but clearly it was C Erhlich's I had in mind, not yours. Apologize for the confusion.
I'm fairly new to the First Things comment forums, but I had one response in mind in particular. After about 15 minutes of digging through old comments to find the one for which I searched, it turns out it was posted by a C Erhlich, not you. Now I did work through comments where you accused others here of "dragging out prejudices and stereotypes," but clearly it was C Erhlich's I had in mind, not yours. Apologize for the confusion.
2.8.2011 | 12:15pm
Douglas says:
Michael,
You write:
"I’ve tried to articulate my liberal Christian take on these issues, but I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. There’s no curiosity about what I believe, ..."
I don't mean this to sound rude, but why would you expect curiosity about your personal opinions?
As a Eastern Orthodox Christian, when I'm talking to a Roman Catholic I am often very interested to hear about doctrinal differences. Now if I respond to that person saying, "hey this has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, but this is just what I feel..." then I just don't see why I should feel slighted if he doesn't show much interest, especially if the person doesn't even know me. Worse yet, on what basis can I possibly stack my personal opinions up against the inherited tradition of the church? It would seem akin to walking into a physics lab and discussing my personal aversion to the force of gravity.
I'll admit this must sound strange to many liberal Christians for whom their personal opinions are always primary above church orthodoxy, which after all, they likely have never encountered, or if they have, share no obligation toward it. I'm reminded of the words of H. Richard Niebuhr who put it this way: A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministration of a Christ without a cross.
You write:
"I’ve tried to articulate my liberal Christian take on these issues, but I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. There’s no curiosity about what I believe, ..."
I don't mean this to sound rude, but why would you expect curiosity about your personal opinions?
As a Eastern Orthodox Christian, when I'm talking to a Roman Catholic I am often very interested to hear about doctrinal differences. Now if I respond to that person saying, "hey this has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, but this is just what I feel..." then I just don't see why I should feel slighted if he doesn't show much interest, especially if the person doesn't even know me. Worse yet, on what basis can I possibly stack my personal opinions up against the inherited tradition of the church? It would seem akin to walking into a physics lab and discussing my personal aversion to the force of gravity.
I'll admit this must sound strange to many liberal Christians for whom their personal opinions are always primary above church orthodoxy, which after all, they likely have never encountered, or if they have, share no obligation toward it. I'm reminded of the words of H. Richard Niebuhr who put it this way: A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministration of a Christ without a cross.
2.8.2011 | 12:50pm
pentamom says:
"They are in power in the mainline churches, but I’m not sure how much power that is exactly. "
Within the structure of those churches, which is what I was referring to, that would be "all of it." If you are a part of a certain church, and are speaking to matters concerning that church, it matters a great deal who's in charge and what they're willing to listen to.
My point is not the social progressives have all the power and that social conservatives have none, it's that the "prophetic underdog" model just doesn't fit reality anymore, except in pretty narrow circumstances. There is enough progressive presence within the power structures of our culture to leave those who forward progressive ideas with very little fear *as a result of speaking out.* And in some places, such as mainline church authority structures, many parts of academia, and some sectors of government, it's quite the opposite -- those who take a vocal conservative stand have much to fear.
Within the structure of those churches, which is what I was referring to, that would be "all of it." If you are a part of a certain church, and are speaking to matters concerning that church, it matters a great deal who's in charge and what they're willing to listen to.
My point is not the social progressives have all the power and that social conservatives have none, it's that the "prophetic underdog" model just doesn't fit reality anymore, except in pretty narrow circumstances. There is enough progressive presence within the power structures of our culture to leave those who forward progressive ideas with very little fear *as a result of speaking out.* And in some places, such as mainline church authority structures, many parts of academia, and some sectors of government, it's quite the opposite -- those who take a vocal conservative stand have much to fear.
2.8.2011 | 2:47pm
Michael says:
Douglas,
Thanks for checking. I appreciate it.
If my Swiss-cheese memory serves, that was a comment on First Thoughts column, which really did require some searching. I generally like Ehrlich’s comments, which are thought-provoking. I don’t agree with his argument that life begins with electrical activity around the six-week mark, but I think he tends to answer fairly.
By “curiosity,” I mean a good faith conversation rather than one based on suspicion of motives. Asking for clarification, challenging assumptions, pointing out inconsistencies or logical gaps are all examples of curiosity. I was curious when I asked Mills whether he was pointing to Episcopalians or Christianity in general and when I asked whether Pentamom and Ben would call minorities like gays and illegal immigrants people in power. And you just showed curiosity when you asked what I could possibly mean by curiosity.
I disagree with the notion that Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrinal differences are as settled as they appear. Doctrine is usually a matter of settled wording, but interpretation makes for a lot of differences, and there’s a wide range of differences in how Roman Catholics understand the meaning of settled doctrine, which is why there are liberal, conservative, traditionalist, and a whole host of other kinds of Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics who write for First Things are a different bunch from those who write for the National Catholic Reporter, even though they accept the same doctrines.
We Methodists inherit our tradition from Roman Catholicism via Anglicanism, and so we’re closer to Roman Catholicism than we are to Presbyterians, Baptists, the Church of Christ, Unitarians, or Pentecostals. For us, the Church Fathers remain a potent force. So I wouldn’t agree that we think our “personal opinions are always primary above church orthodoxy.” Much prayer, study, and many, many conversations go into the decisions the Methodist Church makes. The Wesleyan quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience is a different formulation than found in descriptions of the Roman Catholic magisterium, but they add up to the same thing.
As you probably know, Richard Niehbuhr was a member of the Church of Christ, which is considerably further from Roman Catholicism than Methodism in orthodoxy.
---
Pentamom,
It sounds like we agree, then, that, in the current context in the US the prophetic underdog claim is “silly” as I put it above.
But I think I hear you still insisting that vocal conservatives “have much to fear” while vocal liberals don’t. Fear what exactly? Not beating, imprisonment, loss of job or community standing. Vocal conservatives will be ignored in certain church debates, vocal conservative pastors won’t become bishops or receive plum positions, but vocal conservative teachers and professors still receive tenure and still rise in government bureaucracies. And in my church, I’ve seen vocal liberal pastors get ignored and passed over.
I think both liberals and conservatives like to play the victim and like to claim that the other side is out to silence and marginalize them. This kind of rhetoric is good for what Mills’ calls “exciting the troops,” but that doesn’t make it accurate, which is why I appreciated Mills’ article and his call to put aside “pet words.” I think that one of those pet words is the pet claim that “we” (whether the “we” refers to liberal or conservative) are not in power and have much to fear while “they” are in power and have little to fear.
Thanks for checking. I appreciate it.
If my Swiss-cheese memory serves, that was a comment on First Thoughts column, which really did require some searching. I generally like Ehrlich’s comments, which are thought-provoking. I don’t agree with his argument that life begins with electrical activity around the six-week mark, but I think he tends to answer fairly.
By “curiosity,” I mean a good faith conversation rather than one based on suspicion of motives. Asking for clarification, challenging assumptions, pointing out inconsistencies or logical gaps are all examples of curiosity. I was curious when I asked Mills whether he was pointing to Episcopalians or Christianity in general and when I asked whether Pentamom and Ben would call minorities like gays and illegal immigrants people in power. And you just showed curiosity when you asked what I could possibly mean by curiosity.
I disagree with the notion that Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrinal differences are as settled as they appear. Doctrine is usually a matter of settled wording, but interpretation makes for a lot of differences, and there’s a wide range of differences in how Roman Catholics understand the meaning of settled doctrine, which is why there are liberal, conservative, traditionalist, and a whole host of other kinds of Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics who write for First Things are a different bunch from those who write for the National Catholic Reporter, even though they accept the same doctrines.
We Methodists inherit our tradition from Roman Catholicism via Anglicanism, and so we’re closer to Roman Catholicism than we are to Presbyterians, Baptists, the Church of Christ, Unitarians, or Pentecostals. For us, the Church Fathers remain a potent force. So I wouldn’t agree that we think our “personal opinions are always primary above church orthodoxy.” Much prayer, study, and many, many conversations go into the decisions the Methodist Church makes. The Wesleyan quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience is a different formulation than found in descriptions of the Roman Catholic magisterium, but they add up to the same thing.
As you probably know, Richard Niehbuhr was a member of the Church of Christ, which is considerably further from Roman Catholicism than Methodism in orthodoxy.
---
Pentamom,
It sounds like we agree, then, that, in the current context in the US the prophetic underdog claim is “silly” as I put it above.
But I think I hear you still insisting that vocal conservatives “have much to fear” while vocal liberals don’t. Fear what exactly? Not beating, imprisonment, loss of job or community standing. Vocal conservatives will be ignored in certain church debates, vocal conservative pastors won’t become bishops or receive plum positions, but vocal conservative teachers and professors still receive tenure and still rise in government bureaucracies. And in my church, I’ve seen vocal liberal pastors get ignored and passed over.
I think both liberals and conservatives like to play the victim and like to claim that the other side is out to silence and marginalize them. This kind of rhetoric is good for what Mills’ calls “exciting the troops,” but that doesn’t make it accurate, which is why I appreciated Mills’ article and his call to put aside “pet words.” I think that one of those pet words is the pet claim that “we” (whether the “we” refers to liberal or conservative) are not in power and have much to fear while “they” are in power and have little to fear.
2.8.2011 | 3:47pm
pentamom says:
"Not beating, imprisonment, loss of job or community standing."
Apparently you're not all that familiar with a broad range of academia, or the inner workings of many church bodies.
You're right, beating and imprisonment aren't really on the menu. But loss of job and/or community standing are every bit as real for conservatives in some churches, cities, and academic situations as they are for liberals in others. Yes, an outspoken conservative might get tenure at a particular university. And he might not even get the job at a different one, for exactly the same reason. And if he's got the job and makes certain public statements, he might be held up as a public disgrace and hounded continually about his unfitness to form young minds, even if he keeps his job -- which I'd count as "loss of community standing."
Apparently you're not all that familiar with a broad range of academia, or the inner workings of many church bodies.
You're right, beating and imprisonment aren't really on the menu. But loss of job and/or community standing are every bit as real for conservatives in some churches, cities, and academic situations as they are for liberals in others. Yes, an outspoken conservative might get tenure at a particular university. And he might not even get the job at a different one, for exactly the same reason. And if he's got the job and makes certain public statements, he might be held up as a public disgrace and hounded continually about his unfitness to form young minds, even if he keeps his job -- which I'd count as "loss of community standing."
2.9.2011 | 7:15am
Michael says:
Pentamom,
When I think about the loss of jobs and community standing, I think of the ravages of the blacklist in the 1950s. Careers were destroyed and lives ruined; even friends abandoned you.
I can’t think of anyone today who matches your description of someone who has been “held up as a public disgrace and hounded continually about his unfitness to form young minds, even if he keeps his job” who hasn’t at the same time attracted a bunch of people lauding him and offering him jobs. The first name that comes to mind is Lawrence Summers, who got flack about his comments about women and science but seems to being doing just fine.
No, I don’t know much about the inner workings of many church bodies, but I’ve heard a good bit about them and know a good bit more about academia. I think both places are so contentious because ideas matter so very much, which makes the passions and sense of urgency run high. In every story I’ve looked into exaggeration abounded, and it was clear that personality, turf, and political opportunism were the driving impetus while ideology lay closer to pretext.
The conservative press reports stories about innocent clergy and teachers being hounded by the fell forces of political correctness, and its conservative readers recoil in horror, certain that a war is being waged on Christianity, Western civilization, and common sense. Meanwhile, the liberal press and liberal readers do the same. Both are outraged, just outraged, that the other side is not paying attention to the evidence that their side is being cruelly used.
In truth, most of the protagonists in these stories need to be bounced on their head and voted off the island. Others need to be told to relax. But there are others who are caught in a genuine bind because they live in a pluralist society that is trying to navigate a more intelligent path through divisions that have elsewhere in place or time created caste societies, repression, or war.
When I think about the loss of jobs and community standing, I think of the ravages of the blacklist in the 1950s. Careers were destroyed and lives ruined; even friends abandoned you.
I can’t think of anyone today who matches your description of someone who has been “held up as a public disgrace and hounded continually about his unfitness to form young minds, even if he keeps his job” who hasn’t at the same time attracted a bunch of people lauding him and offering him jobs. The first name that comes to mind is Lawrence Summers, who got flack about his comments about women and science but seems to being doing just fine.
No, I don’t know much about the inner workings of many church bodies, but I’ve heard a good bit about them and know a good bit more about academia. I think both places are so contentious because ideas matter so very much, which makes the passions and sense of urgency run high. In every story I’ve looked into exaggeration abounded, and it was clear that personality, turf, and political opportunism were the driving impetus while ideology lay closer to pretext.
The conservative press reports stories about innocent clergy and teachers being hounded by the fell forces of political correctness, and its conservative readers recoil in horror, certain that a war is being waged on Christianity, Western civilization, and common sense. Meanwhile, the liberal press and liberal readers do the same. Both are outraged, just outraged, that the other side is not paying attention to the evidence that their side is being cruelly used.
In truth, most of the protagonists in these stories need to be bounced on their head and voted off the island. Others need to be told to relax. But there are others who are caught in a genuine bind because they live in a pluralist society that is trying to navigate a more intelligent path through divisions that have elsewhere in place or time created caste societies, repression, or war.
2.9.2011 | 8:01am
Douglas says:
Michael,
Okay, FT commentators have not displayed an appropriate curiosity for your thoughts. Again I ask, why should they? (I don't see how your attempt to refine what you mean by curiosity changes anything.) But what really rankles you is the suspicion of motives. Again, I'm lost. Why should you or anyone be exonerated from suspicion of motives? The Gospels are filled with narratives of healthy suspicion toward religious men, and you are certainly a religious man. Even among atheists (whom are also religious), what separates the substantive (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) from the silly (Hitchens, Dawkins) is that the former had suspicion of faith whereas the later rely mostly on skepticism.
When you bemoan how you are "routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith" and how there is "no curiosity about what I believe," you remind me of my 10th grade biology teacher who, when nearly the entire class was failing his course (and nearly every pupil in that class went on to a competitive college), he wondered allowed what was wrong with the thirty of us.
I think what you are finding is that First Things tends to be a small "o" orthodox community. You have inserted yourself as the "liberal Christian" and then lambast what you see as attacks and stomping against you (see your note to Fred). I see PLENTY of vigorous debate among like-minded souls at FT; and I challenge anyone to find a popular site that maintains a higher level of discourse among commentators. To that you say the bar must indeed be low because so much of what you see here is so uninteresting to you.
What I think it comes down to is that you have failed to persuade, and for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them). What on earth could you have expected? I guarantee that if I spent my time at Unitarian discussion board I wouldn't persuade a single enthusiast. But if this upsets you as much as you lay out in your descriptions of folks here, why not spend your time at a website where you feel more welcomed?
Let me leave you with a quote by Mary Karr who converted to Catholicism in 1996:
"It's always amazing to me that people think, 'Because I thought this up, instead of reading it in doctrine, that means it's more true.' It's a funny prejudice...Often, people think, 'If it's in my own head it can't be corrupt.' But for for me, if it's in my own head it's got to be corrupt. It took me a long time to come to that."
(This will be my last comment to you on this matter on this and future posts. No offense, I just personally don't think it's a worthy investment of time for either of us.)
Okay, FT commentators have not displayed an appropriate curiosity for your thoughts. Again I ask, why should they? (I don't see how your attempt to refine what you mean by curiosity changes anything.) But what really rankles you is the suspicion of motives. Again, I'm lost. Why should you or anyone be exonerated from suspicion of motives? The Gospels are filled with narratives of healthy suspicion toward religious men, and you are certainly a religious man. Even among atheists (whom are also religious), what separates the substantive (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) from the silly (Hitchens, Dawkins) is that the former had suspicion of faith whereas the later rely mostly on skepticism.
When you bemoan how you are "routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith" and how there is "no curiosity about what I believe," you remind me of my 10th grade biology teacher who, when nearly the entire class was failing his course (and nearly every pupil in that class went on to a competitive college), he wondered allowed what was wrong with the thirty of us.
I think what you are finding is that First Things tends to be a small "o" orthodox community. You have inserted yourself as the "liberal Christian" and then lambast what you see as attacks and stomping against you (see your note to Fred). I see PLENTY of vigorous debate among like-minded souls at FT; and I challenge anyone to find a popular site that maintains a higher level of discourse among commentators. To that you say the bar must indeed be low because so much of what you see here is so uninteresting to you.
What I think it comes down to is that you have failed to persuade, and for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them). What on earth could you have expected? I guarantee that if I spent my time at Unitarian discussion board I wouldn't persuade a single enthusiast. But if this upsets you as much as you lay out in your descriptions of folks here, why not spend your time at a website where you feel more welcomed?
Let me leave you with a quote by Mary Karr who converted to Catholicism in 1996:
"It's always amazing to me that people think, 'Because I thought this up, instead of reading it in doctrine, that means it's more true.' It's a funny prejudice...Often, people think, 'If it's in my own head it can't be corrupt.' But for for me, if it's in my own head it's got to be corrupt. It took me a long time to come to that."
(This will be my last comment to you on this matter on this and future posts. No offense, I just personally don't think it's a worthy investment of time for either of us.)
2.9.2011 | 1:12pm
Michael says:
Douglas,
I think I’ve answered your question about curiosity, so I won’t try again.
As for suspicion of motives, I’m talking about accusations that I’m not who I say I am. For example, in a discussion of the film Maafa 21, I was accused of not being truly pro-life because of the sources I cited. The commenter didn’t talk about how the sources were wrong about the facts or about the interpretation of the facts. He simply and simplistically believed that the source meant that I couldn’t possibly be pro-life. That kind of response does not create a good faith conversation.
I’m puzzled by your idea that liberal Christians are necessarily not orthodox. Methodists subscribe to the Nicene Creed as well as the Confession of Chalcedon. Was Niebuhr orthodox by your definition? If so, then surely I am as well.
As I said above, when the subject is religious, the discussion on these First Things’ forums can be quite vigorous and enlightening, but when the subject is social or political, the range of positions that get a fair hearing narrows considerably.
As I said above, I don’t write to “persuade,” and so you’re wrong to say that I’m disappointed because I’ve failed to persuade anyone. Instead, I write to test ideas, to think through matters. Testing ideas can only go so far with like-minded people; it can go much further with a noble opposition, people who are willing to have good faith conversations with people with whom they disagree.
I have had such conversations on First Things, some of them quite good. On this thread, I have gained from my conversation with Pentamom, who doesn’t attack my person or my motives but who instead pushes me to clarify my logic and my arguments just as I have pushed her to clarify her logic and arguments. I don’t expect her to be persuaded by my arguments, and I doubt she expects me to be persuaded by hers. But I’m pleased that she has taken me seriously, and I hope she’s pleased that I’ve taken her seriously. In the end, my conversation with her has forced me to sharpen my thinking, which to me is the point of these kinds of conversation.
My conversation with you, however, has been much less productive because you keep turning it into a conversation about me. Your first post accused me of being close minded. You then graciously withdrew the accusation, but since then, your comments have all questioned my motivations: why should curiosity matter, liberal Christians think they are above orthodoxy and aren’t orthodox anyway, you don’t really belong on First Things, you’re disappointed because you haven’t persuaded anyone, etc.
I have answered these questions as best I can, but they are tiresome. The issues Mills raised and that I’ve tried to discuss are far more interesting.
One more thing: You said, “for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them).” Where on earth do you get the idea that I think everyone else is wrongheaded?
I think I’ve answered your question about curiosity, so I won’t try again.
As for suspicion of motives, I’m talking about accusations that I’m not who I say I am. For example, in a discussion of the film Maafa 21, I was accused of not being truly pro-life because of the sources I cited. The commenter didn’t talk about how the sources were wrong about the facts or about the interpretation of the facts. He simply and simplistically believed that the source meant that I couldn’t possibly be pro-life. That kind of response does not create a good faith conversation.
I’m puzzled by your idea that liberal Christians are necessarily not orthodox. Methodists subscribe to the Nicene Creed as well as the Confession of Chalcedon. Was Niebuhr orthodox by your definition? If so, then surely I am as well.
As I said above, when the subject is religious, the discussion on these First Things’ forums can be quite vigorous and enlightening, but when the subject is social or political, the range of positions that get a fair hearing narrows considerably.
As I said above, I don’t write to “persuade,” and so you’re wrong to say that I’m disappointed because I’ve failed to persuade anyone. Instead, I write to test ideas, to think through matters. Testing ideas can only go so far with like-minded people; it can go much further with a noble opposition, people who are willing to have good faith conversations with people with whom they disagree.
I have had such conversations on First Things, some of them quite good. On this thread, I have gained from my conversation with Pentamom, who doesn’t attack my person or my motives but who instead pushes me to clarify my logic and my arguments just as I have pushed her to clarify her logic and arguments. I don’t expect her to be persuaded by my arguments, and I doubt she expects me to be persuaded by hers. But I’m pleased that she has taken me seriously, and I hope she’s pleased that I’ve taken her seriously. In the end, my conversation with her has forced me to sharpen my thinking, which to me is the point of these kinds of conversation.
My conversation with you, however, has been much less productive because you keep turning it into a conversation about me. Your first post accused me of being close minded. You then graciously withdrew the accusation, but since then, your comments have all questioned my motivations: why should curiosity matter, liberal Christians think they are above orthodoxy and aren’t orthodox anyway, you don’t really belong on First Things, you’re disappointed because you haven’t persuaded anyone, etc.
I have answered these questions as best I can, but they are tiresome. The issues Mills raised and that I’ve tried to discuss are far more interesting.
One more thing: You said, “for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them).” Where on earth do you get the idea that I think everyone else is wrongheaded?
2.9.2011 | 2:26pm
Douglas says:
Michael,
Well one more I guess...
You write:
One more thing: You said, “for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them).” Where on earth do you get the idea that I think everyone else is wrongheaded?
I guess I'm equating wrongheaded with all your comments to this post where you describe FT commentators as "vicious," uninteresting, "narrow," and that their comments "attack" and "stomp" on you. I took that all to mean "wrongheaded," but perhaps you find nothing wrongheaded whatsoever about vicious, uninteresting, narrow people who attack and stomp you. My apologies.
Well one more I guess...
You write:
One more thing: You said, “for you the only answer to that must be the wrongheadedness of everyone else (as you describe them).” Where on earth do you get the idea that I think everyone else is wrongheaded?
I guess I'm equating wrongheaded with all your comments to this post where you describe FT commentators as "vicious," uninteresting, "narrow," and that their comments "attack" and "stomp" on you. I took that all to mean "wrongheaded," but perhaps you find nothing wrongheaded whatsoever about vicious, uninteresting, narrow people who attack and stomp you. My apologies.
2.9.2011 | 3:02pm
Michael says:
Douglas,
Do you see how you are cherry-picking quotations just to make me look bad? Did I describe all commentators or just some? Did I say that they were generally fair in some areas, or did I blast them in all areas? Didn’t I give examples of interesting, good faith comments, including some by you? Didn’t I show that I’m not looking for people to agree with me but am looking instead for honest, good faith conversations? Have I used a single sarcastic or insulting expression toward you or anyone else here? Haven’t I answered your questions fully and respectfully? What does it gain you to distort what I am trying to say and do?
Do you see how you are cherry-picking quotations just to make me look bad? Did I describe all commentators or just some? Did I say that they were generally fair in some areas, or did I blast them in all areas? Didn’t I give examples of interesting, good faith comments, including some by you? Didn’t I show that I’m not looking for people to agree with me but am looking instead for honest, good faith conversations? Have I used a single sarcastic or insulting expression toward you or anyone else here? Haven’t I answered your questions fully and respectfully? What does it gain you to distort what I am trying to say and do?
2.9.2011 | 9:54pm
Douglas says:
Michael,
You ask if I'm cherry picking, if you are describing just a few commentators at FT or if you are talking in more general terms. Okay, I'll just quote you in full without further comment. To answer your question, it sounds to me like you are talking about folks at FT in general terms when you write:
"If you’re right that the comments on First Things are better than those found other sites, then the bar must be quite low. While I’ve read some interesting articles and have had great conversations with my sister, I have had only a few conversations here that have taken me anywhere interesting."
To me what you wrote above seems to cast a wide net. And you seemed (to my deaf ears) to be addressing folks quite generally here when you wrote:
"I read to hear different perspectives, and I write to test ideas, but those are apparently not the practices in comboxes (a new term for me). Here people allow only a narrow range of disagreement before they get vicious."
And when you wrote "routinely" below, I took routinely to mean a sequence of actions regularly followed, and not in the more nuanced way I'm sure you meant it when you wrote:
" I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. "
So I guess I do see what you mean. I guess you were limiting your comments to a few specific folks and only the most prejudicial would think you directed any of the sentences above to FT folks in any general sense. After quoting you in full I can see that now.
You ask if I'm cherry picking, if you are describing just a few commentators at FT or if you are talking in more general terms. Okay, I'll just quote you in full without further comment. To answer your question, it sounds to me like you are talking about folks at FT in general terms when you write:
"If you’re right that the comments on First Things are better than those found other sites, then the bar must be quite low. While I’ve read some interesting articles and have had great conversations with my sister, I have had only a few conversations here that have taken me anywhere interesting."
To me what you wrote above seems to cast a wide net. And you seemed (to my deaf ears) to be addressing folks quite generally here when you wrote:
"I read to hear different perspectives, and I write to test ideas, but those are apparently not the practices in comboxes (a new term for me). Here people allow only a narrow range of disagreement before they get vicious."
And when you wrote "routinely" below, I took routinely to mean a sequence of actions regularly followed, and not in the more nuanced way I'm sure you meant it when you wrote:
" I’m routinely accused of ignorance and bad faith. "
So I guess I do see what you mean. I guess you were limiting your comments to a few specific folks and only the most prejudicial would think you directed any of the sentences above to FT folks in any general sense. After quoting you in full I can see that now.
2.10.2011 | 7:25am
Michael says:
Douglas,
You said, “I guess you were limiting your comments to a few specific folks and only the most prejudicial would think you directed any of the sentences above to FT folks in any general sense. After quoting you in full I can see that now.”
It’s not clear to me whether you’re being sincere or sarcastic here. Based on your previous posts, I’m going to guess sarcastic. Please let me know whether this assumption is wrong.
Yes, you’re right that I’ve made some general comments that point out the limitations of the conversations that go on between commentators on First Things columns. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making generalizations as long as they are limited and are backed up by evidence.
In each case, I’ve shown where the generalization is limited to particular contexts and participants, and I’ve praised the vitality that is present. And in each case, I’ve pointed to particular examples of conversations or statements that were interesting or not.
Instead of discussing those examples or those limits, you have attacked the generalizations themselves. The result is a conversation that spins its wheels rather than moving forward. The conversation with Pentamom moved forward because the discussion focused on examples.
The conversation with you could have gone that direction. You’ve raised interesting questions about the differences between Orthodoxy, orthodoxy, and liberal Christianity, and I’ve answered them, but you keep returning to the personal, as if to illustrate my point that many First Things commenters are more interested in attacking liberals than they are in discussing the issues.
So you see, your comments are an example of a “routine” practice I find on these threads.
You said, “I guess you were limiting your comments to a few specific folks and only the most prejudicial would think you directed any of the sentences above to FT folks in any general sense. After quoting you in full I can see that now.”
It’s not clear to me whether you’re being sincere or sarcastic here. Based on your previous posts, I’m going to guess sarcastic. Please let me know whether this assumption is wrong.
Yes, you’re right that I’ve made some general comments that point out the limitations of the conversations that go on between commentators on First Things columns. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making generalizations as long as they are limited and are backed up by evidence.
In each case, I’ve shown where the generalization is limited to particular contexts and participants, and I’ve praised the vitality that is present. And in each case, I’ve pointed to particular examples of conversations or statements that were interesting or not.
Instead of discussing those examples or those limits, you have attacked the generalizations themselves. The result is a conversation that spins its wheels rather than moving forward. The conversation with Pentamom moved forward because the discussion focused on examples.
The conversation with you could have gone that direction. You’ve raised interesting questions about the differences between Orthodoxy, orthodoxy, and liberal Christianity, and I’ve answered them, but you keep returning to the personal, as if to illustrate my point that many First Things commenters are more interested in attacking liberals than they are in discussing the issues.
So you see, your comments are an example of a “routine” practice I find on these threads.
2.10.2011 | 9:56am
pentamom says:
I see, Michael -- when you ask what people have suffered as a result of speaking conservative truth to liberal power, you don't mean what people have suffered, but what you wish to count as a sufficient amount of suffering.
The point is, if people have the power to inflict suffering on others for speaking what they believe to be the truth, then they have that power. I wasn't aware that the power had to be inexorable, that the suffering had to beyond the person's strength, or that the person in question had to have no other support or resources. Even Jeremiah had the comfort of God and went to Heaven in the end.
The point is, if people have the power to inflict suffering on others for speaking what they believe to be the truth, then they have that power. I wasn't aware that the power had to be inexorable, that the suffering had to beyond the person's strength, or that the person in question had to have no other support or resources. Even Jeremiah had the comfort of God and went to Heaven in the end.
2.10.2011 | 11:16am
Michael says:
Pentamom,
If your point is that conservatives have suffered for speaking the truth to liberal power, then I’d say yes, they have in some regions and in some occupations. And I would add that liberals have suffered for speaking truth to conservative power in some regions and in some occupations.
In your early posts, you argued that liberals are so broadly in power that it is conservatives who have much to fear. I’ve tried to get you to ratchet down that claim and acknowledge that conservatives only have to fear in some regions and occupations.
I’ve also tried to specify what kind of fear we’re talking about. If the standard of speaking truth to power is taking to the streets in Egypt, marching in Selma or speaking in front of HUAC, then neither conservatives nor liberals have much to fear in 2011. Power is too dispersed for either conservatives or liberals to feel like they are being brave in some large, society-wide sense.
But if the standard is Lawrence Summers getting publically ridiculed for his comments about women and science, which is likely to have been a major factor in his decision to resign the presidency of Harvard, then I’d say that both liberals and conservatives have something to fear depending on where they live, what they do for a living, and who is exercising power in that neck of the woods.
If your point is that conservatives have suffered for speaking the truth to liberal power, then I’d say yes, they have in some regions and in some occupations. And I would add that liberals have suffered for speaking truth to conservative power in some regions and in some occupations.
In your early posts, you argued that liberals are so broadly in power that it is conservatives who have much to fear. I’ve tried to get you to ratchet down that claim and acknowledge that conservatives only have to fear in some regions and occupations.
I’ve also tried to specify what kind of fear we’re talking about. If the standard of speaking truth to power is taking to the streets in Egypt, marching in Selma or speaking in front of HUAC, then neither conservatives nor liberals have much to fear in 2011. Power is too dispersed for either conservatives or liberals to feel like they are being brave in some large, society-wide sense.
But if the standard is Lawrence Summers getting publically ridiculed for his comments about women and science, which is likely to have been a major factor in his decision to resign the presidency of Harvard, then I’d say that both liberals and conservatives have something to fear depending on where they live, what they do for a living, and who is exercising power in that neck of the woods.
2.11.2011 | 6:37pm
Denyse O"Leary says:
This much I know is true: Prophetic should never sound like the daily newspaper with a halo, and prophetic progressives always did.
Why go to their churches when I can read the same thing on the editorial pages, minus the God talk?
Why go to their churches when I can read the same thing on the editorial pages, minus the God talk?
3.7.2011 | 1:27pm
Shella Seppanen says:
"Nothing they said or did was non-prophetic." Well, of course that was the case. Having been an Episcopalian for almost 40 years (was I ever slow to learn, nicht wahr?). Pentamom and Ben offer up the common conservative idea that theres some new set of people in power, a group that offers the liberal, progressive status quo. Im never sure who this group is. Gays and immigrants are minorities. The support both gain only come from members of the majority who are willing to offer some charity toward them. Women are a different issue. They make up the majority of the population but have never held the reins of power as a group.
Now, do Westphal's arguments persuade the atheist? No. And when I have made use of Westphal I would say I merely scored points for being thoughtful, or something. Persuasion, I think, is mainly born of personal experience. That said, Westphal will give your opponents something to remember that might someday influence their experience. But if you are a Christian that sometimes engages non-Christians or liberal theologians in debate, I can't recommend Westphal more.