Flannery O’ Connor told a friend, “I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say,” and it is the same for me. Last week saw me bed-bound, dealing with a bug that left me more addle-brained than usual, and in perusing my phone and tablet, I kept coming across the most interesting stories to ponder on my bed. Unable to sit up and write, though, I could not know what I thought.
I recalled G. K. Chesterton’s fantasy of lying in bed with a colored pencil suitable for ceiling-writing, and wished for a low ceiling and one of those big, soft-leaded pencils we were given in kindergarten—the kind that helped us learn to control our letters and, perhaps, our subsequent thoughts and words—so that I might corral my reason around one theme that kept popping up in my surveys. Each time I encountered the statement, or a variation upon it, its glare seemed so obvious to me: “yes, this is the next approach, the next challenge . . .” And yet–like a dream one cannot quite catch upon waking–the fully-developed idea would evaporate before I could get a hand on its misty tail.
The repeated thesis was simply this: “so what?”
Such a disarming question; the sort of question society has long-regarded as adolescent, arrogant, disdainful, and yes, more than a little snotty. It is a question that conveys a dare in its follow-up, whether spoken or not: “Just what are you going to do about it?”
In a three day period, I encountered three variations of this oddly innovative argument. Testifying on the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deployed it against a U.S. Senate Committee in order to divert attention from the single hardball thrown her way. Asked why the administration spent a week blaming American deaths on a little-seen video and reports of a “spontaneous protest”, when the true circumstances could have been known “within hours.” Clinton blared, “What difference at this point does it make?”
So, what? So what if, during an election season, we told the nation an untruth for an entire week, when we could have just queried thirty consulate evacuees and gotten our facts straight in a day? So what if we have been touting our defanging of Al Qaeda while blurring over the fact that Al Qaeda was connected to the attack? So what?
Just what are you going to do about it? The next day, Salon.com featured a piece by Mary Elizabeth Williams–in which she makes a pro-abortion argument while emphatically affirming her belief that a fetus is a living human being—with a stunning trumpet of a headline: “So What if Abortion Ends Life?”
I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same?
So, fetuses are human beings. But, so what? “All life is not equal,” Williams chillingly asserts, and a baby-in-utero, fully human and alive is, in her words, “a life worth sacrificing.”
Time’s recent concession that the pro-abortion movement has lost ground since its heady victory of 1973, has forced its adherents to finally admit that they’ve been lying to themselves, and to the world, for forty years: that the “thing” they’re so keen on killing is a real, whole, and living person, whether wanted or not. All it can fall back on is “so what?”
A day after William’s piece, Derek Penwell hauled out the same question for the Huffington Post, with the headline: “‘So What?’ The Nightmare Christians Should Be Having.” Penwell begins by relating a recurrent nightmare in which he presents a paper, which is received by another with a shrugging, “so what?”
Panicked, I would stammer, “What do you mean, ‘So what?’”
His story illustrates that “so what” is a superb tactic for throwing one off one’s own game. It differs from “convince me”, which at least invites discussion, in that it is openly dismissive and contemptuous. In our society “so what” is so unexpected (and until now has been perceived as so unthinkably rude) that one is rarely prepared to answer it. On my bleary bed, I pondered why it might be that suddenly, “so what” kept showing up. Identical attitudes thrown about on two successive days might be a coincidence, but thrust-thrice, and from the same ideological corner, it seemed like a theme, to me; a detour sign, laying out new track for our already disoriented national discourse.
The 2012 presidential campaign saw some muted discussion of Barack Obama’s “progressive” Christianity, and in social media 2012 campaign a few progressive Christians could be seen talking to each other about “taking Christianity back” from the “moronic” Christians on the right; a few billboards displayed apologies by progressive Christians for the thinking of those other, hateful, Christians. Penwell’s piece is, I think, a friendly shot across the bow to “conservative” Christians; a warning to get with a more progressive program—stop the socio-politically incorrect moralizing about abortion, divorce, gay marriage, and the rest of it, and start serving the hungry, the naked, and the displaced—or be ready to hear “so what,” from the religious “nones” they hope to evangelize:
What if part of the reason the “Nones” are so underwhelmed by organized religion isn’t because they don’t find Jesus interesting, but because it appears to them that Christians don’t find him sufficiently interesting enough to take seriously?
In truth, we know that Christianity rightly lived is not an “either/or” proposition, but a “both/and”; a fullness that demands a constant balance between justice and mercy; a “judge ye not,” joined to “go and sin no more.”
Still, ponder “so what” on your bed; and write the truth on your heart. Be ready to make your response with your very life, and how you live it.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
So What if Abortion Ends Life?
Why Abortion Activists Have Been Losing
So What, the Nightmare Christians Should be Having
To Some, Obama is the Wrong Kind of Christian
Progressive Christian: How Do I Not Hate Most Christians?
Apology billboards
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
He is making the case that effective evangelization first requires "joy." "Ethics" comes later.
The Nones respond "So what?" to religious overtures because they first see religion as an unreasonable ethic - a set of rules that at first blush appear arbitrary. What they need to see first - and experience - is the joy we Christians have in loving our neighbor. When the joy of seeing Christ in others is experienced, the ethics will come soon enough.
I am heartily sick of hearing that Christianity is ignored because Christians have no joy. All that means is the the observer hasn't met any real Christians, or that he's chosen to believe that the joyless Christians are the examplars.
Fortunately, Penwell isn't making that point anyway. He writes:
"Do they help us care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked or welcome the outcast? Or do these beliefs merely represent a golden barrier that offer protection against blame?"
Penwell knows nothing of Christians or Christian history if he can ask that question with a straight face and assume the answer is "No".
Wilfull ignorance. "So what" is the face of wilfull ignorance.
Joy is not happiness. Joy is doing God's will and that includes following the moral law. The problem is not simply not seeing joy. The problem is seared consciences.
I too found the comments in Salon interesting. I am one of those that is against abortion but don't see it as so much of a black and white issue as many here. And among the most interesting events in recent times pointing up the difficulty of the subject is a recent lawsuit in Colorado and the three Colorado bishops' response to the suit. The suit was actually brought a few years ago. A young woman, seven months pregnant with twins, came to a hospital in great distress. The hospital was a Catholic hospital. The doctor on duty arrived late to the hospital and the woman died. In addition the professionals didn't make any effort at a caesarian which might have saved the twins. So the husband and his remaining child filed a wrongful death suit against the archdiocese which included the deaths of both the mother and the unborn twins. The archdiocese through its attorneys argued the mother's death was inevitable and the twins were not "persons" under Colorado law and there should be no compensation for their demise under the law. The court agreed and dismissed the suit. The case is now on appeal but the case involving the unborn children is pretty much dead because Colorado law is clear on the subject. Now a few years later the case is being publicized because of the evident hypocrisy of the Catholic bishops teaching one doctrine and abandoning it when it comes to money. Now since the case is getting the publicity the bishops are trying to suggest that they didn't realize the official legal stance in the case and that they were going to review the situation in light of this information. HOGWASH!! They are the clients and had to have known what their attorneys were arguing. Either that or they are incompetent. Just another major case demonstrating the difficulty of this subject suggesting people should back off their judgmental high horse.
Fine point about joy. But, you said it was Penwell's (So What, the Nightmare Christians Should be Having) point, and that wasn't Penwell's point. Penwell's point was that being a Christian doesn't lead to doing anything worthy. He is manifestly wrong. I would say he's demonstrably wrong, except the evidence is manifest before him and it doesn't demonstrate his wrongness to him.
Not when you consider the fact that a Catholic respects the inherent personal and relational Dignity of human persons and thus would never deny the self-evident truth that a human person can only conceive a human person, and thus a human embryo, being a son or daughter of a human person, can only be a human person. Let us not forget that there are many who profess to be Catholic while denying the personal and relational essence of the human person, created in The Image and Likeness of God, and are thus not in communion with The Catholic Church to begin with. I would suggest the appeal go forward with the understanding that Roe is not settled, binding precedent, and since Roe states that if personhood can be established for the fetus, (which it now can be through DNA) then Roe goes away and the son(s) or daughter(s) residing in their Mother's womb receive full protection under The Fourteenth Amendment which is binding in State and Federal Law.
Here is Penwell's thesis:
"Christians can't just believe stuff. People want an answer to the question: "So what?" They want to know what turns on these much-discussed beliefs, what difference these beliefs make in our lives."
In other words: First comes the joyful witness in action. When the Nones see that joyful witness they don't ask "So, what?" Instead they ask, "where do I get some of that!" When the Nones ask that question, then you introduce the ethic.
"...a warning to get with a more progressive program—stop the socio-politically incorrect moralizing about abortion, divorce, gay marriage, and the rest of it, and start serving the hungry, the naked, and the displaced—or be ready to hear “so what,” from the religious “nones” they hope to evangelize."
I find Penwell's argument frustrating because it too easily gets him to the destination he already favors: more (happy) social justice Christianity, less moralizing and dogma.
There's no question that, as Aristotle observed, humans seek to be *happy*, and this is precisely what has made Christianity - at its best - appealing to billions over the last two centuries. But happiness is more than a smile. It's more than the satisfaction of doing good works.
Christian churches worried about the apparent drift away from institutional Christianity by Millennials are often too eager to latch on to evidence that these young people are "turned off" by traditional moral strictures. Certainly a dour or hateful presentation and posture are not helpful. But the alienation of this generation goes well beyond these concerns. As Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has noted recently, the larger problem is that this generation does not include nearly as many "joiners." As he notes, it's a "distancing of this younger generation from community institutions and from institutions in general, actually. That’s the same pattern, actually, that we find in politics. These are the very same people who increasingly describe themselves as independents rather than Republicans or Democrats. And those are the same people also who are not joining the Elks Club or the Rotary Club or whatever."
And that, I think helps explain why even the most liberal, works-oriented, "non-judgmental" denominations, like the Unitarians, Church of Christ, Episcopalians, are in even steeper decline, and drawing negligible numbers of young people. If Penwell is right, they ought to be doing quite well - but it's just the opposite. Even if many young people might agree with their stances, and laud some of their works, they seem to be saying "So what?" It's an atomized generation, one that feels alienated from *any* institutions or groups.
So I think it's fool's gold for churches to think that mere "joy" and loads of social work combined with abandonment or neutering of traditional moral codes is going to turn the key to this lock. A lot of them simply aren't going to be very reachable. And by giving up their expectations of behavior and emphasis on the transcendent, they'll be giving up that which gives them life.
I find myself saying "So What?" after coming across a sports score equally as often as as national political news. The trope in its entirety is: "So what?--what and how does anything about this topic changing anything in my day to day life?--how does anything Hillary Clinton every said affect the food on my table? How does an elaborate hoax pulled on some Samoan at Notre Dame affect the lack of change in my pocket?
I hear an implied "what" at the end of John 1:39.
Catholic teaching on legal killing has evolved so it is thought to be desirable to extend mercy not only to the innocent, but even to the guilty whenever possible. In contrast, when it comes to abortion, the argument in favor has evolved in a direction which is the polar opposite of the Catholic argument. In the thinking of some, not only is killing bad people a good and desirable thing, even killing innocents can be a good and desirable thing if it serves an important societal interest.
That is, we feel justified to look more and more to killing to solve our problems.
Well, that looks like a culture of death to me, all right. It is a culture where the pursuit of a rational and complete enjoyment of life demands legal protection for killing innocents which will foreseeably interfere with the rational and complete enjoyment of life, health, safety. [The fact that pregnancy may be--and under many circumstances is--dangerous to a woman, is the truth which makes this debate intractable.] There is no room for the 'other' even in the womb, when he is in my way.
'She gave birth to her first born Son, wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.'
Prof. Palacios is right in his analysis that when a culture gets to this kind of discourse, it is on the precipice of rapid decline and destruction (who would defend such a self-centered culture? SEE: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
Ray Ryan's comments seem to be informed by the "might makes right" and "political power flows from the barrel of a gun" school. Comrade Clinton, IMHO, should be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty. All the reports I've read indicate American troops could have been on the ground at the compound where Ambassidor Stevens was in time to prevent their deaths. It sure looks like Comrade Clinton's loyal retinue deep sixed the cries for help until it was too late. Why? What is being hidden?
What should Catholics do? Collect what is worth saving, and run for the hills. This looks to be another Sodom and Gomorrah moment. Run, and don't look back......
Mary Elizabeth Williams' attitude towards abortion reveals the thinking of a sociopath. It is well to ask how we answer such a person.
And the sin is far greater for those who teach that evil is good (i.e., our "progressive" leaders, e.g. Hillary, who sat silent with Gore and Bill when Mother Teresa brought the tragedy of abortion to their attention at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast).
The wisdom among old Christians is to attack and destroy any passionate young Christian who might defend the faith so they can please their secularist friends. Looking cool among them is more important than all that superstition about Jesus (which is just a part of their cultural milieu anyway: Madonna got the Jewish thing, Julia is doing Hindu and Jobs did Buddhist, some of us just do Catholic)!
I can't imagine the joy I would feel if I lived in a time or a place with a dynamic group of Christians to really affect a change towards God's word in the world.
Instead I have to hear adolescent minded aging Catholics give me a never ending seminar on how just shutting up and not actually defending the Church is the real adult, Christian thing to do..
She said, "What difference does it make?", a phrase often used in conjunction with "So what?" to indicate that something is unimportant. In the case of Clinton's testimony, her claim that it didn't matter whether the deaths of four Americans were the result of a spontaneous protest or "four guys out for a walk" can only properly be described as idiotic. Note also that she was careful to avoid mentioning in her examples of a possible cause what the attack really was--a coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
It is also the words of someone in charge. Kind of like "let them eat crust [cake],"... For all that they enjoyed fighting the power, they love even more to wield it, and completely fail to see the disconnect in their own set of strictures.
