Review of Ciszek's "He Leadeth Me"

He Leadeth Me by Walter J. Ciszek
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book had its inspirational moments, and is well worth a read.  But as a narrative, story-telling experience, it was average and suffered some from lack of context, detail, and creativity.  There was also a lot of repetition.  I had no issues with the theology. It was simple, but powerful and thought-provoking.  But as read, it was more tedious than gripping, which is a shame, because there was so much potential for its being a gripping read.  I mean, how often can you get a first hand account of spending time in Soviet prisons and labor camps during some of the worst moments of the Stalinist regime?  And it just did not meet expectations in this regard.  I also found the structure a bit predictable.  Each chapter (titled by a particular concept) started with a short personal anecdote of an experience the author had, and then ended with a didactic bit of preaching about the concept.  The anecdotes were better than the didactic preaching.  But often times the preaching fell flat because there were so many contextual gaps that raised more questions about the how and why he arrived at the revelations of the concept he was preaching.  All that said, I did come away from the book with a more reflective understanding of the Catholic Christian faith and my experience as one of its adherents and practitioners.  Let me end this brief review, though, with one thing that really bothers me about this kind of book.  (Not just this particular book per se, but all those -- including this one -- that fall into this genre.)  These books give the impression that there is something special in an understanding of faith because of his particular experience of suffering and oppression.  That such kinds of experiences provide an insight to faith that one can only get from being so oppressed and abused.  The rest of us have been taught to view such accounts with deference and awe.  But I think there are people who live what we might call "normal" lives in relatively free and open political systems who can arrive at the same revelations from their own particular experiences.  One does not need to be imprisoned by the communists, tortured, starved, harassed, and abused, to have special insight or connection to God.


View all my reviews

GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy - A brief review

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Chesterton is a witty thinker with some interesting and provocative ideas.  When you first start this book, the freshness of his approach is striking and impressive.  But … it gets old, fast.  His excessive use of paradoxical metaphorical writing is clever the first few times you encounter it; but it wears on you the next 5 thousand times you encounter it.  I mean, really, it seems as if every other sentence is some kind of cutesy parallel inversion of some statement or claim.

His turns of phrase and his witticisms are much too clever by half, meaning his overdoing it in this regard diminishes his arguments after a while.

But enough on the overbearing style of his writing, what about the content?  And here I give Chesterton his props.  His defense of orthodoxy is creative and persuasive … mostly.  I think he makes some good arguments, but I think he is his own worst enemy in the sense that by pounding his arguments so incessantly, he inevitably falls into the trap of making the reader think he is slicing and dicing an argument in so many different ways because there is some weakness inherent to it.  And, indeed, I think there are some weaknesses which cause an honest thinker to question the legitimacy of his claims.

For one, the debater's trick he uses to mischaracterize or unfairly pigeon-hole the arguments of his rivals diminishes his own arguments.  He has a tendency to twist his opponents' arguments to mean things that he can argue against, but which are really not the meanings put forward by his opponents at all.  In essence, he is quite skillful at taking incomplete bits and snippets of an oppositional argument and then using them to set up a more comprehensive intellectual straw man that he then beats down.  In a sense, this debating style is quite effective rhetorically, but it rings hollow and disingenuous in terms of its substance.

I could go into detail and give many examples of what I mean by the above critique, but I just don't feel like it's worth it.  Just read the work and you'll get a good sense of what I mean.

And the shame of it is that his core idea doesn't really need all that rhetorical bamboozling and cleverness.  For those who want to find a fascinating debater's defense (and a novel one at that) of Christian orthodoxy, you'll enjoy this read.  But for those who are looking for an intellectually honest defense of orthodoxy, you might find this read a bit problematic and troubling.


View all my reviews

Steve Scalise and His Catholicism

So much has been swirling through my head the last couple of days about Steve Scalise.  I am still trying to process it all and collect my thoughts.  There is just so much about this situation that bothers and concerns me.  I'm likely to post more on this in the future, but one of the things that I want to comment on now is the repeated reference by Scalise to his Catholic faith and its unequivocal stance condemning racism.

The reference to one's religious faith as a moral identity marker, especially among conservatives, is nothing new.  But so often, folks who trot out their faith and wear it on their sleeve are the very people who use this as a bludgeon against the rest of us believers who are reluctant to use their faith in such a ham-handed way.

The reason why I, at least, am cautious about bringing up my religion as a baseline argument for social policy is that I find myself often at odds with my faith's position on a wide variety of social issues.  People like me are often accused by religious purists (and I would consider Scalise to be one of these purists), of being a Cafeteria Catholic, because I don't buy they whole package deal of Catholic teaching on all social issues.

But here we have Steve Scalise using Catholicism as a measure of his morality when it comes to the social problem of racism.  If we were to believe Scalise, we should understand that when he says he abhors racism because his Catholic faith instructs him to do so.  But here's the rub:  the Catholic faith also instructs him to support a living wage, to oppose the death penalty, to condemn the intrinsic evil of torture.  But Scalise doesn't adhere to what Catholicism demands of him in these instances.

Now, it's fine if Scalise himself is a Cafeteria Catholic, rejecting the guidance and instruction of his faith and church on such matters.  Who am I to throw stones here?  But what I would suggest is that Scalise be a bit more humble and equally cautious in using a knee-jerk reference to his Catholicism to prove he is not racist.  It's just not believable.  Perhaps he is a "Cafeteria Catholic" in this regard, too; and speaking to a racist hate group, with a wink and a nod, because he relies on their votes, tells us as much.

The Christian Argument for Marriage Equality

There is a way to engage to Christians on the subject of marriage equality from the perspective of Christianity, even from the perspective of Christian fundamentalists (Christianists), though I never hear anyone discuss this.

So much intellectual energy is spent by marriage equality proponents arguing the justice of civil marriage in a secular democratic polity (which is as it should be); but those lines of argument are never going to resonate with a fundamentalist Christian mentality in which secular civil rights arguments regarding marriage equality simply don’t matter and are always trumped by theological arguments.

So, in a way, I think constantly making secular arguments for marriage equality, as persuasive as they are to a mind oriented towards the virtues of secular civil democracy, to a mind that understands the virtue of the foundational church-state separation idea, is barking up the wrong tree if the goal is to persuade Christianists to rethink their position.

To persuade Christianists of the justice of marriage equality requires making an argument for marriage equality within the theological framework that Christianists value and embrace. I think there is a way to do this.

I am a Catholic, and in my faith tradition, marriage is a sacrament, imbued with a particular and special grace. Catholics (and all Christians, I believe) would hold to the idea that the sacramental grace of marriage is a gift from God available to all of God's human creation. It strikes me that the theological dimensions of Christianist opposition to marriage equality requires an active embrace of the idea of permanently denying gay individuals access to this grace, access to the fullness of God. I believe having to face this idea would make even the most ardent Christianist with an honest conscience a bit squeamish. In essence, if forces Christianists to believe that the theological implication of their stance against marriage equality is not only to drive a wedge between God and his gay son or daughter, but also even to accept their advocacy of keeping the fullness of God away from his children. Fallible and sinful Christianists have to accept the presumption of themselves as the policers of God’s grace. And what God-fearing Christianist would ever presume to be the policer of God’s grace? In fact, presuming as much flies in the face of the entire Christian ethos of forgiveness, redemption, and salvation.

One could develop this line of thinking even more fully and eloquently than I’ve done; but I’ve always thought that this line of argument from within the Christian theological tradition of marriage-as-sacrament would go a long, long way towards changing how Christianists think of the marriage equality debate. In the end, Christianists don’t pay attention to secular, civil rights arguments for marriage equality because marriage, for them, is wrapped up exclusively in theology.  So to persuade them, one has to speak to them in the language of the theological milieu through which they understand the issue.

The debate regarding the secular civil justice of marriage equality is over.  Marriage equality advocates have won that debate. Now it's time to win the Christian theological argument for marriage equality.

Benedictions, Courage, and Cooperation: Obama and the DNC vs. Romney and the RNC

I'm still trying to sort through what it means that Cardinal Dolan agreed to congregate with and give a benediction and his blessing to all those baby-killing gay marriage advocates.

At the very least, it undeniably means Obama had the courage and self-confidence to invite one of his fiercest critics from the realm of the Catholic hierarchy to share the stage with him. In my mind, it's just one more example (at the very DNC no less!) of, as Bill Clinton so eloquently noted, Obama's willingness to cooperate with those who disagree with and even criticize him on policy matters. Can you imagine the Republicans inviting one of the nuns from the Leadership Conference of Women Religious to give the benediction at their convention!?!? No? Neither can I.

Secondarily, it means fundamentalist conservative Catholics have to watch, horror-stricken I'm sure, their man-of-the-cloth playing nice with those godless heathens.

It also means that one doesn't have to have the words written down for God to be invoked by and present in the person of his official representative in America, literally, on the Democratic Party platform! (By which I mean the actual, physical stage at the DNC!)

Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, and Catholic Charity

I'm probably a bit overly attentive to this than most people are, but as a Catholic who was quite turned off by Ayn Rand's dismissiveness of Christian charity (hell, ANY charity) in her objectivist philosophy, I find it quite curious that Paul Ryan thought it fit to provide his Congressional staff with gifts of that avowed atheist's book "Atlas Shrugged" rather than a copy of the bible or Saint Augustine's "City of God" or even G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy."

To me, if he absolutely had to put essential reading materials into the hands of his staff as one of his first actions with his staff and as a signal of the values he hoped to inculcate in his office culture, his decision to privilege Rand's and her godless selfishness over God and His call for self-sacrificial charity in what to push his staff to read tells me a good bit about his moral priorities, none of it all that admirable.

Religious Freedom and Contraception

I don't see how religious liberty is in any way constrained by the government's determination that institutions which are not "religious" in the sense of proselytizing or conducting religious ceremonies, and who serve a clientele irrespective of faith or belief or religious conviction, not to mention who employ people of differing faiths or beliefs or religious convictions, have to give the option for contraception to its employees in whatever health insurance plans are offered through the employer.

The opposition to contraception is a moral teaching, and allowing individuals to make the choice about it is not constraining religious freedom but advancing it.  To restrict one's ability to contract with a healthcare provider for contraception is the real constraint on freedom.  Those who have a religious conviction in opposition to contraception have the choice not to avail themselves of this healthcare provision, should they choose not to do so.

Cal Thomas and Evangelical Propagandizing

Every once in a blue moon, Cal Thomas emerges from his conservative theocratic funk and writes something sensible.  Here's the crux of the column:

The Kingdom of God functions best, said the One who ought to know, when it is invisible, or hidden. In his numerous parables, Jesus spoke of it being like a treasure hidden in a field (Matthew 13:44), or as tiny as a mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32). As for prayer, He said to do that privately, not in public “…like the hypocrites...” (Matthew 6:5-6)

Those who spend a lot of time arguing for the inerrancy of Scripture seem to gloss over these instructions when it comes to politics and football.

Why do many evangelicals feel the need to see their faith on public display? Are they that insecure about the One in whom they claim to believe? His Apostle, Paul, said, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7) Was he kidding?

I’m sure Tim Tebow is as fine a man as everyone says he is; everyone except Bill Maher and other “apatheist” detractors. But the Jesus about whom Tebow frequently speaks and to whom he drops to one knee to publicly praise, said to go into your closet and pray in secret and then your prayers will be heard.

He ends the piece with this admonition:

Instead of intensely focusing on football and the next election, perhaps evangelicals ought to pray more; in private, of course, and with the right motives.

I couldn't agree more.

Thoughts on the Tebowing Phenomenon

Much has been made recently of Tim Tebow's spirituality on the field, particularly his religious genuflection as a testament to his Christian faith.  Sally Jenkins wrote an article in defense of Tebow's expression of faith and wonders why so many people are bothered by it.  Here's a fairly lengthy quotation from the piece that gets at the crux of the issue:

What’s more interesting is why Maher, and other political commentators from Bill Press to David Shuster, feel compelled to rip on Tebow simply for kneeling.

“I’m tired of hearing Tim Tebow and all this Jesus talk,” Press said, adding a profane suggestion that Tebow should shut up. They act like he’s trying to personally strip them of their religious liberty, manipulate the markets, and take over our strategic oil transport routes.

What is so threatening about Tebow? It can’t be his views. Tebow has never once suggested God cares about football. Quite the opposite. It’s Maher and company who stupidly suggest a Tebow touchdown scores one for Evangelicals whereas an interception somehow chalks one up for atheism. Anyone who listens to Tebow knows he doesn’t do Jesus talk, he’s mostly show and no tell. His idea of proselytizing is to tweet an abbreviated Bible citation. Mark 8:36. He leaves it up to you whether to look it up. When he takes a knee, it’s perfectly obvious that it’s an expression of humility. He’s crediting his perceived source, telling himself, don’t forget where you came from. On the whole, it’s more restrained than most end-zone shimmies.

So why does Tebow’s expression of faith make people so silly-crazy? Why do they care what he does?

Because he emphasizes the aspect of his talent that is given, not earned.

I've been thinking about this a lot, because the Tim Tebow phenomenon bothers me, too; but I can honestly say that Jenkins' explanation in my case is completely false. My discomfort with "Tebowing" is not that he's emphasizing "an aspect of his talent that is given, not earned." I really have no issues at all with that. What bothers me is that Tebow has always consciously played into the Christian culture wars, and I don't see his Tebowing as an innocent gesture of his faith. It may not be a spiritual proselytization, but I think it is clearly a political commentary on the idea of pushing faith in the public square.

In fact, that's why it's his particular gestures of faith on the playing field, as opposed to the hundreds of other gestures of faith that athletes regularly display on the playing field, have resonated so powerfully not only among the likes of Bill Maher, but also among the likes of Pat Robertson. There are hundreds of baseball players who make the sign of the cross as they come up to bat. There are basketball players who emblazon Christian symbols on their bodies (i.e. Jamario Moon). In NASCAR racing, Christian symbolism is extensive.

So why does Tebow elicit so much attention concerning his expression of Christian faith? To get the answer, all one needs to do is to remember how Tebow and faith became so prominent an issue. Remember the anti-abortion Tebow commercial that was supposed to air on Superbowl Sunday? This happened while Tebow was still a quarterback at the University of Florida. And there was no question that this was a politically motivated culture war sortie.  Moreover, Tebow himself supported and promoted it.

What bothers me is that Tebow himself has very much played a part in politicizing his faith; and any subsequent expressions of his faith on the field in full public display must be taken in this context. My discomfort is with that.

I really and truly don't care that Tebow has a strong faith and is confident to express it publicly. And it wouldn't even cross my mind as anything bothersome if he were to do in on the field without the politicized context that he himself has shrouded it with. And the simple fact is that I get uncomfortable when I know that anyone has politicized his faith and then foists that faith on me against my will. I don't watch football as a political statement in the culture wars. And Tim Tebow, unfortunately, has made his expressions of faith into political statements. That is why it bothers me. And that is why I think Andrew Sullivan is on to something about why Tebow's faith on the field should be problematic for Christians.

Faith, Prayer, and the Opiate of the Masses

I think it was Karl Marx who called Religion the opiate of the masses.  And I've always wondered why that was such a bad thing to say and why people of faith would get so worked up by this Marxian meme.

Sometimes, actually, I find peace in the idea of Religion being an opiate.

At the very least, even if there is no God and even if religious faith is an exercise in self-delusion, prayer and faith provide comfort.

I don't see what's so bad about that.

If prayer and faith provide even a temporary respite from the existential despair that Kierkegaard called the "Sickness  Unto Death," how can that be something unworthy of embracing.

Dirty War Atrocities in Argentina

Forget the thousands of "disappeared" and tortured.  What, to me, is the most insidious and most evil of the behaviors of the military regime was the practice of killing the parents of newborns and then adopting the newborns in the households of the parent-killers themselves.

For a chilling story, read that of Victoria Montenegro, who was raised by Lt. Col. Hernan Tetzlaff, the man who killed her parents.

And even more shocking is that the Argentine Catholic hierarchy fully supported this family destroying and life disrespecting practice:

Priests and bishops in Argentina justified their support of the government on national security concerns, and defended the taking of children as a way to ensure they were not “contaminated” by leftist enemies of the military, said Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Prize-winning human rights advocate who has investigated dozens of disappearances and testified at the trial last month.

Ms. Montenegro contended: “They thought they were doing something Christian to baptize us and give us the chance to be better people than our parents. They thought and felt they were saving our lives.”

Church officials in Argentina and at the Vatican declined to answer questions about their knowledge of or involvement in the covert adoptions.

Why would the Vatican decline to answer such questions? Yet another reason why I'm an Exodus Catholic.

Thanksgiving Intellectual Hand Grenades

I had a wonderful time yesterday at my brother's home for the family Thanksgiving.  For one, a number of my work colleagues and some Posse scholars came over to celebrate with the Hucks.  I think everyone had a great time and I am always so proud of my family and how welcoming everyone is to strangers who may be far away from their own families and who may otherwise be spending Thanksgiving day without a traditional Thanksgiving experience.

But, towards the end of the afternoon, I was involved in an interfamilial theological and philosophical debate with my nieces and nephews.  Whereas in the past, my debate competitors were my siblings and cousins and parents and aunts/uncles, this time my debate competitors were the youthful high schoolers of the next generation.  All four of them attend Catholic high schools and are very much committed enmeshed in the basic theological concepts that they are taught -- in a somewhat orthodox and unquestioning manner, if you ask me.

In any event, I decided to stir the pot a little bit and so I brought up the subject of God's nature as an "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" being.  My arguments, which I've given lots of thought to over the years and which I've discussed on this very blog at times, center around the notions of the radical powerlessness of God and the limits to God's knowledge.  It threw these young minds for a bit of a loop, though I was impressed with how thoughtful and critically engaged they were with the topic.  None of them agreed with me, which is fine, but I think I did rattle some cognitive processes.  What I think the Catholic Church needs more of is critical thought and what it needs less of is blind acceptance to "revealed truth" and the very human authority behind such revelations.  I'm all for a little heterodoxy in the midst of a uncritically examined and powerful orthodoxy.  So, let's see where these open gates in the minds of these young thinkers now lead them to.  My hope is not that this examination process leads people away from their convictions, but rather strengthens and deepens them through the full exercise of the critical thinking capacity that God has given to us.

Hope you had a thoughtful Thanksgiving, too!

Social Sin and Solidarity with the Poor

In one of my book clubs, we are reading the Franciscan Friar Joseph Nangle's book Engaged Spirituality. This is an online book club and we are posting our thoughts via commentary on a Facebook group page set up for the purpose. In chapter four of this book, Nangle talks about the idea of social sin and how our current global capitalist system has perpetuated an environment in which poverty and inequality are perpetuated in the developing world and from which we in the developed world are the main beneficiaries. Nangle views our global political economy in its perpetuation of poverty and inequality as the manifestation of what he calls social sin. In our online discussion, we've debated our obligations towards solidarity with the poor in the context of our privilege as beneficiaries of this unfair system. I've taken issue with some of the discussion that has, I think, misinterpreted the gospel message of solidarity with the poor as necessitating some kind of revisiting of our privilege as problematic. Here are some of my comments on this issue:

I think we should strive to live like and with the poor. And that's part of Nangle's point in how we should respond to social sin -- we shouldn't seek to ignore it nor to try to justify it. But I do think that Nangle was clear (and I agree with him) that we should respond to social sin (as to all kinds of sin) by acknowledging it and working towards rectifying it without driving ourselves to the point of an unhealthy guilt over it. I think Nangle would be opposed to an unhealthy self-flagellation for our sins, including our complicity in social sin. It's an oppression of guilt that, in itself, can be sinful, too, I believe. We can acknowledge that the comforts of a hot shower, air conditioning in summer, and an occasional indulgence in ice cream for dessert form part of a system that distances us from the reality of the poor and perhaps even perpetuates that system -- and in so acknowledging this fact, try to readjust our lives accordingly. In keepting with Nangle's earlier chapter, that is our solidarity call within the incarnation of Christ as fully human. But there is nothing inherently evil in a better, more comfortable life. In fact, my hope is to work on restructuring the inequities of our system (i.e. rectifying the social sin) such that our brothers and sisters across the world can share in these comforts, too. In other words, sometimes I think our solidarity direction can be backwards oriented in the sense that we think we need to be more deprived and suffering like the poor, rather than trying to have the poor be less deprived and less suffering like we are. Two sides to the solidarity coin.

Celebrating Maryknoll

Maryknollers are committed to Catholic Social Teachings in the context of missionary work, and their goals are more to be in solidarity with the peoples of the developing world more so than to evangelize or convert them to the Christian faith. This year, the Maryknoll Order is celebrating its centennial anniversary as a formal Catholic religious group. Just last week, the Affiliates of New Orleans hosted a celebratory mass and reception at, of all places, St. Mary Magdalen Parish in Metairie, which happens to be where I went to grammar school. But I recently read in the newspapers about one Maryknoll Priest, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a nice man but a rabblerouser of sorts, who was arrested in Rome for engaging in an unlicensed protest. Apparently, he and a few others were delivering a petition to the Pope that is opposing and challenging the Catholic Church's policy of not ordaining women to the priesthood. While I share a certain sympathy for the cause, I just have to wonder at the timing of Fr. Bourgeois's behavior. It strikes me, in a way, as extremely selfish. At the very moment when his religious order is trying to celebrate its existence for 100 years, he is sucking attention away from the order onto his own personal crusade, one that has not only led to his excommunication, but also has placed his order in a very tough and painful position relative to the Vatican. At a moment when all Maryknollers should be celebrating, we are caught up in the divisive and painful vortex of Fr. Bourgeois's cause. Maybe this is as it should be, but it just strikes me as injudicious and improper. It certainly is being done without regard for the damage and pain that is being inflicted on the Maryknoll Order itself. I just can't understand why Fr. Bourgeois would want to do this to Maryknoll. I want to celebrate Maryknoll, not cause it grief.

Death of an Archbishop

I haven't written about the recent death of Archbishop Phillip M. Hannan because I have been quite conflicted over the whole post-mortem affair.

On the one hand, as much as I have disagreed with Archbishop Hannan's politics and his sticking his nose in the secular affairs of state, I recognize the important role he played in this community for a long time.

Like him or not, his influence in New Orleans was considerable and impressive.

So, I guess all the pomp and circumstance surrounding his death, funeral, and burial events can be understood in this light.

But ... the whole situation also struck me as way over the top.  I found it to be excessive, gaudy, and almost obscene.  It seemed like a throwback to times where Popes and Kings governed all aspects of life, cultural, political, economic, and social.  I can't think of any other person in the recent history of New Orleans who was treated like royalty upon his death, with such pomp and circumstance.

At a very basic level of the Christian example, I also found the funeral and burial events to be just the opposite of the humility and simplicity that one would expect.  One might argue that this is more a reflection on the living faithful than it is on the Archbishop himself, but even still, I would have expected Archbishop Hannan to have tried to downplay the hoopla and to insist on a simple Christian funeral and burial.  But he didn't.  Apparently, he left no instructions about his funeral and burial, which leads me to think that he was thus consciously acquiescing to the big deal that he surely must have known people were going to want to make about his funeral and burial.  And I see that as a last act of vanity.  He's human, after all, so one can forgive him this; but I did find it to be a bit of a moral failing.

At another level, I found it personally hard to celebrate the legacy of the man's life when that life has been in many ways lived improperly.  I simply cannot forget that he unapologetically defended capital punishment, even when the Vatican itself declared that capital punishment, for all intents and purposes, was no longer morally justifiable.  I cannot forget that he publicly declared that anyone who voted for a candidate for political office who happened to be pro-choice as sinful (and if memory serves, he called it a grave and mortal sin) -- even though, again, the Vatican has never categorically declared this.  I cannot forget that he generally justified war, even when the Vatican openly opposed particular wars as unjust and inconsistent with its commitment to peaceful solutions to disputes.

The man was significant to the history of New Orleans, but he was also a deeply flawed man, too.  Outside of the unseemliness of a vicar of Christ being laid to rest with such showy pomp and circumstance in this day and age, I don't think any public servant deserves to be treated so regally in death.

Dreher on Sullivan's "Christianist" Concept

Crunchy Con Rod Dreher has put up a posting today in which he grumps about Andrew Sullivan's use of the term "Christianist" to describe a particular comment from a Christian pastor on the subject of homosexuality. Reading the comments on Dreher's blog posting is also a treat in and of itself. I disagree with Dreher's reaction, which I think is mostly rooted in a deep-seated hostility to any harsh criticism of theocratic proclamations on "God's law" as it relates to secular law as it relates to homosexuality. I don't think Andrew Sullivan at all uses the term Christianist as freely and as indiscriminately as Dreher claims. I just think Dreher gets all wobbly and cranky when that term is used in reference to the subject of homosexuality. Anyway, read the posting and the comments and make up your mind for yourself. But most importantly, treat yourself to Dreher's blog. Make it a regular read.

Thoughts on Healing a Divided Church

I have had over the past few weeks some thoughtful conversations with different people whose opinions I respect about the current situation at St. Charles Ave. Baptist Church. Others in the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church have approached my B-2/3 in an effort to re-engage her in some way. Understandable. The victors attempting to assuage and coopt the vanquished.

But there is one family among the vanquished where no such attempts are being made to extend the healing and helping hand of the church: the pastor and his family.

A good man, his lovely wife, and his wonderful children have been excised from the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church community as if they were a cancer. That may sound harsh, but I find the analogy to be quite relevant and appropriate. Who wants to see a cancer return to a damaged and healing body?

And yet these good people are part of my family's spiritual life. They have been an instrumental part of our faith community. They are also dear friends who we believe have been grossly mistreated. Why would we ever want to associate with a congregation whose current leadership not only has behaved so abominably in my eyes, but which has not even made an effort as far as I can tell to extend any compassion and love to the pastor and his family?

There is no home for the Hucks in such a community where our friends have been told in no uncertain terms how "unworthy" they are to be members of this community. And to the folks who may protest that this is not true, I would ask such folks to tell me how often they have reached out to the pastor and his family to try to tell them how welcome they are in their church community. I would ask such folks: How many of them have said a single kind word publicly about the pastor and his family recently? From what I can tell, the prevailing attitude is more of the "good riddance" and "don't let the door hit you on the way out" variety.

But I will say this: I will meet with any person from SCABC who wants to tell me his or her side of the story. I will listen. And then you will listen to me. And I promise civility. But don't expect me to be smiley and play friendly or nice. This won't be any "reconciliation" meeting. I ain't feelin' that way and I won't pretend otherwise.

"Tell the Rabble to be Quiet"

From the Andrew Lloyd Weber Rock Opera, Jesus Christ Superstar:



(at the 4:08 mark):
CAIAPHAS
Tell the rabble to be quiet, we anticipate a riot.
This common crowd, is much too loud.
Tell the mob who sing your song that they are fools and they are wrong.
They are a curse. They should disperse.

...

JESUS
Why waste your breath moaning at the crowd?
Nothing can be done to stop the shouting.
If every tongue were stilled
The noise would still continue.
The rocks and stone themselves would start to sing...

A Nice Story about the Pastor

What has gotten lost in this whole heartrending situation at St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church is the recognition of the many wonderful things that the pastor has done in shepherding his congregation. I'd put the pastor's record up against any of the complaints that have since dominated the debate. And I invite anyone from the congregation pastored by this individual, even those infuriated and offended by my previous posting and those among the pastor's critics, to see if he can find it within himself in the spirit of Christian grace to say something nice, in public, on this blog in the comments section (or really anywhere that's publicly visible), about this pastor. I'll start with just one example of the many that I could list ...

As many of you know, my B-2/3 (that would be my wife, whom I like to refer to as my "better two-thirds") is a potter. At the end of just about every month for the past 3 years or so, my wife sets up a booth at the Palmer Park Arts Market where she not only sells her pottery, but also demonstrates how to make pots at her pottery wheel. And every month when the Arts Market rolls around (usually the last Saturday of every month), it falls upon me to be the muscle in packing up and transporting the heavier and bulkier items that make up her booth from her studio in our house to Palmer Park. This includes her pottery wheel, her booth tent, the tables and shelving display materials. My wife is simply not physically strong enough to do this on her own.

If by some unavoidable reason, I am not available to help my wife with the Arts Market set up, then it becomes a real question as to whether my wife will be able to participate in the Arts Market that month. This almost never happens, but sometimes my work requires travel that conflicts with an Arts Market date. This happens every summer when I need to spend 5-7 weeks abroad running a study abroad program -- so my wife usually takes a hiatus during those months. No problem.

But there was this one time, just this once, when I had an unavoidable work conflict over an Arts Market weekend in which I simply wasn't going to be around to do my usual set-up and break-down duties. By the time we knew about this conflict, my wife had already made a prior commitment to participate in the Arts Market, and had pre-paid the booth fee. So her options were to find some other muscle, whether paid or unpaid, or skip out on the Arts Market altogether that month. Well, you can probably guess what happened.

Instead of my wife skipping out on the market and having to forfeit her booth fee, or having to find some random paid labor to do the task, our church pastor, upon hearing of the situation, voluntarily gave up his entire Saturday morning to help my B-2/3 pack up, transport, and set up her booth. And then he voluntarily gave up his entire Saturday afternoon/early evening at the end of the market to help break-down, pack-up, and transport back home the entire booth. I can tell you, that is hard, sweaty work -- and no small favor.

Remember that this pastor himself has a family of three youngsters; and those of us with children know how exceedingly valuable Saturdays are for quality family time. And remember that Saturdays are also the last prep days for pastors before the demands of Sunday services and sermonizing unfold. This pastor, without even a second thought or a blink of hesitation, stepped up and came through. And he did so in a spirit of good humor, grace, and unconditional friendship and fellowship. I think he might have even bought a pottery mug from my wife after the hard, dirty work of setting was done! Helping my wife to make up our booth fee with a purchase, when it should have been us paying him!

I can't tell you how much that effort meant to me and to my B-2/3 at the time. I will never, ever forget that selfless act of Christian and pastoral kindness. I don't know of ANY pastor or priest who either would step up like this for a congregant, or who physically even could do so. Let me tell you screaming from the treetops, that this is exactly the kind of church and pastoring I want for me and my family, and the example of Christ in action that I want my children to see on display. That's the kind of man and pastor that I have come to know, and that's the pastor who was serving the congregation of St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church.

And I can't even remember if we formally thanked him for helping out, though I'm sure he knew how thankful and grateful we were. Moreover, he's the kind of person who would never hold such an innocent oversight against us. What that man was to us on that particular day was a visible reincarnation of Christ himself, in the sweat and toil of "doing" Christianity, and not just preaching it.

I can offer you many, many more examples just like that one. And I know others can offer many such stories as well. I invite you to do so.

If it is true that we all want to show our pastor and his family that they walk with our love and our Christian companionship in this difficult time, then say it publicly, right here, right now, through a story of your own, in the comments section of this blog posting.

Random Thought on Church and Transparency

As someone raised in the Catholic faith, I come out of a Christian Church where the modus operandi for a long, long time was to circle the wagons around what the Church claimed as its internal affairs and to keep its dirty laundry from a public airing and within the secret and protected confines of the Church walls. I understand the protective impulse behind this approach; but look where this led the Catholic Church. In my opinion, it is not a wise policy. Public transparency and honesty, as raw and painful as it may be, is, I believe, always the best way forward.