Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Political Timidity & Clerical Cowardice
When an attempt was made to railroad George Zimmerman into prison for defending himself when assaulted, most conservatives fell silent, and some joined the lynch mob — and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single public official stood up to denounce what was going on.
More recently, when A&E suspended Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty for having the effrontery to repeat age-old Christian doctrine in an interview with GQ, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz let A&E have it. But the Republican establishment was present and accounted for only in its absence from the scene.
Moreover, when Mark Steyn blasted GLAAD in his inimitable way for trying to shut down public discourse, his editor at National Review Online took offense and went after him. Mark, being Mark, knew how to respond, and others at NRO have since rallied to his support. But I am nonetheless struck by the timidity on the right.
Even more to the point, however, I am really struck by the silence of the clergy. We can debate whether what Phil Robertson said was right or wrong, but the priests and ministers of the various Christian sects profess precisely what he said, and they have been ostentatiously silent. Did a single Catholic bishop speak up? If so, I missed it. Did the presiding officer of the Southern Baptist Convention speak up? If so, I missed it. Did any other clergyman speak up? If so, I missed it, and I tried hard—via Google—to find an example.
What bothers me about this is that it is tantamount to surrender. Christianity is being driven from the public square. Over the last half century, there has been one court case after another aimed at requiring that the federal government and the governments of the states and localities treat religion as a form of leprosy that one must never have any contact with—and that is part of a larger pattern.
When was the last time that you heard a religious Christmas carol at a shopping center? It has been a long time in my experience. Have you tried recently to purchase religious Christmas cards? We did, and we could not find any on offer from Hallmark or similar outlets. We ended up turning to a museum.
If someone like Phil Robertson cannot repeat standard Christian doctrine in the public square, if he cannot express disapproval for fornication, it means that prelates and preachers will soon find themselves harried for doing so as well. If they will not defend their right to preach the Gospel, then why should anyone else bother? It all suggests on their part a decided unwillingness to confront the zeitgeist and to stand up and be counted.
But perhaps I have been wrong. Perhaps, somewhere, there has been, on the part of a clergyman, an eloquent defense of Robertson. I hope so. But I fear that, to an ever increasing degree, men of the cloth in the United States are cowards. We live in an era in which, as William Butler Yeats once put it, “the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Published in General
Here are some lines from Archbishop Chaput that have been appearing in my Facebook feed all week. It’s from an address he gave a pro-life group in 2012.
The Left has created a new crime: Speaking while Christian.
And that is why GLAAD was wrong to go after Robertson, and so many others. But once the attack is made, one must respond or cede the field.
But the Bishops needn’t be the ones who do it. Political commentators, yes. Viewers of A&E, yes. Bishops, no.
And that is why GLAAD was wrong to go after Robertson, and so many others. But once the attack is made, one must respond or cede the field.
But the Bishops needn’t be the ones who do it. Political commentators, yes. Viewers of A&E, yes. Bishops, no. ·in 1 minute
Why not? The right of a Christian to say Christian doctrine and not lose his job for it is the kind of issue that the Bishops ought to defend. No?
If the bishops – the clergy – won’t defend their faith(s), what hope is there for the church?
Yes, you hit the nail right on the head. The truth hurts.
It seems a bit unfair to put this all on clergy. For one thing, clergy have far more important things to be focused on than GLAAD’s blacklisting attempts — even though such blacklist operations are despicable and should be denounced by everyone who cares about freedom.
But whether to talk about hot button political topics — be they the Christians in Iraq who were bombed at Christmas services or the situation with thought police in America — can be a decision based on the needs of one’s congregation.
I mean, all the Lutherans I follow on Facebook were talking about it — including dozens of pastors with interesting takes on the matter — but preparing for the Incarnation is more important than political speech.
But also, as a pastor’s kid here, I always wonder why people want to offload all work to the pastors. Pastors are to administer the sacraments and preach the Gospel. They also do other things but if you think Christians should be talking more about this topic, why can’t we all do our part?
Why not? The right of a Christian to say Christian doctrine and not lose his job for it is the kind of issue that the Bishops ought to defend. No?
It’s a question of vocation. Each “member” in the mystical body of Christ has his or her role to play.
The role of the bishop is to announce the gospel, to teach the faith, to offer the sacraments, to administer the church in his diocese, etc.
The political arena belongs primarily to the laity. The bishops get involved when the political encroaches on their domain, as with the HHS mandate. They’ve been eloquent there.
Things like the dustup between A&E and Phil Robertson are on us.
Remembering Pope Francis’ interview of a couple months back, let me ask the obvious question: do we really want a church that measures itself by how many “statements” are issued to the media, denouncing others for some position on the media-chosen issues of the day? Is that what the church’s job is?
Pope Francis just issued an exhortation in which he said that the world is hostile to what we believe. He said that this world thinks it can find justice in worldly systems. He called, instead, for a greater fidelity to the gospel. He called us to stop complaining about the culture war, and win it through mercy and love.
And we all recall the enthusiastic reception that found.
What sense does it make to try to “win” the culture war in the arena of the secular media? Only a fool plays the devil’s game with the devil; and when it comes to our values and virtues, the secular media is a devil’s game.
The way to prepare people to fight our sick culture is preaching against our own sin and administering the sacraments. ·20 minutes ago
I don’t disagree with any of this -on the other hand, I’m sure the Christians Pliny the Younger had executed believed it, too. Probably more than we do.
I really hope this isn’t what we are preparing for.
There’s some truth here.
But, to turn that right back around: the clerisy is plenty happy to make “moral” commentary that has political influence on questions of inequality, immigration and life, but frequently tends to demure on questions of sexual morality (speaking broadly, this will vary from denomination to denomination, of course).
Of those things, the ones the clerisy is best suited to comment on (the ones most clearly within its wheelhouse) is the one it defers on.
If moral and political questions can’t neatly be separated, as I think you’d agree, KC, then for the clerisy to pick and choose which questions to comment on is a statement of their priorities, not of the Gospel message which, you acknowledge, recognizes the need for Grace in a fallen world.
What Christians believe.
What have American clergy got on their hands that’s more important than that?
At the parish near my folks’, the Sunday before Christmas, it was far more important for the priest’s father to come up and ask for money to support the illegals at our sister parish. (Rural, the Father covers something like six churches.) There isn’t even a partnership with the local foodbank.
Our new parish is pretty good– they even have a weekly “our Catholic heritage” theology section– but there’s a reason that one of my peeves is the blanking criminal neglect of religious education. (It doesn’t help that rural districts get the “trouble” priests, but I’ll stop digressing.)
A lot of religious folks don’t like conflict. The ones that are willing to engage are often found on blogs these days– including this professional one at Catholic Answers, or this one from CS that addresses why so many religious are silent.
Assuming the picture Prof Rahe paints is true, my question is this: why are things so much worse in famously actively Christian America than in famously post-Christian old Europe?
The religious language and iconography of Christmas is ubiquitous even in those countries in Europe with a history (and even constitutions) of strong anti-clericalism. Prominent churchmen are expected to be public intellectuals. State media runs religious services. No-one bats an eye at the local equivalent of Merry Christmas. Any squeamishness on this part is clearly identified as an American import.
Why?
The religious language and iconography of Christmas is ubiquitous even in those countries in Europe with a history (and even constitutions) of strong anti-clericalism. Prominent churchmen are expected to be public intellectuals. State media runs religious services. No-one bats an eye at the local equivalent of Merry Christmas. Any squeamishness on this part is clearly identified as an American import.
Why?
It’s a lot easier to tolerate appearance when there’s no threat from the substance.
Which conservatives are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Which religions are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Islam has no real power here, so they’re not a threat– no matter how horrific many of their stances are; Christianity is in the very ground we grow from, so a lack of active support is a “threat.”
What have American clergy got on their hands that’s more important than that?
At the parish near my folks’, the Sunday before Christmas, it was far more important for the priest’s father to come up and ask for money to support the illegals at our sister parish. (Rural, the Father covers something like six churches.) There isn’t even a partnership with the local foodbank.
It might be worth noting, in passing, that claims for stronger governance to address inequality and claims for amnesty are incompatible projects for any nation-state in this world.
One could reconcile those two projects in a polity in this world–barring some catastrophe that reduced everyone to poverty, or else some miracle we cannot foresee–only by adding the premise that national borders should be dissolved, politics done away with, and an administrative juridical world-state set up that could address both questions by abolishing citizenship entirely and making all men cosmopolitans.
Because of the size of such a state, however, because of the number of things it would be required to oversee, it would necessarily be imperial and despotic–even if compassionate and comfortable.
The religious language and iconography of Christmas is ubiquitous even in those countries in Europe with a history (and even constitutions) of strong anti-clericalism. Prominent churchmen are expected to be public intellectuals. State media runs religious services. No-one bats an eye at the local equivalent of Merry Christmas. Any squeamishness on this part is clearly identified as an American import.
Why?
It’s a lot easier to tolerate appearance when there’s no threat from the substance.
Which conservatives are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Which religions are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Islam has no real power here, so they’re not a threat– no matter how horrific many of their stances are; Christianity is in the very ground we grow from, so a lack of active support is a “threat.” ·2 minutes ago
I would have invoked European Chauvinism. They are hokey and foolish superstitions, but they are our hokey and foolish superstitions. But I like your answer better.
Mollie’s point is that we can’t put itall on the clergy. Their first duties are the Word and Sacrament.
I’m an elder in my parish (of the same Lutheran confession as Mollie). We lead a range of other ministries — including hosting Massachusetts Citizens for Life — that engage the congregation and the world so Pastor isn’t consumed with these duties to the detriment of Word and Sacrament.
We look to Acts 6 (The Choosing of the Seven) as the Scriptural foundation for our charge to allow our Pastor to “devote [himself] to prayer and to the ministry of the Word.” But we’re fools if we don’t read on in Acts 6 and 7 and see what happened to Stephen. That may be what our call may truly be.
For once, Mollie, I’m not sure I can agree with you.
Not sure if this counts, since I’m not in active full time ministry anymore, but I am an ordained Evangelical. Here’s a bit on FaceBook :
The real issue in question here is the fact that our culture loathes and despises biblical moral truth. There is nothing new about this. Isaiah was put into a hollow log and sawn in two. The fall was man’s desire to invent his own morality, to be “like God.” There are so many things about Christianity and biblical morality that I wish were different. I wish my sin weren’t a barrier between me and God. Why? Because I’m a sinner! I wish Jesus’ claims didn’t have the exclusivity they do (and that our culture pretends they don’t). Why? Because it would be so much easier to get along and fit in with the culture at large. But I didn’t make those claims–Jesus did. So the culture’s beef is with Jesus. My role, as is all of us who are followers of Christ, is as Jesus himself said: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. John 15:17
The religious language and iconography of Christmas is ubiquitous even in those countries in Europe with a history (and even constitutions) of strong anti-clericalism. Prominent churchmen are expected to be public intellectuals. State media runs religious services. No-one bats an eye at the local equivalent of Merry Christmas. Any squeamishness on this part is clearly identified as an American import.
Why?
It’s a lot easier to tolerate appearance when there’s no threat from the substance.
Which conservatives are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Which religions are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Islam has no real power here, so they’re not a threat– no matter how horrific many of their stances are; Christianity is in the very ground we grow from, so a lack of active support is a “threat.” ·17 minutes ago
Religions that respond without any sense of – ahem – porportionality get a pass because… umm… because….
CN, I’ll mostly agree. But then, as a Catholic, I’d say that no one has any doubt about where the church stands on sexual morality. There are plenty of public statements already out there. That, and the fact that the church spent years trying to make statements about sexual morality. For which they were dismissed as being celibate, so they must not have any credibility. But we also know that the media only report “statements” that they find useful to their agenda. The fact that “I didn’t hear anything” doesn’t mean that no one in the church said anything.
Paul, what on earth do you mean by “went after him”?
In what way did Steorts “go after” Steyn?
In this very thread we have Peter disagreeing with Mollie. Does that mean that Mollie’s “own editor” (as Steyn described Steorts, even though on the Corner they are both simply contributors) is “going after” her? No…They are just disagreeing over details. That’s all that happened between Steorts and Steyn. You have perpetuated a falsehood in stating that Steorts “went after” Steyn.
It’s a lot easier to tolerate appearance when there’s no threat from the substance.
Which conservatives are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Which religions are attacked? Those who are an ongoing threat.
Islam has no real power here, so they’re not a threat– no matter how horrific many of their stances are; Christianity is in the very ground we grow from, so a lack of active support is a “threat.”
I would have invoked European Chauvinism. They are hokey and foolish superstitions, but they are our hokey and foolish superstitions. But I like your answer better.
Mild depression brought on by a facebook image a friend shared, mentioning that the “Mama Mia” thing Mario says is invoking Mary’s prayers, and the following discussion on how it, “sacre bleu!” and similar very Catholic Marian things have no substance.
Paul, what on earth do you mean by “went after him”?
In what way did Steorts “go after” Steyn?
In this very thread we have Peter disagreeing with Mollie. Does that mean that Mollie’s “own editor” (as Steyn described Steorts, even though on the Corner they are both simply contributors) is “going after” her? No…They are just disagreeing over details. That’s all that happened between Steorts and Steyn. You have perpetuated a falsehood in stating that Steorts “went after” Steyn.
Well-said, Arthur.
Steyn and Steorts in a deathmatch for the fainting couch!
What has happened to NR?
Paul, what on earth do you mean by “went after him”?
In what way did Steorts “go after” Steyn?
In this very thread we have Peter disagreeing with Mollie. Does that mean that Mollie’s “own editor” (as Steyn described Steorts, even though on the Corner they are both simply contributors) is “going after” her? No…They are just disagreeing over details. That’s all that happened between Steorts and Steyn. You have perpetuated a falsehood in stating that Steorts “went after” Steyn. ·24 minutes ago
I agree also that the Catholic Church has been admirably clear minded on sexual issues–unlike my own denominational background.
As to celibacy, funny you should mention that–this very interesting piece on 19th century political conflicts and the Church is in the January 2014 issue of First Things.
Here’s one: Albert Mohler. He’s not the presiding officer of the SBC, but he is the president of their seminary.
Podcast
Article
I highly recommend subscribing to the podcast.
Good for him.
But you are correct Professor Rahe that the spineless on the right is disturbing, especially among certain of its organs of alleged repute.
The only hope for this country I have is that old left-wing saw that if the people lead, the leaders will follow. ·13 hours ago
You are, indeed, right about Dershowitz. He was superb.
Too silly? So they should fall silent when their silence will be taken as approval. They are not silent on immigration, on welfare reform, on budgets. But when it comes to a layman speaking Christian doctrine, they are silent. Give me a break.
Paul, what on earth do you mean by “went after him”?
In what way did Steorts “go after” Steyn?
In this very thread we have Peter disagreeing with Mollie. Does that mean that Mollie’s “own editor” (as Steyn described Steorts, even though on the Corner they are both simply contributors) is “going after” her? No…They are just disagreeing over details. That’s all that happened between Steorts and Steyn. You have perpetuated a falsehood in stating that Steorts “went after” Steyn. ·1 hour ago
Anyone who reads both pieces will see that Mr. Arthur is wrong. As for Steorts being Mark’s editor, well, he is Mark’s editor.