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 is a sermon given in Fort Lauderdale at a Baptist Church that addresses the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ois2h4WnsA
I will only say, in reply to those who think that clergymen have better things to do, that they and all Christians have a large stake in defending the rights of other Christians to speak up on matters of morality in a manner that accords with the teaching of the various churches.
To drive Phil Robertson from A&E because of what he said is to set a precedent for driving all Christians speaking on this question from the public square. It is to stigmatize the doctrine and to make of it a public embarrassment. If the clergy are not more assertive, the day will come when they themselves are silenced in their own churches when speaking on these matters. This has happened in Canada. It can happen here.
I am pleased to learn that some — mainly, Baptists, as far as I can tell — have spoken up. There should have been more. As usual, the Catholic prelates, by and large, have disgraced themselves.
Paul, what on earth do you mean by “went after him”?
In what way did Steorts “go after” 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. ·9 minutes ago
Steorts is the managing editor of the print edition of NR.
The column in question was Steyn’s weekly column for NRO. The O stands for Online. In other words, it’s not the print edition. Edward Craig is the managing editor of NRO.
I read both pieces; I’m fairly average, so I think I qualify as “anyone.” I don’t think I’m wrong that Steorts simply disagreed with Steyn’s use of the word “fruit.” Is that what you meant when you wrote that he “went after” Steyn? Because that doesn’t seem too remarkable to me.
Here is some more Baptist commentary:
http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=41727
http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/challenging-jesse-jackson-and-michael-eric-dyson-to-debate-the-phil-robertsons-remarks-for-the-sake-of-kingdom-truth/#comments
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2013/12/19/why-suspending-phil-robertson-will-backfire/
http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2013/12/southern-baptist-convention-president-fred-luter-supports-phil-robertsons-biblical-view-on-homosexua.html
Would that the Catholics were half this good!
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. ·9 minutes ago
Steorts is the managing editor of theprint editionof NR.
The column in question was Steyn’s weekly column forNRO. The O stands for Online. In other words, it’s not the print edition. Edward Craig is the managing editor of NRO.
I read both pieces; I’m fairly average, so I think I qualify as “anyone.” I don’t think I’m wrong that Steorts simply disagreed with Steyn’s use of the word “fruit.” Is that what you meant when you wrote that he “went after” Steyn? Because that doesn’t seem too remarkable to me. ·24 minutes ago
When was the last time an editor at NR chastised one of his own writers? I can think of an example, and the writer is no longer writing for NR. Mark took what Steorts did much more seriously than you do, and he was right to do so.
But any focus on politics is fraught with danger — we might be seduced into forgetting the whole point of Christianity.
I’m not going to pretend to be an Augustinian scholar, or to even have read much of his writing.
That said, The City Of God contains a good bit of commentary on politics of the day.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong though.
When was the last time an editor at NR chastised one of his own writers? I can think of an example, and the writer is no longer writing for NR. Mark took what Steorts did much more seriously than you do, and he was right to do so. ·1 minute ago
Sure, I’ll just wade through the archives. But I’d start with Steorts’s own archive. From what I remember, he has disagreed with other writers on various topics. None of them dramatically invoked a non-existent threat of suspension, that I recall.
I quarrel with your description of Steyn as one of “[Steorts’s] writers,” too. That’s just another way of claiming that Steorts is “Steyn’s editor,” which I believe is a misleading statement. Steyn comes and goes as he pleases. Furthermore, Steorts didn’t not voice his disagreement as an editor, but as a fellow contributor at the Corner.
When was thelast time an editor at NR chastisedone of his own writers? ·
Here is Fred Schwarz, a (gasp) Deputy Managing Editor at NR, disagreeing with Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review:
Wow! And it’s even the exact same topic, Duck Dynasty, that Steorts and Steyn were disagreeing about.
PS all ellipses in quote were to conform to 200 character comment limit.
Here’s National Review’s other Deputy Managing Editor, Nicholas Frankovich, taking offense at something George Weigel wrote for NRO:
Albert Arthur dropping knowledge… with cites!
Like Mollie, I’m also a PK, and have great sympathy for the multitudinous pastoral responsibilities. I also agree with Mollie that a pastor’s primary responsibility is to preach the gospel.
I like the approach taken by my (Baptist) pastor this last Sunday who used the Duck Dynasty fiasco as an illustration to begin his sermon this last Sunday. He spent less than 3 minutes on Duck Dynasty, and another 30 minutes on the sermon, but still made it very clear what the Bible said about homosexual conduct and moved on to his sermon.
Stipulating that homosexuality is condemned as a sin both in the Bible and throughout serious Christian doctrine, I don’t see how Robertson’s comment that sin “start[s] with homosexual behavior and just morph it out from there” can be defended as “Standard Christian Doctrine.” At best, it’s highly idiosyncratic; at worst, it’s heretical.
To return to the Zimmerman analogy, most 2nd Amendment folks were quick both to defend Zimmerman from the not-so-figurative lynch mobandto point out that some of his decisions leading up to his confrontation Martin were irresponsible. It would be nice to see a similar balance from Robertson’s defenders in this matter.
Sin leads to sin. It’s not a common sermon topic, for a variety of reasons, but I don’t think it’s really controversial from a theological standpoint.
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,”
From Romans 1.
Sin leads to sin. It’s not a common sermon topic, for a variety of reasons, but I don’t think it’s really controversial from a theological standpoint.
Agreed, but that’s not the point Robertson made. If he was trying to make it, he failed.
Our Deacon wrote about it
https://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=53618
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. ·7 hours ago
I like the Quebecois’ “Tabernac!”
Mr. Arthur completely misses the point.
As anyone who reads Mark’s reply to Steorts can see, he regards Steorts as his editor (which he is). The technicalities about the difference between NR and NRO are irrelevant.
Second, Mr. Steorts did not simply disagree with Mark about the force of his argument. He went after him on the question of propriety. There is a huge difference.
The other –earlier — case I had in mind ended with the writer being eliminated from those who write for National Review, and it, too, concerned a matter of propriety.
Let me add that all of this is taking place in the shadow of the case that Michael Mann of Penn State has brought against Mark Steyn and National Review.
https://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=53618 ·1 hour ago
Good for him. So far, no one has found a Bishop who has spoken up. As you can see from the comments — mine and those of others — the Baptist ministers have not been as silent as I thought.
Stipulating that homosexuality is condemned as a sin both in the Bible and throughout serious Christian doctrine, I don’t see how Robertson’s comment that sin “start[s] with homosexual behavior and just morph it out from there” can be defended as “Standard Christian Doctrine.” At best, it’s highly idiosyncratic; at worst, it’s heretical.
To return to the Zimmerman analogy, most 2nd Amendment folks were quick both to defend Zimmerman from the not-so-figurative lynch mob andto point out that some of his decisions leading up to his confrontation Martin were irresponsible. It would be nice to see a similar balance from Robertson’s defenders in this matter. ·16 hours ago
Edited 16 hours ago
How was Robertson irresponsible?
Nah Paul, you’re wrong about this.
Lots of clergy will speak out about these things both in private and in public.You will never hear about it because they are:
1. In places where no media ever gets to, so you never hear their voice.
2. In large denominations these people have been marginalized or pushed out to places where they have no access in their denominational structure to be heard. In short, the corrupt hierarchy has muzzled them.
3. Other clergy do not speak up because they do not see this issue as something that can help them or their church fulfill their primary mission of getting non-believers to believe or marginal believers to grow in their faith. Therefore they stay quiet.
4. Some clergy are afraid of losing parishioners and attenders because they disagree with their beliefs. It is better to keep silent about the immorality of the act and those who defend it because it is out there away from them as opposed to the person who they see each Sunday who will leave their church if they speak. Go along to get along, and all that.
This dispute was had in my Sunday School class. The claim was made that we should give up the tax-exempt status and just preach what we wanted to. I pointed out that we were perfectly within our rights to say anything we wanted to, so long as we did not endorse particular candidates or ballot measures (I’m a member of several 501(c)3 or 4 organizations, the rules are fairly standardized).
Besides, it’s an honor to be oppressed by the IRS. A painful honor, but an honor nonetheless.
Even though everyone was in more-or-less agreement (or at least there were no vocal opponents), the issue was dropped because it was too disruptive and we needed to get back to Genesis 29.
Take the anecdote for what it is worth.
From above:
5. I have heard of situations where gay people are members of a church, but other than the minister almost no one knows about it because the people involved will be isolated or kicked out because of their belief/practice/lifestyle.
So if a person is gay but an active practicing member of their faith and part of a church that sees them as sinning, the clergy may well not say anything for the sake of those people. YMMV
For once, Mollie, I’m not sure I can agree with you. The Phil Robertson incident represented an attempt to silence even a casual expression of what for two thousand years has represented basic Christian morality, asserting in its place a new norm, in which disordered behavior is accepted–even celebrated–as normal. GLAAD’s statement, remember, instructed us on “what Christians believe.”
What Christians believe.
What have American clergy got on their hands that’s more important than that?
There is more risk in standing up for people than in standing up for ideas, and often the line between the two is blurred. To stand up for Zimmerman is to expose yourself to criticism a few months later upon another arrest. To stand up for Robertson will lead to, well, who knows what?
However, to stand up for the principle of self-defense is timeless, as is standing up for Scripture.
For once, Mollie, I’m not sure I can agree with you. The Phil Robertson incident represented an attempt to silence even a casual expression of what for two thousand years has represented basic Christian morality, asserting in its place a new norm, in which dangerous, immoral behavior is accepted–even celebrated–as normal. GLAAD’s statement, remember, instructed us on “what Christians believe.”
What Christians believe.
What have American clergy got on their hands that’s more important than that?
Politically I’d say the global persecution of Christians is more important. Abortion, too.
But any focus on politics is fraught with danger — we might be seduced into forgetting the whole point of Christianity.
Advent, the penitential season preparing for the Incarnation. Christmas, when we ponder the supreme mystery that the holy and almighty God took on human flesh and was born in this world of the Virgin Mary. God became one of us in order to die for us and save us from sin, death, and the power of the devil.
The way to prepare people to fight our sick culture is preaching against our own sin and administering the sacraments.
How was Robertson irresponsible?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. My analogy was that both Robertson and Zimmerman deserved to be defended in part and criticized in part, not that Robertson was irresponsible.
Describing the specific quote of Robertson’s I mentioned before — to say nothing of the oh-so-predictable beastiality reference that just happened to follow it — as a recital of “standard Christian doctrine” is as wrong-headed describing Zimmerman’s actions as “by-the-book self defense.”
The difference is that every Second Amendment site I’ve read has made pains to point out all the mistakes of judgement Zimmerman made in the moments that lead up to his encounter with Martin, and warned their readers against putting themselves in similarly dangerous situations.* Many religious conservatives, however, apparently see nothing wrong with Robertson’s mentioning of homosexuality as first thing that come to mind when asked to define sin, and as something you can extrapolate all other sins from.
* Lest there be any confusion, I absolutely think Zimmerman was right to defend himself from Martin with lethal force, just as I think A&E made the wrong call on Robertson.
Politically I’d say the global persecution of Christians is more important. Abortion, too.
<sarcasm>Don’t be silly, Mollie. Start with homosexual behavior, morph it out from there, and you’ll quickly end with burning Coptic churches and Kermit Gosnell. It’s “standard Christian doctrine”!</sarcasm>
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? ·8 hours ago
Pastors are the people up front with the microphone. Congregants, consciously or unconsciously can think “if this were important, pastor would say something”
At some point, when it really hits the fan, parishioners are going to ask “why didn’t anyone say anything?” ·3 hours ago
Yes. It will be remembered like this:
First, they came for Phil Robertson . . .
Etc.
The difference is that every Second Amendment site I’ve read has made pains to point out all the mistakes of judgement Zimmerman made in the moments that lead up to his encounter with Martin, and warned their readers against putting themselves in similarly dangerous situations.*
Off topic, but important to continue combatting misinformation about the Zimmerman case:
I can’t speak for the sites you read, but there are any number of sites that pointed out that Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
Off topic, but important to continue combatting misinformation about the Zimmerman case:
I can’t speak for the sites you read, but there are any number of sites that pointed out that Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
Ditto.
I saw more gun blogs arguing against folks saying Zimmerman had done something wrong than ones that said he did. (Not hard, since the one saying he did was here!)