Category: Faith & Ideology

“God terms”

Having yesterday expressed my bafflement at a genre of article after an instantiation thereof appeared at First Things, let me commend R. R. Reno’s “God Terms in Public Life.” It’s not what I thought. It’s better than that.

Every culture thrills to its favored words or concepts. In The Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver dubbed them “god terms.” They’re the argument-ending, conclusive words that we find intrinsically persuasive because they express our deep prejudices about what’s good and true and beautiful.

Weaver wrote The Ethics of Rhetoric after World War II. The god terms in his day were “progressive,” “democratic,” “scientific,” and so forth. If a local school board was unsure about changes introduced by the recently hired district head, he could reassure them with these god terms. “Our goal with this new plan is to provide the children of Muscatine with a progressive, scientifically-designed curriculum that draws on the very best of our democratic traditions.”

Changed god terms signal changes in culture. For example, the value of “scientific” has declined. Today’s brand managers are far more likely to describe a new toothpaste or shaving cream as “organic” than “scientifically proven.” Agricultural scientists and developmental economists can make excellent arguments about the virtues of genetically modified seeds. They allow increase yields while reducing the use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. But the god term sweeps all these considerations away. Organic is good; its opposite is bad. Therefore genetically modified foods must be prohibited. QED.

Among todays God terms are “equality,” as in:

hrc-logo

If you find that offensive, blame me for the example, not Reno, and go enjoy a thought-provoking angle on a chronic human condition.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

The same God?

Once again, I’m puzzled by the assertion that “the God of the Qur’an is Not the God of the Bible.” In other incarnations, it might be “the God of Islam is Not the God Christians worship” or other variants. It’s always asserted with great vehemence, as if some great peril were being repelled.

I’m well aware that Islam is materially different than Christianity. I’m aware that it misunderstands Jesus Christ. I’m aware of so very much that I could regurgitate were I not afraid of merely stirring up animosity.

But is there more than one God? How can religion A have a different God than religion B? Sure, they can understand God much differently, and where they differ, after the equivocations are winnowed out, at least one is wrong.

Yawn.

What purpose, other than stirring up animosity, is served by articles like this? The author does not seem to be addressing, and is publishing in an unlikely forum if he is addressing, Krustians who are at risk of wandering into Islam under the mistaken impression that it’s just another denomination.

What, in short, is the epidemic falsehood to which such henotheistic articles are a supposed antidote?

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

A matter of emphasis

One bit of my succinct standing advice on recurring themes is “If you’re grudgingly trying to do the minimum God requires, you’re not doing the minimum that God requires. Mark 12:30.” I probably could have said “If you’re grudgingly trying to do the minimum God requires, you’re ipso facto not doing the minimum …,” but I use enough Latin phrases already.

I don’t recall what prompted that thought originally, but I suspect it was my old friend, who considers himself religious (although he might quibble with the word) in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, and who told me point blank, in jargon I knew all too well, that he just wanted to make it into heaven and “would leave all the jewels in the crown for others.” A fair summary of the meaning of this jargon is this, by one Kyle H at the impeccably reliable Yahoo! Answers (emphasis added):

Paul talked many times of running the race, striving for the goal, etc.
Now, we are saved through grace, not by works, lest any man should boast.
Faith saves, works get you rewards in Heaven. Paul knew he was saved but he kept striving for the rewards, a main goal of his.
I have no idea what the rewards may be but they must be very good if Paul was always talking about them.
I believe jewels in your crown = rewards, whatever they are.
There are many people of many faiths that will be in Heaven.
Paul said, if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, (in other words tell people about Him and your belief in Him) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
He never said you have to first be Baptist, Catholic etc.
I know I will get a lot of the bad thumbs for this, but, believe it or not, there will be a few, (LOL) Catholics in Heaven.
No matter what your creed, your beliefs; your denomination, the first and only requirement to get to Heaven is to accept by faith that Jesus not only died for your sins, but the He was raised from the dead and is now at the right hand of the Throne of God.

So my friend apparently wants (a) to accept by faith that Jesus not only died for his sins, but the He was raised from the dead and is now at the right hand of the Throne of God but then (b) direct his own life, march to his own drummer, and have as good a time as possible without voiding the fire insurance policy.

When last I was deeply immersed in the Evangelical world, that attitude was epidemic. It would be unfair to say “pandemic.”

Prooftext battles are useless and futile, but my citation to Mark 12 says:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

So if you ask “what must I do to be saved?,” you’re asking a good question. If you ask “what must I do to be saved?,” intending to do no more and intending in particular not to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength, you’re violating the first and greatest commandment, and the only possible answer is “repent.”

Unpacking “repent” is beyond the scope I’m willing to take up today except to say that nobody who’s grudging toward God deserves any “eternal security” he or she may delusionally feel.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

Dietary Just So Stories

I was a husky boy. I realized that when they steered Mother to a particular section of blue jeans at Silver’s Mens and Boys Wear where the clothes were labeled “Husky.” They used to have stores like that, with real owners who lived in town, not on Manhattan’s Upper East Side or Bentonville, AR.

Whenever a movie theater (or anything else, but celluloid had a certain combustible je ne sais quoi that memorably forshadowed what awaited movie-goers in the hereafter) burned downtown, Silver’s would have a Fire Sale, though Mother insisted the only smoke damage was from the cigars the owner (I thought his name was Ben, but I think I’ve got the name confused with another haberdasher) smoked in the back room. Continue reading “Dietary Just So Stories” →

Confirmation bias

“Confirmation bias” is putting it gently. A lie is a lie even when the person being lied about is the President of the United States and the truth is ominous.

An old and admirable friend posted on Facebook, but now seems to have taken down, a link and apocalyptic commentary on a story about a supposed effort to make it a court martial offense to share one’s Christian faith in the military.

An individual Orthodox Christian (whose blog, in fairness to him, posts many stories without much filtering) passed on this similar story. Excerpts:

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime–possibly resulting in imprisonment–for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains …

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life …

(Emphasis in original)

I earlier said “This sounds too lurid and absurd to be true, but it’s from several sources. Stay tuned.”

This morning, I saw another item from the Western Center for Journalism, which appears to be, er, more partisan that one might gather from its name:

According to Obama’s advisor on religious tolerance within the U.S. military, Christians sharing their faith, including chaplains, present “… a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.” …

And what does the Obama administration do in the face of Muslim war declared against the U.S.?

He threatens to court-martial all U.S. military personnel, including chaplains, if they share their faith ….

What are the facts behind these lurid opinions-masquerading-as-facts? Everyone is citing Breibart:

“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
Those words were recently written by Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), in a column he wrote for the Huffington Post. Weinstein will be a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.

(Emphasis added) Read the whole Breibart piece; don’t trust me. It’s loaded with lots of inflammatory adjectives, but generally seems to state as fact only that which is fact. “Generally,” though, is important. There is no supporting citation or link for the assertion that the “policies on religious tolerance,” which apparently have not begun to be drafted, will include any “policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.”

So: Weinstein is going to be a Pentagon advisor on new policies on religious tolerance. He’s not the one-and-only Obama advisor.

I’ve heard of Mikey Weinstein. He’s a bat-shit crazy but very loud voice of intolerance, who conflates soldiers’ “solemnly sworn oath to the Constitution” and “follow[ing] the military’s regulations regarding religion” — which he hopes to shape. It’s ominous that the Pentagon feels obliged to include him as a consultant. I’m on record against the Obama administration’s already-execrable record on domestic religious freedom, and this proposed appointment does not bode well.

But we are not yet where the “Christian” liars say we are, and they should be ashamed of themselves. There’s no exemption from the command against false witness for political “war.”

UPDATE: Breibart has a followup story May 1.

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.

Neither Breibart nor Fox News linked to the written statement for anyone who might care to look at the context, but it appears that the Pentagon is alluding to some existing regulation, not to anything concocted in whole or part by Weinstein.

More update (May 6). It looks like thanks are due ADF.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.