I was born smack in the middle of the last century, and, like many of my cohort, I’ve bobbed around on the whole Satan thing. We’re modern, right? We’ve got science. We don’t need superstition. But Jesus cast out demons! What about that? Ah, our teachers (and if you want to find out how our culture got into this mess, don’t look just at the Boomers, but also their teachers, the Professors Jennings) offered various weak ways around that little problem (“just mental illness, you know”). “Science has proven . . .” Well, no.

The longer you live, the more inexplicable horrors you see. On the one hand, you sure don’t need demonic power to explain some of the truly horrible things that people do. We’re selfish to the point of narcissism, violent, greedy, lustful, and by and large will do anything to dodge God. We have seen nations inexplicably give themselves over to mass murder and genocide. That we can also be generous, loving, and self-sacrificing just adds to the confusion.

I finally came to the conclusion that Jesus would not mislead his followers, us included in our time. There was no hidden rolling of the eyes as He cured the schizophrenics of his time, no muttered, “I’d better give them the line about demons here.” I’m sure that really advanced progressive Christians can come up with a way around that.

“Advanced Progressive Christians” like the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (you knew I was getting here, didn’t you?). Recently while in Venezuela, she for some reason felt obliged to preach on Acts 16:16-19. Others, many others, have dealt with the uniquely bizarre way she chose to interpret this section. I’m going to content myself with the small – I can’t possibly do better than Pewster, Fr. Tim, or CJ. But the approach, the filters she has used, are of interest.
First and most important, there are no demons. That’s right out. So the ability to discern who Paul and Silas were, and Who they served, had to come from some gift they girl possessed. So, on to No. 2: at all times, find a way to emphasize the Ministry and Gifts of Women and how they are better than men (this is a minor example of this principle, of which the nonpareil is that Jesus “learned” about His mission from the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:25-30)). A corollary is principle No. 3, Whenever possible dis St. Paul, he was a benighted and repressive fool whose sole purpose in life was to repress women.
Whether demons exist or not is not especially relevant or important at this point – only that rather than elucidate the actual text, the Presiding Bishop has essentially rewritten it to mean something entirely different from its author’s intent. Well, she wasn’t elected to be a theologian. She was elected to be a hammer, and here she has smashed anything like meaning to bits.
One does have to wonder, though. The Peeb and her associates have been taking actions which cannot possibly lead to anything other than the collapse of their church, and don’t actually seem to have any other outcome in mind. Eventually, not even the resources of Trinity Wall Street will keep the wreckage afloat. So perhaps, just perhaps, they are all (no doubt unwittingly) doing the will of their own deceitful master. Hm. Have to think about that one.

 

    If you’ll Google “Koch Brothers Chicago Tribune,” you’ll get a bushel of interesting returns. I am amused.

A few years back, when a (ed: opinion coming) deservedly obscure but vaultingly ambitious  Illinois State Senator named Obama decided to run for the U. S. Senate, the Chicago news media cleared the way for him, first in the Democratic primary election, disposing of the front runner, a rich lefty named Blair Hull, whose ex-wife had accused him of being violent. Then they disposed of the Republican, another rich guy this time from the right, named Jack Ryan, because his ex wife, a minor actress renowned for, mmm, her architecture,  accused him of taking her to scandalous Paris clubs while they were married. The accusations were made after their divorce, in a custody proceeding. In the Hull and Ryan cases, the litigation was supposedly sealed, and somehow leaked and then released. Which simply means that in Illinois, ain’t nothin’ sealed. The Chicago news media, first the Fun Times and then the Tribunal, got ahold of the scandals and used them to bludgeon Blair Hull and Jack Ryan out of the campaigns. For all I know, both Hull and Ryan are horrible tentacled monsters from the Dungeon Dimensions. Or not. It doesn’t matter. The media used the allegations, not any substance behind them, to create a scandal and smooth their favored candidate’s way. Smoothed it all the way to the White House, they did.

Thing is, of course, that divorcing and divorced people lie about each other. The more that’s at stake, the more they lie.

Now, advocacy is part of journalism. Always has been, always will be. Good reporters and opinionators transcend their advocacy at least a little, but it’s there and should be. The Tribune was founded in part to be an abolitionist platform. It became infamous (at least if you are a progressive) for the crusades of it’s long-time publisher, Robert McCormick, a lavishly opinionated man:

McCormick carried on crusades against gangsters and racketeers, prohibition and prohibitionists, local, state, and national politicians, Wall Street, the East and Easterners, Democrats, the New Deal and the Fair Deal, liberal Republicans, the League of Nations, the World Court, the United Nations, British imperialism, socialism, and communism. Besides Roosevelt, his chief targets included Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson and Illinois Governor Len Small. Some of McCormick’s personal crusades were seen as quixotic (such as his attempts to reform spelling of the English language) and were parodied in political cartoons in rival Frank Knox’s Chicago Daily News. Knox’s political cartoonists, including Cecil Jensen, derided McCormick as “Colonel McCosmic”, a “pompous, paunchy, didactic individual with a bristling mustache and superlative ego.”

In the current, on-line version of the Tribune, a caricature of the Colonel is used as a semi-humorous avatar of the company. He would not have approved.

So it it happens that the Brothers Koch purchase the eight newspapers of the Tribune Company, it will be an example of Dame Fortuna’s wheel rotating. The current Tribune is a rather sad, drab, and boring place. Whatever will they do with it?

 
 

Ripped from the Headlines of Today:

Increased state spending on roads won’t slow deterioration, officials say

Culled from the Archives  of the Past:

This undertaking  the largest of its type in Illinois’ history  will help provide infrastructure and physical improvements for schools, roads and sewer systems, increase the housing stock in Illinois, and improve our environment and recreational facilities. And in the long term, it ensures job creation, a larger tax base for local governments and an overall improved economic climate.

Especially rich from farther down in the latter is this:

The State is preparing itself for long-term growth and short-term planning as it provides the incentives for local government involvement in both intergovernmental cooperation and business improvement.

That worked well. Tell me again why we should listen to these guys?

 

 

 

 

I’ll leave a formal review of Alister McGrath’s biography of C.S. Lewis to others . C. S. Lewis Studies has now become a Field, and not one in which I play. For those interested in the man and his work but who have not read any of the biographies before, it is very, very good. For those who have a working familiarity with his life and writing, it has the great merit of making one think afresh of the subject; can one ask more of a biography?  So, in a disorganized way . . .

•     To my eyes, CSL and his brother show some of the signs, the scar tissue, of a damaged, maybe dysfunctional family. Flora Lewis’s early death may be enough to account for this.  Albert Lewis’s personality remains elusive. I’ve read the Green/Hooper, Sayre, Wilson, and now McGrath biographies. None quite explain the brothers alienation from their father. What happened? Family relations are unpredictable and irrational.

•    Considering CSL’s career as a Christian writer, I wonder I the task of apologetics is best undertaken by new Christians, those who have worked through the obstructing clutter recently and are most acutely aware of the current cultural barriers. Just wonderng.

•    CSL seems to have needed a -what? Not a muse, but an external stimulus- to write fiction. Tolkien and Lewis encouraged each other to write the sort of stories they liked-influence would be way too strong a word.  Tolkien sort of midwifed Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, Charles Williams and Tolkien prompted That Hideous Strength, Roger Lancelyn Green seems to have played a similar role for the Narnia stories, and Joy Davidman Lewis  for Till We Have Faces. CSL seems to have needed to discuss, try out, and just plain talk about his fiction with a friendly but briskly critical audience. Influence would be too strong a word for the roles they played: prompter, maybe.

•    Is anyone ever going to get CSL and his relationship with women? McGrath, wisely, sort of pokes at it but doesn’t try to psychoanalyze the situation.

•    In a discussion beginning on page 363, McGrath (echoing Chad Walsh)  suggests that by 1965 CSL’s influence was waning. I’m not sure what he means by that. If, “influence among academics and professional theologians,” maybe. “Influence among general readers,” I doubt it.  I first encountered CSL around 1964. By 1965 I was reading Miracles, and no doubt misunderstanding most of it. Lewis’s works were easily available in inexpensive Macmillan paperbacks through the 1960s and 1970s – I still have most of them, the one’s that haven’t fallen apart. Lewis was popular enough to keep Charles Williams’ novels in print, in a rather hideous format from Eerdmans. Dodging over to Amazon, I see that Eerdman’s still publishes these. You could even get Voyage to Arcturus, basically on Lewis’s say-so. At least in the sense that publishers kept Lewis in print because his books sold, and the books he liked sold too, his influence did not wane.

•    I got a rueful laugh from McGrath’s description of the jealous American theologian, Norman Pittenger.  McGrath (p. 241) :

One such broadside came from the pen of an obscure American Episcopalian theologian, Norman Pittinger (1905-1997). Irritated that Time had incomprehensibly overlooked his own vastly superior claims to be the nation’s top Christian apologist, Pittenger declared that Lewis was a theologically lightweight heretic – a total liability to the kind of intelligent Christianity that he himself so conspicuously represented.

“Obscure American Episcopalian Theologian.” Hah! An accurate description, but note his biography via Wikipedia:

Pittenger was born in Bogota, New Jersey and was raised in Princeton, New Jersey. He attended Princeton University for a short time, but left without graduating because he wanted to try a career as a newspaper reporter in New York City. Not able to find satisfaction he went to The General Theological Seminary in Manhattan. He started as a student and soon he became tutor, instructor, and finally professor of Christian Apologetics. Pittenger was one of the first process theologians without connections with the University of Chicago Divinity School and produced the first genuine process theological christology (The Word Incarnate – 1959). At General Seminary, he was priest and chaplain of the Guild of Scholars of The Episcopal Church. After his retirement in 1966 he moved to Cambridge as an Honorary Senior Member of King’s College. Next to his writing on explicitly Christian themes, he wrote on sexuality in general (Making Sexuality Human – 1970) and a Christian defense of homosexuality in particular (Time for Consent – 1970), a book that was so controversial when published that the Church Times refused to review it. He also admitted his own homosexual bias. Norman Pittenger wrote throughout his life ninety books and many articles.

The intellectual rot that has led TEC to Katie Ragsdale has been at work for a long, long time.

So read it. It offers something to any reader, and is available in lots of formats.

 

We don’t know much about St. Joseph.  We can guess that he was probably relatively prosperous, we can speculate that he was possibly older than his wife, and we know that he lived through Jesus’s twelfth year.  Then he kind of vanishes from the story.

Engaged to Mary, maybe established in his profession as a carpenter, he looks forward to a certain kind of life, only to find that God asks him to take on an incomprehensible burden, to be at risk of sudden and violent death, to be at any time ready to flee to safety.  He could have refused; he could have quietly ended his betrothal, moved away, left Mary to face the questions that would come her way.  But, like Mary, he accepted the burden, even though he hadn’t a clue about where it would take him.  Maybe it’s the open ended trust we can take away from his story.

 

My unpredictable days sometimes – not often enough! – lead me to Northwestern’s main Library for a few hours of quiet time, to write sometimes, sometimes to read.  I’ll praise the old library another time – it smells as a library should, and the old Reading Room, which now houses the Art Collection (and Art is a very broad topic.  If I want to read about English Country House architecture, or about medieval armor, or 18th century English bone china, that’s the place to go) is a most gracious room.  Any building that includes window art like this

 

 

 

 

 

 

is an entertaining place to pass some time.

In reasonably clement weather, the walk to the Library is pleasant, too.  On a day last month, I went in search of a duck I    had seen in the lagoon at the center of the landfill campus.  It was before 9 AM, which is early for January, and the light was diffused by clouds, and the temperatures were slowly, reluctantly rising out of a deep chill.  From behind me, to the north, I heard some yelling, and saw that Kelly Amonte Hiller was putting her lacrosse team though one of its early practices.

Scanning the lagoon for the flock, I saw that they had gathered near the warmer water around the heating plant intakes.  The geese, though, were standing around on the ice, until they decide to launch somewhere:

 

 

I found the ducks on the southeast lobe of the lagoon, and there I found the very handsome fellow I had glimpsed a few weeks earlier:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So far as I can tell, Mr. Wood Duck here is alone, adopted by the mallards for the winter.  It seems that woodies usually migrate farther south, but maybe it was drawn by the open water.  The mallards don’t seem to mind.  Does anyone know if mallards and woodies are cross-fertile?  It will be interesting to track the ducklings come spring.

 

Justin Welby has gotten his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury off to a rollicking start with the appointment of “Director of Reconciliation,” whose job, it seems, will be to keep the bickering Anglican fragments talking to each other.  The action, and its somewhat Orwellian title, has been greeted with a certain amount of mockery, but it is not surprising.  This sort of thing is part of the inheritance of the Church of England, though not necessarily that of the Anglican offspring.

The Church of England was always viewed by the English Establishment as an instrument of national unity, and the various Actions of Uniformity made participation in the worship fo the Church of England necessary for full participation in the political and economic life of the nation.  This was a prescription for hypocrisy, of course, and also for constant blurring of the borders of the Church’s teaching.  In recent times, Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple – who is still greatly revered in Britain – made a specialty of what he called “synthesis,” the art of talking to make opposing sides come to some sort of agreement.  We’d call that “reconciliation.” Michael Ramsey tells an anecdote somewhere about Temple coming out of a meeting, rubbing his hands with some degree of eager anticipation, saying, “Well, we have a lot of synthesizing to do.”  Incessant palaver is just a part of the Church of England’s nature.

There are limits to this of course. Much of the current tension is between those who think that the God of Christianity is a self revealing God, who it is our job to listen to, understand, and perceive on His terms, and those who think that somehow we define God.  As Tom Wright has sagely pointed out, the latter group is inevitably going to become enthralled by the old gods of our fallen nature, Sex, Greed, and Force, or, to give them their ancient names, Aphrodite, Hades, and Ares  – and how insightful of the ancients to make Aphrodite and Ares lovers.  The leadership of The Episcopal Church is almost entirely dominated by this decrepit trinity.  The domination by Aphrodite is obvious, but it is also greedy for property, and will use the force of law to obtain it.

How Christians generally, Anglican Christians especially (from my point of view), conduct their witness and their lives in the modern (post modern, post post modern) culture is a vital question.  Ministry and witness to those who have fallen away is also important, and conversation may be a part of that.  I doubt that it can be done in the sort of formalized chat sessions envisioned here.  The manifestations of disagreement may or may not be of great importance, but the underlying problems are not really susceptible to discussion.

 

The Presiding Bishop of The Protestant Episcopal Gay-Straight Alliance, Wine Appreciation, Handfasting, and Swanning About Society, Inc (A Hierarchal Church, you better believe it), recently visited South Carolina to lend encouragement to those who, not happy with a nice, orthodox Anglican diocese, are setting up their own.  This visit is not itself very interesting, since it’s what she does, after all.  But her little speech – not quite a sermon, though she seems to have been vested, but certainly an oration – was remarkable.  I wasted a couple of hours dissecting the dissimulations, outright deceits, outrageous theology, and general vapidity, before throwing it up (that comes too close to a metaphor) as hopeless.  Some sort of award should be forthcoming.

The outstanding image from her speech (read the whole thing here, if you dare; it’s quite short) avers that folks who make judgements contrary to GroupThink are not that far off from the thought processes of terrorists and homicidal maniacs:

Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge.  It’s not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens’ militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors.  It’s not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage.

It’s this passage that has gotten most attention, but the truly subtle deceit comes in her interpretation of the meaning of the first Council at Jerusalem, the one that largely freed Gentile Christians from observing the minutiae of Jewish Law.  Of course, this Council, it’s meaning and application, are still matters of robust discussion today. That’s not her point.  Her point is to raise the possibility that the debate about homosexual behaviors is pretty much the same as debating the application of the dietary law to Gentiles. That is genuinely  – well.  I don’t know.  It’s possible she’s created a need for a new noun.

But that she says things like this isn’t especially interesting, new, or even diverting anymore.  There are other things to do than gape at this sort of thing.  But I wonder about her role, a bit.  After all, we all serve God, will we or nil we.  Perhaps her role is that of a smoke (fire-and-brimstone?) detector, or radiation dosimeter, for those genuinely faithful Christians who remain in The Protestant Episcopal Gay-Straight Alliance, Wine Appreciation, Handfasting, and Swanning About Society, Inc (A Hierarchal Church, you better believe it).  A hardy bunch, they are, determined to stick it out to the end.  They have an endless supply of last ditches.  Perhaps the Peeb’s function is to make it clear that she will fill every last one of those ditches with fire.

It’s a matter of intense amusement that on the website linked above, the first and most laudatory comment (“Brilliant! As always. . .”) comes from Bishop-in-Waiting Albert Cutié (oh, look him up if you’ve forgotten).  And it’s also worthy of note that this speech may mark the final abandonment of “pluriform truth” (whatever that meant) in favor of an elaborate doublethink combined with a cult of personality.

© 2013 And Pilgrims Were They All Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha