The not-so-new victim politics

A friend sent this link to me — an interesting (if thoroughly depressing) read. It is an article entitled “Rock, Paper, Scissors of PC Victimology: Muslim > gay, black > female, and everybody > the Jews”. Please do go have a read.

The thought that keeps going through my mind about this is that human beings are intensely social creatures obsessed with hierarchy. As soon as one tool for creating and enforcing such a hierarchy passes away — feudalism, say — we come up with another one to replace it. For all the rhetoric of our modern society claiming to be egalitarian and democratic, we are anything but, and things like this are nothing more than schoolyard bullying in an ongoing struggle for greater social status, whatever the cost.

Thus I don’t see it as a “new” victim politics, but rather something very old indeed, as old as humanity itself. In the 20th century, there were plenty of such examples of people framing others as heterodox and heaping abuse on them, like within Communism (the Cultural Revolution was a major example, as were Stalin’s purges). Contrary to the article’s claim that this is a thing of the left, the right was and is quite capable of the same thing. Witness the outrage you see on Fox News for anything “un-American” or McCarthyism. Going further back, Muslims and Christians were quite happy to denounce each other — Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Protestant, orthodox Christian vs. “heretics” of various stripes — over trivialities. Quite often these denouncements ended in outright mass murder. And as the manifold examples of the 20th century make clear, religion had little to do with it. It is just one label amongst many that can be seized upon to beat up on someone else. Take away religion, people will find something else — anything to make your identity better than someone else’s in the eyes of others.

Take away religion, politics, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, and sports, and people will seize on the color of a dress to beat each other up with.

Maybe we’re not resorting to physical violence as much as we once did (duels, brawls, catfights, wars, genocides), but we’re becoming that much more adept at psychological violence to replace it. Progress of a sort, I suppose, but deep down little if anything has changed.

The final irony is that by framing this phenomenon as something “new” and mocking it as “victim politics”, the author is himself engaging in this very sort of hierarchical power politics without realizing it.

TL;DR — people suck.

When heresy really is heresy: The Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta and a bizarre draft resolution

As mentioned before, I would generally place myself on the liberal side of the middle of the Anglican spectrum. That said, it may come as a surprise to those who are more conservative and who disagree with me on things like women's ordination that I do, in fact, place great value in Tradition and ecumenical councils – I merely come to different conclusions on some issues. I'm quite willing to use the H word when I see it – heresy.

Jansenism

This is one reason I am so uncomfortable with our parish's choice of a patron saint, as mentioned previously. (I decided I can at least live with it, since she was chosen for her reforms and personal spirituality and not for her doctrine or associations, but I'm still not very happy about it.) While the Jansenists generally were maltreated and persecuted, and I certainly don't approve of any of that, I also agree quite firmly with the verdict that Jansen's teachings were in fact heretical.

I was particularly irked at our church's consecration in September by the speech of a professor of theology at the end of that service, who basically ignored the entire content of Jansen's or his supporters' writings and described the Jansenists (without naming them as such) merely as a persecuted minority. She also claimed that theologists today are reappraising Jansenism, that the verdict at the time was overly harsh, and so on.

Dunno, but the doctrine of free will so central to what it means to be Christian for anyone of a Catholic bent (that includes the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that I can't get my head wrapped around the idea that someone denying free will, claiming that God predestines some (indeed most) of us to suffer eternal damnation with no chance to do anything about it, isn't a major problem for the faith.

Gnosticism

I feel the same way about the Gnostics. For some time it has been in vogue to view the Gnostics as misunderstood proto-hippies and kinda-sorta-feminists as portrayed in The Da Vinci Code. Yet I think all you need to know about the Gnostics and their view of women (and thus of humanity) can be summed up in the Gnostic so-called Gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

I don't see how you can remotely think of the sexes being equal while believing something like that. Yet it is precisely in some of the more extreme liberal circles where the very same people who ardently support women's ordination also want to reappraise Gnosticism. The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.

Mind you, I have no problem with someone believing Jansenism. That is anyone's right. I would even happily go to the altar with them if they did and receive Communion, nor would I do anything to exclude them from the Church. Dissent is always allowed, and even should be protected and welcomed: Dissent is a necessary part of the dialectic to seek the Truth. But once that person starts to push to change long-held and explicit teachings of the Church as defined in ecumenical councils, even if only by implication, my alarm bells start ringing. Loudly.

Pelagianism

So you can imagine my disquiet when I read Resolution R11-7, a piece of proposed legislation (!) for the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta. The text reads in its entirety:

Whereas the historical record of Pelagius’s contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and
whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition, and
whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God’s creation, and
whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans,

Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition. And be it further resolved that this committee will report their conclusions at the next Annual Council.

Wait, what...?!

I could hardly believe my eyes – that anyone could submit such a resolution with a straight face. It sounds like something The Onion would publish as satire, not a serious proposal. What next, reappraise Aleister Crowley?

It is true that, based on some of my thoughts and positions on free will and grace, many Western Christians, in particular Protestants of a Calvinist or Lutheran hue, would accuse me of being Semipelagian. Then again the same people generally like to accuse the Orthodox Church of the same, so I feel I'm in good company. (See the Orthodox concept of theosis.)

But here is why I think Pelagianism is such a danger for the Church and for belief in general: It essentially teaches that we are not hard-wired to sin, and that it is possible on one's own to achieve spiritual perfection without the action or support of God, or of anyone else for that matter. If these things were true, then there would essentially be no purpose to the Church at large – why bother if we don't need to try in order to free ourselves from sin? If we are already free from sin, what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross?

The heresies of the unloving God and of hubristic humanity

Orthodox teaching on the subject of justification and sin is really quite simple to understand and, I think, common sense. I think it could be summed up with two words: "Nobody's perfect". (Well, except for Jesus, of course.)

I strongly disagree with extreme Calvinist views where humanity is described as being "depraved", not least because that implies that God somehow created something that He either wasn't able to improve or control, or never intended to improve in the first place, both of which are impossible for me to swallow. I cannot believe that a loving God would create a living thing expressly for it to suffer the fires of Hell, without giving him or her a chance to turn oneself to God and accept Jesus in their hearts so that they really can change things with God's help. That just sounds incredibly cruel. And pointless, too.

At the same time, the opposite extreme of Pelagianism seems equally implausible – it implies that we began spotless and only choose to do bad or good things based on circumstance. Yet I think that anyone who studies the human condition will come to the conclusion that we are at heart intrinsically prone to be selfish, greedy and cruel when left to our own devices – all you have to do is observe how children act in a kindergarden towards each other to prove that we aren't little angels from the beginning. Without some firm and loving guidance, children generally turn into little monsters. That's really all orthodox doctrine is saying, that we need that firm guidance as well, throughout our whole lives. Compared to God, we are all children, no matter how old we are. It's hubris to think otherwise.

Walking in love as Christ loved us

The thing is, Jesus repeatedly emphasized our collective responsibility to aid one another in our spiritual journey, and described Himself as The Way – not a goal, but a path with no end, and one with a heavy burden: to take our Cross and follow Him. As mere human beings, we cannot and will not ever achieve true perfection in this life, but we can still walk that path towards perfection. To do that we need Christ to guide us, and we need each other to support one another along that path. This is precisely why the Church exists as a gift from God, to support, encourage and sustain us along that difficult and arduous path to the end of Time. Like it says in Ephesians, we must walk together in love as Christ loves us. It is our only hope of saving ourselves from war, disease, hunger, greed, injustice and all the other ills that afflict humanity from its earliest days.

Mind you, I am quite happy to entertain the idea that Pelagius himself was misunderstood. In fact what few of his writings I am aware of, he seems to have felt just that, while (to my knowledge) the things he was accused of teaching or claiming are not documented in his extant writings, so it is quite possible that he as a person was unjustly accused of the doctrine that bears his name. But in any such examination of the history involved, we have to also be incredibly careful to continue to stay away from the doctrine of Pelagianism, whether its name is justified or not, and most certainly not to legislate such change before the case has been made and accepted by consensus.

I hope that this resolution is shot down, or at least amended in dramatic fashion to distance the church from the doctrine of Pelagianism. I can only shake my head in disbelief that anyone felt it necessary to even submit it. It's one thing for Anglicanism to be comprehensive and inclusive. I think it's part of the beauty and strength of Anglicanism that we generally don't try to define every aspect of faith in detail. But It's another thing entirely to effectively say "anything goes" and challenge what few standards we do have. No matter how expansive or inclusive the faith, it still will have boundaries at some point.

An appeal

In closing, I would like to address an appeal to the people of the Diocese of Atlanta: Please consider what you would be saying with this resolution if it passes. Please think of what signals you would be sending by accepting it, and how you would be cutting yourself loose from the conciliar church just for the sake of rehabilitating one man, no matter how noble the motive behind that wish my be. Please remember the three Anglican pillars of Scripture, Tradition and Reason – and that this resolution challenges Tradition by definition. With all due respect and Christian love and charity, this resolution is simply wrong, pointless, a waste of time (what does it do to help people in need or to further Jesus' message?) and should be defeated.

Just what is a gay service, anyway?

A few days ago, the German Old Catholic diocese posted a story on their site celebrating "five years of gay-lesbian services in Karlsruhe". Here is a translation of the text into English:

For the past five years, the Old Catholic parish in Karlsruhe has been host of so-called "Queer Services", which take place every two months in the Old Catholic Church of the Resurrection in Ökumeneplatz. To celebrate this anniversary, Bishop Matthias Ring will take part in the service on 9 October 2011 at 6 pm. The ecumenical project team that is preparing the service is pleased to welcome the bishop of the parish who church has been the venue of the services from their beginning, with no charge for the use of the church or the parish hall.

I'm not going to get into the thorny issue of homosexuality and Christianity here. Suffice it to say that enough heat and light (more heat than light) has been generated in the blogosphere to fire a thousand suns.

But I am perplexed at just what a "queer service" is supposed to be. Which isn't surprising, because I also don't see why it is necessary to have extra "women's" services or services for singles or whatever. The thing is, I find this phenomenon to be very unhealthy, because it turns the Church into little more than a fragmented collection of interest groups each trying to get their special share of attention, and tailoiring "their" services to their own needs -- which practically by definition will be alien, or at best strange, for others. It is a kind of auto-ghettoizing, whether intentional or not.

Yet the Church has always been quite clear that Christ is the Savior of all people. We have no record whatsoever in the New Testament of special meetings just for, say, Judeans or tax collectors or unmarried women over 35 with a car (sorry, chariot) and two cats. On the contrary, we are told explicitly that in Christ, there are no Jews or Gentiles, no male or female, all those divisions are overcome in the form of the Holy Church of God. Every attempt is made to have rich and poor, man and woman, all walks of life represented in each and every gathering. Paul's Epistles repeatedly berate the early congregations for not including everyone and not treating them scrupulously equally, and encourage every effort to bridge and transcend, not cater to each and every person. No special treatment, just one in Christ.

The major concept behind any service, regardless of denomination, and in particular in the Eucharist, is to attempt to create a vision of the Kingdom of God in our limited space. That is impossible if you begin to customize services for particular interest groups. Yes, I'm sure it is useful for marketing and publicity reasons. Yes, I know gays, women, etc., have all been oppressed and treated badly for centuries and could use a bit of special attention and care. Yes, I know that traditional forms of liturgy tend to be male- and Euro-centric and may have little to say to women or children or whomever. That's all well and good. But special services for individual groups is simply the wrong way to go about it.

Certainly the Church should reach out to groups who are or have been marginalized, and should do what it can to welcome them and to reach them with God's message of love and hope. Certainly things could be done to modify the liturgy or practice to accomodate as many people as possible, and attempt to include as many as the Church can.

But the truly exciting, breathtaking part of Jesus' message is not "take us as we are", but "that they may be one". That is the ultimate vision we get in Galatians 3:28 -- There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And again in Romans 10:12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. Or most spectacularly in Acts 10:10-16,34-36:

About noon the next day,
as they were on their journey and approaching the city,
Peter went up on the roof to pray.
He became hungry and wanted something to eat;
and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
He saw the heaven opened
and something like a large sheet coming down,
being lowered to the ground by its four corners.
In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures
and reptiles and birds of the air.
Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’
But Peter said,
‘By no means, Lord;
for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’
The voice said to him again, a second time,
‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’
This happened three times,
and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.
Later, Peter began to speak to the disciples:
‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality,
but in every nation anyone who fears him
and does what is right is acceptable to him.
You know the message he sent to the people of Israel,
preaching peace by Jesus Christ—
he is Lord of all.’

The vision of us all being one in Christ is what the ultimate attraction is and should be, and we should never lose sight of that, least of all for short-term goals such as pandering to ever-narrower special interests in hopes of filling the pews. The more we divide ourselves, the harder we make it to unite and to make that vision a reality.

No matter how well intended, using a church service to deliberately draw distinctions between us -- even if intended as a stepping-stone to something more -- turns this vision upside down, and ironically delays the ultimate realization by cementing division, rather than bridging it by providing a common home. By providing a service with a label, it reduces its participants to that label. Our home is Christ, not our own ghetto.

There is a perfect example of this -- V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop. From all I have been told and have read, he is a very spiritual and kind person. Aside from his sexuality, he seems to be quite orthodox and even a bit inventive in communicating difficult issues. And gays were understandably happy to have one of their own in such high office. But think about it. +Gene is nothing more than "the gay bishop". You see him on TV and in magazines all the time being interviewed about being gay, but never on the finer points of Christian morality or charity or any of those other things, except perhaps as throwaway questions at the end of the interview. He has been quite effectively reduced to being just gay, and all else is ignored. "Queer services" accomplish the same thing -- an own goal if there ever was one.

Ultimately we all have to ask ourselves: Do you want the people who come to your services to celebrate God, or their own sexuality or gender or skin color? Do we go to church to worship God, or ourselves? Is the Church a vision of the way things are, or of the way they should be?