A Yearning For The Hearth

In a documentary called Manufacturing Dissent (readers will note the reference to Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent) Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine turn Michael Moore’s methods on himself and yield some interesting results. It turns out Michael reacts to these filmmakers in much the same way that the people he goes after react to him. What’s more interesting is some of the things that they discover about the claims that Michael Moore has made in his films, and the ways in which he’s manipulated situations to suit his ends.

Here are some of the more surprising finds:

• In Bowling for Columbine there’s an iconic scene where Michael Moore goes into a bank, opens an account and comes out with a rifle. A surprising sales incentive for a bank! It turns out that Mr. Moore manipulated that situation heavily - they didn’t have guns in the bank, they brought one in for him and at his insistence. The normal practice was for the guns to be distributed by dealers who could run the background checks and manage the waiting period. Apparently it took over a month to arrange his getting it directly at the bank.
• Also in Bowling for Columbine, there’s a troubling scene where Moore confronts an ageing and partially senile Charleton Heston. That speaks for itself. But in the film Moore insinuates that three weeks after a brutal murder of a little girl in Flint Heston came to the city and held a gun rally to try and offset any growing anti-gun sentiment which might arise due to the killing. Apparently this did not take place. Heston was in Flint, but only for a long preplanned Republican party event, three months after the little girl’s death - which makes it far less tasteless than what Moore had implied.
• Several of the more embarrassing Bushisms in Fahrenheit 9/11 were taken badly out of context and show Bush as even more tactless than he admittedly is. The famous scene where Bush addresses an audience as “the Have’s and the Have-more’s” and then refers to them as his “base,” actually took place at a dinner with Roman Catholic clerics and academics (not often the ‘have-more’ set) and was part of a larger self-deprecating speech intended to ironic and funny.

And then there’s the real shocker…

• In his breakout documentary Roger & Me, Moore chronicles his attempt, as a lowly Michigan-born filmmaker, to get the head of General Motors Roger Smith to talk to him and survey the damage that GM’s policies were inflicting upon once-prosperous central Michigan. In the end Michael is completely stonewalled and never gets to speak to Roger Smith. Or, at least that’s how it’s portrayed. This documentary appears to show that, in fact, Michael Moore did meet with Roger Smith. Twice, as a matter of fact. Evidently, it made for a more effective film for Michael to lose that battle.

Manufacturing Dissent is not a great documentary. It lacks the pizzazz of Moore’s own films, but is guilty of some of their same faults. It turns into a character assault on Moore which is not so different from the one Moore launched on Bush. Nevertheless, if the claims of this film are accurate, and they certainly seem credible, then Michael Moore’s own credibility is very much in doubt.

The following article from the Guardian outlines a proposal for the Anglican Church to establish a teaching authority, something analogous to the teaching office of the Catholic Church. This would be a departure from Anglican tradition, but given the current state of the church, I can see why they feel it may be necessary.

An Anglican version of the Holy Office - the Vatican body responsible for endorsing doctrine and suppressing heresy - was proposed yesterday in an attempt to resolve the ongoing rows over homosexuality and bring the church back from the brink of schism.

The initiative, revealed yesterday in Canterbury as the town hosts the Lambeth Conference, would tackle divisive issues such the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships.

The Vatican body is formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Setting up an Anglican “Faith and Order Commission” could bring guidance on “issues raised by our current crisis”, according to a document released by the Windsor Continuation Group, which analyses tensions within the communion.

The document criticised warring factions and highlighted the impact of their dispute. “We denigrate the discipleship of others,” it said. “This has led to the fragmentation as well as to confusion among our ecumenical partners.”

The archbishop of Canterbury indicated his support for such a commission, telling a press conference: “It is a flag raised to see who salutes it. There is a strong feeling we need another structure that would be a clearing house for some of these issues. There’s quite a head of steam behind that. I’m actually quite enthusiastic about that. We’ll see how that flies.”

He also said he wanted the 670 delegates attending Lambeth, the once-a-decade gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops, to show solidarity during the second half of the conference. “What I hope will have emerged is that it is worth working and staying together, that relationships will have made people see that unity and cooperation of the communion is not a small thing and its loss is not to be taken lightly,” he added.

Williams’s call for unity came hours before a keynote address from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the most senior figure in the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales.

O’Connor said: “Our church takes no pleasure at all to see the current strains in your communion. We have committed ourselves to a journey towards unity, so new tensions only slow the progress.”

- Riazat Butt, The Guardian

Barak Obama. Not the kind of name that comes to mind when one thinks about the Presidency of the United States. Until now. Barak has already been crowned by the media. Here in Europe people are rather in rapture. But what is Obama all about, and what kind of president he would make is not altogether clear. He would be among the most liberal Presidents that America has ever seen, and with the Democratic gains in the House of Representatives and the Senate he would be a very powerful one too.

Canadians overwhelmingly support Obama. But the Democrats are not necessarily Canada’s best friends. They have a lot of ties to powerful unions who see Canada as one more foreign interloper, stealing America’s jobs. Obama may have been bluffing about NAFTA, but in the current economic climate I wouldn’t be surprised if new protectionist policies came into effect. Of course it’s hard to tell how deep or how protracted this economic slowdown will get. On one hand, it could tie Obama’s hand, limiting the implementation of his health care objectives and so on, but on the other hand it could also force his hand into intervening economically in ways that will make many people in and outside of the US uncomfortable.   

And then there’s Iraq. I’m sure Obama would like to pull out and wash his hands of it, but it won’t be that easy. The Brits haven’t had too much luck pulling out their limited force, withdrawing the American deployment isn’t going to be like turning around and heading home. It will be a major operation, and there’s no guarantee that a (further) destabilized Iraq wouldn’t compel Obama to keep troops there, regardless of his plans. 

Obama is a far more articulate and charismatic man than Bush, and this will serve him well. (Not that we should write off McCain, we’d be fooling to ignore the fact that this race is not yet over by any means). But, as president Obama faces problems that do not have easy answers, let’s hope he has the brains and courage to manage them well.

In the current edition of First Things Joseph Bottum offers a lengthy and scathing assessment of the modern Mainline church in America entitled “The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline.”

He paints an interesting picture of the church at the center of American culture and history:

While we may remember the names of the old denominations, we tend to forget that it all made a kind of sense, back in the day, and it came with a kind of order. The genteel Episcopalians, high on the hill, and the all-over Baptists, down by the river. Oh, and the innumerable independent Bible churches, tangled out across the prairie like brambles: Through most of the nation’s history, these endless divisions and revisions of Protestantism renounced one another and sermonized against one another. They squabbled, sneered, and fought. But they had something in common, for all that. Together they formed a vague but vast unity. Together they formed America.

Bottum doesn’t believe that the Mainline churches are dying; he believes they are dead, but don’t quite realize it yet. The recent Pew Research Study of religion in America yields some startling results: Mainline churches which in the 1950’s counted 50% of Americans as their members now total about 21 million, less than 7% of the total population - and are still declining.

He attributes this decline to the slow drift away from the core of Christian faith and practice, to merely its secondary, tertiary work. He also points out the dearth of theological innovation produced in these churches.

[In the last fifty years] the United Church of Christ can find no theological work to trumpet—and no patriotic work, either. Everything since the 1950s of which the church now wants to boast is adversarial: attempts to deploy Christianity against the errors of the nation.

That’s a curious admission for a major American denomination. By its own account, the church’s intellectual life has come to an end. And as its numbers catastrophically decline, the ordinary practice of its members has ceased to influence the culture. The United Church of Christ is left little except its putatively prophetic voice—and a strikingly unoriginal voice, at that. All the issues on which the church opines, and all the positions it takes, track the usual run of liberal American politics.

The key, however, is not the mostly uninteresting politics of the church bureaucracy but the astonishing lack of influence those political statements have. With no deposits into the account of its prestige by accommodating the other props of the nation—and no influence on the culture from the everyday practices of its congregants—the prophetic demands of the United Church of Christ cash out to nothing. No one listens, no one minds, no one cares.

Ouch.

There are points where Bottum’s unfair, but the serious question needs to be asked: is he wrong?

Okay, I’m being a bit provocative. I am very much a ‘creedal’ Christian, but I’m VERY wary of the profusion of creeds, faith statements and so on that are branded about by churches and para-church organizations, especially colleges. These are pretty dangerous items to my mind.

First, the purpose of a modern faith statement/creed/covenant is probably to set yourself apart from others and their beliefs, which means that whatever hobbyhorse it is that distinguishes you from the folks across the street becomes the center of the creed. So everyone has to affirm whatever doctrines which are deemed necessary. Normally these creeds are a list of standard Christian claims, with these distinguishing features listed alongside, usually quite prominently. The upshot is, these theological tidbits are treated as dogmas on the same level as the Trinity or the resurrection.

Second, these do not tend to be especially well crafted. I think every theologian is game to write a concise, creedal summary of the essential doctrines of the faith. In today’s climate, most will probably get the chance.

Finally, precisely due to the weaknesses I’ve just noted, it promotes a sort of institutional dishonesty that worries me. Most evangelical colleges have statements of faith that affirm understandings of inerrancy that their Biblical Studies staff have to wince over and, worse yet, strong dispensational assertions that the theologians have no choice but to plug their noses and sign on the dotted line (if they want to keep their jobs). Why are me making these men and women do this?

It’s a bit different for the main-line churches: the Reformation era councils and so on produced some pretty harsh stuff that the average Lutheran or Anglican would be pretty astonished by. For the most part these early confessions are talked about, but not much quoted or acknowledged. 

So, if you’re starting a theological college and want a creed for it (which you should) allow me to recommend one of the Apostolic or Nicene class, which are recognized universally, which have stood the test of time, which we don’t have to wince over, and which you can rightly and honestly demand that your faculty assent to.  

Today is a day of prayer for Henry Mogentaler.

“Stephanie Gray, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, is invoking Canadians to mark this Friday on their calendars as a day of fasting and prayer for the conversion of Dr. Henry Morgentaler.”

Amen.

More to be found at XKCD.com

I have been reading, on Joe’s recommendation, The Doors of the Sea, by David Bentley Hart. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian from the States, a quite a good one. This is quite an interesting read. It is, mainly at least, a reflection on the New Years’ Day tsunami. More generally, it regards the problem of evil and addresses those who cannot reconcile evil and suffering with a loving God. He also examines some more reflective theological critiques on what God’s justice and mercy mean.

A big part of this little book, however, is a robust refutation of Calvinist theology. Calvinism has never added up for me, and I couldn’t help enjoying it as Hart goes for the throat and lays bare all Calvinism’s distasteful implications and its logical incongruities. Of course, he brushes over the New Testament texts that seem to support the Calvinist perspective. Of course, this is not a hard core theological study, and I’m sure he has explanations. Perhaps as I start to dig into his larger work The Beauty of the Infinite I’ll find some.

What spurs this critique of Calvinist theology was the Calvinist response to the tsunami. He doesn’t name names, but he’s pretty troubled by the John Piper-type response to these calamities. Hart believes we should be focusing on the fallenness and brokenness of our world and the stark reality of ‘powers and principalities’ opposed to God’s will, rather than triumphantly proclaiming his sovereignty over whatever horrors have befallen the world. I’m inclined to agree.  

A bright and hopeful feature of theology in the 20th Century was its ecumenical movement: the affirmation of our shared convictions, cooperation in the mission of the church, and the ultimate pursuit of restoring the unity that Christ intended for his church.

A surprising amount was accomplished. A number of the most important churches in Europe and North America are in full communion with each other. Old statements of condemnation were rescinded, the Vatican II documents softened their tone toward other Christian communities.

An even more surprising amount nearly happened. In Canada the United Church was formed out of the unlikely combination of the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Congregationalists, but they wanted to and were nearly brought under the episcopate of the Anglican Church of Canada; the latter feared losing control of their church - and given that the United Church is much larger than the Anglican Church in Canada this likely would have been the case. Even more surprisingly, the Church of England nearly negotiated communion with the Roman Church, but the formers insistence on maintaining unique Anglican practices and character was met with resistance from the existing Catholic authorities in England.

Of course, for all the wonderful things that happened, and nearly happened, other developments set up new roadblocks. While Vatican II and the evolution of Catholic practice mean that many of the Reformation concerns are now irrelevant, new doctrines on Mary and the Papacy have given Protestants new cause for concern.

For the hopes of the Ecumenical movement, however, it is the liberalization of the Protestant churches which is putting any future significant gains in serious doubt. The Anglican movement which, as you well know, is far too busy burning bridges to be concerned with building any, had before now been the great white hope for ecumenicalism - itself the bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Church of England’s approval of female Bishops provoked an instant reaction from Rome, which said that it would prove a ‘roadblock’ to future ecumenical dialogue. A rather small roadblock I would guess, given that they’ve been ordaining female priests for over ten years and several national churches within Anglicanism have been ordaining female bishops for years too. So the English church’s decision is hardly breaking new ground. Still, it demonstrates that serious interest in full communion with Rome does not run too deep. The Catholics will never have female priests, much less bishops. They don’t even have female deacons, despite the fact that deaconesses are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament and in Patristic literature. It’s simply naive to think they would break so cleanly with tradition, particularly since the current practice was robustly reinforced by the Pope so recently. (I should mention that the church I currently attend has a female vicar, so clearly I don’t feel it is a matter to break communion over).

All this is to say nothing of the other challenges facing the liberal Protestant community, whose practices will quite simply never be acquiesced to by Rome (or the Orthodox churches, for that matter).

So, is this the end of ecumenicalism? The so-called mainline churches are more interested in conforming themselves to the world than searching their traditions in order to offer what they have to the greater Christian community, and unwilling to accept any critique that challenges their new-found assumptions. The Evangelical church has no interest in fulfilling Christ’s prayer for unity: they see schism as a practical solution to problems in the church, rather than a disastrous symptom of them. The Catholic Church is unflinching on so many issues - and every half-century or so they drop a bomb on us, a la Immaculate Conception, that makes reconciliation all the more difficult. And yet, in the face of all this, we should not give up hope. Why? Because we’re Christians and we believe in miracles, and the power to heal these wounds and divisions is beyond us, and always has been. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can overcome our sinfulness and selfishness.

We need to attend to the Christ’s prayer, remembering it always:

‘I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.’ - John 17:20b-21

Peace

Look! Someone noticed Canada! Or rather, our Prime Minister. But at least that’s something, right?