Weapons of Mass Deconstruction: Nuking the New Apologists, Part II.

Let me be clear about one point before I continue: I don't think the New Apologists are making a hash of it. Unlike Bill, I've read a good many of them. My personal experience is that these men and women are doing good work. I lead our parish bible study. I use the Ignatius Catholic Bible Study written in part by Scott Hahn (eek!--and make sure to ignore the imprimatur). What else would an ex-Methodist dupe of fringe Reformed fundamentalists use, anyway? As can be expected, questions about Catholicism and Catholic responses to challenges are a frequent topic for the 10 or so of us who gather every Monday. I've sent people to materials by the New Apologists, and lent them on occasion (as well as works by C.S. Lewis--apparently triumphalism works slowly like arsenic, or something). One case in particular stands out--a baby boom generation member who admitted to be holding on to the faith by the fingernails. The Catholic religious education the member had been given was a nullity, and no help in challenges posed by other Christians. I lent a book that offered a Catholic answer on a particularly troubling subject. The result? Finished and returned two weeks later, the relief almost palpable. Why? Because one of the NAs provided a coherent Catholic response, that's why. By now, I really wish I had a buck for every time I heard "I had no idea there was a Catholic teaching on" issue XYZ.

Feel free to ignore this anecdote, and resume shooting the wounded unsophisticates.

2. Bill's Second Defense of Gaillardetz.

Some bloggers (and the denizens of their comments boxes) have been quite eager to trash Rick Gaillardetz's "America" article, mostly in knee-jerk defense of their favorite Super Hero Apologists; in doing so, it is clear that most haven't read what he wrote, nor do most acknowledge the validity of any of his criticisms.

"Some bloggers" would be Amy Welborn and Mark Shea, if you're keeping track at home. I qualify as a "denizen." While I appreciate a lot of what Bill writes, he quickly flips the switch into Dismissive Mode in this post, and never turns it off. "Super Hero Apologist" is a nice turn of phrase--it certainly helps caricature those who fail to acknowledge the irrefutable brilliance of the Professor's Exsurge Domine as pimply fanboys--but it doesn't do much to advance the discussion. I wonder how he'd react to a characterization of those Catholic scholars criticizing the Gibson film as "Super Hero Theologians"?

I suspect I wouldn't have to wonder long.

As it turns out, Bill has his own "Super Hero Apologist," too, and I admit to having mine. Unfortunately for Bill, Captain Marvel can beat up Superman.

But there are problems with the so-called "New" Apologists. I mention these frequently, citing their combativeness, proof-texting use of Scripture in a fundamentalist fashion, triumphalism, and the creation of a personality cult around these folks.

He does mention them frequently, but he doesn't do much other than repeat the formulas, I'm afraid. "Combativeness" is another Emily Post complaint, and is largely in the eye of the beholder. I'll admit it applies to some of the NAs, who can clamp on like a terrier on a hambone. But across the board--to, say, Fr. Pacwa? Profs. Kreeft and Hahn? Not by my reading, listening, or viewing.

"Proof-texting" is another ambiguous gripe. Frankly, any discussion with people sharing common scriptures (i.e., other Christians and Jews) is going to involve a discussion of differing scriptures which the varying traditions tend to emphasize, and different interpretations of those scriptures. Frankly, you're not going to get very far in any discussion, regardless of how "eschatologically modest" you are, without offering up the "Catholic" verses. It's the tone that determines whether it's productive or an exercise in one-upsmanship. Not all the cited (or uncited) NAs are guilty of this--not by a longshot. This indiscriminate broad-brush approach is one of the fatal flaws of the America article. It also strongly hints at a Cliff-Notes familiarity with the work of those being criticized.

Then there's that word again--"Fundamentalist."

Elk. Lasix. Time to put on a poncho.

It's a substitute for thought, and a particularly parochial one at that. It could mean "preferring the 'four senses' medieval exegesis to use of the historical critical method," or "insufficient genuflecting to the Catholic exegetes du jour who employ historical criticism," then it's unbelievably parochial. Fortunately, Catholics are allowed a much greater amount of freedom in interpretation and interpretation methods than Bill allows.

"Triumphalism?" Presumably closely related to "anti-ecumenical." It certainly would apply to Matatics, who's borderline Feeneyite, if not full-blown. The rest? In spots, perhaps, but hardly consistently, and some virtually never. In fact, for some it is grotesquely false to accuse them of being anti-ecumenical (e.g., Kreeft, Fr. Pacwa). Once again, the "argument by trowel" cuts the legs out from itself.
Unless a full-throated love of the Catholic faith is now somehow off-limits.

Let me underline one important point: Gaillardetz acknowledges the need for apologetics. So those who are spending their time defending "apologetics" as such are missing the boat completely. The issue is how to do it; most of the "New" Apologists have brought in a methodology from the fundamentalist edge of the Reformed tradition which is problematic.

The first two sentences are fine. The last needs to be answered. Of the apologists named in the article, three are cradle Catholics (Keating, Madrid, Fr. Pacwa) and only two could be accused of bringing in a "Reformed fundamentalist methodology" based on background alone--Hahn and Matatics. These days, Matatics sounds more like Frs. Rumble and Carty with a better grasp of koine Greek (not a bad thing, just not that winning), and whatever Reformed approach he brought with him, he's since dropped. Hahn certainly has used Reformed covenantalism in his work, but we have that troublesome "fundamentalist" word spattering down again. Finally, Dr. Kreeft was a convert from the Reformed tradition in 1957, but I challenge anyone to find Calvin in his methodology.

Frankly, this criticism sounds more like it's coming from one of those bloody Lutheran-Reformed knife fights--particularly the disdain of the former for the latter--than from any analysis of the NAs.

Apologetics is not about proof-text battles with Protestants. It is simply about explaining your faith. This, I suggest, is best done (whatever the context) by listening to the other person, learning what their deepest hopes and fears are, listening to their questions and objections, and framing a presentation of the Catholic faith which is not belligerent but which is attractive. Isaac Hecker, the founder of the Paulists, did that in an admirable way.

See the above note about prooftexting. This is unobjectionable, and probably the first approach that should be employed, especially in individual witness.

But such a method does not exclude the possibility of offering examples from Scripture, Tradition, and so forth. Might I also offer up the counter-example of St. Francis de Sales, and The Catholic Controversy? I wonder how St. Francis' method would be regarded by Prof. Gaillardetz and those readers of America who agree with the article....

Moreover, there's an unacknowledged weakness to the softer Gaillardetz approach, too--it can devolve into a whole lot of good feelings, but not much Good News. Without substance, it's not going to get very far. And that substance will likely return to a discussion of the evidence found in scripture, alas.

I didn't read the works of these "New Apologists" before I became a Catholic--they wouldn't have attracted me if I did.

Many would regard this failure as a serious liability in attempting to reason with those who have read and profited from them. I happen to be one of them.

They seem to be most attractive to insecure Catholics and fundamentalists.

Maybe I should start wearing a tarpaulin.

Remember what I said about "dismissive"? We've reached the nadir. As the Aussies say: good on ya, mate! Glad you've grown beyond all that and can climb into the heads of your lesser brothers and sisters. I find it strange that you could do so without reading much of it, but when we insecure/fundy types grow up, we'll probably understand better.

Please.

I was impressed, however, by writers like Thomas Merton and John Henry Newman--and Richard McBrien.

Memo to self: Install sneeze guard on computer desk.

Merton and Newman both grace this insecuritate's bookshelf, although I tend to give the later Merton a wide berth. For his part, Newman was not averse to slinging the occasional verse around, and Apologia isn't the most "ecumenical" thing you'll ever read.

But....McBrien. Oooookay. Time for a little compare and contrast.

His Catholicism does do a remarkable job of explaining to theologically educated non-Catholics both magisterial teaching, how it developed, and where the discussion points are among theologians today.

I count myself a great admirer of Dr. Peter Kreeft, the philosophy professor at Boston College. I own several of his books. Not coincidentally, I own a copy of the Study Edition (1981) of McBrien's Catholicism.

That Gaillardetz includes Kreeft on his hit list is proof of the fundamental silliness and inaccuracy of his analysis. Again, it suggests the Professor had a rather shaky grasp of the material he criticized. Consider Prof. Kreeft's own catechism-based survey of the Catholic Faith, entitled Catholic Christianity. Flipping through the early pages, one notices something striking. While Kreeft's book has both a nihil obstat and an imprimatur from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Catholicism contains a two-page statement by the then-bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, William McManus, explaining his decision to withhold an imprimatur.

Remember, Kreeft's the wild card here.

Leaving aside Bill's caveat that Catholicism could be useful for theologically educated non-Catholics (not the most common specimen the average man in the pews is going to run across), let's address instead the contention that it does a "remarkable job of explaining magisterial teaching...and where the discussion points are among theologians today."

In 1996, after fifteen years of wrangling with Fr. McBrien over his book, the USCCB disagreed with this assessment (read footnote 1 for Fr. McBrien's attempted spin on the dispute).

The problems? Oh, just a couple/three/dozen areas where the Bishops' Committee found McBrien made inaccurate/misleading statements or employed otherwise problematic methodologies (be sure to read the footnotes, which are essential to the analysis):

1) The Impeccability of Jesus Christ;
2) The Virginal Conception of Jesus;
3) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary;
4) Overemphasis on Plurality Within the Catholic Theological Tradition;
5) Describes as mainstream what are truly "fringe" positions;
6) Insufficient Weight Given to Magisterial Teaching;
7) Doctrinal Minimalism ("reducing to an absolute minimum the church teachings and beliefs that are to be considered essential to the Catholic faith and to which one must adhere in order to consider oneself Catholic");
8) Overemphasis on Change and Development ("The text is at times quite harsh in its criticism of patristic and medieval thought. From the perspective of Catholicism, modern thought has definitively superseded ancient and medieval thought").

Rather surprising for one renowned as a defender of the bishops and their teaching authority, Bill shrugs off this criticism.

That's his prerogative. For my part, I'd recommend Catholicism only to non-Catholic friends in need of a doorstop. I'd have to issue too many caveats, make sure they read the Bishops' review first, explained the lengthy nature of the dispute, what the lack of an imprimatur means, McBrien's refusal to get a mandatum and what that means, etc. But if the friend's sofa is unbalanced, I've got just the thing.

Now, shifting gears, let us examine Prof. Kreeft in light of the complaints regarding ecumenism. Well, one counter-example will suffice: The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, co-written with Jesuit Father Ronald Tacelli for IVP, the evangelical publishing house. Written deliberately as an ecumenical, "mere Christian" work intended for a broader Christian audience, Kreeft also gives a surprising tip of the hat to Does God Exist? , by one Hans Kung (see p. 394), as a recommended book.

Oh, and he was a signatory to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together project, too. That should be considered "ecumenical" by even the strictest of standards.

Unless, of course, ecumenical outreach to evangelicals, rather like the evangelicals themselves, doesn't count. Apparently not in Prof. Gaillardetz' world. This demonstrates once again that common Catholic malady: incomprehension of evangelicals. Sometimes, reading Catholics talking about evangelicals, I get the impression that lurking behind the analysis (or lack thereof) is a puzzlement: "Now, which group of snake-handlers does that guy belong to again?"

Again, Gaillardetz' handling of Kreeft suggests more reading about him than actually reading him. So much for the analysis.

Bill can have his Superman. But Captain Marvel wins by a knockout.

I'll omit the last paragraph, which reiterates the same objections, fanboy jibes, begs questions (e.g., just what is "mainstream biblical scholarship" anyway?) and proceed to his last point .

We need apologetics--but not this kind.

Anathema sit, eh? I disagree: Catholicism is easily big enough to embrace most of it--especially in light of the flimsiness of the objections.

Weapons of Mass Deconstruction: Nuking the New Apologists, Part I.

I have profited from reading Bill Cork's blog over the past year or so. That even includes occasional tidbits on The Film That Shall Not Be Named, and his passionate advocacy for Christian unity is a model that should be emulated more often.

Those of you sensing an impending qualifier are spot-on.

I also am compelled to say that his work suffers from some obvious flaws--the most obvious of which is his penchant for dogmatic anathemas, through which he seems especially willing to read fellow Catholics the riot act, employing a tone and terminology he wouldn't imagine using on non-Christians.

There's that, and his irritating tendency to spray the term "fundamentalist" around like an elk on Lasix.

Both traits were on display in his touting of University of Toledo Prof. Richard Gaillardetz' America article deriding the New Apologists. Frankly, his posts on it read like medieval bulls in defense of the often-inaccurate, not infrequently silly and very frequently condescending piece, which advocates a diet Coke apologetics as a substitute for that being practiced by the likes of Pat Madrid, Karl Keating, BC Prof. Peter Kreeft, Jesuit Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Prof. Scott Hahn, et al.

You know: the Catholic Axis of Evil. A veritable Borg cube of uniformity, if I've ever seen one, but I'll get to that later.

In the 1/13/04 issue of the Christian Century, there was a disarming admission by a self-described "liberal Christian" and seminary professor named Barbara G. Wheeler in an exchange between her and evangelical Richard Mouw. In it, Dr. Wheeler candidly confessed that great failing of liberal Christians:

We are pretty sure that we are advanced and others outmoded. When everyone else grows up, we believe, they will look and think like us.

While I would not call Bill a liberal, the same smug dismissiveness toward more conservative Catholics is a feature of his writing, and definitely wafts up in hair-drying gusts from the article he fervently defends. For example, look closely for the political labels used in the piece, and who gets what. Reading Gaillardetz' piece, I was left with the distinct impression of someone who, standing in front of a burning apartment building with trapped residents, chooses for some reason to carp that the firemen are brusque, use rough language, don't shave enough, and really need a Carnegie course. Add to that a fundamental (!) incomprehension of evangelicals and evangelical converts to Catholicism (in all their bewildering diversity--Reformed, Arminian, Pentecostal, Wesleyan/Holiness, Baptist--which is not acknowledged by Bill or the Professor), and you have a deeply flawed article and a deeply flawed defense.

1. The Gaillardetz Article and the Initial Defense.

With that in mind, let's look at the article and Bill's first statements on behalf of it. First and foremost, the balance in Gaillardetz' piece is at best pro forma. Bill references the four recited compliments (detailed here), but come on--each is of the "Hitler-was-a-powerful-speaker" variety. All for style, none for objective substance--with the partial exception of the damning with faint praise "they're OK for refuting the Swaggarts of the world" statements. Even that boomerangs back, as Gaillardetz turns it into an attack on--wait for it--Catholic "fundamentalism," a beast so fearsome, it must be regarded as the gravest of threats and tilted at with all due haste--much like your average modern liturgist has to expunge every last scrap of "devotionalism" from the eucharistic community celebration (f/k/a "the Mass").

Count me among the unimpressed with the purported "balance."

On to the weaknesses, which are far more serious in Gaillardetz' and Bill's minds, inasmuch as they require a complete replacement of the fundies currently laboring in the fields with nicer people. The evils seen in the NAs are as follows:

1. Prooftexting fundamentalism;
2. All Catholic doctrine is presented as equally authoritative and binding (citing the much-loved (and even more abused) "hierarchy of truths" reference from Unitatis Redintegratio;
3. A triumphalism which finds error in other religious beliefs, thereby undermining ecumenism;
4. An ahistorical understanding of doctrinal truths;
5. (Near as I can tell--it's a lot more abstract) the failure to understand that the Church is a sinful pilgrim.

In other words, the East German judge finds the technical part of the long program to be entirely wanting, even though he's willing to give you a 2.5 for the artistic presentation.

The first substantive problem with Prof. Gaillardetz is that, if I didn't know better, I'd swear he'd been living in a bubble for the past twenty five years. That "many" are not well-catechized is something of an understatement. In fact, if the USCCB's most recent report is accurate, the American Church is in the process of raising up its second such badly-educated generation since the end of Vatican II. We can argue all day about who dropped the ball--letting parishes substitute Glitter Aplenty! for God Almighty in the catechism classes--but you might expect the Hammers of Apologists to be slightly thankful that at least someone has tried to pick it up and give the faithful something they are clearly starving for. It's not like Surprised by Truth and Rome Sweet Home sold by the bushel because of the slick TV ad campaigns.

Are they thankful? Well, of course not. In my experience, nobody shoots the wounded and the medics treating them quite like a Catholic.

No, instead there's much fretting about triumphalism, the damage to ecumenism, and so forth. The critics prefer to give the laity who have stood in the gap a patronizing and savage kick in the teeth. "You've got spunk and all, but you're doing it wrong, you fundy twit."

A more appropriate response might be for those in Catholic academia to climb down from their lofty towers, take a break from PlauditQuests in non-Catholic circles, the secular world and their own amen corners, and actually do the dirty work of feeding and teaching their brothers and sisters. Including--gasp!--doing "apologetics." Like those dreadful evangelicals are wont to do--notably in the world of biblical studies.

Especially if these far right, prooftexting, unacademic, anti-ecumenical, out-of-the mainstream, mackerel-snapping Elmer Gantrys are making such a hash of it, as Prof. Gaillardetz suggests.

[Honesty compels me to acknowledge that Prof. Gaillardetz appears to be one who puts his money where his mouth is, having written a number of books on Catholic issues (marriage issues mainly, although he has a book on the magisterium called, interestingly enough, By What Authority) for the average man in the pews. Unfortunately, that makes him a rare exception among Catholic academics of a moderately to fully progressive bent. I'll be over here--not holding my breath for the rush of volunteers.]

Speaking of "damage to ecumenism," I'm still agog at that claim. It's not like the real reason ARCIC derailed was because someone slipped Rowan Williams a copy of On Being Catholic. In reality, the complaint about ecumenical damage is pure Emily Post--an objection to the tone employed by the insufficiently refined. I mean, a grounded faithful Catholic is compelled to say that, compared to the Faith, other religious groups are in some respect "fundamentally erroneous." You have to acknowledge this, otherwise you wouldn't be a Catholic in the first place.

Right? So, again, it boils down to a style objection.

Finally, in response to the ahistorical argument. Well, history is a funny thing. Responding directly to his example of Scott Hahn's misuse of Dei Verbum--well, actually the drafting history and not just the text (!) supports his position.

I recommend the article--truly fascinating. If, like me, you're into fundy rags like Homiletic and Pastoral Review, that is.

On to Part II.

Why intra-Christian "dialogue" on the issue of homosexuality is DOA.

A very worthwhile and thoughtful article by a Lutheran pastor, Jonathan Sorum, entitled "Why We Can't Talk." It is especially good at analyzing the comparison to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and finds it wanting.

The homosexual rights movement equates a minority that faces discrimination and moral condemnation because of its members’ physical appearance with a minority that faces discrimination and moral condemnation because its members act in a certain way. Just as no moral judgment should be made based on race, so also, they say, no moral judgment should be based on sexual orientation in its expanded definition that includes both experienced desire and acting on that desire. In other words, sexual orientation—always including the implicit justification of acting on that orientation—is outside the realm of morality. The only immorality involved is bringing it within the realm of morality.

But this move overthrows morality as such. As soon as an action that springs from a desire, and not the mere experiencing of a desire, is exempted from moral consideration, then there is no morality. Morality, by all accounts, appeals to some authority to decide which desires should be expressed and which desires should be suppressed and to what extent. To declare a desire “natural” and good and
rule out ahead of time any moral evaluation of the expression of that desire in action short-circuits morality. Desires are not the source of morality but that which morality evaluates and regulates. Morality is what intervenes between the desire and the action. The sureness and skill with which persons now restrain, now express one desire or another in accord with their moral training just is “the content of their character.”

Christian morality appeals, finally, to the Scriptures as the external source of moral norms. This appeal does not mean that the Scriptures must be interpreted as a law code whose every precept is directly applicable to us today. The Lutheran tradition, for example, insists that the Scriptural Law can be discerned only from the perspective of the Gospel, the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. From that perspective, the tradition insists, the Scriptures provide a coherent view of the basic shape of a human life consistent with God’s redeeming work, which also reflects God’s work as creator and sustainer of the world. For example, the tradition clearly teaches that, according to the Scriptures, marriage is rooted in God’s creative intention (Matt. 19:4–8) and finds its final fulfillment in God’s redemptive work (Eph. 5:32). From such a Christological perspective, it is possible to evaluate all the Biblical texts related to marriage, including some we may find problematic, and construct an authoritative Biblical answer to the question about how we should conduct ourselves with respect to this area of life. Our needs, desires, prejudices and preferences do not have any authority in this process. Of course, we can’t fully escape such things and inevitably they color our interpretation. But the constant work of Biblical interpretation, under the power of the Holy Spirit and aided by the communion of saints in space and time, aims precisely at eliminating such factors from the Church’s teaching so that the Church may discern the will of God. The Church’s moral debate is internal to the tradition. If we are to revise our moral teaching, we must do so on the basis of the Scriptures themselves within the context of our tradition of interpretation.

The homosexual rights movement, however, insists that the discovery of a “homosexual orientation” in and of itself demands a revision of the Church’s moral teaching. Some people, they say, experience sexual desire for persons of the same sex as “natural” and its expression in actions is therefore in
principle good. But here the moral judgment is made before ever consulting
the Scriptures or the Church’s teaching of the Scriptures. The desire is declared
good ahead of time and whatever the Scriptures say will have to agree with
this judgment or else be rejected. Advocates of homosexual rights in the
Church may believe they want to change only one plank in the Church’s moral
position. But in reality they reject the authority of the Scriptures and the
Church’s teaching altogether.

Indeed, they reject morality as such, for if desires are their own moral
justification, then all values are overthrown. Of course, most advocates
of homosexual rights in the Church do not consciously intend to overthrow
morality as such. In church circles the pro-homosexual argument usually
maintains that homosexual relationships should be morally evaluated by the same
standards as heterosexual relationships. Such relationships ought to be loving,
faithful, mutual, compassionate, and so on. What is not legitimate, according to
this position, is to pose the question of whether homosexual activity is right or
wrong simply because it is between two persons of the same sex. But why does
the homosexuality of homosexual desire have such a privileged position? If the
expression of homosexual desire as such cannot be morally evaluated, then by
what right, for example, do we morally evaluate the desire to have impersonal
and promiscuous sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual? If desires
are their own justification, then such values as love, respect, and commitment
must also give way to any desires to the contrary. Any restriction on desires they
might imply is an attack on a person’s identity, “the core of who they are.”
This, in fact, is the position of the homosexual rights movement outside the
Church, and it is the basis of the whole sexual revolution. So the basic position
of the homosexual rights movement within Christian circles requires that the
values its members may want to retain, such as love, respect, and commitment,
are deprived of all validity. Morality as such is overthrown. While King’s
struggle was for the purification of moral discourse, purging it of an alien element
that distorted it, the homosexual rights movement is an attack on moral
discourse itself, making any evaluation of behavior or character logically
impossible.

RTWT.

Link via Mere Comments.

Blog alert.

Thoughts on Prof. Gaillardetz' Unam Sanctam against the "New Apologists" and their vulgar behavior will be going up later today.

Fr. Rob Johansen's "Empty Chair" homily and its discontents.

Father's moving homily can be found at his blog here. Dissenting opinions can be found here.

The pious outrage from dissenter Jim should remind you why homilies like Fr. Johansen's are hen's teeth rare. The prospect of the perennially-offended bleating "how un-Christian!" (read "not warm and fuzzy!") is not a pleasant thing to face so much as once a year.

Should a controversial topic be touched upon, it's done so in a way that inverts it (think of those passages from Ephesians and Colossians you almost never hear), or at most offers the "collective guilt" interpretation--"yes, but we're all to blame...." While it may be true in a sense, it's also profoundly false: when everyone is guilty, no one is guilty.

Instead, it's easier to focus on topics that won't singe the consciences of the flock--consumerism, or intolerance, or suchlike. Almost no one ever sees himself in those discussions, or if he does, he isn't going to approach the priest in a huff about it.

Instead, the path of least resistance: Even easier still to focus on the importance of singing Kumbaya while practicing your penmanship, being nice to springer spaniel puppies or other affirmingly non-controversial topics. Be thankful for the priests like Fr. who put themselves on the line in their homilies.

Not so BTW, we expecting our third child in September, which explains in part the dramatic pause and prayer request (no need to stop, for a myriad of obvious reasons) two weeks back. FWIW, we think it's a girl.

SAM...examines...Salon's hatchet job "review" of The Passion.

In much the same way a slaughterhouse examines a particularly choice Black Angus.

Go. Read.

I thought I was going to be Kosh, but I'll take it.

Yes, it's been quiz-heavy lately. Heavy duty fiskings will resume shortly. Plus, any time I can thump for my favorite TV show, I will. Speaking of which, Season Four is now out on DVD. Season Five is due in April.

"When I grow rich," say the bells of Shoreditch.


Congratulations, you're John Sheridan, war hero, commander of Babylon 5, and president of the Interstellar Alliance.
Which Babylon 5 Character are you?
Take the Babylon 5 Quiz by Paradox.

Weather Morons: The Sequel!

DS2004: WMITT! has produced a thin coating of easily removed ice and about an inch of snow thus far.

Batten down those hatches. I listen to them....why?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Shortest fisking to date.

When I am looking for insights into biblical accuracy, authenticity and fidelity to Christian tradition, the first person I consult will not be an Episcopalian.

Fastidious ordained ECUSA ninny sniffs disparagingly, and at wearying length, about the Gibson film for the soon-to-be-shuttered Salon Magazine.

Quelle suprise.

I'm not going to excerpt this at length--go read the link if you want that. I'm just going to give you a couple of samples.

I could see how it would work on an unsophisticated audience.

At this point, your septum should start deviating as a result of the derisive snorting. This is what the hoi polloi think of you, folks. They're the sophisticates, you're the extra y-chromosome types who blather on endlessly about your Bronze Age Palestinian sky god.

OTOH, it also helps you understand how VGeR got elected, now, doesn't it? Now, one last point:

I don't see the point of magnifying the violence of his arrest, torture and death. I find it perverse and strange and really vulgar. As Ray Brown says, the Gospels are pretty straightforward. They arrive at Golgotha, and then it says, "Then they crucified him." They just say it in a little short sentence.

This criticism, reasonably common, makes no sense after a little reflection. For someone who likes to tart up and trot out his half-remembered historical criticism, he's missing the point--ever hear of sitz im leben? When the accounts were written, there would have been no need to explain crucifixion in any detail--the readers would have known it instinctively. And shuddered.

Two thousand years later, we, who have no crucifixion frame of reference, need to be educated.

I also love the "Ray" reference to Fr. Brown. On a first name basis with the late scholar, were we?

Ultimately, the Rev.'s spleen venting review says more about the author and his attitude to the untermenschen he was forced to share the room with than the film.

It also demonstrates that the Cross is still folly to the Gentiles.

Deathstorm 2004--"No, we mean it this time!"

We're supposed to be getting a major winter storm today, with a significant component of freezing rain (they're not saying ice storm, but draw your own conclusions).

Blogging could be...tricky.

Thank the Lord it wasn't Cooter.


You are Roscoe P. Coltrane. You do have morals,
they're just easily forgotten. If your boss
tells you to do something, you jump to it. You
are kind to animals, especially basset hounds.


What Dukes of Hazzard Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla


Actually, I always liked Roscoe (gyuh gyuh gyuh!), and I watched the show religiously--every Friday night. Everything from the Waylon Jennings theme song, to the cars, to Catherine Bach (!) was perfect.

Beats all you never saw/
Been in trouble with the law/
Since the day they was born/

Thanks to SAM for this find.