The Rev. Peter Strimer, rector of St. Andrew’s Church, said that everyone from all religious backgrounds are welcome at St. Andrew’s, including traditional Anglicans. He said he has previously referred people to Dan Keusal, the licensed counselor and astrologer in private practice who is leading the workshop, with good results. Mr. Keusal holds a degree in theology from the University of Notre Dame and worked for years as a parish and campus minister.
“Of the 35 people signed up for the class, nearly half have not been in our church or any church before,” Fr. Strimer said. “We are using Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah.” Fr. Strimer described the course as “a fun, captivating approach to the Christmas story” which draws upon Mr. Keusal’s training in Roman Catholicism and astrology.
[blockquote]The Rev. Peter Strimer, rector of St. Andrew’s Church, said that everyone from all religious backgrounds are welcome at St. Andrew’s, including traditional Anglicans.[/blockquote]
It is a sad state of affairs when it has to be specifically stated that “traditional Anglicans” are welcome at an Episcopal Church. I thought TECusaCorp was part of the “Anglican Communion”. Silly me.
I guess we need some new signs:
[b]The Episcopal Church Welcomes You. And you. And you. And you. And you. And you over there. And especially you over there under that rock.[/b]
the snarkster
My, I’m so thankful to Peter Strimer for this new tool for evangelism. It would never have occurred to me. And it is so in touch with the season.
Actually the article doesn’t say much. And there is no defense offered. Strimer only says he is offering the course and that all are welcome. We are not informed as to the content of the course.
At the Episcopal Church I attend, I have been lecturing about the biblical roots of Advent-Christmas-Epiphany season for the month of December. In the first class, I showed a clip from the film, Zeitgeist, which spoke to the issue of the astrological significance around the winter solstice and the birth of Jesus (even though Jesus was most likely conceived in December and born in September). The film, which was definitely anti-Christian, was seeking to show that Jesus was a conglomeration of various solar messiah traditions.
In Genesis 1, the Scriptures state that the sun, moon and stars are for signs and seasons. There definitely is some connection between world events and the heavenly bodies. I think the late D. James Kennedy wrote a book about the biblical significance of the Zodiac and its meaning.
The concern I have about the astrology workshop is that it probably will not be taught from a biblical perspective. Not grounding your teaching in the Scriptures, especially with a topic like astrology, could cause people to explore the world of the occult. Those who attend the workshop might be lead to seek wisdom and guidance from the stars, moon and the sun, instead of from the Sun of Righteousness.
-Vincent
Note to Brother Michael (#3)… an earlier article (Dec 3) by The Living Church does give a good deal of information about the content of the course:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2007/12/03/seattle-parish-offers-astrology-workshop
The course (and the beliefs of the instructor) are based on something they call “evolutionary astrology” which turns out to involve two key rejections of the gospel: (a) reincarnation and (b) karma.
The first of course denies the good news of the Resurrection and instead substitutes a cycle of “past lives.†The second (karma) is based on a person producing good thoughts/works and then being rewarded by spiritual blessings – which is in fact an inversion of grace, which is based on God’s unmerited love for paralyzed sinners.
Incidentally, if you want to hear a great riff against karma and in favor of Christ and grace, here’s a wonderful interview with rock star Bono on the subject:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10892
It is the workshop’s attack on the very core of Christianity that explains the bishop’s flustered comment that: “our salvation can never be found through karma.” Thanks to him for saying that — but then why does he permit his parishes to offer workshops encouraging attendees to find their salvation this way? Why does he permit his rectors to refer his flock to these people for spiritual counseling (“[the rector] said he has previously referred people to Dan Keusal, the licensed counselor and astrologer in private practice who is leading the workshop, with good results”).
Anyway, here are the key paragraphs in question from the Dec 3 LIVING CHURCH article:
#2 Ross 52 if it is OK, than will be OK to ask for a Mormon to preach or give a seminary about the LDSC, after reading this article, I have no more doubt, that TEC, ELCA, PCUS and UMC are almost the same.
Dear Mr Hermon, I never read any article that you have written about the solution for all this Anglican mess, I would like to know what is your solution for this mess. If you have written, could you give the entry for them. Thank you.
#4… great points. My problem with the article was not simply that some group of Christians might have a parallel interest in astrology.
The truth is that in the Middle Ages that was not that unusual. Dante for example was one such great Christian and there were definitely many others. The reason, however, was that the geocentric medieval cosmology was organic and all of it was deeply Christocentric. So someone like Dante viewed the stars – as a creation of the eternal Word – as something in which God’s providence might be inscribed. But it is still all the working of the Triune Christian God. When modern day Episcopalians, who as heirs of Newton and Einstein have no similar cosmology, show an interest in astrology, it is I think a symptom of a flight from Christianity, not a natural organic expression of their faith in it.
My real problem with the workshop is that it is based on fundamental rejections of the Gospel, which is the Cross, the Resurrection, and grace.
on # I forgot the LDS C when I said that the PCUS, TEC, ELCA, UMC are all the same.
SMOKESCREEN ALERT —
Note again that we see the usual smoke about Inclusion and Welcoming being frantically blown by the Seattle reappraisers to obscure the issue at hand:
The question about basic creedal faith, which traditionalists are constantly raising, is NOT about who is “welcome.” OF COURSE everyone — gay, straight, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, and even Anglican — is welcome at an Anglican parish. The question is NOT who is welcome (everyone, including and especially sinners of all kinds, are welcome to come — Christ is known as the Friend of Sinners). The question is rather whether fundamental church teaching of the last 2000 years can and should be altered as a response to pressure from special interest groups and the prevailing winds of the culture.
I would so much like reappraisers to stop all this BS rhetoric about “inclusion” and instead focus frankly on their desire to debate/change church teaching. I can respect that. Luther, for example, didn’t whine about “inclusion” — he frankly stated his belief that the current Church was mistaken in their teachings regarding Grace and Works and so on. (He then grounded his concerns in the Scriptures and the Fathers like Augustine — don’t hold your breath waiting for TEC to do something similar.) I could respect an authentic debate about doctrine — it’s all this whining and dishonesty that bothers me.
It seems that Strimer admits to what we have been saying all along. Did anyone else notice that he included us in the “other” religious backgrounds category.
The operative words are “the Christmas story.” Since everything is just someone’s version of someone else’s story, we can do with it whatever we want and create a new level of richness and mieaning – and away we go.
John, thanks for your posts.
” Evolutionary astrology “begins with the premise that each person is a soul that is in the process of progressive evolution and eventually toward reconnection with the ‘Divine’,†said Scott Wolfram a certified consultant of evolutionary astrology. “In order to recreate or set up the conditions and dynamics needed to fulfill ones past karma in this life, the soul chooses one’s family and early childhood experiences. Over the course of one’s life one experiences different circumstances and as well as an evolving inner development that supports the soul’s intent in this lifetime.â€
I will be sure to mention that the next time someone brings up the Holocaust, abortion, civilian deaths in war, torture, famine, hunger, poverty, child abuse, rape, murder, AIDS, malaria, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Israel, and random mass killings. Plus it sure is good to know we have an out on trying to achieve the MDG. Hey man the soul choose that Karma so I’m keeping my percentage.
Where are the words sufficient for a “divine” who says there is a connection between the movement of the planets and the stars and human events? And the liberals have been complaining about creation science! Never a trap that can’t be fooled but never a fool who can’t be trapped.
Interview
Reverend Strimer: Now, Jesus, what house were you born under?
Jesus: House? House? House? I was born in a stable. What are you talking about?
Rev S: But isn’t it the case that you are building karma as you go
and the confluence of the stars and planets effect this good karma, that you are “building soul?”
Jesus: I will give you time to consider your words. Be here when I come back.
Paula, you are exactly right. A high-caste Hindu told me so explicitly. If things are good for us, he said, it’s because we were good in former lives; and if things are bad, that’s our fault, too. This way of thinking makes it possible for the high-caste to overlook the appalling poverty visible every time they take a trip to the market. Better luck next time.
Scripture prohibits and condemns engaging in witchcraft and divination, which is what this is.
“Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD. . . .” Deuteronomy 18:10-12
The Gospel according to Karnac the Magnificient. That might actually be fun. I hope there’s pictures and an alchemy demonstration.
I think it all depends on what kind of class it is. If the bishop’s view is correct, than this is just an informational course on a different (and incompatible) religious tradition. Fine. I’ve attended church forums on Islam and Buddhism that were most valuable. But these were informational, not evangelical. I also wouldn’t mind class on the astronomical and astrological significance of the Nativity narrative (what the star may have been, and what it would have meant to the Magi and contemporary astrologers hearing this part of the Gospel). But I don’t think that is what Mr. Keusal or Fr. Strimer have in mind. The key word for me here is “workshop”. Workshops are not just passive informational lectures, but are about exchanging information and ideas about how to apply that information. “Workshop” implies not just learning, but doing. The bishop is trying to put a positive spin on it, but I think this is a no go.
#15 Katherine,
The high-caste Hindu’s perspective is, of course, a common misunderstanding of the whole process. Such misunderstandings have always been criticized throughout Indian history (prime examples include the Buddha, for one, not to mention the devotional lineages of Tamil country). [url=http://jivanta-dharmashaiva.blogspot.com/2007/07/karma.html]One contemporary[/url] Hindu teacher put it nicely: “If it’s someone’s karma to suffer, consider it your karma to help him”.
#18… You are right. I wish it were otherwise, but the rector and the bishop have both been trying to portray this positively, and even as an orthodox tool for evangelism, e.g.:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8098/#153892
and yet it certainly feels like spin and damage control. Maybe the skepticism of many of us comes from the fact that this is the same diocese that the Muslim TEC priest (Ann Holmes Redding) just came from. The bishop now (Bp. Rickel, quoted in some of these astrology articles) is new, but he took over immediately after his predecessor strongly endorsed Redding. So he began his office mired in damage control for his diocese (which had just been made the poster child for mindless heresy). Naturally he’s going to feel the need to spin this, and even find some may to turn it into a story about it really showing how the priests of his diocese are out there strongly contending for the orthodox faith (!). Rickel’s been in spin mode since Day one, poor fellow.
The way it looks to a lot of us is to take the Redding case as a microcosm. An absolutely shameful piece of maximally mindless heresy (i.e. the person is not just a heretic but a really stupid heretic) gets unearthed in the Seattle diocese. It gets compounded by the fact the priestess has been the director of faith formation at her parish (!). Then as the bad press mounts, her bishop out-heretics even her. All of this scrutiny and press is solely the result of the traditionalist blogosphere. Finally when the shame gets to an agonizingly high level, and mainstream newspapers are now writing about it, a bishop (in Rhode Island) steps forward and sternly disciplines her (i.e. tells her she should take a year off). Well, we do thank the bishop of RI — but some of us are going to feel like it would have been nicer if it had come sooner, not waiting for the last moment when the shame had become unbearable and there was no other alternative than to defend orthodoxy.
Likewise, in this case, it’s nice in its own way, now that the press has made fully public that the TEC parish is teaching classes on astrology, and it’s reached a similar point of embarrassment, for the TEC leaders there to explain that actually they are really all about the orthodox faith and they are vigorously opposed to promoting ideas like astrology (quote from the rector) or karma (the bishop). But it would have been nicer if the orthodox rhetoric had begun sooner rather than as (apparent) damage control.
It would also be nice if the bishop and rector could explain how it is in a parish that is in “no way advocating or even studying astrology” that a class is being offered called “They Followed a Star: Astrology and Christianity as Allies on the Journey†and why a class description is given on the parish website as:
Personally, I wish that TEC teachers and priests and leaders who wish to explore alternatives to the Christian faith would just honestly say that this is what they want to do, rather than backpedaling frantically when they are “caught.” I think we would all benefit enormously from a generous transparency by everyone. People being very open and honest about what they believe and the direction they are headed. If the parish wants to go a more Unitarian route, looking at all kinds of different religious traditions, and so on — more power to them! Just be honest about it. I disagree with Spong about a lot of stuff, but at least he’s being up front about it. When there is honesty and openness, then people can make meaningful and informed choices about what they want to do.
#20 John Stamper:
I’ve been trying to stay out of this one, mostly on the theory What’s the point? But you finally goaded me enough.
This is my parish, and Dr. Redding is one of my professors, so I know somewhat whereof I speak here. I suggest that you are vastly overestimating the amount of negative press on both of these topics based on the amount of treatment they received in the little territory of conservative-Christian-blogland. If you think that +Rickel is losing sleep worrying about what reasserting bloggers think of this diocese, then I believe you’ve got another think coming.
Furthermore, your characterization of Dr. Redding as a “stupid heretic” is a gratuitous and unworthy insult. You may of course think whatever you like about her decision to profess Islam and Christianity at the same time, but after spending an academic quarter in her classroom I can assure you that she is far from “stupid.” Since you, so far as I know, have no knowledge of her beyond what you have gleaned from a couple of newspaper articles, I suggest to you that your remark has no basis other than gross ignorance, and deserves no more respect than any other such mindless bloviation.
I know that as a reappraiser here on T19, this is in some sense hostile territory and most of you disagree with me on many fundamental issues. I’m always happy to discuss those; that’s why I persist in crossing enemy lines. I know that most of you are bound to be critical of the theology and practice of my diocese, my parish, my rector, my bishop, and my seminary professors; I accept that. But when you descend to personal insults and mockery of people I consider friends, then I’m going to challenge you on it.
A quotation in “Spe Salvi” from Gregory Nanzianzus may be relevant here (thanks to the Pope):
5. We must add a further point of view. The First Letter to the Corinthians (1:18-31) tells us that many of the early Christians belonged to the lower social strata, and precisely for this reason were open to the experience of new hope… Yet from the beginning there were also conversions in the aristocratic and cultured circles, since they too were living “without hope and without God in the worldâ€. Myth had lost its credibility; the Roman State religion had become fossilized into simple ceremony which was scrupulously carried out, but by then it was merely “political religionâ€. Philosophical rationalism had confined the gods within the realm of unreality. The Divine was seen in various ways in cosmic forces, but a God to whom one could pray did not exist. Paul illustrates the essential problem of the religion of that time quite accurately when he contrasts life “according to Christ†with life under the dominion of the “elemental spirits of the universe†(Col 2:8). In this regard a text by Saint Gregory Nazianzen is enlightening. He says that at the very moment when the Magi, guided by the star, adored Christ the new king, astrology came to an end, because the stars were now moving in the orbit determined by Christ[2]. This scene, in fact, overturns the world-view of that time, which in a different way has become fashionable once again today. It is not the elemental spirits of the universe, the laws of matter, which ultimately govern the world and mankind, but a personal God governs the stars, that is, the universe; it is not the laws of matter and of evolution that have the final say, but reason, will, love—a Person. And if we know this Person and he knows us, then truly the inexorable power of material elements no longer has the last word; we are not slaves of the universe and of its laws, we are free. In ancient times, honest enquiring minds were aware of this. Heaven is not empty. Life is not a simple product of laws and the randomness of matter, but within everything and at the same time above everything, there is a personal will, there is a Spirit who in Jesus has revealed himself as Love[3].
The scandal of Dr. Redding is that she claimed to be a Christian *leader* and a Muslim at the same time. Those two things are incompatible. As far as the astrology workshop goes; as someone formerly involved in the occult (before I became a Christian), I can attest to the spiritual damage that it can cause. Meddling with such things is very, very dangerous and has no place in a Christian church.
Hello Ross. Really sorry to have hurt your feelings. I mean that honestly and without sarcasm or any other nasty quality. Just sincere regret to have hurt you.
I’m unsure what the right thing for me to do is from here. On the one hand to talk more about what I said in my post might be adding further injury — in which case I am glad to shut up and simply say I am sorry. On the other hand you seem to be asking for some kind of response from me about the issue at hand, not just an apology for saying something which felt cruel and hurtful.
After thinking a bit I am going to go with the latter and apologize in advance if that wasn’t the right choice.
I am sorry to hear that Rickel is not losing sleep about a nationwide exposure of his diocese in the Ann Holmes Redding scandal (and his predecessor’s endorsement of the heresy). I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. His job description is to safeguard the faith once delivered — and if I were him that would have been an awful thing to happen just before I took up the shepherd’s crook. You may be saying that, like his predecessor, he found the heresy of AHR pleasing — which is of course terribly sad to hear. But I am still inclined to believe he is worried about it, which would explain why he went out of his way to issue a statement obliquely attacking the belief of the Seattle astrologer in karma. I.e. he (rightly) was concerned about another shaming exposure and wished to quickly establish his creedal credentials.
Regarding AHR herself, I can’t agree that calling her stupid is gratuitous. Calling her fat or ugly (or _______ fill in the blank) would be gratuitous; and of course she’s none of those things anyway. But something that is relevant I think to the general ongoing debate of the last 4-5 years is the question of whether, on the whole, the theology of many leading reappraisers is not only heretical but also intellectually of very low quality. There are some very powerful intellectual arguments that can be levied against traditional Christian teaching, and they have been made by people like Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, and many others. But it’s doubly embarrassing (and if you recall the arc of my post was about the embarrassment AHR posed to the diocese) when a priest is not only heretical but her heresy is such that people from all over the intellectual and religious spectrum — Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. — are laughing at her.
Perhaps the following may make what I am saying clearer. There is nothing intellectually embarrassing about being a hard core member of the Republican party — and then over time rethinking your political and economic views and declaring yourself to be a socialist. Both frameworks have strong and intellectually coherent cases to be made for them, and a person might legitimately change his mind over time. But what WOULD be really embarrassing is if that person then declared he remained a staunch Republican while also being a socialist! It would be an embraassment because people who know anything about politics and economics — whether they hailed from the CATO institute, the Heritage foundation, the Socialist Workers party, or wherever — would ALL think you are an idiot.
Again, what I would say is that the key question is whether it is legitimate to criticize not only the perceived heresy implicit in the new liberal theology, but to also question its intellectual respectability as we hear it being advanced. If that is a legitimate issue, and I believe it is, then there’s no good way to do that without implying that certain people are not terribly good thinkers. I mean, for sure, I could have substituted other language — I could have said that Redding’s repeated arguments for her position (such as they were — perhaps “explanations” would be a better term?) were of embarrassingly low intellectual quality, but there’s no way to say that without communicating ultimately that the person making the perceived moronic arguments is not terribly bright.
I want to thank you very much for being willing to post in what you probably rightly perceive to be hostile territory. I am sorry if I appear to be hostile — I do not have any hostile feelings towards you but I can see how it could come across that way.
I think you could be immensely valuable to us all here at T19 since you do indeed go to that parish. You say that you have been trying to stay out of this thread on the theory of “what’s the point” — but actually you could be a big help to us if you wanted to respond to the specific content being raised in the thread.
E.g…. Do you yourself see anything problematic with a person who believes in karma and past lives teaching a class on astrology at your parish? Do you yourself think those ideas are contrary to Christianity? Can you help us understand better why a class that appears to be all about astrology (from its title and description) could be an example of your rector’s claim that his parish is in “no way advocating or even studying astrologyâ€? Leaving aside the problem of sexual ethics as it affects gay people for a moment, would you say that in all other respects members of your parish believe in all other aspects of traditional Christian teaching (e.g. the Trinity, a Jesus who physically rose from the dead and who’s death on the cross atones for our sins, Satan as a real personal force of evil, the Virgin Birth, grace and not karma as being the operative force in Christian life, a rejection of reincarnation, etc.)?
Feel free not to respond to any of those questions, but I just wanted to make sure you knew your comments would be most welcome here.
Yours in Him,
John
John, thank you for that. I appreciate your apology, and in turn I apologize for my somewhat heated response. I can’t help but feel partisan about the people I know and care for personally.
I don’t want to get too deeply into Dr. Redding’s position, partly because that’s not the topic of this thread, but mostly because I’m not sure how much she would want me to. But I can tell you from personal experience that she is very intelligent. There’s quite a leap from “I don’t understand how someone could hold this position” to “This person must be an idiot,” but that leap has been made not only by you but by many reasserters. That’s unfortunate.
As for my bishop, I’ll admit I don’t actually know what causes him to lose sleep. But I don’t imagine that, say, +Duncan is lying awake at night over what goes on at Fr. Jake’s blog either. This is a predominantly reappraising diocese, and you’re looking at the matter through strongly reasserting lenses. Is it surprising that we would have very different views of what is “embarrassing”?
Concerning my parish, you ask, “Leaving aside the problem of sexual ethics as it affects gay people for a moment, would you say that in all other respects members of your parish believe in all other aspects of traditional Christian teaching (e.g. the Trinity, a Jesus who physically rose from the dead and who’s death on the cross atones for our sins, Satan as a real personal force of evil, the Virgin Birth, grace and not karma as being the operative force in Christian life, a rejection of reincarnation, etc.)?” I haven’t polled the congregation on these topics; I’m sure there’s a fairly wide range of opinion. If a reasserter such as yourself were to conduct the experiment, I don’t doubt you’d find enough heterodoxy to trouble you greatly. I have no qualms saying that the members of my parish are believing Christians — but then, some of the people here at T19 don’t think I’m a Christian myself. I can tell you that I don’t meet all of your list of required beliefs, so maybe you’re one of those people. If so, so be it; it doesn’t hurt my feelings that we disagree.
As a parish, strict doctrinal purity is simply somewhat lower on our list of priorities than it might be in a reasserting congregation.
As for the class, as I said in the previous thread I’m not taking it — too much else to do, among other things — and I haven’t really dug into what this flavor of astrology is like. I suspect that it teaches some things I wouldn’t agree with. But I think that Bp. Rickel is quite right in the other part of his quote, which you didn’t focus on, where he says: “If our faith is strong, we should have nothing to worry about in sharing it, and in putting it up against some other paths in which others claims to find their salvation.” Even astrology is bound to have some glimmer of useful truth in it; I see no problem with looking for that glimmer and ignoring the rest.
Hi Ross. Very gentle and thoughtful response. Thanks.
I am fine with leaving the views of Rev. Redding aside. I do find myself in an awkward position, given your reassurance, though. If you want a flavor of what it’s like, suppose we had the case I described of a person who was a staunch Republican… and a socialist. And you said, well the guy sounds like an idiot. And I assured you “No, Ross… actually he’s a really thoughtful and indeed a brilliant guy.” You’d be at a bit of a loss. You might cast about for a bit of another explanation like: well maybe he doesn’t know much about either free market economics or socialism. And then suppose I said “No, actually Ross he is deeply learned about both.” And then you might try: well, he was doubtless just joking. Then I say “no, he was very serious.” Then you might say: well maybe he’s brilliant but he sounds like he’s got multiple personality disorder, or is in some other fashion crazy. Then I counter: “No, Ross, he’s really stable and very sane.” Eventually you’d probably feel like saying, whether you did or not, “Well, John, nobody can be a deeply learned, brilliant, sane man and say with great seriousness and honesty that he is a socialist and a Republican. One of those things can’t be true.” So that’s basically the situation I am in here. If the socialist Republican doesn’t work for you, I can think of several other analogies that might work: the Klansman who is a fervent supporter of the NAACP, the Zionist Nazi, the Darwinian who believes in a literal six-day Genesis creation, etc.
Sounds like we had a misunderstanding regarding your bishop, or rather over the extent to which the AHR scandal extended beyond T19. At first you are right — it was solely the traditionalist Anglican blogosphere that was tracking it and drawing attention to it. But eventually the national press picked up on it and there were articles in all kinds of newspapers and websites about it. Most objective people would say that eventually it became something that extended far beyond traditionalist Anglican web sites like T19; and again most objective people (in my opinion) would say that it had become very embarrassing. So it’s not quite analogous to Bp Duncan losing sleep over something happening in one reappraising blog somewhere.
You are right that if there is indeed a wide range of views in your parish on the doctrines I mentioned, doctrines which have been upheld in their entirety by nearly all the great Christians of the past (e.g. people as wildly different as Pope John Paul and Luther and Calvin, who were in sharp disagreement about many things) — then that is indeed immensely troubling.
I think it would be fascinating to talk more about that.
Thanks again so very much for your thoughts,
John
John:
I might at some point conclude that this person’s understanding of either “Republicanism” or “Socialism,” or both, was different than mine. That might then lead to a discussion about whose understanding was the right one; but the truth is that any ideology or philosophy or religion or what-have-you with more than two adherents is going to have multiple understandings of what it means. You and I, for instance, clearly have some different ideas about what it means to be a Christian. That doesn’t necessarily mean that at least one of us is an idiot.
Hi Ross. You write:
A few thoughts:
(1) Bp. Rickel seems to be assuming that the astrology class was being brought in as an explicit contrast to Christianity; and that the Christian community at the parish would respond by giving their Christian witness against it. (Bp Rickel says that you guys would “put your faith up against” the pagan stuff.) That agonistic vision is lovely to imagine, but it’s in marked contrast to the actual description on the web site, which seems to describe the class as a way to learn about how astrology (and presumably karma and past lives and people choosing their early childhood experiences and so on) is in great harmony with Christianity. I see no evidence on the web site for Rickel’s fantasy of Christians contending for the Apostolic faith once delivered. Indeed, the rector has emphasized a number of times now that the instructor’s life as a practicing astrologer is in great harmony with his understanding of Roman Catholic theology.
(2) You mention that “even astrology is bound to have some glimmer of useful truth in it” and that you “see no problem with looking for that glimmer and ignoring the rest.”
The problem is this: life is short. The amount of time people can spend at church is short.
Of course there is bound to be some glimmer of truth in astrology. There’s also bound to be some glimmer of truth in the musings of the Flat Earth society, the Geocentrists, the Hollow Earthers and (my favorite) the Torical Earthers (those who believe that the earth is shaped like a giant doughnut). But true is it may be to say that there are Glimmers in all those theories, you don’t find a Geology prof giving equal time to all that stuff because he simply doesn’t have enough time to go around. In reality when we make time for the Flat Earth society to speak we cut out time of the syllabus to talk about real developments in plate techtonics or seismic theory or whatever.
Likewise, there’s this amazingly rich tradition, stretching back 2000 years, of Christian devotional literature and theology and liturgy and inconography and (heaven forfend) Scripture that you guys could be spending your time reading and having study groups about. When you instead chose things outside the creedal tradition (astrology, Wicca, Hinduism, Marcus Borg, Spong, whatever) you are making a choice to spend less time on the real stuff. Defending it on the basis that what you are studying is probably mostly junk but there might be a glimmer or two of something worthwhile in it — that’s no defense at all. Better is to actively say that you are studying something real valuable — that the mainline Christian tradition is faulty or woefully incomplete and needs to be corrected.
#27… well that is true. As Humpty Dumpty once observed “I can make a word mean anything I want.”
If, for example, I personally mean by the word Republican “a man with blue eyes” and by the word Socialist I mean “a man under six feet tall” — then I suppose it’s true in my private definitional world to say that I am a Republican and a Socialist. But as I hope you can see, I only get that by defining those words in a starkly different way — indeed in a perversely different way — from how almost everybody else uses them.
Likewise I could say that “It’s great for you to eat poison every day” if by poison I meant an apple. And it I suppose it might be true. But it would be a very perverse use of language.
So perverse in fact that people who go to that extreme are (a) crazy or (b) being dishonest or (c) know very little about the subject they are talking about. All three of those categories are things I mentioned earlier. And presumably you feel that they don’t apply to (for example) AHR: you would disagree that she’s (a) mentally unhinged, or (b) intentionally joking or using words in a misleading way or (c) has a weak knowledge of Christian and Islamic theology.
I’d be really grateful if you’d acknowledge that there’s something nuts about a person claiming to be a card carrying member of the Replublican Party (here in the U.S. — you know the one that George Bush and Ronald Reagan came from) — and at the same time a hard core socialist (e.g. a Trotskyite). If you honestly feel that that if your heard this you wouldn’t find it odd, and indeed impossible, then your relationship to language is so odd that I can’t imagine how you negotiate through life in general. If someone asks you whether you want to go see a movie, do you first try to guess whether by “movie” they mean an apple, an elephant, a film, or a chimney?
I am honestly not trying to give you a hard time here… just baffled by the way your mind seems to work.
If I heard someone claim to be a Republican and a socialist, I would find that odd, yes. And I might think that there are some serious problems facing that person in the future.
But can I imagine someone claiming that, and meaning by those words things that are at least arguably recognizable as the usual meanings? Yes, I can. It would, as I say, be unusual and problematic; but I think it’s possible. Just off the top of my head — and I know you didn’t mean to introduce Republicanism or Socialism as topics of debate, just as an example, but I’ll continue with your example — there are in my observation many Republicans who are by and large indifferent to the free market but strongly interested in legislating “family values.” And there are Socialists who are in favor of limited market freedom within a generally planned and directed economy.
Is it really that hard to imagine someone who advocates both government control of morality and the economy, especially if the latter is directed towards “moral” ends? I can imagine it; and I can further imagine that this person could claim, with sincerity and using recognizable definitions of the words, to be a Republican and a Socialist at the same time.
Interesting post, Ross! Here are some distinctions that are worth making.
(1) I agree with you that there are a small number of Republicans in recent years who in practice favor an expanded welfare state. E.g. Bush’s initiative for prescription drug benefits, etc. Indeed, one criticism of them is that they are betraying their own party’s principles in this regard. But despite that fact it is also true that (a) none of what they do is fact truly socialist; it is just taking steps in that direction; and therefore calling them that is therefore simply wrong. (Just as it would be wrong to say that, just because a rabid hawk takes some steps towards the pacifist end of the spectrum, that doesn’t make him a pacifist; just because the sun goes from high noon to 4 pm, doesn’t make it midnight.) And (b) there has never been and are no persons now who are registered members of the GOP who declare themselves to be socialist. Even if they were moving in that direction unconsciously they are nevertheless also aware that to declare themselves thus would be a normative violation of what their party is all about.
(2) To really sharpen the analogy, we need to imagine a person who is a member of something like the GOP, who is an official in the Party (not just a rank and file member) and who moreover has been reciting once a week in public a formal oath describing his firm commitment to free market economics, an oath created historically as a reaction (in part) against socialism and with the intent of clarifying that the person reciting it is in no way a socialist. Then we need to imagine that person stating that he is a Trotskyite socialist and who wishes to remain an official in the GOP and to continue to recite that oath because he also believes in the oath!