Mormons vs. Christians, Again

According to the AP, Gordon B. Hinckley, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "defended" the Mormon faith Sunday, saying the beliefs and practices differ from every other church. Specifically, he said, "It is fundamentally different from every other body of religious doctrine of which I know."

Well, no argument there, Gordo. The rest of us have been saying that pretty much since Joseph Smith had his revelation. Your faith is fundamentally different from Christianity.

And yet somehow, in the strange reversible world of Mormonism, Hinkley's argument is intended to support the persistent Mormon claim that they are not fundamentally different -- that they are, somehow, part of the Christian Church.

It's a sort of tired argument, and there is a nice, short piece on it in this week's Christian Century by my seminary classmate Janna Riess, herself a Mormon. Sadly, the Century didn't post the article online. Cutting to the chase, Janna says (more or less) that "If by 'Christian' you mean believing that Jesus is the way to salvation, then we're Christian. If you mean believing that God is the Holy Trinity, then we're not."

This is pretty good, as far as it goes. It is certainly the core of what we traditional Christians have always used as our argument that Mormonism is in fact a different religion: that it offers a dramatically different vision of who God is.

She might have gone a bit further. For example, although there are disagreements among Christians over precisely which ancient texts constitute the rule and norm of faith, we are in universal agreement that the Book of Mormon is a modern forgery, and cannot conceivably be counted among the authentic Scriptures. Likewise, although there are certainly arguments among Christians about eschatology, we are in universal agreement (so far as I know) that Zion will not be rebuilt on the American continent. Neither of these is decisive, however; you can disagree about the canon and the end times and still be a Christian. But you really can't disagree about the Incarnation and the Trinity.

It all boils down to this: the Mormons say -- over and over, especially with one of their own running for president -- that that Christianity can be defined as they define it. The rest of Christianity says that it can't. This isn't an argument that can ever be won, except in the believer's heart.

But look. I can wake up one morning believing that I am a member of the Augusta National Golf Club. Okay, granted, membership is by invitation, and I wasn't invited. And granted, membership fees are a quarter-to-half of a million dollars, more money than I will earn in a lifetime of parish priesting. Still, I believe in my bones that I am a member, because I think the real membership rules -- the secret ones declared by Bobby Jones in 1933, and never written down -- said that all short guys with big mouths were automatically members.

Now, as long as I stay home, the caddies and waiters and so forth may not be able to prove that I'm wrong. But if I show up at the club, they aren't going to let me play, either.

Sigh. It's late at night, and I should probably avoid sports metaphors. But do you see what I'm getting at?

Atheists Pollute

According to a Wisconsin paper, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is sponsoring some anti-religious billboards.

They're actually kind of snappy looking -- faux stained-glass, reading "Beware of Dogma." Frankly, the message has some appeal even for religious people. As the Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson pointed out years ago, a lot of doctrine gets passed off as dogma. That is to say, a lot of religious groups (and religious leaders) want you to belive that their specific teachings are statements of ultimate truth according to a broad religious tradition. For example, the "dogma" of the Immaculate Conception is a local Roman doctrine, pretty much laughed off by every other Christian community in the world. Lutherans may be especially sensitive on this topic, since their Reformation was largely a technical argument about whether certain doctrines -- especially regarding penance -- could legitimately claim dogmatic standing.

So we would approve heartily of these antidogmatic billboards, if only we weren't so committed to the wonders of nature. When we drive, we like to see fields, and trees. Barns, maybe. The occasional stop sign or mile marker.

But FFRF spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says that they want "to place freethought billboards around the country, wherever an irreverent billboard is needed -- which is practically everywhere!" And we have to object, not because we oppose freethought, but because we oppose littering the roadside and polluting the viewshed.

As a wise man once said, "I think that I shall never see / a billboard lovely as a tree. /Indeed, unless the [FFRF] billboards fall / I may never see a tree at all."

This Just In

Cribbed from The Australian:

Bishops of Norway's Lutheran church voted by a close majority to allow gay pastors, a church official told a press conference.

The Bishops Conference, a seven-man and four-woman panel of 11 Norwegian bishops, voted six to five for the measure, said their official representative, Olav Skjevesland. The panel is a consultative body.

Theological doctrine currently followed in the Norwegian church officially excludes people living in the a homosexual union from officiating at services.

Another Norwegian theological consultative body, the 20-member Laerenemnd, met in January 2006, but could not agree a course of action.

At least two openly gay men currently serve as ministers after they were hired by liberal bishops.

The question must now be defined at the Lutheran church's next general Synod, the highest decision-making representative body, which will meet from November 12-17.

It Sounds Prettier in French

Or at least less ugly.

The headline in le Monde reads: "George W. Bush s'oppose à une extension de l'assurance-santé à des millions d'enfants."

The gliding vowels, the nasal twang, the resistance to consonants -- we love the sound of the French language. Too bad the paper is reporting President Bush's opposition to health insurance for millions of children. Here's the lede:

"Average age: 7 or 8 years old. One has rarely seen so young a protest in front of the White House. The children came, Monday October 1, with toy wagons full of petitions for President Bush: Please! Sign the law!"

It's a good idea, health insurance. Saves lives -- in this case, the lives of poor children. Signing it would be "compassionate conservatism" at its best -- a cheap way to support families without, say, guaranteeing that Mom or Dad earn a decent wage. It would reduce ER admissions, thus taking stress off the health-care system that he's desperate not to overhaul. And the tens of millions spent on helping poor American children just might take attention away from the hundreds of billions wasted killing Iraqis.

Of course, Radio Flyers notwithstanding, he won't sign. And why? Because the other team likes it. Because Unca Dick would slap him upside the head if he signed. And above all, because he's the Decider, and he decided against this.

We Couldn't Agree More

"Today, a mega-yacht is indispensable," says Dutch financier Olivier Milliex. "It's not like 15 years ago, when a yacht was a luxury item."

Blackwater Comes Out Okay

We always knew thaey would.

The Pentagon's favorite mercenary army -- I'm sorry, consulting group -- got some bad press lately, what with shooting noncombatant civilians and all. For just a brief monent, it looked like somebody in the Army (the official one, that is) was going to re-think the policy of outsourcing military service.

That would have been bad for Blackwater and its shareholders; worse yet, there might have been a spillover effect that could have affected Halliburton -- and ITS shareholders. That would be a bad thing. After all, if Cheney's pockets started to empty out, he might decide to stay in public service a little longer, just to fill them back up.

But never fear. The Pentagon just issued a $92 million contract to a Blackwater affiliate, the aptly-named Presidential Airlines, to "supply specialized airplanes, crews and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan."

Whew. What a relief. Looks like we're gonna make a profit off this war after all. (And by "we," I mean "they.")

Giuliani An Offensive Hypocrite

Okay, it isn't exactly news. But click the link for the most recent evidence. Here's a recap:

Thrice-divorced (and at least thrice-adulterous) Giuliani gets a lot of scrutiny from religious types. So in an interview with the Christian Boradcasting Network, he goes (surprise!) on the offensive. He protests that "there are a lot of people who are very judgmental," and says "I'm guided, very often, by 'judge not lest you be judged.'"

Okay, now, this is just weird. As New Yorkers know, Giuliani is the most judgmental human being on the face of the planet earth, saving only -- maybe -- a couple of extremist mullahs. This is the guy who tried to evict one of America's most prestigious art museums because he didn't like one of their paintings. His governing style was to war on everybody from the squeegee-wielding homeless guys to welfare mothers. His former politcal ally, and predecessor as mayor, wrote a book called simply "Giuliani: Nasty Man."

So, umm, at least he knows what he's talking about when he says that there are judgmental people in the world.

Giuliani then goes on to talk about his theological study in college, and how "it's an area I know really, really well academically." Hmn. We at the Egg have a pretty fair book-reading knowledge of military strategy, but doubt it would do us much good in a firefight. For that mater, we've read all the Jack Reacher novels, but they haven't made us taller, stronger or more cunning.

See, Rudy, the deal with theology -- and specifically with moral theology -- is that you can't just read about it. You have to live it. "Justification by faith" isn't about cheap grace, old pal. Or didn't they teach Bonhoeffer at your college?

GOP Candidates to Black Americans: "Drop Dead."

All four leading Republican candidates had somewhere else to be, rather than take part in a forum on African-American issues hosted by PBS's Tavis Smiley.

This is despicable, of course. It is bad for the Republicans. It would be worse, of course, if they had any realistic chance of winning over any any black voters except Alan Keyes. Maybe. It would be a lot worse if they hadn't already worked out a gentelemen's agreement with Diebold, to make sure that no black votes get counted in 2008. Also no Muslim votes, no Hispanic votes except in Florida, no Jewish votes over 60, and no northeastern votes except the Romney clan.

Episcopalians Cave; Nigerians Spit in Their Face

Well, friends, we blew it.

The Egg predicted, with great solemnity, that neither side in the Anglican standoff would budge in regard to the Global South ultimatum, and that as September ended, the Anglican Commnunion would cease to exist.

We were so sure of ourselves! After all, we reasoned, for the Americans it was a matter of survival. They have so many gay priests and lay members, as well as so many priests and members committed to the full participation of gay people in the church, that if they were suddenly to change course, there would be an open revolt. At the same time, we reasoned, the Africans won't back down -- their bishops are suddenly leaders on the world scene, exercising power (both persuasive and judicatory) in the mighty United States. The rush must be awesome.

But got it wrong. The Americans caved, and agreed, at least for now, to cease ordaining gay bishops. (Tough news for the Diocese of Chicago). They also agreed not to authorize same-sex union ceremoines, although it is widely anticipated that unauthorized services will continue.

This was a tough call by the Episcopalians. The Presiding Bishop called the actions "sacrificial," and it must certainly feel that way. In order to preserve the unity of the Communion, they sacrificed some of their deeply-held and strongly-defended convictions. Some will argue that they sacrificed the commitments they had made to a generation of churchgoers.

So how do their sisters and brothers worldwide react? Well, there's no doubt a sigh of relief in Canterbury. And you might expect a series a politely-worded communiques from Africa, saying things like "we honor our beloved brothers and sisters in America for having the courage to make a difficult decision, and for having chosen unity." Or something like that.

But you'd be as wrong as we were, friends. Because Archbishop-elect Kwashi of Jos province, in Nigeria, not even ordained himself as yet, could not wait to hold a p[ress conference and declare that "The statement by the US Episcopal bishops should be taken with extreme caution."

How gentlemanly. Not to say how ... Christian.

The slap in the face extends beyond media grandstanding. Archbishop Akinola still intends to consecrate missionary bishops for America, despite the strong objection of Americans that this is an incursion into their territory. Kwashi defends this, saying, "We do not need anybody's permission to preach the gospel . . . When the missionaries came to Africa, they did not get our permission before they arrived. Today, we (Africans) only need visas to get to US, to preach God's word."

Spare us, your grace. Yes, we know that the history of missions is closely linked to the history of colonialism, and that you can play on the heartstrings of affronted Africans and guilty Western liberals alike by allunding to it. But the situations are radically different. There were no Anglicans in Nigeria when the missionaries arrived. And whether you like it or not -- whether in your heart you believe it or not -- there are Anglicans in America right now. So the African missionary bishops are doing something that the English ones did not do: attempting to usurp the dioceses of fellow-Anglicans.

Not bloody sporting, is it?

Iran is Paradise

... for the Republicans. You know why? They don't have any homosexuals there.

We know this because President Ahmadinejad said so in a speech at Columbia, provoking gales of laughter from cynical college students. And what made the laughter cynical? The fact that he said this in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay Iranians.

For more on how the Islamic Republic treats its nonexistent gay people -- including pictures of a torture victim -- cut and paste this link into your browser window:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/01/kidnapped_anoth.html

Anglican Communion: RIP?

It may be over at the end of the month. Click the link for a modestly-worded MSM description, or paste this link into your browser for a triumphalist shout from the Anglican right: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6749

In this case, we think the triumphalists have probably got it, err, right. A formal schism has been coming for years, courtesy of the global south primates, led by Peter Akinola, a friend of freedom everywhere -- if by friend you mean "enemy." Rightly or wrongly (and we think wrongly), the PECUSA was given a deadline to formally abjure a set of convictions and practices to which it is clearly committed. The deadline will expire shortly, and there is no realistic hope of a change on either side of the table. Frankly, both parties have too much at stake.

An Episcopal Church that suddenly drew a hard line on gay issues would shrivel and die within months. People would leave in droves, an exodus compared to which the mild present schism would look irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the bishops of the developing world have simply never exercised the sort of power that this debate gives them. They are prominent as never before, their names in the news and their words attended closely by arrogant northern-hemishere types who never took them seriously.

Nobody will budge, and so, late next week, the worldwide Anglican Communion wil probably be a thing of the past.

Bush Gives Evil a Bad Name

That is a delightful rhetorical jibe in Carlin Romano's piece on the language that political leaders have come to use when talking about terrorism (Chronicle of Higher Education).

Romano's complaint is that "official rhetoric after terrorist acts has become ethically neutral, merely strategic in tone and content." He offers some interesting speculation as to why this might be the case, but mainly he's expressing his irritation. He'd like to see more remarks on the order of Sarkozy's famous reference to French rioters as "scum." He believes -- probably correctly, to judge from Sarkozy's subsequent electoral victory -- that people would like to see more "stern moral judgment" from their elected leaders.

Er, um ... maybe. Gay people in the US already get an awful lot of stern moral judgment from politicos, especially during election cycles, for the precise reason that this is the rhetoric that wins elections. But does that make it wise?

In fact, as more and more anti-gay politicians are forced out of the closet (Craig, Foley ... can Santorum be far behind?), their use of this rhetoric to claim a supposed moral high ground looks both hypocritical and desperate. In the same way, for American leaders to call their opponents "monsters" even as they adopt certain monstrous practices of their own might set them up for an ugly rhetorical comeuppance.

Let's put it very simply. We all know that OBL, AQM, the Taliban and so forth are monsters, by any rational definition. But unless our government is willing (and able) to guarantee that there will be no more secret prisons, Abu Ghraibs, Gitmos, Hadithas, Mahmudiyas -- not to mention Plamegates -- then they really shouldn't be too aggressive about moralistic finger-wagging.

More simply still: glass houses.

Can Anything Good Come Out of Hoover?

Normally, we at the Egg don't spend much time on the Hoover Institution website. Right-wing think tanks don't interest us much, and Hoover's "scholars" are a pretty contemptible crowd of partisan hacks, with few real scholarly attainments.

But we made an exception for Tod Lindberg's essay on the Beatitudes, excerpted from a forthcoming book on the political philosophy of Jesus. Parts of the essay are pointless (Is Jesus "predicting" or "promising"? Ask me why I care). Much of it is humdrum, at least to people who read the work of real Biblical scholars (which Lindberg is not, and does not pretend to be). But the conclusion is worth quoting, and I would except that the Hoover Institute's crummy website won't let me cut-and-paste.

So click the link. And don't tell 'em who sent you.

Sex and Money and Crime

This one's got it all.

Ted Haggard, who may or may not be the most poorly closeted gay man since Liberace, wants you to send him money. Since no church would hire him, he's enrolled in a counseling program (not getting it, mind you, but learning to give) and "won't have adequate earning power for at least two years." No real surprise -- he was always one step away from televangelism. But let's unpack the story a little.

First off, the man is not exactly an impoverished grad student. He and his wife earned $338,000 since 2006. Pocket change to a hedge-fund manager, perhaps, but by the standards of the clergy, this is an almost incredible fortune.

Second, he will be "studying" at the the Univeristy of Phoenix, an on-line degree mill catering primarily to people with jobs, who can't make time for conventional classroom study. So there's no reason he couldn't hold work while he gets a degree. (I shelved library books in college, and proofread legal documents in seminary. If he asks, I'll tell him where to send a resume.)

Third, he wants you to send your momney directly to his family or, failing that, to a charity called Families With a Mission. This group shut down operqtions in Colorado a couple of years ago, but still functions in Hawaii. It is run by a sex offender named Paul Huberty, who during his time as an Air Force lieutenant colonel was convicted of "consensual sodomy, fondling his genitals in a public area, indecent acts and adultery," and has since been convicted in Hawaii of "attempted sexual assault," both per the Denver Post.

Yeah, I'm going to send this guy money. Wouldn't you?

Perhpas best of all is this: Huberty disclaims all knowledge of Haggard, or of any effort to raise cash for his studies. So how bad does Haggard have to be that even repeat sex offenders don't want to be associated with him?

Making Friends in Faraway Places

We love Wonkette. We really do. Something about mean-spirited, sometimes bawdy, political satire just grabs us by our cassock-buttons. And we love this post best of all:

"Nearly five years into the greatest American war ever, Army brass are finally admitting what nearly everyone else on Earth (including Dick Cheney) has known for so many years: Bombing the fuck out of a distant country for no actual reason and killing half a million of its people and scattering its armed military forces and destroying its entire infrastructure and executing its government and raping its children and elderly in torture chambers and forcing its educated and professional classes to flee to other countries is not, in fact, a surefire way to spread democracy in the Middle East."

Click the link for more.

How Serious Are We About Energy?

America's slide into industrial irrelevance continues.

Indian researchers have discovered a way to create biofuel from sunflower oil without heating it up first. (They use a fungus which secretes an enzyme, which ... well, click the link to Wired for details). The end result is a new and more efficient process, which equals cheaper fuel.

This is great news for the world, tyrannical petroleum oligarchs excepted. Cheaper, cleaner fuel is a very good thing. But it may also be disquieting news for those with a deep investment in American self-sufficiency (or, let's face it, hegemony). After all, Indians, not Americans, will hold the patent rights -- once again making our energy supply dependent upon the goodwill of foreign nations.

In the posts following the Wired story, somebody suggests that "we need a new Manhattan Project" searching for renewable energy, and that this won't happen "while Big Oil" runs the government. The author of the original story links to a post about some promising steps in that direction -- a $500 million gift from British Petroleum to some univerities for research, and US Dept. of Energy commitment of $125 million over five years, to create a Joint BioEnergy Institute. Both of these are wonderful ideas, at least in principle. (And if we can assume pure motives for an oil-besotted government and, um, and oil company).

But come now. $625 million is about one-third of the government's $1.9 billion investment in the actual Manhattan Project -- and that's without adjustment for inflation. In constant 1996 dollars, the Manhattan Project cost about $21 billion. To show the kind of seriousness about energy independence that it once showed about killing Japanese civilians, the government would have to triple public/private partnership spending -- or increase its own spending by a little more than one thousand percent.

Oh, and about the $21 billion: Yes, that's a lot of money, compared to my parish budget. But it's only about ten weeks' worth of the Iraq war.

Wiley Coyote Prays for Death

Oh, my mistake. Apparently, it's the Rev. Wiley Drake praying for death. And not his own.

Drake, the Second VP of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently endorsed Mike Huckabee's campaign for President. On his congregation's letterhead, no less. Predictably, this led to questions from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Their name, btw, is a nuisance to type, but a marvel of clarity. As opposed to, say, Thrivent.)

Seems Wiley doesn't like it when people question his judgment, either political or pastoral. Or when they question his tax-exempt status, which is presumably the real issue here.

John Donne On Torture

Nice little bit from Harper's, with a link to a brief quotation from Donne's 1626 Easter sermon. Donne is sometimes dismissed as an apologist for Stuart absolutism, but as some scholars (including, ahem, myself) have argued that, on the contrary, he often employed his prodigious intellect and poet's wit to the task of subtly undermining all manner of received opinions.

Who Has Integrity?

On his Doonesbury page at Salon, Gary Trudeau compiles these remarks three presidential wannabees. As Big Bird used to say, Which of these things is not like the other?

"I missspoke."
-- Mitt Romney, on his earlier suggestion that his sons' work on his presidential campaign was comparable to serving in the military in Iraq

"I misspoke."
-- Rudy Guiliani, on his earlier claim to have spent as much time at Ground Zero as most of the workers

"I made a mistake. I screwed up."
-- Bill Richardson, on his earlier comment that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than a biological characteristic

Megachurch Cancels Gay Janitor's Funeral

. . . 24 hours before it was scheduled to begin.

Click to read the gory details. Bottom line: big old church eager to hold funeral for its sexton. Then gets the willies cause he, um, liked willies. Cancels funeral, insults family. Dead guy's sister claims the pastor is lying about details; he probably is.

What went on behind the scenes? We'll never know. But it barely matters, because we all get the point. Christianists don't like gay people; they dislike 'em so much, they won't even bury 'em.