The pinot noir of the Apocalypse

One should not speak about the end of the world if what one means is the end of our culture, Doesn't sound irrelevant to me...

"[G]ive me a room full of fervent Rapture-believers over this precious bunch anyday" Gee, I didn't know we had to choose!

I have my problems with liberal mainline churches as well, Rod, but if they're so "irrelevant", why do we find ourselves almost constantly talking about them?

Just as the mask has fallen from compassionate conservatism, it's now falling from crunchy conservatism. What will be the next Permaculture feature? Green-friendly snake handling? Just as Mr D'Souza admits that social conservatives would be more comfortable with the Taliban (something the rest of us figured out oh, about 10 years ago) the mainstream religious conservative are finding themselves more comfortable with the pulp fiction theology of Christianists. Kim M

Rod's original post doesn't actually respond to the meeting itself--it responds to New Yorker's report of the meeting. Like the cartoons in the New Yorker, Talk of the Town has a particular slant and so ANYTHING reported in that column will be slanted in that way. The view of this meeting--whatever its faults or merits--is being doubly refracted (through the reporter and through Rod's choice of quotes) and those who comment might ask instead: what is the goal of the reporter in presenting the group as a bunch of effete intellectuals? Is this an accurate portrayal and how do we know?

Can I take the smoked salmon canapes and leave the theology? Nick Suddenly hungry for a lox and cream cheese bagel

Me, I prefer drinking pinot noir and talking about the Seven Seals (or "The Seventh Seal"). Again, though, what I find amusing about this gathering is the thought that a group of sophisticated liberal/progressive Christian theologians gathered for wine and canapes at one of the richest churches in Manhattan are going to come up with a strategy to wean the masses off "Left Behind." The significance of that item is not just what it says about "Left Behind."

Trinity Wall Street is something else. Check out their video website with memmorable (and I do mean memorable) services, such as The Clown Eucharist (May 22, 2005) and The Hip Hop Mass (June 8, 2006). http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/onlinetv/?video (scroll down to the dates)

Nick the Greek, I don't know of an Eastern Orthodox "Left Behind" :) novel series. Of course there's Solovyov's Tale of the Antichrist, if he was Orthodox by then. But I, a conservative Lutheran, recommend to y'all the "Last Days" novels of the Roman Catholic Michael O'Brien, starting with Plague Journal, then Eclipse of the Sun, and finally Father Elijah. (They are three of six novels, the others not being futuristic; I've read two of them, Strangers and Soujourners and Sophia House, but not yet A Cry of Stone. Those five books were all worth reading.) The first two especially got under my skin.

Susan, do you have any numbers to back up your assertions of Catholic and Orthodox decline? I'm not disputing you, but I also don't know that you are accurate. I've seen numbers to back up your assertion regarding Catholic decline -- a priest friend sent me some statistics recently on the collapse of mass-going among Catholics since the 1960s. In terms of sheer numbers, Catholics are doing fine, but the only number worth talking about is who's going to mass. Re: Orthodoxy, it's such a small presence in the US it's hard to know if it's declining, growing or staying static. If you have numbers, post 'em. As a general matter, I think the liturgical churches, insofar as they're declining, it probably has to do with dull homilies and an inability or refusal to teach the faith in a way ordinary people can relate to, or at all. In my experience as a Catholic -- and priests will tell you this -- so many Catholics don't know the first thing about their faith. There was a whole generation of catechists who either by design or omission, failed to pass on the basics of the Catholic faith to the next generation. The Catholic faith is an extraordinary, deep, rich and amazing thing, but it got reduced to felt banners and goop by the post-conciliar church establishment, who also, I think, counted on Catholics to keep coming to mass out of habit. As for the Orthodox church, I have little experience there, but a close friend who left Greek Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism says it's the rote ritualism and worship of the tribe (i.e., more "Greek" than "Orthodox") rather than Jesus that alienated him. All I can tell you is that I'm very blessed to be in a strong, dynamic parish.

Two points: 1. The Mainline Protestants in this brief give me the distinct impression that they view themselves as inherently superior to Evangelicals. They're really no better than the Pharisee who rattled off his good deeds while praying in the Temple, while the Publican merely said, "Be merciful to me, O God, a sinner." If that Pharisee were a 21st-century Mainline Protestant, he would have probably mentioned something about valuing the environment, embracing diversity and multiculturalism, opposing the Iraq War, hating Pres. Bush and voting as a Democrat. 2. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have done a great disservice to the Book of Revelation by serializing it the way they have. For that matter, so have many Evangelicals who waste time speculating about the specific identities of the "beast," the "Antichrist," etc. while ignoring the main point: God will call all to account; His justice will not be stayed forever and He will not only redeem those who embrace Christ but also the physical universe. For what little money I have, the most important part of Revelation are chapters 2 and 3, which discuss the fidelity of various churches. It requires a lot of thought and self-examination. But who needs thought and self-examination when you can have fun speculating on what God has hidden in visions?

The Vestry of Trinity Church were at one time among the biggest slumlords in New York City. In many of the early law cases about the power of government to regulate the health and safety of rental housing, the Vestry was a party, and not because they were caring for widows and orphans. The suicide of the New England lite (and to a lesser extent New York's) over the last 100 years is an important, largely unanalyzed theme of modern American history.

Why would convinced atheists spend much time hanging out, and especially commenting, at a blog like this? Just so that they can bask in their own condescension towards believers liek godisaheretic? Anyway...it always seemed to me that the change afoot in American religion now is the replacement of the skeptical and narcissistic Boomers with more orthodox, open to something beyond themselves younger folk. Which would make that last comment exactly wrong. Which, in turn, shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. The prophets of secular, disenchanted Reason have been promising to sweep away the silly superstitions of uneducated religious folk (primitive and na ve people like...um...Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger?) for centuries now. We're still waiting.

Would somebody PLEASE provide this material to Tom Wolfe and urge him to start writing? It's much too rich to ignore. And if Wolfe is busy, then P.J. O'Rourke would do in a pinch. If P.J.'s occupied, then call Rob Long, and ask him to collaborate with Mark Steyn. This event DESERVES a lengthier skewerin..., er, "treatment"! Wolfe's "Mau-Mauing the Flack-Catchers" came immediately to mind. If only Hunter Thompson had chosen to stick around....

Blog Goliard: "Why would convinced atheists spend much time hanging out, and especially commenting, at a blog like this? Just so that they can bask in their own condescension towards believers liek godisaheretic?" Maybe you could engage people with whom you disagree instead of casting aspersions on them. I've seen you've been good at that in other posts too.

Susan S: "Except there is little evidence of this. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend not to be "orhtodox" believers; they are fundamentalists. There is a significant difference." Well put!

Susant S: "As much as folks like Rod like to demean Episcopalians and other Mainline Protestants, in reality the faith-experience of orthodox Catholics and the Orthodox is much closer to those denomenations than they are to nondenominational megachurches and store-front Pentecostals." Response: It seems to me that they agree more with anybody who advances their conservative political agenda than who really share their values and beliefs. I wonder how Rod would feel when many of these same fundies would call the Catholic Church the Harlot of Babylon. Sadly enough I've been around them enough to know how they tend to think and it would be in no way pleasing to Rod. But they are pro-choice and Conservative so we can overlook some "small" deficiencies in critical reasoning skills. See you at the next fundie meeting Rod! We'll see if there are ways we can permutate Benedict's name to see if "666" comes out of is somehow!

Why would convinced atheists spend much time hanging out, and especially commenting, at a blog like this? Just so that they can bask in their own condescension towards believers liek godisaheretic? Anyway...it always seemed to me that the change afoot in American religion now is the replacement of the skeptical and narcissistic Boomers with more orthodox, open to something beyond themselves younger folk. Which would make that last comment exactly wrong. Which, in turn, shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. The prophets of secular, disenchanted Reason have been promising to sweep away the silly superstitions of uneducated religious folk (primitive and na ve people like...um...Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger?) for centuries now. We're still waiting. Blog Goliard I can't speak for all atheists. I imagine you feel the same way about attempting to speak for all Christians. I haunt two kinds of discussion forums and comboxes. The big dawg is metal fabrication stuff. The fun puppies for me are Rod's place and Julie Lyon's place over at Unfair Park. I believe the motivations are the same. I have experience and have developed opinions on the topics. And, and this and is of Grand Canyon proportions, I'm here to learn. One of the secrets to learning I believe is to accept all statements as questions. Primarily because I believe that it's true, statements are questions when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. They're better than questions because they challenge you to look for a reply while a question asks you to do so. It would be nice if there was something new under the sun. There isn't when it comes to human behaviors. That's why people like Plato and Socrates are more popular today than they were back in their day. Religious dogma is and always will be in a state of flux. That's because it's a living thing always trying to compensate, not for the human condition, but the circumstances of the human condition. We can look back in history and see the changes in religious dogma have always been reactions to changes in the secular knowledge available. The changes have always been twixt and tween. Twixt liberalizing to embrace the new knowledge and circumstances and tween tween minimizing the new knowledge and circumstances as important to the dogma. Sometimes twixt was the most popular force. Sometimes the tween carried the day. But neither has been a consistant winner in the popularity wars. That's because dogma is a patch in a world that wants a permanent fix. I wish Rod would sit down and seriously look at the message of the evangelicals whose success these days intrigues him. If he scraped away all the gloss and looked at just the message he would understand why the evangelical wave is so strong. It's Hollywood for gawd's sake. It's about "you too can be a winner." People buy it. Look at American Idol if you don't believe me.

We're talking semantics. The sociologist James Davison Hunter nearly 20 years ago put his finger on why I identify more with conservative Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox (and even Jews) than with progressive members of even my own communion. The dividing line is now not between various expressions of Christianity, but within those communions. What many of us call small-o orthodox Christians believe that truth is objective and transcendent, and that it is the responsibility of we humans to conform ourselves to that Truth. Where we disagree is what that Truth requires of us, but we all agree that the individual conscience is not the final arbiter, and that we are the ones who need to change. The progressives believe that religion is an expression of the individual conscience, is subjective and therefore quite malleable. This is why a progressive Catholic has more in common with a progressive Presbyterian than either has in common with orthodox members of their own communion. In Rieffian terms, the small-o orthodox see religion as prophetic, the progressive modernists see it as therapeutic. I'm not saying I feel "warm and cozy" with the fundamentalists. I am saying that in the broad scope of things, I'm on their side of the fence.

Rod: "The dividing line is now not between various expressions of Christianity, but within those communions. What many of us call small-o orthodox Christians believe that truth is objective and transcendent, and that it is the responsibility of we humans to conform ourselves to that Truth." Rod: It is one dimensional and very presumptuous to paint the picture in that light. What "truth" do you anchor yourself to? The "truth" that fits your core value- i.e. abortion is wrong, for example. (By the way, I happen to agree with you on that one) Did you anchor yourself to the truth of what Jesus said about "loving your enemies" when you initially supported the war (pre-epiphany Rod?). What I believe you fail to see (or you simply will not or cannot admit to yourself) is that you too pick and choose your issues. You emphasize one issue over another. Hence that "truth" that you so fondly speak of happens to be just as malleable for you as it is for the theological liberals whom you oppose. Have fun with Pope-hating snake handlers!

M_David: Mocking Fundies and Catholics Susan S: ...As opposed to mocking Mainline Protestants and Muslims? I wasn't mocking anyone with my post, Susan S. Muslims? Huh? Could you please point to my specific sin instead of doing a drive-by ad hominem attack?

M-David: "Mocking Fundies and Catholics is just the beginning of the dehumanizing process needed before real persecution." Well, David, it all must come to pass so that the Lord can come and rapture us poor Bible-believing Christians away from this evil, evil world. It is so tiring to hear American Christendom complain about being socially marginalized when they sit there with their 503(c) tax exempt organizations and radio stations propagating their message. Not that they have ever insulted anybody or even hurt a fly.

I think your attacks on Muslims goes without saying, Rod. As for condescension towards Mainline Protestants, I think that is equally self-evident.

Pardon me M_David. You implied with your response that I meant *everyone* *must* take off the collar. Let me ask it a different way: What business is it of anyone else's if someone decides to take that collar off? How are you or me or anyone else hurt by it? I mean actually hurt, not in some nebulous, unfatomabel, unquantifiable "well, it just does" kind of way...

"the skeptical and narcissistic Boomers" Please refrain from casting 75 million persons, born over 20 years, into one category. As if people can help when they are born, or if the period of their birth makes them all equally culpable of whatever flaws mark their era. Plenty of 40-60 year olds go to church and even voted for Bush - oh wait, now that's a bad thing. It's hard to keep up with the ever shifting sands of responsibility-avoidance in the conservative world. Anyway, the New Yorker piece sound like Dorothy Parker could have written it. How to take selective quotes out of context to make people seem like fools. I haven't found mainline protestants irrelevant. Like the Catholic church, they distribute food and services to the poor and disenfranchised in my area- unlike area mega-churches that feature espresso shops, whose pastors own private planes and have their entire extended family on the church payroll. Religious resurgence? More like marketing applied to faith. Christianity Lite. Half the commandments, twice the self-satisfaction.

That should have read "Not weird" instead of "Now weird".

Harvey Lacey: "Some of those signers were theists and some were ministers of the Gospel. But all of them seemed to understand there would be people willing to pervert their statement from one about rights to one about their own faith." You mean to tell me that the US wasn't founded by all white evangelical slaveholders walking lockstep like D James Kennedy would have us to believe? My illusions are shattered! That might mean that we're not God's chosen people, a shining light on a hill that can at its wit and whim go around invading other countries because after all, God is on our side! Man, and I thought we had something good going here. That might mean that the Republicans aren't God's party merely because they oppose abortion and gay rights! Oh no! Innocence where hath thou gone? I can't handle it! Take me home now, Lord! Take me home!

M_David have you ever wondered why in the Declaration of Independence all of the signers agreed to use "Creator" instead of "God"?...Some of those signers were theists and some were ministers of the Gospel. But all of them seemed to understand there would be people willing to pervert their statement from one about rights to one about their own faith I know the history of the Declaration. Why do you imply I am "perverting" this statement into my "own faith"? My faith has nothing to do with this discussion. Creator or God? What's the difference for the point that I'm making? (which is that human rights are given to us by some supreme being, and thus progressives can't take them away as they did in Russia). elizabeth writes: Christianity Lite. Half the commandments, twice the self-satisfaction. Zing! I love it.

Now, as to the critique. A church got together to discuss various other theologies being presented in other churches. And why some churches were experiencing greater growth than theirs. They come from the perspective that the other theology is inaccurate and theirs is right. (This should be assumed, given that if it was the other way around, wouldn't THEY join the other churches?) And look for a way to present their own message in a way that would draw more people to their own church. Other than that it was a wealthy church and not a poor one, and it was done over pinot noir and canapes, and not beer and nachos, what, exactly is the problem there?

Kannbrown65: Other than that it was a wealthy church and not a poor one, and it was done over pinot noir and canapes, and not beer and nachos, what, exactly is the problem there? Answer: Rod's constituency is of the beer and nachos kind (including only legal Mexicans, of course).

Susan S.: Your unwillingness to acknowledge the differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is quite common, but it's simply wrong. But both groups are frankly more orthodox in adherence to the traditional creeds than the mainline denominations who don't regard basics like the divinity of Christ as important. As for your demeaning of conservatives, why is it that folks like you always choose symbols, such as "nondenominational megachurches" and "store-front Pentecostals," over substance? The great majority of megachurches are denominational, and the extremely vast majority of Evangelicals do not attend them - only about 3%. And at the 1,000 attender level, non-evangelical protestants are almost identical to evangelicals. About 15% of non-evangelicals attend churches of 1,000 or more. The number is about 14% for evangelicals. And I don't know why you have to pick on storefront churches. Do you have any actual data regarding how many churches this includes? Kannbrown65: Your list of what Evangelicals allegedly have suggests you are also just spouting talking point stereotypes. The vast majority of Evangelicals strongly reject prosperity theology. Those who hold to it are the most likely to have their bullhorns turned up to 11, attracting the attention of various news media. As far as the emotional stuff...you don't get out much. And how is that different from large ornate old churches with massive pipe organs, big stained glass windows, professional choirs, orchestras, etc.? Speaking of Episcopal churches, you should visit St. James in Chicago sometime. They have lots of classical music concerts. I guess the extremely wealthy liberals in their Gold Coast high rises (just another form of gated community) have to have their entertainment. Rod: I don't know if I'll be able to find it, but I recently ran across some research from the Episcopal church that confirms the stereotypes of elitism. Even blogger Hugo Schwarz once joked that the vestry meetings at All Saints in Pasadena were just an excuse for a catered wine and cheese party.

I wrote: "Even blogger Hugo Schwarz..." Uhhh, make that Schwyzer. It's late. I'm tired.

Oh, and so, if you disagree with Prosperity Theology, I'd suggest taking that up with those propagating it. And with its rapid spread (probably along with alot of heart break or feelings of guilt) in Africa and Latin America. Given the economic conditions in those countries, I have a feeling quite a few people, once they get past the point where the donations feel like wealth in sheer comparison to their previous poverty, are going to feel less than blessed.