Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's conversion story

"Thus, what originated as a struggle to discredit pretensions to intellectual authority has ended, at least in the American academy, in a validation of personal prejudice and desire."

And an inclination in some circles to call anyone who accepts religious authority a bigot.

quote: "But I can't conceive of how someone with a sense of history could decide that one religious tradition is the keeper of foundational truth. Why not try the liberal reform traditions, which build the individual conscience - a non-negotiable in our American creed - into their theologies?"

How could it be otherwise? All religious traditions (and atheism) make claims that contradict each other. They can't all be correct.

For their part, the liberal reform traditions have shown themselves to be intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. Today they amount to little besides aping the fades and ever changing priorities of the secular left. Frequently this means attempting to dress up leftism in religious language. But what's the point? If the message of ones church or synagogue differs little from the editorial page of "The Nation" or "The New York Times" one might as well stay in bed or go golfing instead of to service. Which is precisely what people have done. It's no wondering these kinds of "mainline" churches such as the Episcopal Church have lost members by the droves since the 1960s and on average have smaller and grayer congregations. Demographically, the liberal reform tradition is on its way out.

And yes, I've attended both what would be called "traditional" and "progressive" churches for considerable amounts of time. I heard far, far more about politics from the pulpit of the "progressive" church than any "traditional" church I've ever attended.

rr

"If the message of ones church or synagogue differs little from the editorial page of "The Nation" or "The New York Times" one might as well stay in bed or go golfing instead of to service."

says who? you?

"And yes, I've attended both what would be called "traditional" and "progressive" churches for considerable amounts of time. I heard far, far more about politics from the pulpit of the "progressive" church than any "traditional" church I've ever attended."

such a claimed perception reveals little than your own (obvious) biases, preconceived notions and biases.

"justice sunday"? "justice sunday II"? hello? i'd say such "politics" in right wing evangelical/pentecostal/fundamentalist churches is far more coordinated and damaging than anything a feminist UCC pastor talking about tolerance could ever do.

you know what's intellectually bankrupt, rr? any moral argument that ultimately relies on a "god/god's book said so". not that you would be able to suspend your belief in the rightness of your religion, even for a second, to see that.

"god said so." can there be a worse argument for a person's temporal authority of any kind? there is not, which is why these awful academics using that nasty stuff called "reason" to explore even the most difficult questions rankles the rod drehers of this world so, because, darn it, "god said so" just doesn't cut it. it's intellectually bankrupt as hell.

Just because not all religions can be true, doesn't mean one must be true. If reality could be perfectly described by some set of human propositions (what hubris!), it would be much more likely to draw from a variety of the traditions, no?

But really, to treat religions as primarily sets of propositions is impossibly rationalistic, isn't it? Religions are built on the experience of that which can't be nailed down (ahem) by human language.

This is why theologians, I've found, are among the most enthusiastic postmodernists. Theology and postmodern theory are the only fields that refuse the Enlightenment.

I belong to a reform church that is strong in social justice (a dominant scriptural theme), but our notions of not only original sin but also individual conscience come from Calvin. This is hardly postmodern woo-wah. In a way it's the fundamental insight of Protestantism -- a priesthood of all believers -- and of America.

Good Article.

Cannoneo,

Isn't this a bit of a cop out. just because you think the world can't be "perfectly described by some set of human propositions" now all of a sudden no proposition suffices....surely as a Christian you know Jesus gave many propositions.

Buddhism prescribes a moral behavior code without reference to divine authority. A practicing Buddhist learns to understand deeply that what hurts anyone hurts me. When there is no distinction between you and me, there is no motive for harming. The lists of virtues to cultivate, and harmful behaviors and emotions to avoid, are the same as Christian virtues.

There is something to the idea that Marxism is just a flavor of Western religion.

Jon E, Elizabeth -

More likely, Jon, Fox-Genovese, like Neuhaus, kept asking important questions about existence, which inevitably lead to the mystery of God...

Questions that Buddhism does not contemplate, Elizabeth.

And questions Jon is choosing to avoid...which avoidance conveniently requires no capacity at all.

Chris B

quote: ""justice sunday"? "justice sunday II"? hello? i'd say such "politics" in right wing evangelical/pentecostal/fundamentalist churches is far more coordinated and damaging than anything a feminist UCC pastor talking about tolerance could ever do."

Well, it depends on how you define "damaging." I see most leftist ideas as inherently "damaging." So something tells me that we aren't going to agree on that. I fully grant that some traditional, orthodox churches are involved in politics. But many aren't.

What is really important, however, isn't the level of political involvement, though I'd argue that on average "progressive" churches are more politically active than orthodox ones. The real issue is the source of a church's ideas and politically involvement. Orthodox churches start with their theology and the extent of their political involvement (e.g. opposition to abortion or "gay marriage") flows from their theology. "Progressive" churches start with left wing political ideology (ex: Marxism, feminism) and allow it to determine their theology. In other words, the "progressives" have things backward from how they should be.

If all orthodox churches totally disengaged from politics tomorrow à la the Amish they would still have a purpose. Life would very much go on for them. "Progressive" churches on the other hand wouldn't have much to talk about or much to do without politics.

quote: "you know what's intellectually bankrupt, rr? any moral argument that ultimately relies on a "god/god's book said so". not that you would be able to suspend your belief in the rightness of your religion, even for a second, to see that."

LOL! What a joke. If one presupposes that God exists and that he is a completely sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God, then "God/God's book said so" is a perfectly logical moral argument.

It's not that I can't "suspend my belief in the rightness of my religion." Indeed, I've read a number of atheist philosophers, especially Nietzsche and Sartre. I went through a phase in which I considered atheism. I think there is a case for atheism, although I'm certainly not an atheist. Nonetheless, I've yet to hear a logical case for the existence (or even relevance) of ethics in a world without God. Oh, I've heard a lot of sentimentalism about being "good" (whatever that means) in a world without God. I've also heard a lot of emotional reactions to the question itself. But none of these count. Which is why I wouldn't believe or be interested in ethics if I was an atheist.

rr

rr

rr is totally discounting Buddhism, without explaining why (except by begging the question." Is there some reason his/her name sounds like a growl?