Recently in Christianity (general) Category

Strong words from A.N. Wilson, the prominent Anglican revert, about Pope Benedict's overture to disaffected Anglican conservatives. Excerpts:

The numbers of practicing Catholics in England is greater than the number of practicing Anglicans. Within a generation, there will probably be more Muslims than practicing Anglicans in the British Isles. Britain will no longer be able to endure the absurdity of the laws relating to the religion of the monarch, the Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act, which among other things forbid the sovereign to marry a Catholic. Or the Coronation Oath, which promises to uphold the Protestant religion.

Britain has gone through a truly prodigious change in the last 30 years. It has moved from being a largely white culture with Christianity as its background religion to being a completely secular, multicultural society. The ease and good humor with which this revolution has occurred has made Britain -- and especially London -- an amazingly interesting place to be right now. A genial secularized liberalism is the new norm. ...In such a climate, the Church of England had no chance at all of surviving.

He goes on to explain that the C of E will have to be disestablished, because almost no one believes in it anymore. He goes on.:

The paradox is that a move by a conservative pope to ease the tender consciences of conservative-minded Anglicans will actually be a move toward the complete secularization of Britain, and an acceptance of its new multicultural identity.

It's a bit unclear exactly where Wilson stands on this. It seems that he's a liberal in politics and religion both, and so can't decide whether the pope has done a good or a bad thing. The headline on the NYTimes piece blames the Pope for splitting the Anglican Church. Writers don't choose their headlines, but if indeed that's what Wilson is saying, I think he's wrong. The Church of England was badly split before Pope Benedict offered a hand to traditionalist Anglican Christians. The Pope's move was a bold one, and, I imagine, one seen as hostile by more than a few Anglicans. But Benedict is doing what he can to save what can be saved of Christianity in Britain, and in Europe, or so it seems to me.

It took the last line of Vatican journalist Sandro Magister's analysis -- excerpted below -- to make the brilliance of Pope Benedict's outreach to Anglicans click with me:

In any case, the communities that are ready to enter the Catholic Church are part of the "traditionalist" wing of the Anglican Communion.

Also traditionalist are the schismatic Lefebvrist communities that Benedict XVI is making increasing efforts to bring into obedience to Rome.

And also attached to the grand tradition are the Orthodox Churches which seem to be having more productive encounters with the current pontiff. From October 16-23 in Cyprus, the second round of dialogue - the first was in Ravenna, in 2007 - is being held between Catholics and Orthodox on the question of papal primacy, in the light of how it was lived during the first millennium.

Today more than ever, with Joseph Ratzinger as pope, the ecumenical journey seems not a pursuit of modernity, but a return to the terrain of tradition.

Of course! Benedict knows that the only Christians who are going to survive intact over the coming decades are those communities firmly rooted in tradition. Liberal Anglicans simply aren't going to make it, and not because they're bad people, but because there's precious little solid ground upon which they can stand as a distinctly Christian community against the strong currents of modernity. Benedict is trying to gather in as many faithful traditionalists as he can. What a blessing it would be if he and the Orthodox patriarchs could come to an understanding that could pave the way for reunion. Personally, I don't see how it could be done, given the wide divergence between Orthodox and Catholic theology since the Great Schism. But with God, all things are possible -- and I think as a purely secular matter (that is, for the sake of establishing a united front for the preservation and growth of the faith against a de-Christianizing world), re-establishing communion between Eastern and Western Christianity would be great for both. Long may this pope -- and the ecumenism of tradition -- live and prosper!

(Photo of Pope Benedict and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew by Josh Trevino, via Flickr)

News from the Vatican today makes it easier for fed-up Anglicans to convert to Catholicism without leaving everything behind. Excerpt:

A new canonical entity will allow Anglicans "to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony," Cardinal William Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here on Tuesday.

The move creates a formal structure to oversee conversions that had previously been evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including those of married Anglican priests, who are permitted to remain married after they convert to Catholicism. Called Personal Ordinariates, the structure will consist of local Catholic faithful overseen by Anglican prelates who will provide guidance to Anglicans seeking to convert.

Under the new regime, former Anglicans who become Catholic can preserve some liturgical elements of the Anglican Mass.

Here's the oddest part to me:

In a joint statement, the Vatican's archbishop of Westminster and Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, said that the new structure "brings to an end a period of uncertainty for such groups who have nurtured hopes of new ways of embracing unity with the Catholic Church."

The Vatican's decision, they said in a statement of unity between the two churches, was "further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks for all the world like a face-saving compromise for Canterbury, and a way for Rome to deal with what Roman ecumenists see as an unwanted source of diplomatic anxiety. Anyway, I'm glad to see this development, even if it leaves me with more questions over how it will work than answers. Like: how does this differ from the Anglican Use provision? Help me out here, readers.

The urbanist Joel Kotkin says Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win says a lot about the priorities of Europe -- they have no leaders of their own, so they're trying to co-opt one of ours they imagine thinks like them -- and little about Obama. Writes Kotkin:

Indeed it's likely that if Obama wanted to run for presidency of the E.U., he could mail it in. Unfortunately for him, he presides over a country that faces a very different future from that of Europe.

This is not to say we cannot learn from Europe in certain areas--namely fuel economy and health care. Republicans dropped the ball on both of these issues, and as a result both our health care system and automobile efficiency pale next to those of the continent.

Still, the reality is that America and Europe are very different, which would necessitate disparate policy approaches. Our growing divergence with Europe spans everything from demographics to economic needs and basic values. In all these areas, the gap is likely to increase over time.

This is why the Obama Administration's Europhilia, now likely to become more pronounced, represents a dangerous temptation.

He goes on to explain why. I thought this was especially interesting:

There are other critical differences. Americans remain more religiously minded. One analyst, David Hart, has spoken of Europe's "metaphysical boredom." Half or more of Europeans never attend church, compared with barely 20% in the U.S.

Among younger Europeans, the loss of traditional Christian identity--with its focus on long-term commitments, sacrifice and responsibility--is virtually complete: According to one Belgian demographer, barely one in 10 young adults in the E.U. maintains any link to an organized religion. In contrast roughly 60% of Americans, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey, believe religion is "very important," twice the rate of Canadians, Britons, Koreans or Italians and six times the rate of French or Japanese.

Some observers, both in America and abroad, see this spiritualism, particularly among evangelical Christians, as reflecting a kind of social retardation. Yet belief in America is remarkably varied, extending beyond groups that are easily classified as liberal or conservative. In America, a broad "spiritual" focus--dating from the earliest founders and continuing through the transcendentalists and Walt Whitman--persists as a vital force. Even President Obama, whose base tends to be secular, has made much of his religious ties.

I mentioned in an earlier blog post how little I really know about megachurch Christianity, which is huge where I live, North Texas. If you don't live in Dallas or its environs, that's probably your stereotypical idea of what religion is like here. But unlike every other place I've lived, the Protestant mainline churches are still pretty vigorous, and well-attended. The gay MCC church Cathedral of Hope is big. The largest mosque in Texas is here. And so on. Going to religious services is mainstream in the Dallas area in a way I've never seen elsewhere in America. Mind you, Dallas isn't representative of America, but I wonder if, on religious matters, it's true that Dallas is to America as America is to Europe.

Moving along, I think there may be less to this Godly America/Godless Europe thing. If it's true that the religion of America's tomorrow is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, how much better off are we, anyway? Collin Hansen writes:

For the purposes of restraining sin and promoting the common good, MTD is useless. Those previously disposed to ethical behavior need no vapid creed that tells them to be good, nice, and fair. For those who seek selfish gain by any means, MTD offers no compelling alternative. Smith and Denton write, "What we hardly ever heard from teens was that religion is about significantly transforming people into, not what they feel like being, but what they are supposed to be, what God, or their ethical tradition wants them to be."

If orthodox Christianity gives way to MTD, American public life may further degenerate into a feel-good free-for-all. No merely civil religion, especially one shaped by MTD, can long sustain a free republic by itself. A nation committed only to liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be left wondering why life is so unfulfilling.

Strangely, that's the feeling I got about North Texas culture from reading Hank Stuever's "Tinsel," which tracks the celebration of Christmas here. Oh, we're all super-Jesus-y in the Dallas area, but the impression one is left with is that despite the megachurch religiosity regnant in the 'burbs, there's a deep hole people keep trying to fill with stuff, and with the manic pursuit of success.

Question: From a Christian point of view, is it better to live in a society where Christianity is virtually dead, replaced by secular materialism, or in a society where Christianity has been hollowed out by an emotionally satisfying but largely counterfeit version of the faith? Is it better to have nominal Christianity, or no Christianity at all? I don't think this is an easy question to answer. On the one hand, I was deeply impressed by Kierkegaard's "Attack Upon Christendom," in which he denounced the state Lutheran church as antithetical to real Christianity. His point, more or less, was that insofar as institutionalized Christianity leads people to believe that by going through the motions of a social Christianity, they have become true Christians, the experience of Christianity inoculates the individual against the real thing. On the other hand, the thought of raising my children in a place in which the Christian faith, or any religious faith, is largely alien to the community is troubling to me.

Today is the anniversary of the 1517 1571 battle of Lepanto, in which the European Christian navy clashed with the Ottoman Turkish armada in a fight that would determine whether Western Europe remained Christian, or fell to the Turkish Islamic yoke. It was a tremendous, indeed miraculous, victory for the Christians, who had appealed to the Virgin for her intercession. Michael Novak tells the tale well. And here is a link to Chesterton's famous poem about the battle. Vivat Hispania et Domino Gloria indeed!