How Much Are We Defined By Negation?
There is an article in the conservative magazine Commentary where a selection of right-wing Jews wondered why all Jews were not right-wing. As a whole it’s fairly dull bit of navel-gazing by people who presumed that they were self-evidently right about what their co-religionists should think about politics. One observation did stand out to me though, and that was Michael Medved’s hypothesis that Jews don’t vote Republican because the Republican party is seen as the “Christian” political party – and one of the things that binds modern Jews is a rejection of Christianity.
“Imagine a dialogue between Woody Allen and a youthful, idealistic emissary of the Hasidic Chabad movement—who might well be the proud father of nine religiously devout children. Both the movie director and the Lubavitcher may be publicly identified as Jews, but they share nothing in terms of religious belief, political outlook, family values, or, for that matter, taste in movies. The one area where they find common ground—and differ (together) from the majority of their fellow citizens—is their dismissal of New Testament theology, with its messianic claims for Jesus.
Anyone who doubts that rejection of Jesus has replaced acceptance of Torah (or commitment to Israel) as the eekur sach—the essential element—of American Jewish identity should pause to consider an uncomfortable question. What is the one political or religious position that makes a Jew utterly unwelcome in the organized community? We accept atheist Jews, Buddhist Jews, pro-Palestinian Jews, Communist Jews, homosexual Jews, and even sanction Hindu-Jewish meditation societies. ‘Jews for Jesus,’ however, or ‘Messianic Jews’ face resistance and exclusion everywhere.”
Medved’s analysis reeks of oversimplification as a explanation for why American Jews vote the way that they do, but it also reveals something that we tend to overlook – the extent to which many of our identities are as much about what we are not as they are about what we are.
What about Protestants? Here I can construct another negative definition, we don’t follow the Pope. We can have all manners of theology, we can baptize people as babies or only as adults, we can have episcopal church structures or not, but whatever else we do, we don’t follow the Pope. As Protestants and Catholics move closer together on a whole range of theological, political and social topics how much will negation be a force in resisting a reconciliation with Latin Christianity? Does rejecting papal authority become the raison d’etre for Protestants even as many of them applaud much of what Benedict XVI says. As more has been revealed about how complicit Joseph Ratzinger was in the cover-up of child abuse, I find this a sufficient reason why I could never support an organization that has virtually no mechanism (or at least none that would ever see practical implementation) for removing this sinister man from being the head of the church. Whatever else the Catholic church says or does, until the Pope is taken down a notch in terms of powers and respect, I have to reject a system that cannot deal with incompetent or wicked leaders.
So I am Protestant because I reject a system that cannot or will not remove an evil man from a position as powerful and influential as that of Pontiff. A system that does not realize that even God’s chosen representatives, even the special world-historical cases (Peter comes to mind here) are not beyond error is one that fails to understand human nature – even on matters theological (again, Peter). To be fair here, governance of churches is a still a fraught problem in many Protestant cases, we probably don’t have a better solution to offer our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. I am all too aware of the cases of evil Protestant leaders who abuse their position as badly as the Medici Popes did the papacy. Roman Catholics, if you are reading this, I am not saying we are doing a better job, merely that I find a structural flaw that I cannot overlook. Thus I have to say “no” to Rome, perhaps on this topic more than I say yes to any particular strain of Protestantism.



My relatives who left Mars Hill skipped Rome and went straight to Eastern Orthodoxy. For them the positive points in Catholic tradition were nothing special in themselves because the Orthodox have those positive things, but without most of the negative things western Catholicism has. So it’s possible to be “not Catholic” and end up “not Protestant” but at least in the West that will generally be the default position for those who stay Christian.
Medved definitely simplifies on a few things. I had a friend who respected him as a film critic for his willingness to evaluate the morality taught by a film. And then came the terrible disillusionment when my friend learned that Medved praised Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, one of the most legendarily terrible films ever made. Most people in my generation probably only know of it now through Mystery Science Theater 3000 here in the States but I digress.
I don’t usually read Commentary as much these days but I’ve found Terry Teachout’s essays on music to generally be very worthy reading.
Praising Santa Claus Conquers the Martians immediately disqualifies you from being a cultural critic. About anything. Ever.
Amen
You’re calling pope Benedict a sinister and evil man in the same post where you charge Medved of oversimplification.
Your example with Peter, did Peter lose his authority because of his humanly flaws?
If God did intend someone to be the head of His church here on earth should it be a person who has no ability to make mistakes? Regardless of how terrible?
There have been very bad popes, but guess what still remains? The holy Catholic Church.
You want the pope to be taken down a notch with respect to his powers, so in effect you would like Catholics and their pope to have less power than they believe God Himself intended the pope to have? No offense, but, for now, maybe it’s a good thing that you’re not catholic.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/09/2010-04-09_pope_chose_not_to_defrock_california_pedophile_priest_bombshell_letters.html This is a man who has done evil things – not beyond salvation, but a man who has not fully acknowledged his crimes and who therefore cannot really repent.
Let me answer a link with a link:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/smoking_gun_memo_in_murphy_paedophilia_case/
But to address your more general point:
Does(has) God instruct us to undermine authority when we find valid reasons to disagree with that authority? (Note, I’m not saying I agree with your views on the pope (evil, sinister))
Are we called to revolt against/break away from authority when we think that those in authority are behaving in an immoral way?
No. And I believe this point has been cornerstone to the Christian faith since its inception.
For better or worse those in roles of authority are ultimately there because of the will of God.
I’m sure I could find more, but here’s a poignant verse:
Romans 13:1 “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
We’re not called to sever unity when we disagree with or are disgusted by the actions of those in authority.
You would like there to be a quick and painless way for the pope to get the boot when he’s sinned. But God knows that no man is free from sin.
We are called to be submissive much more than we are ever called to revolt. And that call for humility and submission isn’t simply a call for when it’s easy, “hey everyone, the boss brought in donuts again. I’m going to do whatever he asks of me!!”
Since the split in Western Christianity happened well before the current leadership, it’s worth it to recall the context in which such a schism arose. The leadership of Latin Christianity had very seriously gone astray – since current Catholic teaching has generally disavowed the practices of the Medici popes I reckon that any good Catholic would agree with such a sentiment. What concerns me about this pope is that his most severe sins are tied to the exercise of his ecclesial authority. The drunkard can be redeemed, but I wouldn’t leave the communion wine at his house straight away. No one in the New Testament was beyond rebuke, nor is it ever taught that Christian has one infallible leader (other than Jesus).
Well in that case we should all be Orthodox, right?
Well,
we should all be united.
Should we all be Roman Catholics? Yes.
That means not Orthodox which means Catholics are just Protestants to the original apostolic church.
I’ve got Eastern Orthodox relatives so it’s not like I don’t ever hear these arguments. Rome merely thinks it has the original deal with the united church.