Blogs > Cliopatria > For A Chun Festschrift: "Thou Art the Man" ...

Jun 27, 2004

For A Chun Festschrift: "Thou Art the Man" ...




Adam Kotsko and the University Without Condition have issued a call for a festschrift of posts in honor of Chun the Unavoidable. Such a thing might take the form of"a roast" to honor the troll in question. But as Fontana Labs and Ogged at Unfogged got me to admit, I'll miss his Unavoidability and thus my contribution:

As Kotsko notes, Chun is not wholly retired. He's recently been spotted commenting over at Crooked Timber and a number of us recently received an e-mail from him. My only objection to it was that Scott McLemee was not included on the list of recipients. I wouldn't take that personally, Scott. Michael Berube didn't make the Unavoidable One's charmed inner circle either. That's odd because they've even exchanged pleasant words with each other, but those who turned him intoa verb were included. I've suspected all along that Chun secretly craves discipline from a strong woman:"Chun me! Chun me! Chun me!"

Being a historian of religion, however, I am more inclined to Chun my particular religious sect: the United Methodist Church. At least since the time of H. L. Mencken, we Methodists have been subjected to all sorts of criticism from the best of circles. If there ever were a cult of middle-brow religious mediocrity, we are it. We pimp and prostitute the form of church to every wave of religious fashion in hopes of stemming the tide of our decline in national influence. We've simply lost what Garry Wills calls all principle of rejection in favor of big tent spirituality.

Despite his lack of serious religious commitment, Chun turned me onto this rant with his e-mail, which calls attention to thismystery. Now, I don't claim to have solved it and don't even know that it's worth paying attention to, but what caught my eye was that the attorney at the heart of it apparently has a doctorate in theology from Drew University. Now, that just burns my buns, because: a) Drew is an affiliate of the United Methodist Church, b) its theological education is conducted with the endorsement of my sect, c) some of us have hard earned academic degrees from the place when it was doing respectable post-undergraduate theological education, d) there is increasing evidence that, in desperation to fill student ranks, it has admitted and credentialed some certifiable idiots, and e) this particular fellow appears to be among them. As Chun points out, his"doctoral dissertation ... seems to report on the implementation of a catechism in a small Methodist church near Kilgore, TX." But we have no principle of rejection. I say all of this – not because this character or, even, Drew's declension, is worthy of much attention (tho faculty members, administrators, and trustees there, should worry about it) -- but because my sect has no principle of rejection.

There's been a lot of attention lately to the Roman Catholic hierarchy's attitude toward politicians, particularly Catholic politicians, who advocate policies in conflict with official church doctrine. Insofar as that has seemed to threaten politicians who advocate abortion rights or gay liberation, the threat of withholding communion from such politicians has drawn considerable criticism from the Left. In part, I share in that criticism, because it looks like a cudgel instead of a cross. But I submit to you that much of it is a conscientious attempt to discern the boundaries of church. Would that my own sect cared as much.

That the looney lawyer from Kilgore, Texas, to whom Chun refers has a doctorate in theology from a United Methodist university – from my alma mater – embarrasses me, but it doesn't embarrass me nearly as much as the fact that both the President and the Vice President of the United States are also members of my middlebrow religious sect, which has no principle of rejection. I am embarrassed about the fact that prior to the invasion of Iraq, members of its Council of Bishops sought and were denied audiences with the President or the Vice President to express their concerns about it.

What would it take to get the bishops of the United Methodist Church to gather up their collective Christian gonads and say to George W. Bush of Crawford, Texas, as the prophet Nathan said to King David:"Thou art the man! This is the Word of the Lord ...." Thou art the man who squandered international good will after our national tragedy in foolish unilateral retribution. Thou art the man who has squandered national resources in misdirected vengeance. Thou art the man whose regime has condoned torture of the children of God and denied others the crumbs from our tables. Thou art the man who has given relief to the wealthy and turned the poor away from the edges of our fields. Thou art the man who would seduce religious communities with handouts in return for political support. Thou art the man, George, and this is the Word of the Lord.

Never fear. It won't happen. My middle-brow religious sect has no principle of rejection.
Postscript: If my rant seems inappropriate to a history blog, go read The Elfin Ethicist's"History Is Boring". His passion and compassion makes clear exactly why it is not.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Jonathan Dresner - 6/29/2004

I do believe in drawing lines (though I draw them more broadly than the Orthodox or Catholic), making important distinctions ("Judeo-Christian" obliterates centuries of history and foundational theological distinctions, usually because the writer is too lazy to tell the difference) and supporting principles -- like civility -- with words and deeds.

But, in spite of Mr. Morgan's attempt to draw a line through a point, I am much more inclined to invoke broad principles which allow a range of realizations -- a "fuzzy logic" approach, if you will -- than to articulate hard and fast and arbitrary rules. For example, when I teach my students citation, I tell them that the format does not matter as long as it is consistent (so it is comprehensible), complete (work and page), and allows the reader to clearly distinguish between quoted, paraphrased and original work. Only in courses specifically for history majors do I insist on full-bore humanities-style footnoting. (and the way things are going, with each individual journal having it's own citation style, I'm not inclined to be too picky about that at this point either, as long as they have full bibliographic information and can reconstruct any kind of citation when necessary)

So, as I said, I like the idea of rejection, but I have to be pretty heavily provoked to invoke it.


Ralph E. Luker - 6/28/2004

Good point, Jonathan, but I do think that you are fairly clear about the necessity of boundaries. You draw them fairly sharply when you sense that someone is overstepping them in terms of propriety on the discussion boards. And, I think I've seen both you and David Salmanson in different contexts reject the hyphenation "Judeo-Christian" as a kind of Christian imperialist venture. Or am I missing your point?


Ralph E. Luker - 6/28/2004

Adam, I think that is a very interesting observation. As I recall, John Wesley never actually left the Anglican communion and refused to call the superintendents of his enterprise "bishops." It was only in America and its missionary extensions that Methodist superintendents claimed the title of "bishop." In fact, until 1939, one major branch of American Methodism, the Methodist Protestant Church, shunned that title for their superintendents. I never knew all of that until I went to seminary and it left me with doubts about the authority of Methodist bishops. In practical terms, they wield even more power that Catholic bishops do, but Wesley's position gave me a respect for the claim of apostolic descent, to say nothing of the obligations of apostolic dissent.


Jonathan Dresner - 6/28/2004

I go back and forth on the principle of rejection. Ultimately, I come down on the Reform, rather than Orthodox side. The Orthodox say "follow these rules and be within the fold; challenge or ignore these rules and we reject you." The Reform say "Work within these principles and we may coexist; work against these principles and we'll talk." But even there, a line is drawn.

What Judaism, and United Methodism, lacks is the hubris to claim that the condemnation of the group has any non-secular consequence, whereas the Roman Catholic Church has never had that problem.


Adam Kotsko - 6/28/2004

Could the ineffectuality of the United Methodists be partly the effect of institutionalizing a movement that was intended to be a temporary, emergency measure within an already established "catholic" church body?

(I plan on reading a completely unhealthy amount of Wesley this summer for the WTS conference, so maybe later I can add some "nuance" to that assessment.)


Richard Henry Morgan - 6/27/2004

The NCC has promulgated hundreds of resolutions -- three in support of grape-pickers alone. But it has never passed a resolution in favor of civil rights and democracy for Cuba, nor condemned Castro for the lack of said. In fact, the NCC has helpfully distinguished between those regimes that repress in order to deny justice, and Cuba which represses in order, it claims, to promote justice.

Some years back, with the Cuban Foreign Minister, the NCC particpated in a Solidarity With Cuba event at Seattle during the WTO talks. There, the Rev. Joan Campbell of the NCC repeated Cuban propaganda to the effect that Castro had been invited to attend the event, and had been scheduled to appear, but had to cancel because of security threats from the Cuban ex-pat community in the US. She also attended a Castro political rally in Cuba before 100,000, appearing on stage to -- you guessed it -- denounce US policy towards Cuba (without of course ever criticizing the Cuban police-state dictatorship). Not surprising, therefore, that the NCC bankrolled the transportation to the US and appearances here of Elian's grandparents. The NCC is all for the social gospel in the US, but when it comes to Cuba, it suddenly retreats to scriptural readings and prayer.

Don't get me started on the BGM -- I don't have time to go into that.


Ralph E. Luker - 6/27/2004

Let's have some specifics, Richard. What has the NCC done to pimp for Castro? What nitwit idea has the Board of Global Ministries promoted? As I've indicated above, I'm not opposed to criticism of the UMC, the NCC, or the BGM, but I want to know what is to be criticized.


Richard Henry Morgan - 6/27/2004

Ralph, I'm certainly in agreement with your self-flagellation over the mediocrity and middle-brow status of the United Methodist Church. I hope Jon doesn't catch you using the "pimp" word -- it's a basis for cutting off debate.

You ask when will the UMC get the gonads? And then you answer it won't. I ask the same thing from the other end of the spectrum. When will the UMC stop being a treasure store for the National Council of Churches? When will the NCC stop pimping for Castro? When will the UMC stop funding every nitwit idea from the Board of Global Ministries? The bishops don't do as you would ask precisely because they don't want to wake up the flock -- the flock might realize that, behind their backs, the UMC has been funding just about everything the great majority of UMC members don't believe in.