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