Eschatology in Action

A new book gets at a central theme of this blog:

During the first dozen years of the twenty-first century--from Y2K through 2012--apocalyptic anticipation in America has leapt from the margins of society and into the mainstream. Today, nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that the events foretold in the book of Revelation will come true. But it's not just the Christian Right that is obsessed with the end of the world; secular readers hungry for catastrophe have propelled fiction and nonfiction books about peak oil, global warming, and the end of civilization into best-sellers, while Doomsday Preppers has become one of the most talked-about new reality TV shows on television. How did we come to live in a culture obsessed by the belief that the end is nearly here?

The Last Myth explains why apocalyptic beliefs are surging within the American mainstream today. Tracing the development of our expectation of the end of the world from the beginnings of history through the modern era, and examining the global challenges facing America today, authors Mathew Barrett Gross and Mel Gilles combine history, current events, and psychological and cultural analysis to reveal the profound influence of apocalyptic thinking on America's past, present, and future.

As I wrote in this blog's mission statement, I don't believe in a literal reading of Revelation. The Roman Empire exiled John to Patmos where he wrote his account of the apocalypse. The fantastical imagery of the Book of Revelation allowed John to slip his message past the Roman censors so it could reach the early Church. Christians understood Revelation was an account of how the unjust worldly power of Empire would eventually collapse in the face of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was a message of hope to persecuted Christians. Modern audiences miss the underlying meaning of John's message when they interpret it literally.

As trust in societal institutions fail, it's not surprising people begin to adopt a more apocalyptic outlook. But a fundamentalist approach is inevitably one of despair and confusion. The Kingdom of Heaven is not hidden in the midst of whimsical prophecies. Looking for dragons and anti-Christs and marks of the beast distract from the injustices that are right in front of our faces every day. John of Patmos's vision was one of hope and encouragement for the marginalized. It is strange that the more "apocalyptic" society gets, the more it focuses on paranoia, small mindedness and cultural angst. In other words, the more "apocalyptic" we become as a society, the further we drift from John's central message in Revelation: God will triumph over injustice.

This book is another fantastic read on the subject.

Happy Easter

Thoughts on Religion and Politics at Easter

Andrew Sullivan spent the week expanding on his recent Newsweek article about the conflict between Christianity and politics (more properly labeled as worldly power). On Wednesday he quoted at length from the Pope:

The choice of Jesus versus Barabbas is not accidental; two messiah figures, two forms of messianic belief stand in opposition. This becomes even clearer when we consider that the name Bar-Abbas means "son of the father". This is a typically messianic appellation, the cultic name of a prominent leader of the messianic movement... So the choice is between a messiah who leads an armed struggle, promises freedom and a kingdom of one's own, and this mysterious Jesus who proclaims that losing oneself is the way to life. Is it any wonder that the crowds prefer Barabbas?

The Lord... declares that the concept of the Messiah has to be understood in terms of the entirety of the message of the Prophets - it means not worldly power, but the Cross, and the radically different community that comes into being through the Cross.

This issue has occupied my thoughts and my heart for several years. It's a question that deserves a lifetime of contemplation.

Worldly power is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Nevertheless, our charge is to toil for justice without rest in a fallen world. This requires political engagement on some level. But once you rise to a certain point in our government, I think it becomes impossible to stay true to the Gospels. Our country rests on certain premises that cannot be reconciled with Christianity: an all powerful market that violates the human dignity of the poor, a military that occupies countries much like the Romans of Christ's time occupied Israel, the list goes on.

The contradiction between staying true to Christianity and doing what is necessary to lead our country as it is currently structured seems too great to reconcile. It is why I am especially critical of politicians like Rick Santorum who push an overtly religious agenda. I'm less concerned with religion's influence on politics than I am with the way politics corrupts religion.

Then again, we all must live with the fact that we are sinners. We create broken systems because we are broken people. Christ's redemption allows us to overcome our own fallen nature just as much as it allows for the creation of an otherworldly kingdom.

I worry that this logic allows for complacency. If sin is inescapable, then why should we as a society try to change? Of course this thought process perpetuates injustice.

The best solution I can find at this point is that we need to be more penitent as individuals and as a society. In both realms we will fall short. Sometimes wildly so. But if we keep a spirit of contrition alive and at the forefront, perhaps we can humbly strive our best to carry out the Gospels without letting power's worldly effects corrupt.

As Easter approaches, with its message of redemption, reconciliation and resurrection, I will be praying for and doing my part to create a more penitent world.

"Men's Right's" Activists: It's Ok To Hit Women

I've written about the "Men's Rights" movement before, but I'm returning to the topic because I want to discredit them as much as possible.

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently classified the "Men's Rights" section of Reddit.com as a hate site, saying in part:

While it presents itself as a home for men seeking equality, it is notable for the anger it shows toward any program designed to help women. It also trafficks in various conspiracy theories. “Kloo2yoo,” identified as a site moderator, writes that there is “undeniable proof” of an international feminist conspiracy involving the United Nations, the Obama Administration and others, aimed at demonizing men.

I wanted to reveal just how twisted these men can be in the pursuit of their agenda so I came up with a story they could not resist. On April Fools day, I posted a thread titled "My girlfriend just tried to steal a used condom to impregnate herself and is now threatening to call the police on me. PLEASE Help." It told the tale of a college student and the girlfriend who tried to steal his sperm.

The spermjacker trope is irresistible to "men's rights" activists because they believe they are perfect Darwinian examples of masculinity and as a result are irresistible to the hormonally irrational schemers that make up womankind. Narcissism and misogyny collide to make a toxic brew.

Oh, and I added the twist that this man punched his girlfriend so hard in the stomach that she bruised. Surely such fierce proponents of "gender equality" would not support violence against women. Right?

Like little hate-filled moths before a flame, the MRAs could not resist themselves.

This site has a good run down of what happened. I was told repeatedly that I did nothing wrong. Another MRA said men should put hot sauce in their used condoms to prevent women from trying to impregnate themselves.

Several commenters called me out as a troll, but it's interesting no one in that thread or my subsequent follow up said unequivocally that it is not ok to hit women.

The "men's rights" movement is morally bankrupt. It is made up of people who support hitting women. It is made up of people who refuse to say it is wrong to hit women. It is made up of people who are so paranoid of women that they think people actually talk like this:

You fucking bastard, how dare you punch me for what I'm entitled to! Call me the minute you get this god damn message or I'll call the fucking police and end your future. CALL MEEEE.

Attention MRA's: You have all exposed yourselves as rotten human beings and you have discredited your movement (again).

My original goal was just to generate a handy link to keep on file any time I needed some ammo to point out how morally bankrupt this movement is. I also would have been happy if my tale convinced some MRAs to get vasectomies.

But then this thing started to take off. Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel wrote about it in a hilarious post that over 16,000 people have seen. In that post she also mentions something I had not considered. Mainly, the possibility that my story was "destined to be urban legend fodder for men's rights activists for years even though it smells to high heaven like bullshit"

I don't want my post to lead anyone into thinking that women behave this way. I certainly do not want anyone to come across my post and use it as an excuse for hitting someone. So I'm coming clean.

I wrote this story by stitching together nearly every cliche I have ever come across in the "men's rights" movement. I tried to see if the MRAs had any line they would not cross. Apparently they do not. Looks like the SPLC made a good call.

Update:
It looks like the menly men of the "men's rights" movement had their feelings hurt by Jezebel's send up. The original poster laments "So this is what feminists think about one of our most pressing issues."

Message to MRAs: Sperm jacking is NOT an actual issue, let alone the most pressing issue facing your made up movement. I would say the most pressing issue you have is that many of your members openly condone violence against women.

When you cite sperm jacking as one of the most pressing issues, it makes it readily apparent that you have no agenda other than thinly veiled sexism and misogyny. "Mens rights" issues have NO bearing on the quality of life for men. They are ALL an excuse to bash women. Please get vasectomies, all of you.


Update II:
The "men's rights" activists think I've unfairly distorted them. Take Reddit user Pooballs for example:, who had his "skin crawling" over my post:

This sums up the "men's rights" movement pretty succinctly. Shoddy "logic" about how much harder men are treated followed by an affirmation of violence against women:

Plus this rabid attacking of punching a woman.. omg. We're not all delicate perfect little flowers who will die if somebody hits us. Honestly I think if I'd witnessed, or if this type of thing happened to me, I probably would've punched her too.

You lose MRAs. Your movement's intellectual underpinnings are just a veneer to cover up your seething hatred of women. Check mate.

Update III:
The MRAs are busy trying to rationalize this event away. Let's keep a little focus:

1. While the post is now flooded with comments calling me out as a troll, it started with unquestioning acceptance of the basic premise that women are crazy enough to steal condoms in a bid to impregnate themselves and "enslave" men into paying child support against their will. MRA's are fundamentally paranoid of women. They think each women is a threat just waiting to trap them.

2. They think hitting women is justified.

MRA Charlie Tango's response shows just how dangerous this movement is:

And So it Goes

As Rod Blagojevich rides off into the sunset as self assured and cocky as ever, it's worth highlighting a funny thing that happens every time the Chicago media covers local corruption. I'm talking about the choir of convicted and formerly imprisoned Illinois politicians who resurface to talk about what it's like to transition from political power to the penitentiary.

Scott Fawell joined WGN's anchors yesterday for the entire one hour broadcast of Blagojevich's farewell speech. Fawell was chief of staff to George Ryan, Illinois' (other) imprisoned former governor and served many years in federal prison for his role in a scheme that traded bribes for illegal commercial drivers licenses. A recipient of one of those licenses crashed into a minivan and killed six children. Scott Fawell was more than happy to talk about the daily routine of prison and its dreary mental effects, but he dodged every question about whether he came to grips with his wrongdoing  while in prison. You can watch Fawell yuck it up on WGN here or read a more detailed account of his trial in Chicago Magazine.

WGN also featured an interview with 89 year old Dan Walker, another governor who served time in prison (though not for any crimes related to his time in public office). I can't find video of the interview, but Walker spoke at length about the indignities of his incarceration. Walker once wrote to his congressman, but had the letter intercepted by the warden. The warden teased Walker about his once powerful position and ripped the letter to pieces in front of Walker to illustrate just how far he had fallen. The warden also reassigned the former governor from a desk job to picking up cigarette butts for the duration of his sentence simply because the two men went to rival colleges.

Today, former Cicero town president Betty Loren-Maltese who famously robbed Cicero to the tune of $12 million called into WFLD to give her input on what Blagojevich faces in prison:

“He’s going to have to change his attitude because if he doesn’t, another inmate will,” Loren-Maltese said. “For sure, the officers will let him know he’s nothing but a number and he’s the property of prisons. ...I think still think he comes off as arrogant,” she said. “Yesterday, I watched all the media coverage, and he had me for awhile, but then it turned political and almost into a campaign speech."

Finally, the Sun-Times quoted Jim Laski, former city clerk of Chicago and convicted felon in its write up of today's events:

“He’s going to be doing a lot of, ‘yes sir’ and ‘no sir,’...It’s a humbling, humiliating experience. But you have to take it.”

In any other state, a corruption conviction would be enough to banish someone from the public sphere entirely. It's a bitter twist of irony that the steady stream of indictments gives previously convicted officials the opportunity to return to the public eye as commentators. Illinois' endless corruption gives the formerly corrupt an opportunity to stay relevant.

The trend shows no signs of ending. Just this week State Rep Derrick Smith was in court on charges that he accepted bribe money. Cook County Commissioner Bill Beavers will also face his own corruption trial soon. One can only wonder who will be staring down an indictment 14 years from now. Whoever that person is, he or she will be the launching pad for Rod Blagojevich's triumphant return to the public stage.

Christian Pop Culture

I've observed Christian pop culture for the last seven years. I say "observed" because I don't participate in or consume anything that could be considered Christian media. I just don't identify with the mindset behind it. One of the most alienating traits is the tendency to recreate the conversion experience.

The moment of accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior is the backbone of evangelical Christianity. Once saved, the convert has reached a critical threshold from which it is impossible to slip. While attending services at an evangelical mega church, I noticed that the messaging operated on a dual track. The unsaved were told how much better their lives would become once they accept Christ, and the saved were reminded of just how empty their lives were before salvation.

It wouldn't be fair to say the church instilled complacency in its congregants because the parishioners were more active than at any other church I've seen. Nevertheless, I couldn't shake the feeling that the primary goal they worked towards (converting others) fostered a sense of spiritual complacency. If accepting Christ as your personal savior is the pinnacle of your spiritual life, where do you go from there? Rather than looking forward towards continued growth, evangelicals are called to look backwards and remember that indelible moment of grace in order to help others experience it. There's definitely kindness in wanting/helping others to experience the same joy you have, but I think it comes at a cost. Many of the evangelicals I encountered were so focused thinking about who they were that they didn't have time to think about who they wanted to become.

This mindset is a common theme in Christian pop culture. Take this Kirk Cameron movie for instance:

At work, inside burning buildings, Capt. Caleb Holt lives by the old firefighter's adage: Never leave your partner behind. At home, in the cooling embers of his marriage, he lives by his own rules.

As the couple prepares to enter divorce proceedings, Caleb's father challenges his son to commit to a 40-day experiment: "The Love Dare." Wondering if it's even worth the effort, Caleb agrees-for his father's sake more than for his marriage. When Caleb discovers the book's daily challenges are tied into his parents' newfound faith, his already limited interest is further dampened.

While trying to stay true to his promise, Caleb becomes frustrated time and again. He finally asks his father, "How am I supposed to show love to somebody who constantly rejects me?

When his father explains that this is the love Christ shows to us, Caleb makes a life-changing commitment to love God. And with God's help he begins to understand what it means to truly love his wife.

This movie presents no challenge to the already saved. The character who is called upon to change is the one who has not yet found God. The film's usefulness as a tool for evangelizing is clear: Have a troubled marriage? Accept Christ as your personal savior and all will end well. But the film also operates on the same dual tracks I saw at the mega church. The message it directs towards believers doesn't inspire them to behave any differently. It simply reaffirms a choice they have already made.

Scott Nehring complained of this dynamic in a 2010 piece called Why Are Christian Movies So Bad:

Rather than developing organically, the average Christian film is more pushy and sanctimonious than the global-warming agenda movies... By movie’s end, everyone is converted with no residual issues. Life is reduced to an after-school special with prayer thrown in for good measure. For me, this is where the dry heaving begins.

From a Catholic (and more specifically Jesuit) background, I have a difficult time identifying with a tradition that places so much emphasis on a single fixed point in time. Faith is a journey and it changes as we change. As a Catholic, I find an immeasurable degree of comfort in the repetitious nature of the Sacraments. The pinnacle event of Catholicism isn't something that happens once. The Eucharist takes place every week (technically daily or even hourly, I suppose). It follows you throughout your life and its meaning deepens and grows with you as you change. Similarly, the Jesuit tradition is one of constant reflection with an eye towards who we should become based on who we are at any given moment.

I don't mean any ill will towards people who enjoy Christian pop culture, it's just something I can never really feel comfortable with because of its over emphasis on an event I have never experienced and its lack of a challenging message for believers. I still find Christian media endlessly fascinating and happily remain an observer.

"Men's Rights"

It's been a tough few weeks for women. The kick off happened when a group of men got so enraged that impoverished women were receiving breast cancer screenings that they tried to cut off the program's funding.

Not to be outdone, another group of even angrier, whiter, and older men tried to block women from getting birth control.

This led directly to the angriest man of all calling a woman a slut on a nationally syndicated radio show and demanding that she send him a sex tape.

Today is International Women's Day. A lot of angry, hateful men have been grumbling, "why don't we get a day?"  Seems to me they've had free reign the last few weeks. The victim complex of the "men's rights" movement is a funny thing. They grab hold of any perceived inequality and use it as an excuse to whine about how hard men have it in today's society. When you cut through it, you realize they're really complaining because they can't freely express their misogyny without being called shitty, hateful people.

So in honor of International Women's day, I'll do my part to kick patriarchy in the collective nuts by linking to a list published today by the Southern Poverty Law Center that calls out some angry, hateful "Men's Rights" websites.

Time to Excommunicate Them

Santorum lost the Catholic vote in Ohio to Romney 44-31. Santorum also lost the Catholic vote to Romney in Michigan by a 44-37 margin. Had members of his own religion voted for Santorum in greater numbers, he would have won both states.

Santorum is uniquely loathsome because he 1) presents himself as The One True Catholic in the race while 2) advocating positions repugnant to Church teachings and 3) de-legitimizing the right of anyone who disagrees with him to identify as Catholic.

It might surprise many to find out that Santorum does not walk in lock step with the Catholic Church on every issue. Juan Cole highlighted ten areas where Santorum unambiguously breaks with official Church doctrine. The biggest break is Santorum's vigorous support for the Iraq war, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI emphatically opposed.

Andrew Sullivan also called out Santorum for his defense of torture:

In that very defense - in Santorum's own description of what he is defending - he is defending the "breaking" of a human person, made in the image of God. He is defending a core, absolute evil. Let us concede for the sake of argument that these are "enhanced interrogation techniques" and not "torture", as Santorum insists. There is no meaningful difference between the two whatsoever from a Catholic perspective, and Santorum's public positioning as an avowedly Catholic politician, while defending and promoting an absolute evil, is a true and immense moral scandal - in the Church's sense of the word. No one should be giving the impression that the Catholic church defends "enhanced interrogation techniques". This is from the Catechism:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity...

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions"

Notice there is a bar even on "moral violence" on or "frightening" prisoners. Santorum's own moral distinction between "breaking" human beings by EITs and "torture" does not exist in international law or Catholic doctrine.

These are fundamental issues where Santorum disagrees with the Church. There is nothing inherently wrong with forming an opinion in opposition to Church teachings. My conscience dictates that I disagree on a number of issues, but I am honest and upfront about it.

By presenting himself as a "Real Catholic," Santorum implies we must agree with all of his positions in order to rightfully call ourselves Catholic. As he infamously said, people who disagree with his vision of a theocratic America make him vomit.

It's no surprise Santorum carried the evangelical vote in Ohio and Michigan. His absolutist tone and conflation of GOP orthodoxy with religious values is far more typical of evangelicalism than it is of Catholicism.

What worries me is that as Church hardliners like Santorum and many bishops focus on sexual morality at the expense of everything else, the wall between reactionary evangelicalism and Catholicism is being eroded. With it comes the implicit dictate: the only way to be TRULY religious is to be a Republican. Even when being a Republican contradicts your religion.

"Conservative" and "liberal" are divisions we make here on earth. They are imperfect ways of categorizing the world and both fail to capture the totality of God's will and commandments. One does not need to be a Republican to be a Catholic. One also does not need to support Rick Santorum to be a Catholic. Luckily, Catholic voters seem to have this figured out.