Larison on Tbilisi

The political turmoil in Georgia has been much in the news this last week. My interest in the nation is not really of a political nature, but as these developments eventually affect all aspects of a society, I have been following events closely. As is often the case, Daniel Larison has one of the best reads on the situation, here.

Run, Ron, Run!

Well, the 2008 Presidential aspirants are beginning to hit their stride. I am not at all sure what I will do come next November. I am quite sure what I will not do. For me, 2008 is an opportunity to do penance for my sins of 2004 and 2000. In the meantime, I am enjoying the spectacle. There hasn't been a race like this since 1952.

I am particularly impressed with the Ron Paul phenomenon. His headline-making fundraising efforts are finally breaking the media barrier. Still, besides Chris Matthews and a few others, he gets little attention. This morning, on George Stephanopolis' talk show, he was discussing the New Hampshire primary with Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and George Will. As they flashed the latest poll numbers on the screen, Stephanopolis noted that the big story in the numbers was the collapse of Fred Thompson's campaign (who, as Cokie Roberts noted, was strolling, rather than running, for the Presidency). "Wait a minute," I thought. The big story was not that Thompson (whose candidacy was all media hype to begin with, in my view) was now #6. The big story was that Paul was #4 in New Hampshire, not far behind McCain.

I first started taking note of Paul in one of the early Republican debates where he had his now-famous interchange with Giuliani. As it sunk in what Paul was saying about our involvement in the Middle East, and its root causes, I jumped up from the sofa, hooping and hollering in support. St. Rudy of 9/11's response was classic demagoguery. He scorned Paul for straying from the script. Paul had the temerity to actually speak truth.

Paul remains one of the longest of long shots. But as Paul Gottfried notes, here, "he is a wonderful embarrassment to our two odious national parties." And in that context, I say "Run, Ron, Run!"

There's a decent story in today's Times, as well.

The Good That Kings Do

Apparently, there is still a place for kings in today's world, as King Juan Carlos of Spain demonstrated this week--telling Hugh Chavez, "Why don't you just shut up." Certainly this is one of the more satisfying headlines of the week.

Mustafa Akyol and the New Islam (part 3)

On November 5th, Mustafa Akyol wrote on Apostacy is a Right, Not a Crime. He begins with the now-familiar story of the Afghan man who was spirited out of the country last year before he could receive the death penalty for becoming Christian. Akyol notes that this "story was only one of the many severe violations of religious freedom in the contemporary Islamic world." You don't say. In Saudi Arabia, Filipino workers are deported if caught having private worship services in their room (see Thomas Friedman's article, here). In Egypt, converts are locked up in insane asylums because, by definition, anyone who leaves Islam for Christ has lost their mind. Throughout Muslim lands, even in Akyol's supposedly enlightened Turkey, Christians must keep a low profile. There is a reason all the churches are hidden behind protective, walled compounds.

And conversion is strictly a one-way street, as it has always been. Akyol admits as much. "Traditional Shariah (Islamic law) considers apostasy a major crime that deserves capital punishment...Ex-Muslims are consistently suppressed, harassed and attacked by their former co-religionists. As a Muslim, I feel ashamed to read such news."

Akyol is to be commended for his honesty. But he also maintains that Islam is not at odds with human rights, that such "elements in the Islamic tradition...should be discarded in the modern era." These calls to bring Islam up to speed with modern sensibilities is not without irony to many of us in the Christian West, where many are ready to jettison any teachings that inconvenience our 21st-century "lifestyle." Islam makes some pretty exclusivist claims about itself. Whatever you think it is, it has never been a way of life that allowed for its adherents to freely move to other faiths; at least not in my readings.

Akyol, incredulously, contends that the Koran doesn't really ban apostasy, and "actually includes many verses, which cherish religious freedom." He cites 2 verses: "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:246) and "It is the truth from your Lord; so let whoever wishes have faith and whoever wishes be unbeliever." (18:29). Well, indeed. I am certainly no Koranic scholar, and am not interested in any prooftexting battles. The Koran says many, often contradictory, things. For those who want to justify persecution of other faiths, there seems to be no shortage of Koranic support for such belief.

Akyol continues: "...a forced belief in anything is a totally absurd concept. If someone becomes or stays a believer because he is forced to do so, then that faith will simply have no meaning." Well yes, and no. It is a simple historical fact that much of the Middle East, and the whole of North Africa, submitted initially to Islam under the sword, and the heavy restrictions placed on those who refused to convert. To the first generation or so, Akyol is probably correct--their faith probably had no meaning other than survival. But give it time. Literally hundreds of millions of devout Muslims today are the descendants of these forced conversions.

Akyol believes ban on apostasy grew out of the particular political situation of early Islamic Arabia. Perhaps so, but the practice soon became the accepted norm through the Muslim world and centuries.

Akyol concludes: "Apostasy cannot be considered as a crime in today's world. It is, indeed, a natural right. People should have the right to believe or disbelieve in Islam." He also believes "that Islamic sources need a serious reconsideration. What most Muslims attach themselves to as divine commandments are actually the political and cultural codes of the early centuries of Islam, which were, to be sure, man-made facts."

These are strong words, coming from a Muslim writer. I wish him well, but I am not particularly hopeful. His reinterpretation of Islam seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me. And I see absolutely no evidence of such a societal shift in attitude in any Muslim country. Nevertheless, these are the voices of reason that we have been straining to hear for so long, and so I encourage Akyol to continue to speak out.

Mustafa Akyol and the New Islam (part 2)

On November 2nd, Mustafa Akyol wrote on Ein Volk, Ein Ummah, Ein Muhammad? A recent visit to Prague served as the catalyst for this story. A young lady approached him on the street and asked Mustafa to join her cause. When he inquired as to what that cause was, particularly, she replied "we are standing up against Islam." The irony here is pretty thick. The young Czech nationalist was not able to recognize in her listener to be one of the very people she was protesting against. As he noted, drolly, "I was definitely not the most promising candidate to be inspired by that message."

As it turns out, the lady was a member, unfortunately, of a right-wing Czech nationalist group--the Narodniks. Akyol contends that such groups "fuel fear about and hatred towards Muslims" and are "fueling the global threat called clash of civilizations. [This is a pet peeve of mine--the pejorative misuse of Samuel Huntington's quite legitimate thesis].

Anyway, Akyol's comments are what one would expect. What one does not expect, however, is his main point, as follows:

Much of the responsibility lies in the hands of Muslim leaders and intellectuals. We should see that there is Islamophobia in the world, because there are men who blow up innocents, respond to any criticism with fury, treat their wives as slaves, and do all of these in the name of Islam. The racist and xenophobic tendencies in European societies add a lot to the problem, to be sure, but they are secondary. The primary issue is what some misled Muslims do.
What is really needed is an initiative by Muslims to reject and denounce all the horrible things done in the name of their religion and do this frankly and persuasively. The objections to the West and its policies, on the other hand, should be made calmly and constructively.

My, that is refreshing. Such realism is healthy and sorely needed from the Muslim side of the aisle. But Akyol still does not quite grasp the thrust of the argument. I doubt that European concerns, which he labels as "Islamophobia," are fueled by racism. If they were, restrictive immigration and native opposition would have stopped Muslim migration to Europe long before they reached their current numbers.

While a veneer of cultural Christianity pervades western Europe, the practical observance of the faith is weak, and getting weaker, if most surveys can be believed. But even the thoroughly secular European understands about reciprocity. The religion of the Hare Krishnas who proselytize at the airport are no concern. Nor are the well-scrubbed young Mormon missionaries, or Pentecostal street preachers. Europeans are not afraid to mix it up in the marketplace of ideas. But they know that whenever Islam becomes predominant in a society, the equal playing field vanishes, and everybody else is constricted to the will of the Muslim majority. That is the fear and that is where the opposition comes--not racism.

Mustafa Akyol and the New Islam (part 1)

Mustafa Akyol is an up-and-coming young Turkish writer. A regular contributor to the Turkish Daily News, his articles often find their way into English language journals as well, such as "Turkey's Veiled Democracy" in the current issue of The American Interest. His blog, The White Path is often of interest.

I found his three most recent blogs to be of particular interest. On October 29th, he wrote on God, Gold and Islam. Attending a conference in London, Akyol found himself surrounded by monuments attesting to the might and glory of the British Empire. He muses on the cause of such a phenomenon--and by Anglo-Saxon extension, American progress, as well. What interests Akyol, as a Turk, was the role religion played in the expansion of Anglo-American progress. He cites Walter Russell Mead, Max Weber and Alexis de Tocqueville as sources who, to varying degrees, attribute the advance of the British and American empires to their religiosity. Mead, in fact, notes that 19th-century Britain and the US today were "significantly more religious than most,” arguing that "religion acted as a driving force in the progress of Britain and the United States."

Well, let's not get too carried away, here. Religiosity is hard to quantify, at best. Is Mead saying that Anglo-American Protestantism far outpaced the Catholicism of the Hispanic countries? Or the Orthodox devotion on the Russian steppes? I would not make such a claim. And while the vaunted Protestant work ethic certainly played a key role in what is seen as "progress," other factors were equally important. Britain was an island culture which had the luxury to develop in a unique way, generally free from the threat of invasion (after, of course, those pesky Vikings). America was similarly protected. The role of English common law and the rise of British constitutionalism are equally important and cannot be overestimated. Also, the cynical paleocon might note that the very progress the Protestant work ethic engendered served to ultimately undermine these very same religous underpinnings.

But what interests Akyol, of course, is the application of this scenario to Islam in general, and Turkey in particular. He notes that modernization occurs if the religion is "dynamic" and not "static." He admits that many would argue that Islam does not lend itself to being "dynamic." You can number me among those skeptics. Akyol counters with a reference to medieval Islam's golden age, and the fact that "there are many fine Islamic thinkers who theorize modernist interpretations of Islam." Well, this "golden age" is overblown, as they all are. And I have yet to see any "modernist interpretations of Islam" really taking hold. Akyol rightly references Turkey's "Gülen Movement,” and its emphasis on "peace and tolerance...education and interfaith dialogue... [and] pro-business and entrepreneurial spirit. Akyol does have a point. They are certainly pro-businesss and entrepreneurial. I am still waiting on evidence of the interfaith dialogue, though.

The problem, I think, with Mr. Akyol's theory is that it was not religion in the abstract, or just any religion that helped power the British and American ascendency. Rather, it was a specific religion, the Protestant slant on Christianity. I'm not at all sure that this translates to the older forms of Christianity, much less other religions, and in particular, Islam. But if Akyol is on to something, it will be proved out in Turkey first. As he concludes: "Alas, if the Islamic world will be able to breed a “dynamic” interpretation of its faith, then Turkey, it seems, will be one of its main architects. So, keep watching."

So You Want to go to Georgia?

Have you ever thought about visiting the Republic of Georgia? If not, why not? I can guarantee that it will be the trip of a lifetime, in which you will come home a changed person. John Graham has organized the Monastery tour for 2008. Five of the fifteen slots have already filled. So, contact John, here, and tell him I sent you.

Touchstone on Evangelicalism Today

Magazine subscriptions come and go, but I have held on to Touchstone Magazine. Some issues are of more interest to me than others, but the November issue justifies my loyalty. Two stories in particular attracted my attention: Byzantium Yet Fallen: The Critical Lessons for Christians in the Long Shadow of 1453, and Evangelicalism Today, A Symposium: Six Evangelicals Assess Their Movement. The magazine is planning future forums on Catholic, Orthodox and mainline churches. The six contributors are:

Russell D. Moore (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Denny Burk (Criswell College)
John R. Franke (Emergent Village)
Darryl Hart (Orthodox Presbyterian Church)
Michael Horton (editor of Modern Reformation)
David Lyle Jeffrey (Baylor University).

A number of questions were submitted to the participants, from which a few excerpts follow:

How do you define "Evangelical" in a way that distinguishes Evangelicals from other believing Christians?

"...a common confession of faith-one that includes Great Tradition affirmations such as the Deity of Christ and the virgin birth and Reformation distinctives such as justification through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. The sermon is central, and concludes with a call for unbelievers to identify publicly with Christ and his church." (Moore)

"Evangelicals trace all of their beliefs to the inspired Scriptures, which they believe to be the sole authority for faith and practice. American Evangelicals have stressed the inerrancy of Scripture as a necessary condition of its authority." (Burk)

"What matters is one's personal relationship with Jesus instead of belonging to the church." (Hart)

"Someone who likes Billy Graham." (Horton)


Has Evangelicalism lost anything in the process of maturing (if it did)?

"...many of us...have become mired in just what the Fundamentalists warned us we would: worldliness. The carnality in many Evangelical churches is astounding, not just at the obvious level of sensuality, but also at the less obvious (to us, anyway) level of covetousness, love of money, and celebrity worship." (Moore)

"In defining itself against liberal Protestants on the one hand and Roman Catholics on the other, much of Evangelicalism has become seriously deficient of ecclesiology and of the Great Tradition in general." (Burk)

"I don't think it has lost anything essential to its nature. If anything, it needs to continue to grow and develop far more than it needs to try to recover some aspect of its past." (Franke)

"What seems to have changed markedly among Evangelicals is a willingness to combat doctrinal error...and the triumph of an impoverished view of tolerance." (Hart)

"...the movement has shown that it is as capable of surrendering its soul to the mall just as mainline Protestantism has largely offered itself to the academy. If Fundamentalism reduced sin to sins (or at least things they considered vices), contemporary Evangelicals seem to have reduced sin to dysfunction. In this context, Jesus is not the savior from the curse of the law, but a life coach who leads us to a better self, better marriage, and happier kids." (Horton)

Are there any fundamental difference within the Evangelical movement today...?

"...while pietism may have enriched the Reformation churches to some extent, the heritage of revivalism represents a counter-Reformation that in many respects went even further than Trent in the direction of Pelagianism...In both faith and practice, Reformation Christianity differs from the sort of Evangelicalism represented, for example, by Charles Finney, more radically than it does with Rome or Orthodoxy....there is the Reformation stream...the revivalist stream...the growing popularity of Anabaptist, Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, as well as a fresh appreciation for the heritage of Protestant liberalism...Evangelicalism may increasingly be incapable of theological definition....Evangelicals may show appreciation for a variety of traditions without ever belonging to any one." (Horton)

What does your movement...fail to see that it ought to see?

"...that Jesus did not die for a "movement" but for a church....that the love of money is the root of all evil." (Moore)

"Evangelicals often fail to see the extent to which they are shaped by their culture." (Burk)

"By and large, Evangelicals have accommodated the gospel and Christianity to the dominant cultural assumptions of our society." (Franke)

"Evangelicals have rarely understood that the lowest-common-denominator Christianity they have used to achieve success...does not do justice to the fullness of biblical truth." (Hart)

"Surveys reveal that a huge percentage (some studies have it as high as 80 percent) of those reared in Evangelical churches drop out of church by their sophomore year in college....I think we have failed to see that emotional summer-camp experiences cannot sustain a robust faith through the trials of real life. So, ironically, while Evangelicalism celebrates reaching the lost, it is losing the reached....when the gospel is reduced to simplistic jargon and is taken for granted in the life of the church, the next generation even forgets the slogans." (Horton)

"We entertain, we preach to the choir, we provide creature comforts and go to great lengths to be altogether use-friendly. Meanwhile, the "one thing most needful" has generally suffered among us in inverse proportion to the scale by while our organization machinery tends to focus on all things bigger and better. Another blind spot is an uncritical identification of radical individualism with the Christ-life, and a corresponding resistance to connecting faithfulness to Christ with love of neighbor and pursuit of the common good." (Jeffrey)

What would you say to an Evangelical tempted to become Catholic or Orthodox?

"Most Evangelicals...are going to make quite poor Catholic or Orthodox churchmen...many of them become Catholic or Orthodox because they are tired of dealing with sinful, hypocritical, arrogant, mindless, loveless Evangelicals...[and] seem to think all Catholics are Walker Percy or Richard John Neuhaus or that all Orthodox are Maximos the Confessor." (Moore)

"The current rot within Evangelical subculture does not accurately reflect the richness of its theological heritage. Fundamentally, the Evangelical faith is rooted int he solas of the Reformation, which are themselves rooted in the confessions of the ecumenical creeds, which are themselves rooted in the inscripturated apostolic witness to Christ." (Burk)

"Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions maintain that the authority and grace of God are mediated through the agency of the historical and institutional church. For Evangelicals, the genuine significance of the church in the economy of God does not in any way imply that the church has been fully entrusted with authority or given control over the dispensation of grace in the world. These belong to God and God alone." (Franke)

"Evangelicals contemplating the other Christian traditions need to think carefully about how they are right with God and the nature of the redeeming work of Christ. The Protestant Reformers answered such questions in decidedly different ways from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So to switch Christianities may be more of a change than frustrated Evangelicals are prepared to accept." (Hart)

"Starved for mystery, transcendence, maturity, order, theological richness, liturgy, and history, many young Evangelicals are discovering Reformation Christianity. Yet for some, it is only a rest stop on the way to Rome or Orthodoxy. Here’s how I would counsel such a person: Start with the gospel. The gospel creates and sustains the church, not the other way around....That is what the Reformation was all about, and it is why we need another one....Reformation Christianity is catholic and Evangelical." (Horton)

"...institutional infamy for clerical abuse..." (Jeffrey)


What has Evangelicalism to offer the wider world that it will find nowhere else?

"Christ and him crucified." (Moore)

"...the salvation that results from this gospel by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone so that the sinner can have assurance now that God is no longer against him but for him because of Christ." (Burk)

"...this passion for the gospel is our particular gift." (Franke)

"Evangelicalism has more energy, creativity, and zeal than is typically found in other Christian traditions....Even so, Evangelicalism’s best attributes may not be as desirable as commonly assumed. Evangelicals may be at a point where they need sobriety about themselves and the God they serve more than they need enthusiasm." (Hart)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, I have some differences with these guys, but I really admire their candor and self-criticism. By and large, their comments were startling in their objectivity and freshness. Hardly a triumphalist note was sounded. From my position on the outside, looking in, I do have a few observations, which I hope will be as charitable as theirs.

First, I find the Evangelical allegiance to Scripture to be all-important--but what is really meant is limited to interpretations of scripture since 1500: Reformed, revivalist, pietist, anabaptist, restorationist--it all must begin there. To the extent that Evangelicals buy into the concept of being on a spiritual journey, their trek is along a trail that must twist through Wittenburg, Geneva, Edinburgh, Boston, the American frontier, and for some, even Nashville, Dallas, Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. Non-evangelicals might suggest that there are other paths that are much older and straighter, where the destination is not only always in view ahead, but all around you as you travel.

I found Hart and Horton the most hard-hitting. Horton made an excellent point about how far removed contemporary Evangelicals are from the Reformation leaders. He contends that Luther was infinitely closer to the Pope or the Patriarch than he would be to 19th century Evangelicals, much less those of today (think Joel Osteen). And herein lies the problem, in my book. The whole construct will not hold water, but becomes weaker and weaker over time. Of course, Horton contends that a new Reformation is needed (Lord help us!).

The writers were at their weakest when answering the question as to what Evangelicalism had to offer the world that it could find nowhere else. Their response was "Christ and Him crucified." Of course, this is the right and best answer, but certainly not one unique to Evangelicalism. The good Catholic or Orthodox would answer the same way.

Nor did I think they knew what to do with the question about Protestant converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Jeffrey makes a cheap shot about the institutionalized Catholic clergy abuse. Moore is unconvincing in his response and--if indeed he actually believes this--totally misses the attraction that the Apostolic churches hold for Evangelicals. He is a bit dismissive, concluding that church members leave because of the hypocrisy and small-mindedness of their fellow Evangelicals. Leaving Protestantism for Orthodoxy or Catholicism is not the same thing as say, moving your membership from First Baptist to Calvary Fellowship because you were mad at Deacon So-In-So. It's on a different plane altogether. I have yet to run across a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy that left for such a reason, or who had such naive expectations of Orthodox believers. I believe Evangelicals leave because of the thinness of the doctrine, worship and faith expounded--seeking the fullness they can find in liturgical churches, a yearning, if you will, for closer communion with Christ. Often they find this, and much more. The other contributors, by and large, urged caution for those comtemplating swimming the Tiber or the Bosphorus--to hang in there and rediscover their own rich theological heritage.

Again, I commend these Evangelicals, primarily Horton and Hart. Hopefully, the future installments featuring Catholic and Orthodox writers will be equally forthcoming.

"Of Interest" Clean Up

There is a definite reason I categorize the links on the sidebar as "Of Interest." They don't fit neatly into any particular category, but for the most part are simply interesting sites to visit that usually have something significant to say. Certainly, there are scads of Orthodox links--but even these cover a broad spectrum (from official church links to JN1034). And then there is a Anglo-Catholic link, a Lutheran link, a lefty-Episcopal link (that's you, Jared!) and so on. Among these sites and the political/current affairs sites, you can find political endorsements ranging from Mike Gravel to Fred Thompson, and most everyone in between.

It seems that some bloggers have lives outside their blogs, however, and wisely choose to shut them down after a time. This has been the case with many of my favorite sites. I kept the links listed, hoping that they would reconsider. But in the interest of housekeeping, I will drop the links to the following, until I learn of their return:

Forty Days
Hispania Sancta
Oh Taste and See
Scrivener

I started to drop the link to Mustafa Akyol's White Path, after his posting about the Armenian Genocide. But, he has redeemed himself in subsequent articles, and I realize that if I refuse to communicate with those with whom I differ, then my course of action is no better than, say, our current foreign policy. So, he stays (for now).

I have added the following sites, however. They are all excellent.

A Conservative Blog for Peace
English Christianity
Scyldings in the Mead-Hall
Antiwar
The American Conservative

Scriptural Worship or Scripture Worship?

Outside of an occasional reference, I have avoided much in the way of my personal "conversion story" on these pages. First of all, it's too soon. Like one of my history professors said about the study of the Vietnam War: "It's not history yet." A certain time has to pass to reflect, and put events in proper perspective. Second, the fact that a person believes differently than before naturally infers that they believe their current belief to be superior. To feel the need to automatically defend the decision perhaps suggests more of a need to convince yourself than others. Finally, unless approached with care, such efforts can come across as triumphalist, which destroys any good that was intended.

That being said, I feel compelled, nevertheless, to toss a pebble or two in the direction of my old religious affiliation, the Churches of Christ. I owe much to these churches. Ultimately, they primed me for the fullness of Orthodoxy. I seriously doubt if I would have become Orthodox, save for my Church of Christ background.

But as a close friend and former preacher (Tim) told me recently, "you were never a good fit." And I suppose he was right. I always felt ill at ease with a number of things, not the least being much of our terminology. Our language seemed to convey the idea that we worshipped scripture itself, rather than He to whom scripture testified. I vividly recall the matriarch of our little church always saying that "we had to get back to the word," as she would peck on the cover of her Bible with her finger. Scripture--the word, if you will--was emphasized repeatedly--the Word, not so much. This summer, my wife and I were travelling in Arkansas. As my wife remains a faithful Church of Christ member(and Orthodox churches being as scarce as hen's teeth in Arkansas), we attended a worship service at an upscale Little Rock congregation. I followed along as the preacher gave an edifying talk taken from the Parable of the Prodigal. Amazingly, the name of Jesus Christ was not mentioned once--not a single time--not even in the "invitation" afterwards. It was all as dry as toast.

This seems so strange to me now, for in Orthodoxy, our worship is absolutely saturated in scripture, while at the same time it is Christocentric to a degree that I could have never imaged before. What led to this reflection on my part was (as always, it seems) an article in the paper. I actually read all the little ads in the Dallas Morning News Religion section. One of the Church of Christ advertisements got to me a bit. This particular congregatin set it out as plain as can be:

The Church and the Bible

Some people believe the Church gave us the Bible; that at some time in history religious leaders pronounced the 27 books of the New Testament inspired by God. Prior to this pronouncement, they think the books of the Bible were merely human writings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The church did not give us the bible, the word of God gave us the church. God's word is the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11). It carries its own authority. All humans can do is recognize what is already inherently true about Scripture--that it is the inspired, authoritative word of the living God.

Join us Thursday at 7:00 PM for a workshop on how the Old and New Testaments have been preserved for us.

To me, this little statement encapsulates the worship of scripture. And it is just so misguided--wrong--on so many different theological and historical levels that one really doesn't know where to begin. Any thoughts?

Spengler on "Moderate Islam"

Spengler has a good article on the current state of anti-Americanism in Turkey, and how it got that way, here. Frankly, I'm a bit peeved at their latest temper tantrum over the Armenian Genocide resolution fiasco, and am not overly concerned that they disapprove of us. For Turkey, it seems from a recent survey, has the distinction of being the most anti-American nation in the world. Strange how one doesn't get a sense of this while traveling in the country.

Spengler makes the point that there are Kemalist Turks and Islamist Turks. Actually, I think this is too neat a split, for many secular Turks have voted for the Islamist party as a blow for good government over corruption. And I think these voters may be the decisive factor if the country swings towards coercive Islamism. But the jury is still out on this. I could be terribly wrong.

Spengler also charges that our notion of "moderate Islam" in Turkey is fallacious. In fact, he states that there is no such thing as "moderate Islam." I tend to agree. Turks are not moderate, merely unobservant, just as our Easter-only Christians are "moderate."

Spengler has a way of cutting to the chase on issues:

I have never believed that such a thing as "moderate Islam" exists, any more than I believe that "moderate Christianity" exists. Either Jesus Christ died to take away the sins of the world, or he did not; if one believes that Jesus was just another preacher with a knack for parables, one quickly will be an ex-Christian. Either God dictated a final revelation to Mohammed which invalidates the corrupted scriptures of Jews and Christians, and the sign of the crescent should rise above the whole world, or he did not.

We can talk about "moderate" Islam all we want (and save me the lecture about Cordoba), but ultimately it comes down to Spengler's conclusion.

In Praise of Used Bookstores

I made a quick trip up to Dartmouth College and back during this last week (left after work on Tuesday and was back at my office on Friday morning). The ostensible purpose was to attend a performance of the Zedashe Ensemble, as well as a symposium on Georgian culture. The venue served as something of a mini-reunion for 6 of us who traveled together last June, and our Georgian friends associated with the Ensemble.

I pulled off the interstate in central New Hampshire on Wednesday, looking for a local place to eat. I found something even better in Henniker, a stereotypical New England village. Here, I stumbled into one of those marvelous old used bookstores which still pepper the state. Such like are hard to find here in Texas, but seem to be still going strong in the Northeast. This particular establishment contained 155,000 volumes in 2 wonderful, musty floors of a barn-like building. My take was:

Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (illus. by Gorey), T. S. Eliot
Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye, Florence King
Anthony Powell: A Life, Michael Barber
The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401-1407, translated by Marios Philippides
Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love of Michael II, The Last of the Romanov Tsars, Rosemary and Donald Crawford.
The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), translated by Harry Turtledove
A Lermontov Reader, Guy Daniels
The Heart of a Dog and Other Stories, Mikhail Bulgakov
Enemies of the Permanent Things: Observations of Abnormity in Literature and Politics, Russell Kirk

Vlad to the Rescue

I believe that much of the overblown rhetoric about Iran is just that. For all the bellicosity from the Bush administration, I don't believe that we even have the capacity to expand the war into Iran. That said, incidents such as this week's cringe-inducing press conference remain troubling. But it seems that Vladimir Putin may have just saved George Bush (and us) from himself, as Srdka Trifkovic reports here.

Trifkovic posits that "Mr. Putin is effectively helping President George W. Bush avoid an adventure that would bring ruin to all involved, save the promoters of an Islamic end-times scenario." He is referring, of course, to the recent Caspian Summit in Tehran. The Declaration at the summit, signed by Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, effectively preempts any threat to the existing balance of power, by any non-Caspian state. As he notes, there will be no "Operation Iranian Freedom" for the remainder of the Bush presidency. Trifkovic concludes:

If there is one thing to be thankful to Mr. Bush, it is for his unwitting contribution to the emergence of a multipolar world. External restraint, unimaginable a decade ago, is being imposed on America. It is dictated by the perfectly normal desire of Russians, Chinese, Indians and many smaller nations, to prove—contrary to Mr. Bush’s repeated assurances— that “History” has not called America to anything.

It is to be hoped that the emerging new global balance of power will reflect internationally what the system of checks and balances does at home. Its re-establishment will render ludicrous the hubristic ravings of Benevolent Global Hegemonists. It will also help re-legitimize the notion of America as a nation among other nations and a state among other states, with definable and limited national interests as the foundation of its diplomacy. Contrary to what Mr. Bush and his dwindling band of apologists may claim, this is neither defeatism nor isolationism; it is sanity.

Why a resurgent Russia just now? It's not hard to figure out, and it's not just about the oil. Pat Buchanan sums it up here, better than most. His conclusion is damning and spot on:

At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together.

Texas Roundup

Texas is a weird place. Weird, but never boring. This is one of those weeks when much of what I read in the papers strikes me as funny or ironic. So please excuse a little snarkiness on my part with the following Texas-flavored news items.

• Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President. If you are starting a list of reasons not to vote for Rudy, this should go on page 1. Governor Rick says that he decided to support Giuliani after he had "looked him in the eye" and determined that he would appoint the right kind of Supreme Court judges. I wonder if Rick was able to "get a sense of his soul" as his former boss did with Vladimir Putin?
  Anyway, Governor Rick goes on to say that he is not interested in the Vice Presidential nomination. And neither am I, though I would consider an ambassadorship to the Bahamas. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me that choosing a Vice-President from Texas-particularly in the current discrediting of all things Texan-to balance out the Republican ticket makes about as much sense as choosing a Vice-President from, say...Wyoming.

• Baptists are big in Texas, and the biggest, baddest Baptist church of all is First Baptist Church of Dallas. Dr. Robert Jeffress, author of the best-selling "Hell? Yes!," made news recently when he urged his flock not to support Mitt Romney. Jeffress reminded First Baptist that Mormonism was a "false religion" and that Romney could in no way be considered a Christian. In his sermon, he concluded that "Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise." Thank you, Dr. Jeffress. I'm afraid Mitt was trying to sneak that one past us. Geez. I have my own ideas about Mormonism, but that is not the issue here at all.>
  I was appalled that this would be the sermon for the largest Baptist church in Texas--and apparently it didn't cause even a ripple of concern in FBD. Does it strike anyone else as wildly inappropriate for Dr. Jeffress to be making these attacks during a worship service? Does this tell us anything at all about warped views of the church's nature and worship? But that's just me. Baptists have always got into trouble with this sort of thing. I suspect they will this time, as well--and deservedly so. Joel Osteen of Houston's Lakewood mega-mega-church assured Larry King that Romney wouldn't be a problem for him. That makes it all better.

• And much closer to home, its time for our annual Rose Festival here in the crown jewel of East Texas. Rose Festival events go on all year in these parts, but October is when it all comes to the fore--when the social elite and wannabees pull out all the stops--parties, teas, ceremonies, more parties, parades, parties and coronations (yes, we do it twice). Diabetics are advised to avoid local newscasts and the newspaper during Rose Festival Week. Right-minded folks either flee the county or hole-up inside their homes until it all passes. I had thought my recent conference in Toronto would cover me, but I missed it by a week.
  This morning, though, I made the mistake of reading an account of last night's Festival Vespers Service. There were readings from the Psalms--in English, Spanish, French and Igbo (a language, apparently, of some 35 million Nigerians). The Queen's pastor comforted the crowd with the assurance that "God has an endless bucket of Grace." And the Queen's father (would he be the Queen Father?) observed that ours was "a city blessed by God....a wonderful place, with a unique identity that He has given to us that other cities wish they had. Its a God thing." And as the newspaper reported, "gold wisps of clouds framed the blue sky as the sun went down on the evening and service." (I'm not providing a link for this one--that's all anyone needs to know!)

But It Is Always Easier To Do The Cautious Thing

On the Armenian resolution, Democratic congressional resolve has folded like a lawnchair. Read their excuses here.

It's Never Wrong To Do The Right Thing

I've commented from time to time on the Armenian genocide question, here, here, and most recently, here. The U.S. House of Representatives seems poised to vote on a resolution labeling the death of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that she plans to move ahead with the vote, here. In response to criticism that this would harm relations with Turkey, Pelosi observed:

"There's never been a good time," adding that it is important to pass the resolution now "because many of the survivors are very old. When I came to Congress 20 years ago, it wasn't the right time because of the Soviet Union. Then that fell, and then it wasn't the right time because of the Gulf War One. And then it wasn't the right time because of overflights of Iraq. And now it's not the right time because of Gulf War Two."

I've never put much stock in symbolic, empty, feel-good resolutions--the recent Congressional circus over the MoveOn.org resolution (where our junior Texas senator was allowed to be ringleader) being a case in point. The Armenian genocide resolution is not of that nature, however, and the time is now or never, as the last remaining Armenian Genocide survivors are quickly passing on.

Predictably, President Bush is dead set against the resolution, maintaining his consistent policy of coming down foursquare on the wrong side of history. Comments by Republican leaders are appalling. Senator Mitch McConnell noted that "there's a genocide museum, actually, in Armenia to commemorate what happened," as if to ask, "What more do these people want?" Senator Lindsay Graham stated "I'm not worried about World War I. ... I'm worried about what I think is World War III, a war against extremists, and Iraq is the central battle front and Turkey has been a very good ally," as if our current mess in Iraq exists in some sort of ahistorical vacuum, totally unconnected to the consequences of World War I.

The Turks are recalling ambassadors, threatening and blustering. Their armed forces chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit noted--instructively--that "we could not explain this to our public." Probably not--particularly after almost 90 years of the Big Lie. I love Turkey, and have a genuine fondness for the country and the friends I have made there. But on this issue, they can, to put it in East Texas vernacular, go butt a stump. This resolution is the right thing to do, at the right time.

As one would expect, Daniel Larison monitors the situation in 4 recent posts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Also, Spengler connects Turkey's current Kurdish problem with its unresolved Armenian genocide issue. I have never been as enthusiastic as some about Kurdistan, as noted here. This prejudice is based on their more than willing complicity in the Armenian genocide. As Spengler notes, "Turkey’s military leaders enlisted Kurdish tribes to do most of the actual killing in return for Armenian land. That is why Kurds dominate eastern Turkey, which used to be called, “Western Armenia”. It is not without irony, that as Spengler observes "the Armenian genocide, in short, gave rise to what today is Turkey's Kurdish problem."

And this behavior is not all ancient history, either. In the 1980s and 1990s, while the Turkish government looked the other way, Kurds in southeastern Turkey murdered and terrorized the Suriani Christian population of Mardin province. Most fled, and Kurds took possession of their businesses, homes and farms.

More from Spengler:

Nations have tragic flaws, just as do individuals. The task of the tragedian is to show how catastrophic occurrences arise from hidden faults rather than from random error. Turkish history is tragic: a fatal flaw in the national character set loose the 1915 genocide against the Armenians, as much as Macbeth’s ambition forced him to murder Banquo. Because the same flaw still torments the Turkish nation, and the tragedy has a sequel in the person of the Kurds, Turkey cannot face up to its century-old crime against the Armenians.

Shakespeare included the drunken Porter in Macbeth for comic relief; in the present version, the cognate role is played by US President George W Bush, who has begged Congress not to offend an important ally by stating the truth about what happened 100 years ago. The sorry spectacle of an American president begging Congress not to affirm what the whole civilized world knows to be true underlines the overall stupidity of US policy towards the Middle East.

It is particularly despicable for a Western nation to avert its eyes from a Muslim genocide against a Christian population.... It was not quite the same as Hitler’s genocide against the Jews, that is, the Turks did not propose to kill every ethnic Armenian everywhere in the world, but only those in Anatolia. But it was genocide, or the word has no meaning. To teach Turkish schoolchildren that more Turks than Armenians died in a “conflict” is a symptom of national hysteria. [and] touches upon a profound and well-justified insecurity in the Turkish national character.

Oot and Aboot in Toronto

I am back home after spending a few days in Toronto, where frequent flyer miles facilitated my attendance at the 33rd annual Byzantine Studies Conference. I attended 31 lectures in all--on such weighty subjects as "Barking at the Cross: A Curious Incident from the So-Called Chronicle of Zachariah of Mytilene," "Theopaschism in the Aftermath of of Chalcedon: An Early Prefiguration of Neo-Chalcedonianism," and "The Multiple-Domed Basilicas of Cyprus: Date and Significance." You get the picture, but I just love this sort of thing.



The fact that the booksellers were out in force was icing on the cake for me. At these events, the normally obscenely over-priced scholarly tomes are marked down to merely over-priced. I was excited to obtain a couple of hard to find works on St. Ephrem.



Most everyone there--besides myself--was either a professor or graduate student. I was designated as "Independent Scholar." I enjoyed myself immensely, and I briefly wondered what course my life would have taken had I pursued this career option. There's little regret, though. Academia is a fascinating place to visit, but I'm not sure I would want to live there.

A few observations, following:

• Toronto is a nice, pleasant city, just teeming with nice, pleasant people. The area around the University of Toronto, as well as some of the closer-in neighborhoods, are attractive and still retain something of an English feel to them. But much of the city--and particularly in the outlying metropolitan areas, with its horrendous traffic, box stores, malls and warehouses--could just as easily be...Houston. I found the sameness of our adjoining modern cultures to be striking. When you travel, passport in hand, to a foreign country, you expect things to be different. There's no real sense of this in Toronto. I spent a day before the conference driving through some of Ontario--or at least the part between Toronto and Buffalo. At the risk of making sweeping generalizations based on a brief exposure, I still have to say that Ontario is very much of a piece with New England, New York, etc. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just striking. In fact, the only Canadian "ey" I heard was from my new pal, Shaun the panhandler.

• On the northwest corner of the university campus, sits the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), a large, stolid 1920's structure housing treasures of Ontario's history. While the building was not exactly awe-inspiring, it fit in well with the surrounding university community. Or at least it did. In June of this year, the new addition to the museum was opened. The powers that be decided to jazz it up a bit, the result being the picture at the top of the post. It is as though a giant steel and glass meteor had crashed into the side of the museum, leaving a vicious, ugly scar on the cityscape. Museums, by their very nature, are meant to impart to future generations something of the collective consciousness of a culture. Perhaps this monstrosity will indeed speak to the chaos and confusion of our own age. Alarmingly, the architect is one of two awarded the design for the new World Trade Center. In one of the presentations, the New York Times was quoted regarding 19th-century Byzantinist painter, Benjamin Constant, who paintings were described as "an aching void where taste should be." The same can now be said for the ROM.

• One of the great highlights of the trip was meeting and visiting with Daniel Larison, a young man whose work I have admired for some time. A Ph.D. student in Byzantine history at the University of Chicago, he presented an excellent paper on monothelitism at the conference. Daniel is a brilliant thinker, whose interests are wide-ranging. I find his blog, Eunomia, a must read, as are his articles in The American Conservative and other journals. He is an astute observer of foreign policy and political philosophy. On top of all that, he is a heck of a nice guy.

• To say that academic groups can be a bit insular would be putting it mildly. But that said, I had enjoyable visits with several others at the conference, as well. I met a professor at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary in Boston and discovered we had mutual friends from Holy Trinity in Dallas. I also had an enjoyable visit with a professor who presented a paper examining a phenomenon in the year 518 when, at the festival of the dedication of the Cross in Jerusalem, some Monophysites "became possessed by demons and bark at the Cross." I asked her whether she was aware of a similar occurrence on the American frontier, at the Cane Ridge Revival, in Kentucky, 1801. (This event played a pivotal role in the birth of the American Restoration Movement churches. Although well documented, church historians have always been a bit sheepish about the "barking" associated with the revival.) She was fascinated to hear of this and eager to know more. This led into a discussion of her research into Byzantine medical issues, which led, in turn to her reference to "Pontic honey." To which, I replied, "Oh, you mean crazy honey?" This led to the retelling on my anecdote about crazy honey in the Kackar Mountains, discussed previously, here. I can't imagine having such a conversation in any other setting!

• I went to Toronto a day early, specifically so I could rent a car and drive back into the States to do a bit of genealogical investigation. One branch of my paternal line stayed settled on Cape Cod for 5 generations, before decamping to western Massachusetts in the mid 1770s. Stopping there for a generation, they pushed on to far western New York, northeastern Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. One branch moved on to Missouri, from which two families stumbled into Texas just in time for the Civil War. Anyway, I tagged a couple of cemeteries that contained the graves of my g-g-g-g-grandmother, as well as 2 of my g-g-g-grandfather's siblings, among others. I do this for the same reason some people work crosswords or do puzzles--the hunt is the thing. But I was struck by just how attractive this part of the country was: the gently rolling hills, the forests, the neat, tended farmsteads with their massive barns. I wondered just what it was in the American psyche that made our forebears leave such homes--for the lands they found were often baser, less attractive and less productive. Obviously, everyone couldn't stay, but I wonder if any of these pioneers who later found themselves on a thin hillside in Missouri, Arkansas or Texas ever had buyer's remorse.

• And finally, a Canada joke: One our way to a concert presented at St. Anne's Church, one of the Canadian professors commented on the innate indecisiveness of Canadians (and how we Americans could stand to be a tad less decisive in all things). He told of a nationwide contest held to arrive at a slogan for Canadians that would parallel the saying "as American as apple pie." The winning slogan: "As Canadian as it is possible to be, under the circumstances."

An Orthodox Sampling

A couple of recent articles of an Orthodox nature have caught my attention.

First, at Sword in the Fire, found here, Theron has an excellent post on What will you do with Ignatius? This is the question all Evangelicals must grapple with if they ever venture into the Church Fathers. For if you believe that the nature of the early church was basically along the Protestant format, and that the rise of bishops and the sacramental view of the Eucharist and of baptism were later developments--innovations, in the Protestant view, that led the church down the wrong road and required the corrective of the Reformation--then what, exactly do you do with St. Ignatius?

His writings show the general understanding of the church in regard to the Apostolic teachings on these subjects--an understanding, I might add, at great variance with later Protestant interpretations. At the time of his martyrdom in AD 107, Ignatius was the aged Bishop of Antioch. He was of the First Century church, a slightly younger contemporary of St. John and the other Apostles. How exactly could these "digressions" have appeared and become generally accepted right under the noses of the Apostles? Either St. Ignatius must be wrong, or the Protestant presuppositions of 1500 years hence.

My first contact with the writings of St. Ignatius was an eye-opener for me, as it was for Theron. And with each of us, his work moved us down the road towards Orthodoxy. So, do read Theron's post. Better yet, read St. Ignatius. Just curious, has anyone else out there had the same experience with his writings?

Second, Frederica Mathewes Greene examines--in the face of an increasingly feminized Western Christianity--what exactly attracts men to the Orthodox faith. She canvased 100 Orthodox male converts for this study. Read the entire article Men and Church, here, from which the following is a brief summary:

1. Challenging. Orthodoxy is active and not passive…[It] is serious. It is difficult. It is demanding. It is about mercy, but it’s also about overcoming oneself…not to ‘feel good’ but to become holy. It is rigorous, and in that rigor...find[ing] liberation.

2. Just Tell Me What You Want. Orthodoxy presents a reasonable set of boundaries…It’s easier for guys to express themselves in worship if there are guidelines about how it’s supposed to work-especially when those guidelines are so simple and down-to-earth that you can just set out and start doing something…People begin learning immediately through ritual and symbolism…This regimen of discipline makes one mindful of one’s relation to the Trinity, to the Church, and to everyone he meets.

3. With a Purpose. Men appreciate that this challenge has a goal: union with God. Orthodoxy preserves and transmits ancient Christian wisdom about how to progress toward this “theosis”…Every sacrament or spiritual exercise is designed to bring the person, body and soul, further into continual awareness of the presence of Christ within, and also within every other human being.

4. A New Dimension. Excitement at discovering a dimension somehow sensed [in previous Christian experience] but unable till now to identify, the noetic”--the reality of God’s presence and of the entire spiritual realm…had become completely distorted in the Christianity I knew...Either...subsumed into the harsh rigidity of legalism, or confused with emotions and sentimentality, or diluted by religious concepts being used in a vacuous, platitudinous way. All three-uptight legalism, effusive sentimentality, and vapid empty talk-are repugnant to men…Participation in the Holy Mysteries [sacraments], observing the fasts, daily prayers, and confession with a spiritual director means making progress along a defined path that is going somewhere real and better.

5. Jesus Christ. He is the center of everything the Church does or says…Orthodoxy offers a robust Jesus…the “Marine Corps” of Christianity…Christ in Orthodoxy is a militant, butt-kicking Jesus who takes Hell captive…Compared to the Orthodox hymns of Christ’s Nativity, “‘the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay’ has almost nothing to do with the Eternal Logos entering irrevocably, inexorably, kenotically, silently yet heroically, into the fabric of created reality.”

6. Continuity. The Orthodox Church offers what others do not: continuity with the first followers of Christ…continuity, not archeology…A catechumen writes that he had tried to learn everything necessary to interpret Scripture correctly, including ancient languages. “I expected to dig my way down to the foundation and confirm everything I’d been taught. Instead, the further down I went, the weaker everything seemed. I realized I had only acquired the ability to manipulate the Bible to say pretty much anything I wanted it to. The only alternative to cynicism was tradition. If the Bible was meant to say anything, it was meant to say it within a community, with a tradition to guide the reading. In Orthodoxy I found what I was looking for.”

7. Worship weirdness. It’s amazingly different…The prostrations, the incense, the chanting, the icons—some of these things took getting used to, but they really filled a void in what I’d experienced till then…Some men initially can’t make heads or tails of what we do in worship, because it’s not purely intellectual, and employs poetic worship language…It’s that there is such a strong masculine feeling to Orthodox worship and spirituality.

8. Not Sentimental. A hearty dislike for what they perceive as a soft Western Jesus…[which] presents Jesus as a friend…someone who ‘walks with me and talks with me’…Or it depicts Jesus whipped, dead on the cross. Neither is the type of Christ the typical male wants much to do with. men are drawn to the dangerous element of Orthodoxy, which involves “the self-denial of a warrior, the terrifying risk of loving one’s enemies, the unknown frontiers to which a commitment to humility might call us…Men get pretty cynical when they sense someone’s attempting to manipulate their emotions, especially when it’s in the name of religion. They appreciate the objectivity of Orthodox worship. It’s not aimed at prompting religious feelings but at performing an objective duty…Evangelical churches call men to be passive and nice (think ‘Mr. Rogers’). Orthodox churches call men to be courageous and act (think ‘Braveheart’).

9. Men in Balance. There are only two models for men: be ‘manly’ and strong, rude, crude, macho, and probably abusive; or be sensitive, kind, repressed and wimpy. But in Orthodoxy, masculine is held together with feminine; it’s real and down to earth, ‘neither male nor female,’ but Christ who ‘unites things in heaven and things on earth.

10. Men in Leadership. Like it or not, men simply prefer to be led by men… It’s the last place in the world men aren’t told they’re evil simply for being men.

For me, the main reason for my journey to Orthodoxy was obviously Jesus Christ, the faith being Christocentric far beyond my understanding and practice as a Protestant. But beyond that, Categories 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 played a large role in my decision. What about you other guys out there?

And third, the UK Catholic journal, The Tablet, has a good story on noted Orthodox scholar John D. Zizioulas, who is also Metropoliltan of Pergamon. Yes, Pergamon. Zizioulas is noted for his Being as Communion (which I have read), and he has a new book in print, Communion as Otherness (which I have not). The interview touches on a number of topics and is well worth a look. Read it here.

Time to Spit

In recent months, I have refrained from commenting on the on-going war and American politics, as I realize I am becoming increasingly radicalized in my views. So I have tried to stick to travel and some occasional religious insight. The following post should get it out of my system for a while longer.

I recently watched once more "O Brother Where Art Thou," George Clooney's clever retelling of the Homeric epic by way of Depression-era Mississippi. I was reminded of how much I enjoyed the movie, primarily for the scenes of Charles Durning as Governor Pappy O'Daniel. In my book, Durning is one of the best character actors of all time. Give him a few lines and/or a dance number, and he will absolutely steal a movie--as he did this one. One of my favorite scenes was the one where the ample Mr. Durning did a little jig up to the microphone while the Soggy Bottom Boys were singing. This scene, however, followed perhaps the most satisfying scene in the movie. O'Daniel's opponent, the demagogue Homer Stokes, tried to turn the crowd against our errant heroes. Instead, the crowd turned surly towards Stokes, despite his pleas of "Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?" The boos gained the day and the incredulous and sputtering Stokes was pelted with produce before literally being ridden out of town on a rail.

I had a brief sense of this same satisfaction while watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia last week. And while I am alarmed at our administration's self-serving demonization of Iran, this guy is a real piece of work. He was clearly offput, and in obvious discomfort, by the questioning of Iran's persecution of homosexuals. With a straight face, Ahmadinejad declared there were there no homosexuals in Iran, and that he couldn't understand why anyone would even think such a thing. Yeah right, and there are no left-handed people in Iran, either. Jeez. [While indeed the modern understanding of homosexuality is a Western concept, the behavior itself is thoroughly rooted in the East.] And of course, that doesn't even begin to address Iranian persecution of Christians, Kurds, Bahais, Zoroasterians, etc. Anyway, such a bald-faced inanity was met with hoots of derision from the Columbia audience. Again, very satisfying in a Homer Stokesian sort of way.



This brings me to this excellent story by Taki. It seems that Taki, wife and son were celebrating Mrs. T's birthday at an exclusive Manhattan establishment of the type people like Taki would frequent. An acquaintance stopped by their table, and in the course of the conversation, let it be known that he was with a group honoring Paul Wolfowitz in a private dining room. Taki became incensed: "You actually are sitting down with that lying pig who has caused so much death and is responsible for tens of thousands being maimed and killed?” Then it gets interesting. Taki determined that he would go to the room and spit at Wolfowitz. Mrs. T pleaded with him not to do so, as it would ruin the birthday celebration. Taki reluctantly agreed, but not before some of the waiters had expressed to him their disgust for having to serve such a man. I'm with Mrs. T on this. I am foursquare against scenes in restaurants, believing that one of the best gauges of anyone's character is how they comport themselves in restaurants, particularly in their treatment of waiters and waitresses. So, Mrs. T was correct to reign Taki in. But I do sympathize with the understandable disgust at this ringleader of the bloody cabal that engineered our current debacle.

Taki concludes:

We should not take these liars lying down. These scumbags have caused so much misery and death, so much suffering to so many people, they should not be allowed to walk around with impunity. Forget the think tanks and networks and newspapers which still employ them. The neo-cons know how to survive. The only way to make them realize that they cannot fool all the people all of the time, as they have done until now, is to humiliate them whenever and wherever they appear in public. I had my chance and blew it. Perhaps I will have a second chance while I’m still around.

"Are We Rome?" Discussion

One of the most interesting discussions I've come across recently is the diavlog between Rod Dreher, author and journalist with the Dallas Morning News, and Cullen Murphy, author of Are We Rome?, found here. The periodic comparisons of our ongoing American cultural decline to that of ancient Rome always makes for a good debate. Personally, I believe strongly and unequivocally that...well, it is...and then it isn't. Similarities abound, certainly, but these are sometimes simplistic and superficial, and there is obviously much that is dissimilar between the course taken by the two empires.

I have some major reservations with the hypothesis. First, Rome really didn't fall, as such--or at least not the way generally thought, or when generally thought. Certainly there were times when the barbarians were literally at the gates, so to speak. But there was never a time when a Roman citizen of southern Gaul, for example, would stop and say, "my, haven't things been crappy since Rome fell." From my readings, I find no sense of such a sudden change. Societies changed and evolved, and in many ways declined, but the transformation was slow and often imperceptible and life went on.

Also, the end of Rome is either tagged at 410 AD (Visigoths), 455 AD (Vandals), or 476 AD (death of Romulus Augustus). But by the time Rome "fell," it had already been superseded (and eclipsed) by the New Rome (Constantinople.) These Romans of the East thought of themselves as exactly that, the "Romaioi." They would have been puzzled if anyone had addressed them as a Byzantine. And not only that, but this New Rome-for centuries, the marvel of civilization-continued on until 1453. So, even if one were to buy into the whole America=Rome theory, the date used for comparison is about 1,000 years shy of the final fall. The Roman experience is instructive for any culture, in any time, but one should be cautious in drawing too many comparisons.

That said, comparisons are easy to come by, even with the Eastern Romans. I am currently reading Michael Arnold's Against the Fall of Night, a 1975 fictional account of the Comnenian Revival of 12th-century Constantinople. In many ways, the era (1080-1204) marked the very pinnacle of Byzantine civilization. But behind the glitter and pageantry, the rot had already set in, their projected power something of a deceptive facade. For centuries, Constantinople had maintained a defensive posture--simply trying to maintain its borders, or what had once been theirs. This changed with the latter Comneni, who were aggressive militarily, which quickly exacerbated the underlying weakness of the empire. But even after the catastrophe of 1204, the Byzantines came back and held on for another 200 years.

American culture may have even more in common with Rome than we realize. But these things work out over extremely long periods of time. Even if true, we have a bit of a run yet, and I doubt if things will play out exactly as the doomsayers often predict.