Tag Archives: media

Wherefore the Divisions?

No sooner did Kerry call it quits than everyone was talking about the
divisions
of the nation, pointing to the red-and-blue maps that CNN, FOX, etc.
posted for
our viewing pleasure. Many people were demanding that Bush heal those
divisions.
Before we can even address that, though, where are these divisions and
are they
really that bad? I seem to recall some nasty divisions during Clinton’s
presidency,
for instance. Never mind that states were often won by narrow margins,
and that
many of the red states reelected Democratic
governors, for instance
. Moreover, Massachusetts has a Republican
governor,
for crying out loud!

And I call our attention to an article previously posted on
this blog
, regarding
Ohio voters
. They were hardly the ravening anti-gay, anti-Arab
bigots that the
New York Times op-ed page would have us think they were. They just
weren’t that
hot about Kerry–the relative indifferent strikes me as the very
opposite of the
divisions we are all supposed to fear.

I think there are divisions but they are being exaggerated and distorted
by Hollywood
(thanks Drudge, for this one) and some of the more
hysterical NY Times op-eds
(though this
one by David Brooks
is quite good–it doesn’t hurt that I agree with
him on
most of his points). It has been just over a week since a complicated,
hard-fought
election ended: let’s take a deep, cleansing breath, and look at what
really is
dividing America, and learn about what those things are before we set
about fixing
them.

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

This evening I wrote an email to Evangelical Christian talk show host Marty Minto. I anxiously await his response. In the meantime, I’d love for my Protestant readers to give me their take.

Marty,

I mean the following as a serious question, not just some anti-"sola scriptura" taunt. I honestly want your answer to this, so please be open minded to it.

You repeatedly make reference to "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:16) If there is a right way, there must also be a wrong way. My concern is that there seem to be so many ways. For nearly every belief you hold and defend with Scripture, I can find someone else who holds an opposing belief that they can defend with Scripture.

All who claim Scriptural support believe that theirs is the "right division" of the Word. Obviously, someone must be wrong. In fact, several must be. Is one necessarily right? Unless God’s Word returns void, there must be. Who is it? How can we know? When many reputable and born-again faithful hold differing interpretations of Scripture, who is to be trusted and believed? Does majority rule? Does one person or group hold the authoritative interpretation?

The Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that apostolic succession places interpretive authority with patriarchs (the bishop of Rome being the head patriarch according to Catholics). When the apostles, including Paul, were alive, they acted as supreme earthly authorities in disputes among the faithful. Before they died, they appointed successors to hold that authority. Until the Reformation, that succession of leaders was unbroken. Even the split between East and West did not break that. Once the Reformation began, it did not take long before very disparate interpretations and teachings arose. One need not be a trained scholar of the Reformation to know some of the differences between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, and Fox, to name but a few. In the 400 years since that pivotal century, the number of denominations has grown exponentially. As soon as someone disagrees with the beliefs held by the majority of a denomination, they leave, often forming splinter groups of their own, where the process can repeat itself. While there are some constants between at least the mainline denominations, there are almost as many Evangelical interpretations and teachings as there are Evangelicals. With no central authority to appeal to, everyone can say theirs is the right reading of Scripture. Even among the mainlines, there are major disagreements and there is no final authority for them to appeal to. So I cannot help but ask this question of you:

Why should anyone trust your interpretations of Scripture over others? Perhaps you could answer this during Theological Thursday.

Eric

Catholics, Kerry, and a Column

David McCarthy (Pitt News) wonders why a priest at the Catholic Newman Center
critiqued his writing. Perhaps this sloppy and uninformative segment
demonstrates why. By the way, this
article
is a follow-up to another
of his
.

Sitting down with a priest at the Catholic Newman Center,
I politely asked the clergyman’s opinion [about why many Catholics would
not vote for Kerry]. He started talking about the church’s views on
abortion and that despite how the media portrayed them, Catholics tend
to be relatively split between voting for Kerry and Bush.

He reminded me of the awesome knowledge members of the clergy
possessed and how, as a small child, hearing them speak always comforted
me. I even started to feel a little embarrassed for having taken such a
swipe at the Catholic Church in the first place.

But then the priest’s tone changed, and he started to question my
abilities as a writer. He told me that my piece was unconvincing and
even offered me some tips on how I could make it as a journalist.

I left the Newman Center feeling much the same way I did when I left
Catholic school: bad about myself. How could a Kerry supporter, a Bush
supporter, a Catholic and her mother, a celebrity and a superhero all
agree with and respect my writing if I lacked the ability to effectively
convey an opinion? I sighed when I knew the answer. While the Catholic
Church may offer holy teaching dating back to Christ, it hasn’t been in
touch with humanity for thousands of years. If I had presented the same
column to a priest in a different era, I probably would have been burned
at the stake or excommunicated.

I wonder which priest he interviewed. I wonder what he said about
the Church’s positions on abortion and pro-choice Catholic politicians.
I wonder what he said about why Catholics were split. If he was so awed
by the knowledge the clergy possess, why didn’t he share some of it with
his readers? Why did the priest’s criticism of his writing change his
feelings about the wisdom imparted to him?

The Pitt News allows readers to comment on articles. I invite my
readers, especially those in the Pittsburgh area, to respond to
McCarthy’s “journalism”. By the way, should Mr. McCarthy find his way
back here and criticize my writing, I won’t be upset. I’m not the one
pretending to be a journalist, writing for a rag that pretends to be a
serious publication.

Bent Out of Shape

I’m listening to the Marty Minto show right now (M – F, 3PM – 6PM on
101.5 WORD-FM in Pittsburgh) and he’s about to have a coronary because
a day care
center is teaching yoga to kids
. He’s yelling for people to repent
and generally carrying on like a corner apocalyptic preacher. I called
the show and gave him an earful about the fear-monger he is. In his
eyes, there is no way anyone can practice yoga without being drawn into
Hindu. Oy!

For more about yoga and Christianity, check out this
Messy Christian post. Let me know what you think.

Is Yoga unChristian?

Just a year ago, my answer would’ve been absolutely. But the funny thing that happens when your worldview comes crashing down is that you start to question everything that you once so firmly believed in. I learnt, in the past few months, that one’s “version” of Christianity or how one practices it is largely influenced by cultural and societal pressures/factors. I even start to question the validity of the word “true Christianity” because one’s true Christianity is another’s “backslidden” Christianity.

This post is not to discuss why Yoga is B.A.D. I’ve heard them all, people. Nor is it to discuss why yoga is good.

I want to think beyond the good/bad mentality that many of us Christians have where we’re forced to choose sides. I want to get above that. One, because I’m tired of this line of reasoning. Two, because life is just not so simple!

A Study in Contrasts

I'm fascinated by bias and slant in the media. Here are two opposing spins on the same story.

Vatican Has Not Denied Automatic Excommunication of John Kerry (LifeSiteNews)

"News which broke yesterday about a Vatican consultant's response to a question about canon law application to Catholic politicians who support abortion, has created a media uproar and contradictory statements about the Vatican's involvement in the response."

"Washington-based Rev. Basil Cole's response to California canon lawyer Mark Balestrieri indicated that Catholic politicians who advocate abortion are 'automatically excommunicated'. This pronouncement was understood by Balestrieri to indicate Vatican support for his lawsuit against Kerry. However, with the Presidential contest in question, Vatican authorities, with unusual haste for an institution that is typically very slow to respond to even the gravest matters, today fended off any suggestion of involvement in Balestrieri's lawsuit. Balestrieri has launched a church lawsuit against Kerry seeking to have him disciplined by Church authorities for his outspoken support for abortion"

Kerry "excommunication" scam exposed (CathNews)

"An official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has claimed that a Californian canon lawyer seeking a formal decree of heresy against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry of Massachusetts has misrepresented his contact with the Vatican office."

"The canon lawyer has claimed publicly that he received a communication from the Congregation implying that Kerry is excommunicated because any Catholic politician who says he is 'personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose,' incurs automatic excommunication. If credible, the claim could cause significant damage to Kerry's chances in an election that some pollsters say hinges on the Catholic vote."

"'The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr (Marc) Balestrieri,' said Congregation undersecretary Fr Augustine DiNoia."