Kakistocrat

While Christmas season has drawn to a close, there is a lingering suspicion that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared the Nativity to be "legendary." Sophia Borland’s "Archbishop says nativity a ‘legend,’ " of the Daily Telegraph is to thank for this, and bloggers have generally assumed she was reliable.

Before singling out some particularly mistaken blogs, allow me to briefly summarize the Archbishop’s statements. In an interview with Simon Mayo, the Archbishop is asked to comment on the historicity of certain characteristics found on a standard Christmas card.

The Archbishop notes that Jesus was in fact born in poor circumstances, that Mary and Joseph would have been nearby, and that Mary was indeed a virgin. As there is no mention of ox and asses being present, Williams notes that he "can live without the ox and asses." When asked about the Wise Men, he responds:

Well Matthew’s gospel doesn’t tell us that there were three of them, doesn’t tell us they were kings, doesn’t tell us where they came from, it says they’re astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That’s all we’re really told so, yes, ‘the three kings with one from Africa,’ — that’s legend; it works quite well as a legend.

He suggests that the shepherds and the Wise Men probably didn’t appear to Jesus at the same time and he suggests that the various scientific explanations that seek to explain what led the Wise Men to Jesus "make sense" to him.

There is nothing unorthodox about anything he has said here regarding the common elements of the Christmas tradition, although certain bloggers have made a great deal out of it.

The Boring Made Dull is bothered that "the Rt. Rev feels the need to concede so much turf" and this blogger believes that this is precisely why the Anglican Communion is having such difficulty filling the pews, but what Nativity-related Biblical turf have we seen the "Rt. Rev" conceding, I wonder?

Sisyphus appears surprised that December 25th is not necessarily the day Jesus was born on. Well, whose fault is that? He then extends his thoughts by saying "apparently that ubiquitous nativity scene that clutters courthouse lawns across the country is simply a legend." And after providing a block quote from Borland’s article, Sisyphus asks, "now, about that virgin birth…" but if s/he would have read the Archbishop’s interview, s/he would have also learned that the Archbishop affirms the virgin birth. My question for Sisyphus is the same I asked to Boring Made Dull: Show me biblically precisely what the Archbishop is conceding?

St. John Valdosta Blog identifies the Archbishop as "calling the Bible into question," and states "when one starts questioning what is plainly written in the Scriptures…" Same question to this blogger: What precisely does the Archbishop call into question that can be found in the nativity scenes of the Scriptures? What does the Archbishop question that is ‘plainly written in the Scriptures?’

Besides taking cheap shots at Anglicans throughout this blogger’s short post (ironically, in his ‘Post Comment Rules, the blogger states, ‘let’s attack ideas, not people’) the blogger closes by attacking the person, saying "Dr. Williams [has] about as much credibility as a cartoon character,’ and my question to this blogger is: How much credibility would you like to see attached to your claims, when you post a topic that you have not even slightly researched?

PBLosser expresses an overall cynicism with the presentation of Christianity in the media during Christmas, a presentation that suggests "that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, and certainly not to be taken at face value," but this blogger mistakenly believes that this assessment describes the Archbishop’s stance on the Nativity. Where, blogger, does the Archbishop insinuate that the Gospel writers are unreliable and not to be trusted, or not to be taken at face value?

At InfinityGoods, the blogger writes that "the Archbishop of Canterbury says there was no virgin birth, no magi (only a legend) and no star among other blabbering." Had this blogger read the actual interview with Simon Mayo, s/he would have discovered that in fact the Archbishop does believe in the Virgin Birth, does not think that the Magi are legendary, and that he does not suggest that there was not something that led the Magi to Jesus.

Finally, it seems that Tad Cronn did read the interview, although his interpretation is flawed. Cronn seems to suggest that Williams doubts the very existence of the Magi, when in fact, Williams simply suggests that all we are told Biblically is that "they’re astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire," so I would ask Tad: If Williams begins to get into trouble Biblically as your suggest, and yet Biblically, Williams only says what the Bible says about the Magi, how precisely is he getting into trouble?

Tad has a problem with Williams’ assessment of the Star. Williams is asked by Mayo is there is a star above the place where the child is. Williams responds:

Don’t know, I mean Matthew talks about a star rising, about the star standing still; we know starts don’t behave quite like that, that the wise men should have seen something which triggered a recognition that something significant was going on; some constellation, there are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they followed that trek; that makes sense to me.

The blogger is bothered that the Archbishop makes "the virgin birth optional." Well, he doesn’t really. He simply says that he would hate to set that up as some sort of hurdle for people before they sign on to the faith, and that in his own experience, it was over a period of years that the importance of the virgin birth became clear. His approach is pragmatic, and shows a recognition that certain elements of the faith take time to mature.

Tad believes that Williams "is afflicted with the same sort of creeping atheist that has wormed its way into churches around the world," and states that "if there was no magi, there was no star, there was no virgin birth, then there was no Son of God…" all leaning towards Tad’s eventual point which is mooted by the fact that the Archbishop does not, and has not rejected those things. Tad closes with a "If the archbishop has now decided that he needs to dissect the Bible and underline the unacceptable parts, I would suggest it’s time he hang up the robes and start his own religion." My question for Tad, which is not all that different than the one to all these other bloggers is this: Precisely what parts of the Bible, regarding the Nativity, has the Archbishop decided that he now needs to dissect and identify as unacceptable?

There’s something humourous about the Archbishop identifying Spong as a presenter of arguments that are astonishingly misrepresented and demonstrate a high level of confusion, or his calling astrology "bunk," or his description of the climate in Israel as being "pretty damn cold" but if we have a problem with him, it should rest in reality, which is not where the preceeding bloggers at the time found rest.

K.

Robert Latimer was denied day parole this past week. For those unfamiliar with Robert Latimer he is newsworthy because on October 24, 1993 he placed his daughter Tracy in his truck, and connected a hose from the exhaust pipe to the inside of the truck where Tracy sat. An autopsy found high levels of carbon monoxide in Tracy’s blood.

All this happened while the rest of the Latimer family was at church. It was Latimer’s wife Laura who found Tracy dead in her bed. Latimer originally maintained that she had died in her sleep.

After a lengthy period of trials and appeals, Robert Latimer began spending his second-degree murder sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years on January 18, 2001.

All of this seems very uncontroversial, perhaps even black and white, and yet in 1999, 3 out of every 4 Canadians believed Latimer should have been treated more leniently. This interpretation seems bizarre, until we consider that Tracy had a severe form of cerebral palsy, and yet the Law which says that one person must not take the life of another, just as much applies to the mentally or physically ill like Tracy as it does to healthy girls of her age. If it doesn’t, if the state of a person’s health is seen as the factor determining whether such a person has a right to live or not, then Tracy will not be the only victim, and fearing this, appropriately, because Latimer has shown no remorse for his act, he remains imprisoned.

K.

This week Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis informed the Press, that were Rudi Giuliani to approach him in an attempt to receive Communion, he would be refused it. Giuliani is one of five Catholic presidential candidates (with Democrats Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich) who support abortion rights, with only one Catholic (Senator Brownback) opposing.

Barack Obama, another Presidential contender, in his bestseller The Audacity of Hope describes being approached by an abortion-protestor who said, ‘Mr. Obama, I know you’re a Christian with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?’

Obama writes:

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortion, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on way to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. 

‘I will pray for you,’ the protestor said. ‘I pray that you have a change of heart.’ Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own–that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me (p. 197-98).

The reason the Church is against abortion (in the words of Pope Benedict, ‘today’s gravest evil’ is abortion) is because life is present in the womb. With what we know today about the development of the fetus in the womb, the Church rightly sees little difference between the abortion of a fetus one month away from birth, and the murder of a child one month after birth. We need also remember that arguments that seem to grey the issue of abortion, do not find another way of disposing that which is in the womb.

There are over one million abortions in the United States every year, and over one hundred thousand in Canada. Placing restrictions on abortion really won’t bring those same numbers into the back allies with coat hangers. They may bring some there, but we want to heed Obama’s warning about those who feel they have no other option, though not by granting full access to abortion, but rather by giving hope to those who feel hopeless, and by giving them choices, we may find that less and less would choose a back street. When those whom Obama alludes to those who are pregnant and can’t see a future for their child and who then abort, everyone around that person is guilty for having not given hope, and for allowing that person to believe that the task of raising a child is one that they would receive no help in. It does, after all, take a village to raise a child (Ha! Reference to Hillary and Barack in one paragraph!). To promote alternatives to abortion is what takes audacity, not satisfaction with the status quo.

Barack Obama was previously listed as “one of 10 people who could change the world.” I happen to believe that he is a good man and has a lot to offer the United States. I have the audacity to hope that he not only reverses his stand on abortion (though my realistic side says this is a pipedream) but also promotes realistic alternatives to abortion so “as to reduce the number of women who feel the need to have abortions in the first place” which he says he wants to do.

K.

In Ames, Iowa today, the Iowa Straw Poll will be held. Though several county polls have already shown the strength of particular Republican presidential candidates in particular areas, the Iowa Straw Poll draws voters from all across the state. The results are symbolic. They have no binding power, but they do show, in a very specific way, the organizational strength that each candidate has in the state, and previously lesser-known candidates, should they preform stronger than nationally expected, can have their campaigns reinvigorated, and their profiles enhanced, by the new found attention given to them by the party insiders, the media, and voters from other states.

Former NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani is the clear front-runner to be the Republican candidate, but the undeclared former Law and Order actor Fred Thompson is still seen as alternative (though it is an alternative that I suspect will be passed over). Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and perhaps Arizonae Senator John McCain (both of whom have national profiles), should be seen in the second tier of candidates, if there is a three-fold division, followed by the third tier that consists of Kansas Senator Brownback, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Representative’s Hunter of California, Paul of Texas, and Tancredo of Colorado, as well as former Wisconsin Governor (who was also Dubya’s Health Secretary) Tommy Thompson.

Guiliani, McCain, and the undeclared Fred Thompson have bypassed the Poll, and because of this Mitt Romney will win the Poll. His victory will not be a major boost for him, as observers will rightly suggest that he only won because the stronger Giuliani bypassed the Poll.

Since Romney’s win this weekend is assumed, it is who runs second, and perhaps even third, that will be widely watched. The social conservative base of the Party (perhaps 65%) has not found comfort in any of the front-runners. Giuliani is not a social conservative, and voters have not (nor will they) warm to Romney. The social conservative base of the party (which is even stronger in Iowa), as a voting block, placed behind on of the second or third tier candidates, will be most interesting, and should a candidate emerge this weekend as the choice of the Iowa social conservatives, then this most definitely will have ramifications for future state polls.

The candidate that I have quietly been rooting for since last December is Senator Brownback. While the margin of error, if taken into account, could well put him into the statistical negatives, there is hope for him. Some of the candidates have no chance (Rep. Ron Paul, for example), and some are extremely well qualified but will likely be disappointed by the support placed in them (Tommy Thompson), but there is a serious possibility that Brownback (or perhaps Mike Huckabee) could emerge as the choice of the social conservative base of the Iowa Republican Party, and if one does that changes everything. Of the two of them, Brownback, who is hugely popular in the Midwest, has already topped a county poll, and a strong performance this weekend, will give him a better profile nationally, and give the conservative base an alternative to Guiliani, who despite his many strengths, differs in certain very important ways from this central base.

K.

UPDATE 8:35 PM (11/08/07)

Mitt Romney has won the Straw Poll garnering 31.5%. Mike Huckabee polled second (18.1%) with Sam Brownback (15.3%) coming in third.

You may have noticed that two weekends ago President Bush was greeted like a rock star in Albania. (The rock star comparison breaks down if Bono is seen as the star and Prime Minister Harper as the audience). Fushe Kruje is the name of the small community near the airport where the President stopped. The National Post reports that American flags were everywhere, and people wore cardboard Uncle Sam hats. The American President was awarded Albania’s highest honour (the Order of the Flag), and soon his face will appear on a new set of commemorative Albanian postage stamps. Bush clearly enjoyed the attention: He even kissed a woman on the cheek, posed for photographs and signed autographs.

Albania is 90% Muslim, and is the only majority Muslim country in Europe. The Post asks sarcastically: "Haven’t these people gotten the memo from Hamas and Hezbollah–the one about Mr. Bush being a warmongering satan out to kill Muslims?"

Perhaps they have and rejected the notion, since it was American initiatives (and not Hamas ones) that twice intervened to save Muslim populations in the 1990’s (first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo).

Albania also supported the not so recent invasion of Iraq, as did every other country that existed for decades under Soviet dominance (that to me is a powerful argument in favour of the invasion), and while some of this support must be seen as financially beneficial, just as many supported it on principle, recognizing that brutal dictators should not live comfortably simply because the world around them, that could do something, remains apathetic.

Some wars take a turn for the worse and its dishonest to suddenly oppose the War in Iraq simply because the coalition’s casualties flow past a number we originally anticipated. Twice external forces intervened to save European Muslim populations in the 1990’s that were being killed, and the invasion of Iraq, even if regime change wasn’t the most celebrated reason for promoting the war originally (Weapons of Mass Destruction, which are a threat to the world, tend to trump dictatorial cruelties, which is usually only a threat to a country’s people), has given a people a chance to live better. The Albanian’s see this.

K.

Dr. Ken Walker (pen name W. Gifford-Jones), a Toronto based physician whose syndicated column appears in more than 500 newspapers, has recently suggested that seven month old conjoined twins Tatiana and Kristina Hogan should have been aborted rather than birthed. He suggests that while nature has created this "terrible catastrophe" (the fertilized egg failing to divide completely, resulting in conjoined twins) its mistake is compounded by subjecting the twins to the terrible fate of being allowed to live.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville identifies this as "negative eugenism" (the elimination of those seen as genetically inferior) and suggests that where it is employed "disabled people become disposable people."

Such twins certainly could have been disposed of for legally there mother could have had an abortion, and medically, it is more than likely that she would have been advised of this. Because she refused to do so, W. Gifford-Jones then questions her rationality, and states that she "should not have been allowed to make the ultimate decision," and that instead an ethical committee who "would have seen the logic of terminating the pregnancy" should have been empowered.

Recognizing the pro-choice dogma that interprets a woman’s right to control her own body to an extreme degree, does Gifford-Jones really wish to subordinate this right to an ethical committee in cases where a mother might see value in life that he sees as having should have never been allowed to emerge?

As a result of technologies which allow for screenings (PGD’s for instance) of the unborn, the decision to abort those ‘defective,’ according to Somerville, "might have the effect of wiping out certain groups of people," like Down Syndrome children, dwarf children, those deaf, those bipolar, those with a cleft palate (even thought this is treatable by the final trimester), those of an unpreferred gender, and even those homosexually oriented (should a ‘gay’ gene be found).

Somerville believes society "will lose lessons in courage, hope, perseverance, balance and acceptance," and that in great likelihood, society’s capacity to be humble will be reduced, while its empathy, compassion and acceptance of difference, as well as respect for life, will be diminished.

In defending Terri Schiavo, President Bush warned that when in doubt, one must always err on the side of life, and I too believe that because our lives go through stages, and because the embryonic stage represents the earliest of human life, the embryo should be allowed to emerge unhindered, just as we were allowed to emerge unhindered. If there are opportunities to improve its quality of life, that may be done, but ultimately the question of ending its life is unethical. Negative eugenics like the kind Gifford-Jones promotes, entrench a view of human life that is dependant on particular characteristics that aim for superficial perfection in others. Such eugenics is even more dangerous when the responsibility to determine elimination is given to a third party like an ethical committee. 

K.

Declaring him to be in possession of "heroic virtues," the Vatican’s Congregation of the Causes of Saints, has moved Pope Pius XII one step closer to official sainthood. As Pope from 1939 to 1958, Pius’s legacy hinges on the question of his perceived silence during the Holocaust.

While plenty has been written both in support and condemnation of Pope Pius XII, only last year were the Vatican archives from his era made fully accessible. Because the question of his silence has still not been adequately addressed, until it has been, and particularly until the Jewish people have been themselves convinced of his "heroic virtues" (perhaps by Yad Vashem’s formal identification of him as a righteous gentle), only then should the case for his sainthood proceed.

While saint-making is an internal Church matter, the potential sainthood of Pius XII, precisely because of his perceived silence during the Holocaust, has consequences beyond the Church, and in light of the relative good relations with the Jewish people that have lasted now some forty years, I do not think it would be wise, or consistent with Christian charity, to recognize the still-present wounds within the Jewish community and proceed by continuing Pius XII’ canonization.

What do you think?

(This is less of a discussion regarding Pius actions during the Holocaust, then it is a discussion of the wisdom of canonizing him while the verdict is still out on his perceived silence).

K.

I was not planning on posting again this week but in light of several developments, I changed my mind.

US Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Controversial Abortion Procedure

Today Justice Anthony Kennedy voted alongside Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito affirming that the Constitution permits a nationwide pan on the partial birth abortion procedure. The majority decision, written by Kennedy, claimed that the Partial Birth Abortion Act, signed into law in 2003, does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

Once the law takes effect, doctors who violate the law could face up to two years in a federal prison.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who challenged the federal ban (Gonzalez v. Carhart) claimed "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the door to an all-out assault on [1973’s Roe v. Wade]."

I doubt it, but here’s hoping.

Virginia Tech Shootings

I was a little bit surprised by the number of Christian people blogging about the Virginia Tech massacre and rather than actually showing solidarity with the victims and the families of the victims, instead went into philosophical discussions about the nature of God, attempting to reconcile competing realities (God as all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful; evil’s existence…).

Rabbi Harold Kushner has written the modern classic on God and suffering. His own son, upon birth, was diagnosed with progeria, a rapid aging disease. Kushner was told that his son would never grow beyond three feet, not grow hair, would look like an old man as a child, and would die in his teens.

All occurred as was said and Kushner notes that when he sought out solace in the literature on suffering almost all seemed "more concerned with defending God’s honour, with logical proof that bad is really good and that evil is necessary to make this a good world, than they were with curing the bewilderment and the anguish of the parent of a dying child."

In contrast to those whom Kushner speaks against, and I believe more appropriately than those who simply use a tragic event to further a theo/philosophical discussion (as I believe a number of well-intended bloggers have done), Providence simply posted around the campus:

Today, a lone gunman killed at least 32 people in dorm and other places on the Virginia Tech campus before being killed himself.

A short email has been sent by the Student Council to the School expressing our sympathies. Please continue to pray for these people.

What do you think: Does God really need his honor defended, when his created beings suffer and are in need of solace?

K.