Why does Christian Century hate Palestinians?

 First, the claim that it does hate Palestinians in general, and Palestinian Christians in particular, is a fair one, based on this open letter in Mondoweiss that the Christian Century refused to publish in response to an editorial there.

For secularists, non-Christians, and Christian laypeople who don't know the Christian literary world, Christian Century is not a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical magazine. It's also not a liberal evangelical outlet; in other words, it's not Sojourners.

What it is, is the voice of ecumenical mainline Protestantism. United Methodist Church. Presbyterian Church-USA. United Church of Christ. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Protestant Episcopal Church. In other words, churches whose denomination leaders, colleges and seminaries, and most pastors in the pulpit do NOT believe in a Rapture, do NOT believe that, contra Paul in Romans, "all Israel will be saved" before the Apocalypse, and have no religious reason to suck up to Israel at the expense of either a separate Palestinian state, or full Palestinian rights within a one-state solution.

The quote I reference, for the non-evangelical types? Romans 11, specifically, quoting 11:23-26a:

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

No, liberal Protestants don't believe that as a literal event, just as they know that Paul was wrong about a Second Coming in his lifetime or soon thereafter.

Many of these people also have an inkling that, between members of their denominations and sister churches, Eastern and Roman rite Catholics and various churches of the Orthodox tradition, that 6-7 percent of all Palestinians, whether inside the boundaries of Israel and/or Palestine or not, are Christian. (Yasir Arafat's wife was.) They're persecuted by both Jews and Muslims, and so, Christian Century claiming that, to run such a letter would be interfering in Israeli internal affairs is bullshit.

It also gives credence to the claims of conservative and fundamentalist Christians, whether in explicitly fundamentalist denominations, conservative evangelical ones, or conservative fractions and denominations within mainline Protestantism, that liberal Protestantism doesn't stand for anything when it comes to actual Christianity. (Neither do a fair chunk of these people; they'll sacrifice Palestinian Christians to the cause of a red heifer and a third temple, but that's another thing.) That said, parenthesis aside, that's part of why I didn't "stop" at liberal Christianity after bailing out of the conservative wing of Lutheranism. (See my story, starting here, and for more relevant detail, part 4.)

Back to the details of the rejection.

That's wrong in several ways.

Israel has the right to exist in the Holy Land as a Jewish state.

First, it's behind the curve of liberal Zionists like Peter Beinart who have rejected the two-state solution, as have more and more liberal and leftist non-Zionists.

Second, it rightfully ignores that focusing on this issue becomes a convenient excuse to ignore what Israel has already done.

Third, per that link above, it ignores the religious-based persecution of Palestinian Christians.

The letter was signed by activist groups within a couple of those mainline denominations, and several interfaith groups.

The authors do credit the Century's editorial for moving the magazine's position a skoosh forward.

That said? It's shameful, religiously and otherwise, for the Century to have not published the response to its editorial.

Boo hoo for Catholic fundies crying over the Latin Mass

Per this AP piece, Francis the Talking Pope has reversed a papal action by Benedict XVI, aka Ratzi the Nazi, which had loosened the reins on the celebration of the Latin Mass.

First, Francis is right that it has been and is divisive. The reactions to his action show that; Tridentine Mass parishes, and even sub rosa ersatz bishoprics have become underground (or not so underground) centers of reaction to Francis' glasnost on divorced Catholics and other issues. The HATE in all-caps? It's on them, not on Francis.

Francis is also right that in many cases, it's a rallying ground against not so much him, but everything in the truncated (for many modern Catholics) reforms of Vatican 2:

For years, though, Francis has made known his distaste of the old liturgy, privately labeling its adherents self-referential naval-gazers who are out of touch with the needs of the church. He has cracked down on religious orders that celebrated the old Mass exclusively and frequently decried the “rigidity” of tradition-minded priests who prioritize rules over pastoral accompaniment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Twitter reactions last week were hilarious.

One alleged former atheist said that the Latin Mass was an important part of his return to the faith. He probably forgot to capitalize The Faith.

As a good ex-Lutheran, I quote-Tweeted:

Per Martin Luther 500 years ago, if hearing a church service in a language I presume you do not understand, as with most Opus Dei-leaning Catholics fellating the Latin Mass, was an important part in your "reversion," that's kind of sad. https://t.co/Xuh5zrp8Iw

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

It's true.

And, it is sad. Besides, having been to more than one Orthodox service, one can chant the liturgy in a modern language, have the faithful know the sung, not spoken responses, and go all out with the lessons in Greek, not Latin. And, if the Latin Mass is considered "beautiful," the Divine Service makes Catholics look like Baptists. 

In addition, the "original language" is Aramaic, not Greek and certainly not Latin, anyway.

Then, to others, I Tweeted:

Opus Dei-type Catholics boo-hooing over Francis on the Latin Mass probably salivate like Pavlov's dog at the ringing of the bell that does nothing, that converts nothing, that transubstantiates nothing, but IS the actual origin of the modern phrase "hocus pocus."

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 16, 2021

In a hugely Catholic small town with a Catholic K-12 school, I've been inside the parish for parts of a Mass or two. And, that's EXACTLY what the transubstantiation bell reminds me of.

If you're not familiar, the priest who converts, changes and transubstantiates nothing, starts Jesus' Words of Institution in Latin with "Hoc est corpus meum," then "hoc est sanguis meum," that is, "This is my body / blood." With the proliferation of Masses for the dead and other endowed Masses in the late Middle Ages, priests who were paid for such rushes through these Masses in 15 minutes, hence, "hocus pocus." As Luther discovered during his trip to Rome, either before, after, or even during, some priests would say "blood you are and blood you shall remain."

That said, per that link? A change for the good, for people in the pews, that came out of Vatican II was better preaching. It's not quite a Baptist or Lutheran sermon focus (albeit with different styles of those two), of course, but, it's a lot better than old priests who entered parishes pre-Vatican II.

====

Side note: Many post-Zwinglian Calvinist Reformed argue that Luther actually accept Calvin's spiritual presence, while noting Zwingli believed the same, but involved in direct disputations with Luther, focused on the "no bodily presence." See here, near the end. Yes, Melanchthon did, but ... IMO, Luther more ignored Calvin in silence than anything. He was focused on intra-Lutheran issues post-1530 more than anything else. And, this is itself a claim from silence. Sure, Luther accepted Calvin's "spiritual presence" — as far as it went. And condemned it for not going further. In reality, Calvin stood with Zwingli and against Luther on "local presence" vs "illocal presence," and on rejecting Luther and Rome on what's technically called "oral manducation" or similar. See here.

Indeed, until writing this post, I'd never heard of claims that Calvin and Luther agreed on the Eucharist. Tosh!

Top blogging of April-June

Unlike at my main blog, I don't think it's productive to do a top blogging of the month post.

But, top blogging of the quarter, instead of only an annual roundup? Why not?

So, here goes the first run.

No. 1? An oldie but a goodie from a year ago. St. Anthony of Fauci’s Platonic “noble” lie about masks.

No. 2? PTSD, journalism and existentialism, about a weird piece in Atlantic from an ambulance-chaser reporter.

No. 3? The other Platonic lies of Fauci.

No. 4? “Once more on Hume and slavery,” part of a series deconstructing his thought on Africans and other things.

No. 5? Libertarian pseudoskeptical pseudoscience is about Brian Dunning above all, then about Michael Shermer, then about Skeptics™ in general and even older than Fauci takes. 

No. 6? It's kind of related to No. 5. Skeptatheism, fossilized looks at fossilization in Skeptics™ and Gnu Atheist movements.

No. 7? Martin Luther vs. Charles V, part of my Reformation 500 series.

No. 8? Talking about Jeff Kloha and Hobby Lobby in my personalized connection to Museum of the Bible’s Dead Sea Scrolls forgery.

No. 9? A non-gnu atheist has thoughts from seeing his first May Crowning.

No. 10? In response to Zionists and others, the true meaning of Hanukkah.

American Humanists blow St. Anthony of Fauci an air-kiss

The American Humanist Association has named Fauci its Humanist of the Year. That's St. Anthony of Fauci the teller of Platonic lies. And, of further Platonic lies after that. And, not even a Platonic lie, just a National Institutes of Health definitional hair-splitting lie, about gain of function work at WIV.

In reality? Zeynep Tufekci, one of the first people to call out Fauci's original lie on masks, and to since then explicitly call out tribalism and also say the lab-leak hypothesis should be taken more seriously than BlueAnon will take it, is MUCH more deserving.

Humanism, especially good secular humanism, should be about honesty and integrity, among other things. Fauci lacks honesty and he lacks the integrity to admit these Platonic lies, too.

In addition to BlueAnon tribalism, I suspect that AHA sees this as a fundraising cash cow, more disgusting yet. Given the mix of gushing and wagon-circling at places like Tippling Philosopher, sadly, they're likely right.

I was worried about having nothing for this blog this week. Sadly, that's been solved.

And, beyond the disgust at Fauci, I'm not joking about Tufekci, whom I've "anointed" as a public intellectual, as being a better choice,

That said, I can list several previous recipients that underwhelm me as well. Some underwhelm a lot; some underwhelm moderately. They include:

• Rebecca Goldstein (crappy author, philosopher and critical theologian)
• Bill Nye (attention whore)
• P.Z. Myers (need I say more?)
• Steve Pinker (Ev Psych whore, crappy author, hasn't read his own book on writing thoroughly, let alone taught it to wife Goldstein)

The moderate underwhelmers include

• Jennifer Ouellette
• Jared Diamond

Flood myths, geomythology and reality

 My dad got a ThD in comparative religion from his fundamentalist Lutheran seminary (even more fundamentalist today) over how American Indian flood and creation myths reflected actual universal truth of Genesis.

Of course, that's not the case. But, this Nautilus piece, looking specifically at part of Tibet and introducing the idea of geomythology, notes how flood myths are part of larger explanatory myths about local geological features.

Some are, indeed, nothing but just so stories. Lot's wife as a pillar of salt was simply a story about some salt pillar near the highly-saline Dead Sea. Others, like in the Tibetan case, appear to explain the "that" (but not the "why," of course) of actual geological events.

The real roots of the biblical flood story, of course, come from Sumer and a localized, though severe enough, Tigris-Euphrates flood.

The problem with such myths is often the "why" within the "why." Putting such events within a divine framework is one thing. Trying to use them to spell out, and justify, specific examples of theodicy is another altogether.

I've read David Montgomery's book, mentioned near the end, and will keep an eye out for his new one. I must reject his claim that science and myth are two sides of the same coin, at least with "are" rather than "were" as the verb.