Don’t Hate the Player
September 22, 2004
Since beginning this more regular column, the frequency with which I have received both complaints and admonishments has increased substantially. The complaints generally decry a perceived lack of “niceness,” which modern liberal Christian souls have confused with “charity.” Niceness in its original and better sense means “a silly, harmless gull”—that is to say, a gullible person. So, as I have said before, I am glad not to be nice.
The admonishments are more substantial. They typically question my prudence in threatening the integrity of a united front—or even a façade of such a front–among Christian culture warriors. They fret that by criticizing entities and individuals whom they suggest are potential allies, I am pursuing a reckless strategy that threatens to fragment “our side” and thus give away gains already made, and inhibit our ability to make future gains. My summary puts a generous spin on it, for indeed, many such admonishments cut more crudely to the chase, insisting that if I want to be a “player,” I had better quit rocking the boat. I could say that such protests typically come from the quarters and people getting wet, and as I am yet dry, I see no reason to stop rocking. But alas, such flippancy would undoubtedly be tallied as another black mark against me. (Jesu forfend! For certes I have already amassed an insufferably long purgatorial tour of duty, and given our Mother Church’s progressive views on indulgences, etc., I am, unfortunately, not likely to escape the debt.)
But back to the point at hand. Indeed, I am not oblivious to the varied ranks of co-belligerents that are out there, and if we do not march in perfect step with each other, that is not a tragedy. So long as these other belligerents are truly belligerent and not just latté-sipping, Neruda reading, surrender monkeys (as our friend and arch-nemesis Jonah Goldberg likes to say). So long as they are not profoundly concerned that they get their seat at the table of the great and are likewise accorded accolades as distinguished intellectuals and thoughtful citizens of our culture of death. (Always with the intent of incrementally influencing the culture heavenward, of course! Let it not be said that I am judging anyone’s “heart motive!”) In truth, I do not think this is the case for many of my erstwhile allies. I do see it as a profound temptation of our liberal environment—particularly in that we are all colonized, to one extent or another, by that environment simply by the fact that we breathe its air—against which I hope to set my relatively minor voice as a prod and a warning.
I intend to cheer only a true “ecumenism” (if that is even the right word) that does not ask that real differences and divisions be subsumed under the assumption that the Protestant “view” X is an equal alternative or “choice” to the Catholic doctrine Z on Y. Otherwise, we partake in one of the fundamental diseases of modern systems: that they stem from efforts to generate a church or a public square or a community (and agents of authority within) ex nihilo. It is an old critique: that behind the projected wizard is a silly old man; that there is no real center to our papier-mâché culture. So the creation, acquisition, distribution, and exercising of cultural/religious authority become a matter simply of liberal process: climb the ladder, consummate insider, office politics, etc. In other words, if you want to be a “player,” quit rocking the boat.
What I am suggesting is that the attempt to create catholicity may require Catholicity, or at least a strong drift in that direction. The “united front” so desired by many culture warriors among both my Catholic and Protestant brethren (which often extends beyond even the bounds of any traditional Christianity) is in reality a false front; a self-fashioning that cannot last and will collapse in the face of liberalism because it has been pollinated by liberalism’s central meme: choice. The child of this false catholicity is sure to be Christianity’s bastard, resembling the marauding father far more than the pious mother.
To be sure, I am fully in favor of a self-aware strategy of Machiavellian ecumenism, an ecumenism of convenience, if you will, to defeat a common enemy. Such an arrangement can have its own benefits, which I found illustrated nicely by a tale I once chanced upon in a Reader’s Digest in a New England out-house whilst doing a hefty:
Once upon a time in a small Ohio town, there were two little department stores located across from each other on Main Street. Each was owned by a committed bachelor, and they were vicious competitors. If one announced a sale on tablecloths, the other undercut his price and retaliated with signage like this: “Even the hawk-eye of Mrs. Betty Reba can find no imperfections in our tablecloths, now 20% off!” And again his counterpart retaliated: “Mrs. Betty Reba is blind as a bat! 50% off on all tablecloths.” Sometimes the two men even threatened to come to blows.
For many years, the town-folk were both entertained and assured of a bargain. Then one of the store owners died, and shortly thereafter the other closed up shop and moved away. Soon it came to light that there was a secret passage under the street connecting the two stores and that the men had in fact been brothers.”
Guest columns for The Japery and mail fit for publication (though it need not be “nice”) should be sent to japes@newpantagruel.com.
This is Don’t Hate the Player in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: David Morrison on Homosexual Couples: “Always Our Neighbors” | Next: Defying Gravity with Crazy Wisdom | TrackBack (4) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't Hate the Player:
» Editorial Preface to An Election Dialogue from 1.4
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 08:27 AM
» An Election Dialogue from 1.4
The following dialogue took place by email in October 2004 between four of The New Pantagruel’s contributing editors: Eugene McCarraher, Assistant Professor of Humanities and History at Villanova Uni… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 08:08 PM
» An Election Dialogue from 1.3
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 09:58 PM
» A Dialogue on the Presidential Election from 1.3
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on September 8, 2005 06:21 AM