Mark Galli and Anna Quindlen Join Forces
November 24, 2004
Mark Galli of Christianity Today has shot back a defense of CT’s (i.e., his) anti-single issue voter editorial in response to heavy criticism, particularly from World Magazine publisher Joel Belz. Belz argues, as I did, that the CT editorial was more about housetraining Christians for polite society than anything else. He’s right of course. Galli now claims that this is “baloney” and that the CT editorial was all about “prudential politics,” and nothing else.
According to Galli, Belz is critiquing a non-existent editorial never written by CT: “It would help if critics would read and respond to what we actually wrote. Responding to what we’ve never said doesn’t help us.” My modesty certainly doesn’t surpass Galli’s, so I feel little guilt in reminding him that if he wants to be “helped,” he ought to consider my point-by-point refutation of his destructive ideas. This is the same fellow, recall, who had little good to say about D.G. Hart’s book, Deconstructing Evangelicalism (Hart’s argument anticipates Evangelical disasters such as the CT editorial at issue), but yet admitted that while he personally doesn’t think Evangelicalism has the resources to sustain Christian life, he will defend it as a “movement” because it (in addition to sustaining his income) makes a presentable united front of “mere Christians” to the world. Pardon me for saying so, but this does not sound like a credible and well-grounded person from whom we ought to take lessons on prudential judgments. In fact, Galli’s “united front” is itself a piece of liberal pathology which has steadily undermined the Church’s ability to be salt and light. I have previously written about the dangers of the Christian discernment racket in which publications like CT have a cultural and financial incentive to prop up a “movement” and urge its members to dress nicely for their cultural engagement negotiations which are always aimed at “continuing the converasation” with the world. As I said then:
Those committed to this process cannot help but suffer a corrupted view of the Church. The individual Christian is defined primarily by his interests rather than by older notions of membership, and consequently the Church becomes a community of shared interests rather than a community of practice. It is not surprising that in this context “discernment” rather than obedience becomes the most important virtue. And the peddlers of cultural discernment–those vested heavily in publications such as Books & Culture and First Things and in the vast apparatus of culture engaging institutions and universities–naturally have an ongoing interest in maintaining the illusion that the process of getting to “yes!” with the world is a “perennial tightrope” walk which requires careful balance. Loud shouts at those on the tightrope are not merely an annoyance, but a disloyal attempt to upset the balance along the path to the culture nexus.As if this wasn’t enough, consider the more recent column of the staunchly pro-choice Anna Quindlen. Her punning title sums up Galli’s and CT’s whole liberal problem: “Life Begins at Conversation.” You don’t really need to read the rest, as you can guess at it. Quindlen extolls the virtues of nuance and grayness and “people of good faith” who disagree. She exhorts all sides of the abortion issue to get past their prejudices and really talk about things. Life begins at conversation, you see? This is the liberal trap, and Galli falls in head first, pulling many in after him, much like his former church, one might add–the Anglican Disunion–which is famed for its sustenance of orthodox Christian thought and living by means of many good chin-wags where all points of view are represented.
Can anyone legitimately expect that Quindlen or any of her ilk will be less resolved in their nihilistic support of “choice” after such conversations? Certainly not. But they know that such negotiations are inherently liberalizing in The Nice Society.
I suggest that Galli go have a “nice” long conversation with Quindlen. They would get along swimmingly. As for everyone else, we ought to remember who we are. Belz is right, “Some ‘moral values’ deserve a good bit of discussion. Some need none at all.”
This is Mark Galli and Anna Quindlen Join Forces in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: Against Theodicies and Theologians | Next: Don’t Get Religion | TrackBack (1) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mark Galli and Anna Quindlen Join Forces:
» Will GOP Unity Hold? from The Japery
RJN is convinced or would really like us all to believe with him that religious conservatives in the GOP will stay there unless the almost unthinkable happens: a serious pro-life Democrat alternative becomes available. In RJN’s calculation, the GOP is… [Read More]
Tracked on March 14, 2006 06:54 PM