The Metaphorical Equivalent of War
I actually understand why Ross’s latest column is getting so much negative commentary. No, of course he doesn’t think we should be engaged in a holy war against Islam . . . in any literal sense. But that just points up the peculiarity of the military metaphors – “fronts” and “foes” and “appeasement” and so forth – without which, basically, the column wouldn’t exist.
Here’s the key question: in what sense does the Catholic overture to Anglicans in any way constitute building a “united front” “against” Islam? What does that even mean, really?
I think what’s going on here is that Catholic assumptions about how a religious community should be organized are simply being assumed, and these are driving the analysis. The Catholic Church is a rarity among global religions in being organized in a heirarchical manner modeled, originally, on a military organization (the Roman Empire). That’s not the way most Protestant denominations, or Rabbinic Judaism, or Sunni Islam, or Hinduism, or most other religions around the world are organized. But it’s pretty central to Catholicism – precisely because of that contrast.
If you look at the world that way, then it might make perfect sense to say that, if you perceive a rising threat (feel free to frame Islam as a “competitor” rather than a “foe” – it doesn’t actually change anything important for my purposes) then one needs to strengthen one’s own hand. Inasmuch as the Pope understands himself to be the proper leader of the entire Christian community, albeit not acknowledged as such by a substantial portion thereof, and inasmuch as he understands that form of organization to be vital to the mundane success of that community, then it is entirely logical for him to say something to the effect of “in times like these, we need to all get under one banner as much as possible; if that means bending where we can plausibly bend, so be it, and if that means offending those who choose not to join us, so be it as well.” But that says more about the nature of his world view than it does about its validity.
Why, after all, is it necessarily the case that unity under a single leader makes it more likely that Christianity as such will survive and thrive when faced with a resurgent Islam? No doubt Christianity is competing with Islam for converts – certainly in Asia and Africa. No doubt Christian communities are engaged in actual violent conflict with Islamic communities in many parts of the world – as well as being subject to more or less oppressive rule in some countries where Islam predominates. No doubt there are pastors of various denominations in Europe who fear for the future when they compare the average age and regularity of attendance of their congregations to those of the mosques down the block. But the argument that the response to this situation should be “unity under the leadership of the Pope” needs to be made, not assumed. It seems at least as plausible to me that a decentralized religious culture is more conducive to rapid growth and more likely to respond effectively to diverse challenges from without and within.
If Ross knows that Pope Benedict was actually thinking about the challenge from Islam when he planned his move against the Anglicans, then that’s the story – and that’s reporting. But as written, the column seems merely to assume that this was his thinking – and, furthermore, to assume that this thinking was correct, without actually making an argument for the latter.
Metaphors are wonderful things – unparalleled, really, as tools of communication. But for that very reason of their natural persuasiveness, they have to be carefully examined to make sure the implied equivalencies are actually there. This holds not only in metaphorical wars, but in real ones. See, for instance, the “soft underbelly” of the Axis supposedly located somewhere in the vicinity of Sicily.
Noah, you write:
What makes it more likely for Christianity to survive is not unity, but to cure the sickness of disaffection. Ross’s argument, then, hinges on the following being true: 1) Anglicans are ‘disaffected’ by a retreat to lukewarm humanism and liturgical incontinuities, 2) drinking in the hard water of Catholicism is a cure for this disaffection, and 3) disaffection is deadly to the continued dominance of a religion over the hearts and minds of its people.
It’s Catholicism’s unitary hardness, and not necessarily its internal organization, that lights Ross’s fire. Note: I actually agree with him about what is best for Christianity; I don’t agree that what’s best for Christianity is best for mankind, except in the singular case where Christianity is the best available alternative — which it is not now, but plausibly might be in a failed darker future.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 28, 09:41 PM · #
It’s funny, Ross’s column didn’t strike me as controversial at all, if only because it’s mostly descriptive, and not normative. You do a great job of explicating it.
— PEG · Oct 28, 09:58 PM · #
Also, you could plug in ‘drinking the hard water of Pentacostalism is a cure for disaffection’ for Premise 2 and I bet Ross would agree. Catholicism is clearly his preferred lottery, since it’s way easier to implement a policy in a dictatorship — and he’s a homer — but if I’m right and his thing is disaffection and not a fetish for a unitary executive, then he would probably agree that other Christian lotteries are spiritually sufficient, too.
The issue is whether spiritual reanimation is necessary for Christianity to avoid losing its preeminence — in the West, in the world — to an alien, self-confident and ‘resurgent’ spiritual fervor. Ross assumes that moral pasteurization is the problem — hence the quip about Elton John.
He’s probably right, from a psychological standpoint. Which is why I despise people.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 28, 10:05 PM · #
As much as I like Conor and (well, formerly) Reihan and Alan and Peter and all the rest, it’s mostly the hope of reading these stray posts from Noah that make me check the Scene RSS feed every day.
PEG: Yes, it’s descriptive, but like Noah points out, since it’s not reportage but merely Ross’s interpretation of events, it also seems (at least to me) that Ross approves of the Pope’s actions in the light of what he thinks are the underlying causes. That’s what’s causing the ruckus, I guess. And the military metaphors he used, of course.
Kristoffer: yes, I agree that Ross’s main worry is the disaffection he sees in other denominations, he would be equally happy if it was Pentecostalism that was the banner under which all Christians came together.
— scritic · Oct 28, 10:53 PM · #
There’s actually a greater war that’s much more important to the future — between religion and reason. All religions will present a danger until they are removed from politics and governance back to the heart/soul/spirit (and “intellect” in the form of a modern theology in balance with reason) where they belong. Science and reason have come too far for religion to have a vital, functional role in politics and governance. Islam is more political now, but there’s a danger of Christian reaction which would only complicate matters.
— mike farmer · Oct 28, 11:10 PM · #
just a minor note, africa is where the real action is. conversion to religions aside from islam are not possible in western asia, and eastern asians seem not too interested in islam (though there is some interest in christianity, see korea). in contrast, large numbers of people in africa spend portions of their lives as christians and/or muslims. at least one african head of state converted from christianity to islam, to christianity again. this isn’t something one can imagine anywhere else. quick number check shows about 50 million anglicans in africa and 150 million catholics. that’s about half of africa’s christians.
— razib · Oct 28, 11:41 PM · #
Of course the Pope would like to see all Christians unite within the Catholic Church. But I think the best explanation for “Why this? Why now?” has to do with internal Anglican struggles. If the ecumenical project is ever to increase unity between the C of E and Catholicism, then the Anglican traditionalists will have to maintain a strong position; now the traditionalists have an improved BATNA, since they can more credibly threaten to walk away.
— M. Grégoire · Oct 29, 03:38 AM · #
scritic: I see your point, but there are only so many words that can fit in one column, and I take the habit of presuming good faith as, I think, should all men of good will.
— PEG · Oct 29, 10:17 AM · #
I was struck by the use of the military metaphors, and I think they’re unfortunate. At the same time, it seems to me that the main reason why the column raised such a ruckus is that most liberal bloggers open the Times every week determined to tee off on whoever the conservative is, and so they interpret everything Douthat writes as uncharitably as possible. And, of course, Douthat isn’t really a straight-down-the-line conservative (except in comparison to NYT columnists), so he takes grief from the right also. I didn’t think the column was great, and there are legitimate criticisms to be made; I just think they’re usually passed over in favor of obviously obtuse and uncharitable criticisms.
— jh · Oct 29, 11:06 AM · #
I agree with PEG that Douthat is being mostly descriptive, although I’m sure he would like to see that Catholic church thrive.
Noah, on that line, I read Douthat as saying, again descriptively, that the overture to Anglicans represents an additional step in Benedict’s realignment of the Church into a more evangelical position.
— J Mann · Oct 29, 01:59 PM · #
Eh, reading Ross again — this time with both eyes — I think Noah is right after all. Ross is describing the world through rose colored glasses, that is, Ross writes like a homer, a fan who’s excited because his favorite team hired Bill Parcells as GM.
First he ‘describes’ how the past failed, to provide context.
Then he shows why this new GM is the right man to turn things around.
Like all good homer manifestos, we’re told that the naysayers Just Don’t Get It.
And then we get to the point.
That ‘may’ is interesting. But this is more interesting:
That’s the nut graf. Without argument Ross substitutes an assumed fear of Islam for his previous ‘disaffection’, and says the Pope’s true value lies in his response to the former. Ross clearly agrees with this assessment, and just as clearly approves of the strategy.
With this last paragraph Ross is basically saying, don’t worry liberals and atheists, it’s not about you. It’s about the championship, and how to win it.
It’s going to be a banner year. You just wait.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 29, 06:40 PM · #
I really need to stop wasting time — mine and yours — commenting here. Done and done.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 29, 06:47 PM · #