Posted on 01/02/2007 9:28:45 AM PST by UnklGene
Hitting Bottom -
In the contest with Islam, Christianity may thrive worldwide, but it's too weak and too late to recover Europe--and maybe Canada
Mark Steyn - December 18, 2006
In the Western Standard an issue or two back, Ted Byfield was kind enough to mention my latest tome, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, and its grim predictions of the death of western civilization. "I haven't read Steyn's book," Mr. Byfield concedes, "but from the many published excerpts and interviews with the author, and certainly from similar doomsayers, a single word is always missing. That word is Christianity."
Actually, there's quite a bit about Christianity in the book. And I've done a gazillion interviews with Christian radio stations down south in which I've been quizzed about that aspect of the argument. I'm not sure if Christian radio stations are permitted in the diversified Dominion, but I'd be happy to talk about that angle up here, too, if anyone asked me. I certainly agree with Ted that, looking to the world the day after tomorrow, Christianity will be present, and even thriving. In Africa, China and Latin America, that is. And, in that last, things may be a little more competitive than now: I happened to be down in Mexico the other day in one of those "resort towns" you vaguely remember as a slightly developed fishing village only to return and find it's a sprawling fume-choked metropolis of 800,000 people; and, wandering around, I couldn't help thinking that if the jihad was looking for a smart investment it would dump a whole load of Saudi-Iranian walking-around money south of the
Rio Grande and try to turn maybe five per cent of Mexico's population Muslim, just to add another wrinkle to America's southern immigration problem.
But Christianity in Europe? In the book, I note that the present Pope Benedict likes to cite a line from the original Benedict, the one who preserved not just Christianity but the inheritance of Greco-Roman civilization during the depredations of the Dark Ages. Quoting his namesake, the present pontiff noted: "Succisa virescit." Pruned, it grows again.
The problem on the Continent is that Christianity hasn't been pruned so much as withered to the point where resuscitation is all but impossible. And, while the Pope understands the challenges very clearly, the leaders of most mainline Protestant denominations remain mired in relativist fatuities. You don't need to look to Europe for evidence of that; try Canada. Remember that story from a month or so back? The head honcho at the CBC who had to resign after expressing his enthusiasm for the pleasure to be derived from bowel movements? One hesitates to suggest that defecation is one of "da Canadian values" but I was mildly taken aback to discover that the CBC guy's not alone. One of my distinguished Australian readers, Hal G.P. Colebatch, drew my attention to a piece in The Niagara Anglican by Canon Tim Smart, which began thus:
"Next to having sex, a good bowel movement rates pretty high on most people's scale of things that satisfy. In fact, as you grow older, a good poop can be as rewarding as a good romp under the covers. You know the relief that comes after having been frustrated for so many days to finally stand proudly before your accomplishment floating in the toilet bowl and congratulate yourself on a job well done."
Er, well, even if we can't all enjoy that sense of accomplishment every day of the week, evidently Canon Smart's satisfaction at completing his article and standing proudly before it watching it float across page six of The Niagara Anglican is a pretty close approximation of thereof. The Niagara Anglican is the official organ of the diocese of Niagara, but you know how it goes: you've a regular columnist who wanders a bit off the reservation, but for one reason or another you run the piece anyway. Happens all the time. I'm sure The Niagara Anglican has run many splendid ruminations by Canon Smart of a less evacuatory nature.
But, on closer inspection, Mr. Colebatch down in Australia was citing a secondary reference: the "good poop" column turns out to be a reprint from The Montreal Anglican. That's to say, the fellows at The Niagara Anglican read it in their sister publication and said, "Wow! We've gotta see if the syndication rights are available." Apparently they read passages like the following and decided it was just too good to confine to Quebec's dwindling number of elderly Anglicans:
"The New Testament tells us that Jesus ate a lot. He went to wedding banquets, to people's homes for dinner and he apparently ate a lot of loaves and fishes. After all that eating and drinking, do you suppose that he waited until he was seated upon the heavenly throne to take a crap? Or, did he squat down behind a bush with James and John, farting and pushing like the rest of us?
"Did Jesus defecate while he was here on earth? Of course he did! I suppose if we knew the exact spot where he laid down his 'load', today a shrine would be erected to remember the event; the Church of the Holy Sh_t."
The Anglican Church of Canada has effortlessly extended Chesterton's famous (if apocryphal aphorism): when men cease to believe in God, they'll believe in any old crap. I'm no theologian, but it seems a reasonable assumption that if God made His son flesh He would give Him a body that was human in all respects, including "bodily functions." However, it's not clear why Canon Smart would wish to dwell on such aspects of Christ's humanity in the most vulgar way possible. But here it comes, the big point he's working up to:
"Did Jesus have sex? Again, like crapping, the gospels are silent on the subject of Jesus' sex life." But hey, why let that stop you? Canon Smart's "personal opinion" is that "maybe later in life, as popular teacher and preacher, he did have sex with some of his women admirers. But I'm just guessing, basing my theory not on anything biblical or scholarly, but on what I know about guys."
I would wager Canon Smart knows as little about "guys" as he does about "anything biblical or scholarly". What does he mean by "women admirers"? That Christ was some sort of Clintonian lounge act taking advantage of the more nubile groupies? You don't have to be a religious believer of any kind to feel pity for a faith reduced to such woefully lame provocations. The Montreal Anglican would seem, very literally, to have hit bottom, though one can find less vivid examples of the phenomenon in almost any mainline Protestant ad campaign or episcopal interview, and, indeed, I cite a few in my book. Whatever the sensory pleasures Canon Smart derives from "a good poop" and shagging women admirers, God's position would seem pretty clear: He created man to be a little lower than the angels but above the beasts of the field--i.e., we are not the prisoners of our appetites, we are capable of rising above them. In his reductio of Christ to one horny crapper, Canon Smart is in effect subscribing to the redefinition of man as a vehicle for self-gratification--in other words, the kind of radical narcissistic self-absorption that has delivered Europe to the brink of the death spiral. It seems obvious that secularism--at least in its Eutopian social-democratic manifestation--is exhausted, and into that barren seam has surged Islam, grim and confident. There are those throughout the West who sense the emptiness of contemporary secularist individualism, seek something bigger, and turn to Buddhism, environmentalism and, of course, Islam. But why would such people choose a faith exemplified by the likes of the present Anglican leadership? A faith that does no more than license your appetites and provide a little pseudo-spiritual cover for modish pathologies.
By the way, in case you feel I'm according Canon Smart greater prominence than he merits, he happens to be Director of Lay Education for the Diocese of Montreal.
As I write in America Alone, "If ever there were a time for a strong voice from the heart of Christianity, this would be it. And yet most mainline Protestant churches are as wedded to the platitudes du jour as the laziest politician." Ted Byfield may be right. Christianity may survive and prosper in the dark days ahead. But the Anglican Church of Canada, the UCC and their ilk will not. In my book, I quote Matthew Arnold's lines from "Dover Beach":
The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar .
But even Arnold did not see the melancholy, long, withdrawing roar as the gurgle of a full toilet bowl disappearing down the bend and into the septic tank of history.
Ping!
Look, history shows that Christians have been in the catacombs before, so I am not despairing.
Just because one generation rejects it doesn't mean future generations will be like-minded.
Even if a person is born into the faith, and has churches and christian culture, they still have to "convert" to Christianity. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether to truly follow it or not.
Many geographical locations have fallen out of Christianity and come back to it.
I think in a way, every Christian is an evangelist whether they know it or not. Because even if we say nothing, we influence others to follow it or not by how we live.
Holy crap!
Too late.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759814/posts
Links between illegal immigration, terrorism, drug trade worry U.S officials
Inland Daily Bulletin ^ | 29 DEC 2006 | Sara A. Carter
COLUMBUS, N.M. - On Sept. 5, a man calling himself Miguel Alfonso Salinas was apprehended off a deserted highway near the U.S.-Mexico border. The tinted windows on Alfonso Salinas' vehicle aroused the suspicion of Border Patrol agents patrolling a dark and desolate stretch of Highway 9, which runs parallel to the border and is the site of large numbers of illegal crossings. The agents discovered three Mexican migrants in the vehicle with Alfonso Salinas. But what they discovered several days later made a far greater impression. Alfonso Salinas was not who he seemed, according to U.S. Department of Justice.It would take nearly a week of interviews with federal agents before Alfonso Salinas would give his real name: Ayman Sulmane Kamal, a Muslim born in Egypt - a country designated as "special-interest" by the United States for sponsoring terrorism. Kamal's case is not an isolated one.
Evidence of "special-interest aliens" using the Mexican border to gain entry to the United States has been kept secret from the American public, according to federal law enforcement agents, terrorism experts and critics of U.S. foreign policy with Mexico.
Mark Steyn, right on target as usual!
I've never seen such skill in calling another writer's work a turd before.
Now I need to go repent for laughing out loud at the 10th paragraph.
Actually part of the Catholic Church is already in the catacombs, and that is the Latin Mass. I feel like I'm in the catacombs when I attend this Mass because we have to meet in the basement of the Church with an organist and a choir of one, and a hand-written sign upstairs with a finger pointing downward, but I love it and it's worth searching out. It's so reverent!
bump
Anyway, the mention of the latin reminded me of something that is a sort of pet peve of mine. During this time of year we often hear the pharase, Peace on earth and good will to men. Well, that is not what is said. The latin goes:
Gloria in excelsis Deo. Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.
Which translates to:
Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace to men of good will.
To men of good will, not good will to men. There is a big difference.
Anyway it always kinda botheres me when I hear it.
The Gospels state quite clearly that Jesus was without sin. Since that would obviously include fornication, the author cited is a dunce.
That is true. One can be baptized as a baby, make first holy communion as a child, then get confirmed as a teenager, and this is speaking from the Roman Catholic ( Latin Rite ) tradition such as my backround. But over the course of time, one must come into full faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to have a true relationship as a Christian.
Also the history of Christianity is that of the prayer and work of the missionaries, do not be suprised that the folks that the west sent to bring Christ to, are in turn sending needed missionaries to bring Christ back to the west.
"The Gospels state quite clearly that Jesus was without sin. Since that would obviously include fornication, the author cited is a dunce."
The author didn't ask if he fornicated, he asked if he had sex and noted the Bible was as silent about it as it is on the matter of Christ being married or single.
Jesus did not marry.
Jesus was without sin.
But if he had sex, he would not be without sin, since he was not married and would therefore have fornicated.
Therefore, Jesus did not have sex.
Do you see the logic here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.