Evangelization and Religious Indifferentism: Comedy Central’s Take
January 5, 2010, 9:07 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
There’s Pope Benedict on religious indifferentism. And then there’s Comedy Central. (John Oliver, at the end, by the way, is spoofing the movie Avatar-which gets put on the same level as the great world religions in the sketch–or does it?.) What does evangelization look like in THIS culture–high pop culture ? Is it even possible?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Best F**king News Team Ever – Tiger Woods’ Faith | ||||
|
||||
This is pretty danged good–and perhaps the only response to Hume’s homily. Short answer to Dr. Kaveny’s query: Yes, evangelization is possible. I just think Hume was way off the mark in how he did it, both in the venue-whether he was right to use that platform for an altar call is the focus of much commentary–but more importantly in trying to exalt Christianity by denigrating Buddhism.
In the end I think he shows a misunderstanding of both. I have (no surprise!) parsed this episode at PoliticsDaily. Leaving aside whether Hume was right to say what he did in that context (no, ISTM), I think Hume was essentially correct in that Christian and Buddhist notions of forgiveness are different, but wrong to say Buddhism does not have such concepts.
More important, I think Hume is confusing aspects of Christianity. The main prupose of Christianity is eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ. That is the entry point, the foundation of it all. Christian belief should lead believers to behave in upright ways, to sacrifice themselves totally, and to live as Christ did. But if that happens, it is really a welcome result of belief. In his remarks, Hume almost sounds like all those Christian “life coaches” and prosperity gospel preachers who see Christianity as a means to a happy and successful life. Christianity is more about what has been called “the sanctification of failure,” namely through Jesus on the cross. In that sense Tiger has plenty of opportunity to be a witness.
But there are also plenty of other things–psychology, medication, even Buddhism or Scientology!–that could help Tiger get out of his mess and be a happier guy. Moreover, he doesn’t simply need God’s forgiveness; indeed, he may have asked for that, though it seems not from his reported shenanigans in NYC this week. He needs his wife’s forgiveness, and you don’t need Christianity or faith for that.
The other problem with Hume’s comments is that they are contradicted by so much evidence. Anecdotally, one need look no further than the sanctimonious Christian pols-turned-philanderers, or the many high-profile pastors who turn out to have feet of clay. Statistics also show that Christians are as likely to divorce or abort as everyone else, and Bible Belt states often have much higher rates of marital breakdown and teen pregnancy than other regions.
It is easy to witness in this culture–and sometimes silence is better than words.
BTW, Brit is standing by his testimony.
Only through Christ, can we know the essence of Perfect Love.
Nancy, are you auditioning for a Sunday morning talks show? ;-)
Bill Donohue blasts Brit’s critics: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1745
Is that effective evangelization?
David
You say -
“The other problem with Hume’s comments is that they are contradicted by so much evidence. Anecdotally, one need look no further than the sanctimonious Christian pols-turned-philanderers, or the many high-profile pastors who turn out to have feet of clay. Statistics also show that Christians are as likely to divorce or abort as everyone else, and Bible Belt states often have much higher rates of marital breakdown and teen pregnancy than other regions.”
In other words, Christians are people. How does this in anyway contradict anything Hume said? He didn’t say Christians don’t sin, he said Christianity offers forgiveness and redemption. So how is this “evidence” of anything.
And if you think everything from psychology, medication, even Buddhism or Scientology will fix his problem, why would you be a Christian? Is it just what fits you best, or is it true?
Sean, I think we actually agree here (mirabile dictu!). I don’t see Christianity as first a set of moral guidelines that believers will follow and be happy. Hopefully that happens. But to me Christianity is first about belief, but Hume is telling Tiger that he can find forgiveness and redemption and a scandal-free life by following Christianity (and not Buddhism). That doesn’t seem like a given, by any stretch, nor does it seem to be the reason one should evangelize. Perhaps it can be a reason, but in my view the positive thinking, pop psychology selling points have been blown way out of proportion.
The real joke, of course, is the notion that transcendant reality is a matter of personal preference.
Anyhow, I don’t believe the Abrahamic notions of a transcendent God, sin and atonement are even part of Buddhism’s belief system. Thus telling a Buddhist that he needs to seek divine forgiveness would be, well, absurd.
Antonio, isn’t Brit Hume telling Tiger he needs divine forgiveness from God through Jesus also a bit absurd, in terms of evangelization?
Speaking of Catholics, evangelization and the Daily Show, I believe that one of the Catholics Come Home television spots aired during the 10 pm CT Daily Show broadcast last night. It was the “Pam” spot.
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/assets/images/commercials/10.Pam.jpg
We also saw one the previous day during one of the bowl game telecasts, the Ronna Jean spot:
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/assets/images/commercials/12.Ronna-Jean.jpg
I’m not sure what effect these would have on an inactive or drifted-away Catholic, but they strike me as pretty effective, and the testimonies seem authentic. I believe they’re well done.
I’m not sure if this campaign is national, regional or local. The Chicago Archdiocese is promoting it in its parishes. Here is more info on it:
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/about-our-tv-commercials.php
Jim, they seem good and seems like a smart idea to go for that time slot and demographic–but it is also a demographic that reveres the ironic. Anything that smacks of ‘serious” will automatically get a lot of snickers. On the other hand, I believe it can also plant a seed, or get some people to thinking, and so is worth it.
In such cases the only divinity that counts is the god of public opinion, which seems to require some sort of overt groveling and abasement in order to be satiated. Maybe a conversion experience triggerred by lightening on the 18 hole at Pebble Beach, ala St. Paul, will suffice.
I didn’t know Saint Paul played golf! But makes sense–he was a priest.
David
I think you are reading more into two sentences than is really there. He isn’t saying that this is the sum total of Christianity. But forgiveness and redemption is a major part of it. Wasn’t that how Christ was introduced to the world – by John the Baptist preaching redemption? Making this brief comment evidence that Hume is the next Joel Osteen is a stretch.
Also, where does he say that Christianity leads to a scandal-free life? I think you are putting words in his mouth.
If Hume’s goal is to convert Tiger Woods, then person-to-person would be the way to do it.
FWIW – I recently saw a book review of “The Great Commission: Models of Evangelicism in American Catholicism” b Timothy E Byerley. According to the review, Byerley offers six different “models” of evangelization: “the St. Stephen model (witness), the Jerusalem model (liturgy), the Proclamation model (preaching), the Fraternity model (small faith-based communities), the Aeropagus model (inculturation) and the Loaves and Fishes model (charitable works)”. (quoting from the review, which is by Brian A Graebe in the 12/09 issue of First Things).
Not having read the book and just trying to guess what these models consist of, I’d think that Hume was engaging in the St. Stephen model – witness.
I think our culture is more open to the other sorts of models than the St. Stephen model. Come to think of it, the culture in which St. Stephen lived wasn’t very open to it, either. There is something about Hume’s witness that rubs me the wrong way, in the same way that a football player pointing to heaven after catching a touchdown pass rubs me the wrong way. Does Christianity need this kind of witness? Istm that Acts of the Apostles has quite a few instances of it.
Here is what Hume said verbatim:
The extent to which [Tiger Woods] can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be “Tiger, turn your faith…turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Strictly speaking, it’s hard to find fault with what Hume says. “Become a born-again Christian, abase yourself in public and we’ll love ya again.” The tearful repentance part seemed to for Swaggart at least once.
Sean, I had the clear impression that Hume was talking about Tiger’s life and marriage and family–and it was also in the context of what we would could expect from the golfer in the next year. Hume was also talking about forgiveness and redemption, in other words Tiger recovering from his annus horribilus. To me that seems to be clearly a context of a pragmatic goal, rather than one of religious belief and salvation.
Jim P: Thanks for that interesting refer. I may have missed it in my First Things, or haven’t received it yet.
I do think the image of Brit Hume as a gay icon is either unnerving or amusing. But I’d be hard-pressed to see him cast in the role of witness in the sense of a martyr. The likelihood of anything bad happening to him is infintesimal, it seems to me, and this episode likely only burnishes his credentials with his fans and many others. Witness is wonderful, but I get a bit irritated with the “persecution complex” and self-declared martyrdom (without any pain, much less death) pronounced by so many public figures.
So there!
Antonio,
I have been thinking along the same lines. Hume is obviously sincere, but a cynical public relations consultant could not have come up with better advice.
I wonder if Hume would give the same advice to Bernard Madoff, though.
“But I’d be hard-pressed to see him cast in the role of witness in the sense of a martyr. The likelihood of anything bad happening to him is infintesimal, it seems to me, and this episode likely only burnishes his credentials with his fans and many others. ”
Right. Luckily for him, bloggers don’t cast stones, except for the rhetorical kind. FWIW, I’d think he’s been subject to quite a bit of criticism for saying what he did. Not exactly the same as being stoned, but not a pleasant experience, although I’m sure his skin is pretty thick.
Having said that, you might think I feel sympathetic to him, but I don’t. It was a strange thing to say, on a couple of different levels, as your Politcs Daily commentary illustrated very well.
There’s something about that sort of witness, while the cameras are rolling, that really bugs me. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is, but it does.
I do think the image of Brit Hume as a gay icon is either unnerving or amusing.
Gay icon? Did I miss something? He’s currently with wife number 2. His son may very well have been gay, but what in the world would qualify him as a gay icon?
Dang, I was thinking of Saint Sebastian! Rocks versus arrows. Dumb. Sorry.
Then again, who knows where Brit has a following. And who doesn’t have a crush on Rachel Maddow?
Jim P: I agree with you about the sense of watching him, and others–esp the football players. I don’t know, I’d like to see them thank God when they lose or miss a big catch. There’s a greater spiritual lesson in that, but I’m a closet Puritan, by blood at least.
“I’d like to see them thank God when they lose or miss a big catch. ”
Now that’s a GREAT point!!
Perhaps, but then what exactly is the point that you are trying to make David G?
Nancy, just that there is as much if not more (I’d tend to the more) spiritual fodder in failing and learning than in scoring triumphs in this world and winning the accolades of the crowd.
Brit Hume is an embarrassment to TV presenters/anchors everywhere. Tiger Woods lists his religion as Buddhism – haven’t we been told (Vat. II) that, therefore, his spiritual goal should be to become a good Buddhist? Or, if he moves beyond some particular Buddhist school’s doctrine, he ought to at least be an honest seeker of inspiration?
I don’t want to say that we’re living in the Dark Ages, wherein certain topics of discussion are so off-limits that only working class people, completely sealed off from the establishment, dare to formulate them.
When I was in a religious seminary, I once picked up a copy of Commonweal, and was warned by one of the seminarian-super-stars (who eventually left the order) that it was a “pretty liberal” magazine. In other words, not for us! not for we seekers of the Pure Land Catholicism.
Now, having seen Catholicism in America, up and down, left and right, I find Commonweal to be utterly opportunistic; they can’t explore things that might put them outside the definition of Catholic without losing a marketing identity. In other words, Commonweal is not interested in articulating the spirituality that the whole world needs at this moment.
In other words, Commonweal is not interested in articulating the spirituality that the whole world needs at this moment.
Brian,
You seem to be criticizing Commonweal for being Commonweal instead of some other magazine. If there were a magazine that sought to appeal to those who were raised Catholic but have difficulty accepting “orthodox” Catholicism, I’d be interested in it (assuming it was respectful, serious, and intelligently written), but I don’t expect Commonweal (or any other Catholic publication) to become that magazine.
We should be aware of the Buddha-bashers in our midst, of course:
So a question: Why did he spend so much time battling liberation theology instead of Eastern auto-eroticism?!
In defense of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, my recollection is that he did clamp down at least somewhat on Buddhist-influenced thought during the last pontificiate :-)
Did he really say Buddhism is “auto-erotic spirituality”? I confess I don’t know what that means, but it doesn’t sound like a very Cardinal-ish thing to say.
This excerpt gives a little more of what Cardinal Ratzinger said:
I would have to say that the second quote (“If Buddhism is attractive, it’s only because . . . .”) strikes me as at least as offensive, implying that there is only one thing about Buddhism that makes it attractive, and that thing is false. I wonder what Thomas Merton would have said had he lived to hear this dismissal of Buddhism.
Here’s another interesting take on the comment, clearly hostile. I know nothing about the source, so I am not endorsing either this comment or anything else from the blog.
Often a comment on a complex subject, e.g. Buddhism, reveals more about the one who makes the comment than about the subject.
People who tell you what other people believe frequently make mistakes. They capture something that is true, but often do not have the breadth of knowledge needed to nuance their remarks. The clip from the Daily Show parodies this, showing the quick soundbite as equally capable of portraying a fictional religion as a real one.
So don’t hold Ratzinger or Buddhism to the quick soundbite. It reflects something of what he believes, but is presented in a distorted way. Much of Christianity is similarly “auto-erotic”, concerned only with salvation of the individual rather than obligations to others. “Navel gazing” is a part of the contemplative tradition in the West as much as it is in the East. He is pointing out the purpose of religion, involvement with the community rather than individual self-fulfillment.
This is probably the crux of the problem of evangelization. Religion offers a route to self-fulfillment, but that is not the purpose of it. “What’s in it for me?” is not a good foundation for evaluating religions. (my brother used to say Catholicism offers only a calendar and some dead palm fronds yearly.) So an evangelisation that starts from that question is primed to fail, and an evangelization that does not start from that question will not appeal to those asking that question.
It is not a new problem.
So don’t hold Ratzinger or Buddhism to the quick soundbite. It reflects something of what he believes, but is presented in a distorted way.
Jim,
I would imagine that Pope Benedict XVI’s considered opinion of Buddhism would be more offensive to Buddhists than the tidbits from his interviews, unless he bent over backwards in presenting it so as to be diplomatic. One does not expect a pope to be of the opinion that all religions are worthy paths to the truth. Nostra Aetate, after explicitly mentioning Hinduism and Buddhism, says,
Would one really expect the Catholic Church to reject something that was true and holy???
It makes me think of this statement on homosexuals: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided [emphasis added].” It sounds good until you find out that discrimination in such areas as employment and housing can be just discrimination.
Benedict XVI can accept everything that is true and holy in Buddhism and still dismiss it out of hand.
Clearly Joseph Ratzinger was often quite concerned to contrast the virtues and truths of Christianity over those of other religions–something that also got him into trouble with Islam at Regensberg. That is a temptation, to my mind, that people of all faiths often succumb to–make our brand look good by diminishing the other. In doing so one often tarnishes one’s own brand by appearing petty and by getting basic facts about other religions wrong. The temptation is stronger than ever in the modern era, I think, when all religions are seen as equally valid and “workable” and good. Distinguishing is tough when salvation could possibly be found outside the Catholic Church. The other temptation is the circle-the-wagons, saving remnant appeal of the smaller-but-purer church that Ratzinger has also been fond of.
But in truth, since becoming pope he has focused more, much more (with notable exceptions) on arguing that we must preach the beauty of Christianity and joy of being Christian to draw people in, to attract them for positive rather than negative reasons. That’s what popes do, or ought to, as he knows. He has sent very kindly greetings to Buddhists on their holidays as B16. But he tends to be less diplomatic when trying to differentiate Catholicism from other “ecclesial communities.” He, no one’s infallible! Right?
In any case, whether the postive message will “work” in terms of drawing numbers is to me an open question. I would like to think so, but accentuating the negative can often draw more flies than anything else.
Jim McK, Christianity is concerned with Salvation of the individual as well as obligations to others. Consider the fact that “God so Loved the world that He sent us His only Son…” It is through Christ’s Life, Passion, and Death on The Cross, that God reveals to us the fullness of His Love, which has always been from the beginning, desiring Salvation for His Beloved.
At any rate, I’m not offended that Brit Hume wants Tiger to become a Christian. Share your faith, spread the Good News, by all means. He chose an indirect, weird, and collaterally offensive way to go about it, though.
I’ve done some reading in Buddhism (both translations of the Pali texts and works by Suzuki, Alan Watts and Phillip Kapleau, plue assorted translations of later Buddhis texts), so I don’t think that political correctness requires me not to express an opinion. Fr. O’Leary can undoubtedly correct me if I’m wrong, anyway.
All the the authors I mention seem to agree that Buddhism involves no belief in God in the Western sense of the term (the God of the Abrahaimic faiths). Watts, as I remember even called Buddhism an “atheist” religion. Since he had been an ordained Anglican priest, I assume he also knew the meanings of “God”, “sin”, and “forgiveness”.
Because there is no personal God there is no person to forgive our sins, indeed there are no sins in the sense of an offense against God. Neither do Buddhists believe that there is a continuing self who can be forgiven. The is probably what Hume was thinking of (correctly) when he suggested that Tiger become Christian if he wanted forgiveness from God.
According to the Buddha (see the end of the second sutta of “The Long Discourses of the Buddha:) a transgressor (not “sinner”) can be purified if he confesses his transgression.
This is not to say that Buddhism denies that we have obligations to others. Far from it. Not only must we respect human life, but we must respect the lower forms as well. But neither does it offer philosophical justification for that belief, at least none that I”ve read of.
About political correctness — Arts and Letters Daily accesses an article in the WSJ about the philosopher George Santayana, who held that there is a “genteel tradition” that has developed out of the corruption of the early, vigorous Puritainism which requires that we be nice and avoid dispute about important matters. even when society would be better off if we weren’t.
Sorry, the WSJ URL is not available, but you can access the article at the A&S site:
http://www.aldaily.com/http://www.aldaily.com/J