I don’t get pop-theology
by tdaxp ~ November 6th, 2009
From “The Catholic-Episcopalian two-way street”
I suspect Jesus would find the whole thing completely irrelevant, but since our “historical” Jesus was cast in our Malthusian past–hence the heavy bias on pro-procreation, we live with the outdated rule-set.
I have not heard this before, and I do not understand it. Can anyone explain?
I think this is your...
November 6th, 2009 at 7:19 am
This is an example of the problem of political scientists doing theology analysis. Theologians believe their are higher things going on while the former only sees politics.
As for the rest of his post it is sad.
“[W]hich simply does not work for my family,” is a line which makes me wonder if he thinks Jesus would say, “Well, do what you think works for you, Pharisees”
“[S]ince my spouse and I committed the “sin” of raising a non-straight offspring.” Raising a person who happens to be homosexual is not a sin and neither does the Church hold that being a homosexual is a sin. The sin is in the actual act. That’s why Pope Benedict has no problem with keeping priests who have homosexual urges as long as they don’t act on them. I acting on a heterosexual urge outside of marriage is a sin as well but no one would claim heterosexuality is a sin.
Liberal Christians are not going to another church, at least on the long-term. They just go away and raise secular/agnostic/atheist/not-caring children. Conservatives are the ones who keep the flame of faith alive throughout history.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Well, my respect for Mr. Barnett has just gone down *another* notch… (BTW, congratulations Dan–you’re now on board, so to speak [and I, in a sense, on board as well]…)
November 7th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Unlike Tom’s analysis that the election of Pope Benedict XVI [1] was a coup, I don’t think the comments here are outside-the-box, but highly original, thinking. As Catholicgauze says, his comments regarding sin are simply incorrect. However, I just don’t understand what he’s getting at here:
I suspect Jesus would find the whole thing completely irrelevant, but since our “historical” Jesus was cast in our Malthusian past–hence the heavy bias on pro-procreation, we live with the outdated rule-set.
The argument appears to be that organic growth only matters to politico-religious movements under Malthusian conditions. This does not make sense to me. Is something else intended?
[1] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2005/04/basically_a_coup_detat_for_pop.html
November 7th, 2009 at 4:32 am
Also, from the Benedict/coup article:
In other words, Benedict XVI will focus on the Old Core (western Europe, United States), and as such abandon high-growth areas in the New Core and Gap.
However, in this and other recent posts, he concern is that Benedict XVI is ignoring the personal fulfillment needs of some in the Old Core, in a foolish focus on the New Core and Gap.
I don’t begrudge Tom for changing his mind. My own blog is my attempt to improve my understanding of the world. But switches like this seem to happen for transparent political reasons (Benedict is a well known social conservative) without explanation or recognition.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I have slightly more sympathy for Barnett in this case. I suspect that he’s been encountering a bunch of pharasaical Catholics who are imposing their private interpretation on the Church and castigating him and his family for not living up to their private interpretation. Unfortunately for Dr. Barnett, he’s so poorly educated in the details of his own faith that he’s internalized these non-Catholic interpretations as legitimate Catholicism. Thus he’s pissed off that what he’s hearing as the faith is so meanspirited.
A well educated Catholic rests his membership on whether the Catholic Church is true or not. If it is true, there is no leaving. Leaving the truth for a lie is condemning yourself to Hell. Your tolerance for busybodies goes way up when eternal hellfire is the consequence of letting the jackasses running you out of the Church.
And, unfortunately, this has been Barnett’s weakest sector all around. He gets many wide brush strokes right, impressively so. His disinterest in details weakens his case, unnecessarily so. Well, it works for him. He’s getting the big bucks and the presidential briefings and more power too him.
Too bad about that hellfire thing though.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think TMLutas nails it — the issue is probably more due to social dynamics than legitimate church doctrine. The irony is that *nowhere* in scripture is female homosexuality derided — Moses and Paul only cite “men lying with men” as an “abomination”.
Though I do disagree with TM about “that hellfire thing”. Put me in Tom’s camp with respect to Jesus — the ultimate example of inclusiveness — wondering what all the fuss is about.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:51 am
TMLutas,
I generally agree. It is pop-theology, in that it seems to be a Catholic criticizing his faith because of overhearing atheist attacks against fundementalist Protestantism. It doesn’t seem to make sense.
My original question was regarding the Malthusian comment, which I also do not understand.
Deichmans,
Agreed. Even the puritans, not known for tolerance or understanding, who killed male homosexuals, viewed female homosexuals as guilty only of indoor lewdness!
Regarding Hell-Fire,
We all deserve it.
We can’t buy our way out.
But God’s demands are met by God’s offering [1], a scape goat to take our sins and allow us to live [2], thank God [3]!
[1] Genesis 22:13
[2] Levicitucs 16:5
[3] 1 Corinthians 10:16
November 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
[We can't buy our way out.]
My belief is we *don’t need to* “buy our way out”. We’ve not just been offered clemency by the Governor; rather, the death penalty has been eradicated.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I think now we’re getting into questions for the bishops, or counting angels in the head of a pin…
That said…
My view is not that the penalty was eradicated, but that it was paid with freely given funds. Christ said that he did not come to abolish the law, but complete it. The penalties, fines, and grisley fates described in the Old Testament are eternally true and valid. However, with Christ the Lex Divini is fleshed out (literally!). Among other aspects which were present in the Law, but not obvious to those who were attempting to keep it, was
The most important of the laws were to Love your God and to Love your neighbor. Actions taken with respect to any law (for instance, on a polity carrying out the death penalty for adultery) are only sensible if they also are in keeping with these high-priority laws (stoning != loving)
Paul expounded on this understanding, in noting that the Law was not virtue, but practice for virtue. Nothing in the law is false. Rather, without understanding the purpose is Love, one can interpret the law in radically bad ways.
Our hope as Christians is that this proper understanding of the law on earth extends to heaven, as well. All penalties will be paid, all accounts will be evened. As Christians, we pray that the sacrifice of the lamb will satisfy our bond.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
“The most important the laws were to Love your God and to Love your neighbor.”
This is often forgotten in discussions of christian theology.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:41 am
When you say you don’t understand, do you actually mean that you disagree?
It seems like a pretty straightforward argument to me.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Purpleslog,
I agree completely.
Vimothy,
Negative. I don’t follow the chain of logic. Perhaps my standard is too, low, but I consider myself to understand an argument if I could make it myself, given a different set of assumptions. So I understand Sovietism, the Cultural Revolution, etc., because I see how they might make sense.
I do not get Tom’s Malthusian reference. If you do, could you explain it to me?
November 10th, 2009 at 5:15 am
I think that Tom means that the Church’s attitude to homosexuality stems from the context in which it was born–our “pro-procreation… Malthusian past”. I.e., the Church is against homosexuality because it was created during a time when it was important to have lots of children.
I think that his reference to Malthus is a little sloppy, perhaps misleading, since a good Malthusian would be actually anti, not pro, procreation, if we understand the model in the sense of modern economic theory (the “Malthusian trap”). But nevertheless it seems, as I said, straightforward in the sense that it is not hard to see the point that Tom is making (or trying to make). But I guess that we just have different definitions of “understand”.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:42 am
vimothy,
Thanks for the comment. My initial understanding was Tom’s point was:
1. In the Malthusian past, the population is limited
2. The more children a group has, the better chance they have for population growth down the road
3. Therefore, the Church’s pro-procreation stance is Malthusian
However, the following works equally well:
1. In the non-Malthusian past, the population is unlimited
2. The more children a group has, the better chance they have for population growth down the road
3. Therefore, the Church’s pro-procreation stance is non-Malthusian
Tom’s point seems to be something about cultural group selection, but I don’t see how it’s Malthusian at all. The one dynamic that Malthusian societies have that ours doesn’t is the regular die-out of the lower classes. However, in this case, we would expect a “Malthusian” doctrine on pro-creation to emphasize passing wealth down to future generations, which is besides the point.
Likewise, the point about homosexuality not being adaptive in a Malthusian society, because Malthusian members can’t have kids, is just as true in a non-Malthusian societies, as homosexuals still can’t have kids. I could imagine him retorting with something about adoption, but adoption can exist in both Malthusian and non-Malthusian societies.
It may well be that Tom’s point is sloppy and/or misleading, but it escapes me. If there is something “Malthusian” about the Church’s stance, it should be something that ceases to be true in non-Malthusian societies. So what is it?
November 10th, 2009 at 6:26 am
So perhaps “Malthusian” is a red-herring, but the most interesting part of that statement. I think it’s fair to say that Tom means that in the past, encouraging population growth was important, so the Church was against homosexuality for that reason.
However, my reading of the Malthusian trap is that the subsistence wage is the equilibrium point of the birth and death schedules, so that a truly Malthusian technocratic position would be one of limiting population growth, and therefore the Church, were it interested in increasing living standards, should have favoured homosexuality for this very reason!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Dan,
“Tom’s point seems to be something about cultural group selection, but I don’t see how it’s Malthusian at all. ”
Not sure what Tom’s point actually may be, but in a world with limited supplies and resources for supporting a population, wild population growth in one group would promote that group’s ability to fight for, and acquire, and utilize, the resources to the detriment of the other group(s). I.e., the “Malthusian Past” may have been fact, since technological advancements vis-a-vis agriculture and trade would not necessarily keep up with the exponential population growth regardless of who is procreating “more.” This in turn promotes greater competition for resources, and at that time numbers (of people) would be an important deciding factor in who could secure those resources. Perhaps you are interpreting Tom’s use of “our” in “our Malthusian past” incorrectly; perhaps he is not referring to “our Christian” Malthusian past so much as “our shared” Malthusian past — so this confounding of that past with Christianity, as if he is referring to a Christian Malthusianism rather than a general Malthusian past (in which many groups existed) is leading you astray.
As for homosexuality and the Judeo-Christian past, cultural selection was effected also as a distinguishing and group-bonding feature. I.e., many of the surrounding peoples had fewer doctrinaire biases against homosexuality, and the Jewish proscriptions were used to distinguish the Jewish tribes from the surrounding tribes. Again, this may have helped in the fight for resources, since a stronger cultural binding would promote activities of a more unified nature and so strengthen the group with those cultural identities: it becomes “us” vs “them” in which the “them” don’t themselves see themselves as a very strong unified “us.”
November 10th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Vimothy,
Agreed.
Of course, in the present, encouraging population growth is important. Nothing has changed there.
Curtis,
Thanks for the insightful comment.
Population growth is and was an important factor in deciding resource distribution, but this is not limited to Malthusian environments. Lebanon is nowhere near the Malthusian equilibrium, but the Shia proclivity for children necessarily diverts resources to that growth.
I think your point on homosexuality is interesting. The religious beliefs of the Israelites were largely identical to their neighbors (Eloah, the Elohim, Satan, etc.), with Moses, and four characteristics of his story. Unlike much of the cosmology, these two traits are entirely distinctive for the Jews
1. The Egyptian Exile
2. YHWH
3. Mount Sinai
4. The Law
Israelite beliefs apart from these characteristics appear to have been indistinguishable from their neighbors. With these attributes, the Israelites were able to pull the same trick as the Qin (with the Chinese) and the Macedonians (with the Greeks) — to affect a permanent cultural hegemony over their host nation. The prohibition on homosexuality, along with other distinctive aspects of the Law, would lead to greater in-group cohesion among of the people that were the 0GW Army of YHWH (Joshua 5:13-15).
November 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“Of course, in the present, encouraging population growth is important. Nothing has changed there.”
Hmm. Not sure I’d be so general. Rather, in the advanced economies, encouraging population growth is important; in the developing economies, the effect of population growth is more ambiguous.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:49 am
… from the perspective of group power.
Population growth may lead to misery or happiness, but from ancient Sumeria to modern Lebanon, population growth rates lead to political power and influence.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The problem with the “growing churches don’t like non-breeders” theory is that many of the same religions which are deriding homosexuals also have monastic orders. So it’s ok for a person to become a monk or nun, but not to prefer the sexual company of a member of the same gender?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Was Roman Britain multiracial? .
“Rome, like many multi-national empires, had a policy of moving people around in order to promote a common identity and to eliminate ethnic distinctiveness. The Assyrians had perfected this policy, e.g., the deportation of the Jews to Babylon and their replacement by other peoples. The Roman authorities used their army to this end. They wished to create an atomized society where regionalism or ethnicity could not mobilize resistance to imperial rule.[...]
I’ve read that a Roman soldier had to wait the 20-24 years until he retired before he could marry.
The mystery religions such as Mithras are said to have been popular among soldiers and the upper classes in the late empire.
It is claimed that Christians outbred the other religions in the Roman Empire.
As Seccombe (1992) points out, the Roman Empire suffered from negative population growth. Not enough people married and had children to offset relatively high mortality among infants and young adults. In breaking down local collective identities, whether ethnic or regional, the Empire had created an atomized and increasingly anonymous society without the carrots and sticks that tightly knit societies use to push individuals down the path of family formation”
November 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
First and last para are quotes from Peter Frost’s blog, middle 3 sentences are not.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Michael,
Agreed.
Likewise, one would expect that male bisexuality and heterosexual adultery would be expected in a simply-make-more-believers model. Tom’s statements just don’t make sense.
Lere,
Thakns for the comments! I don’t know about the replacement rate of the Empire (as opposed to just cities), though it does seem that the establishment of informal hospitals for the sick lead to a stable and exponential increase in Christianity over time. [1]
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/0060677015
November 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
One interesting thing I noticed is that (intentionally or not) he pretty well killed the notion of the Vatican’s invitation being predatory. Just as there are Conservative Anglicans who might be interested in switching to Catholicism, so there are Liberal Catholics (like Dr. Barnett) who might be interested in Anglicanism for the very same reason.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Michael,
Liberal Christians leave churches, so represent a poor source of converts. One might as well convert the air.