There are two things that are currently keeping me from being able to concentrate on what I am doing as fully as I might like. The first is considering some comments from Marshall Art on the nature of blogging and blogging debates and arguments. The second is my reading, which is both opening up my perception of the history of American liberal religion and reducing my tolerance for what passes for discussion of religion and religious issues. I suppose this is a natural outgrowth of my continuing evolution as a human being - Lord knows I don't want to be the same person all the time - but it is playing havoc with my own preference for really listening to what others have to say, and opening up myself to new possibilities.
As for the first issue, I am a bit - how can I say this? - exhausted by the notion that there is something to study, some piece of evidence that is not in the public's view that could exculpate the Bush Administration from the conviction that they are serially committed to untruth, the shredding of the Constitution, and the destruction of the balance of powers between the Executive and other branches of the federal government. To be honest, these are neither unremarkable, nor should they be considered controversial, claims. One need not even consult the polls, consistent for over a year now, that the American people are just plain tired of Bush and pretty much everything to do with him, his Administration, his policies, and his law-breaking. To discover, this late in the game, that there are those who might question this, and accuse those of us who assert it of suffering from "BDS", or using biased sources is, to be blunt, nonsensical.
On the larger issue of discussions/debates on line, Marshall is "surprised" that people don't just concede his superior wisdom and agree with what he has to say. For example, he continues to insist that his arguments concerning the beginning of life are solid and unanswerable, even as I attempt to point out how they are not. I want to continue the dialogue; he wants to be right. That is part of the problem. I have no interest in "winning" and argument, especially since such is irrelevant anyway. More to the present point, as Marshall is relatively new, he may be surprised to learn that such discussions have been going on for a long time, both here in blog-land and in the real world, and all the points have been hashed and rehashed before. There really is nothing new under the sun, so Marshall should perhaps content himself with some good fun rather than any victory dances.
This same conclusion - we are going over well-worn territory - is strengthened by my current reading on the history of American liberal Protestantism. The current fundamentalist/progressive debate within the churches is an echo of a similar religious and cultural divide that raged from the 1880's through the 1920's. The terms of the debate are the same, the issues are the same, even the language is the same. Only the cast of characters have changed. This is one reason why I am no longer moved to respond to fundies - thy lost once, they are losing again, and we have more important things to discuss. Part of this impatience stems from the intellectual shallowness of those who have no idea of the history of religion and religious debate in this country. Most people think that previous fundamentalist incarnations were short-lived and limited to the 1920's. The growth of Protestant liberalism towards the end of the 19th century, fed by German methods of Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics, a burgeoning of understanding on the history of doctrine (led by the greatest Church historian ever, Adolf von Harnack), and the influence of neo-Hegelians and liberals following Schleiermacher, created a backlash led by American fundamentalists who rejected pretty much everything the new scholarship and openness embraced. Today's fundamentalists are no different; they just have different targets.
American liberal Protestantism is a rich vein of thought and practice that has been sadly neglected as too many have looked elsewhere for inspiration. One need only consider that our religious and theological roots include names like Emerson, Beecher, Rauschebusch, Niebuhr, Thurman, Mays, and King to take pride in our heritage, and use it as a resource for the future. We no longer need to look across the Atlantic, or south of the border, for inspiration. To use a phrase from Gustavo Gutierrez, we are more than capable of drinking from our own wells. My impatience with fundamentalists is simple - their well dried up long ago, and (to change the metaphor) are seeking to give a stone those of us asking for bread.
