The Reason for the Reasons

I note this week a Time magazine article in which Al Gore writes, "Faith in the power of reason - the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power - remains the central promise of American democracy." He also maintains that a "well informed citizenry," is central to "the rule of reason as the natural sovereign of a free people."

It's become a specialty, in letters I write to our local rag, to elaborate on other letters and editorials, when the realms of religion, culture and politics intersect, if not clash. The biographies tacked onto the end of the pieces are invariably bland and innocuous; one might say, for example, Joe Smith, of the Institute on Culture and Media; or, Mary Jones, professor at Bluefield College. They look polished and professional. When you google these credentials to investigate further, however, you promptly find the context in which the piece was produced, that is, the reason for the reasons. I haven't found one yet, I promise you, that was written by plain old Joe or Mary, a neighbor around the corner, who was making a case on their own, with no affilation to an ultra-partisan national lobbyist cabal.

It's akin to a recent email exchange with my friend Bob. He asked if I thought voting was a Christian duty since through his discernment he believes Paul advocates respect for the civic process. In the same way I investigate editorialist credentials, I googled Paul's context. Paul lived under a Roman dictatorship. He believed in an imminent second coming. Although the latter is still on the table, the former is long gone. While Paul's thesis remains relevant, the context has changed greatly. The idea deserves much further thought, indeed, enough to ponder upon, endlessly, with no definite conclusion ever assured.

The prospect of such research is enticing. It may involve a visit, or two, or more, to the bookshops. It's time for a summer vacation. In that way, I'm much like Anne Tyler's "Armchair Tourist," Macon Leary. Although I may travel far from home, it's a comfort to carry a mission along like a suitcase; a topic to investigate that grounds the frenetic pace so I don't feel lost.

I can't imagine a more perfect journey than walking down Charing Cross Road, in London, stopping first at Foyles, then Blackwells; strolling south for a browse through the antiquarian shops, then past St. Martins in the Field, the Portrait Gallery, Trafalgar Square, cutting across to Picadilly, arriving, finally, at Hatchards, where lovers have found the books for which they've been pining since 1797.

Once the hopefully elusive bound prey is secure within the game bag, it's time for a bangers and mash lunch washed down by a pint of Guinness. In olden parish days, when vestry members preached sermons during the week of the Passion, my Maundy Thursday text was composed in its entirety in the pubs along this route. Heaven must be like this.

It's the thrill of the hunt, you see. Who could fail to be excited?

Most people, apparently. According to a National Endowment for the Arts report, "fewer than half of Americans read literature," and the percentage of Americans who read any book at all has fallen significantly over the past 15 years. I note this week that Kathleen Park, from the Post, laments the demise of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution book section, may it rest in peace. There's only 5 left in all the country. She writes, "Book reviews aren't only about the book. They're about conversation, the cultural dialogue, and the marketplace of ideas."

If the market shuts down, few others, may be tempted to challenge the undercover editorial lobbyists. Like Episcope, for example, the blog of TEC, which doesn't "normally take issue with opinion pieces," offerng posts from the left, center, and right, but felt compelled last week to take exception to a piece out of Lagos that referred to the "canonization," of Gene Robinson, something even supporters like me aren't wont to claim with ease. (He's more like Jackie Robinson to me.)

Interestingly, the piece is more charmingly straightforward than most CANA spin by reporting Martin Minns was "installed in Virginia, USA, to coordinate a network of anti-gay Anglicans in that part of the world." That certainly doesn't jive with the more carefully crafted CANA press releases and with a certain Anglican seccessionist Senior Warden who wrote that gays are most welcome in CANA parishes.

Gore proposes a remedy to the demise of the marketplace of ideas that involves the re-establishment of genuine discourse where people participate in a meaningful way with an expectation of a meaningful response. My way, rather, is to scour bookstores, the library, the net, and the newspapers, to respond, refute and expose the double-talk, even if there aren't many, or any, consumers for the product.

It's a literary version of the 'Little Way.' When I was a social justice advocate, efforts were initiated by others to launch an 'affordable living,' campaign in a county where an affordable dwelling was defined as a $225,000 townhouse. The people I served lived in tents. My time for ministry was not unlimited. I chose the past of the Little Way; to help the person in front of me in our shelter. I couldn't envision the promise of a broader campaign in a county where a letter writer to the paper proclaimed he'd never assist the poor since he espied a child at a homeless shelter wearing new shoes. (He was driving; the shelter is at least 1000 yards from the highway. He must have taken a good look.)

It's disheartening that people may take letters and editorials on face value. I keep waiting in vain for someone to refute my own, although I'll confess now there aren't any suspicious links to expose, except maybe for a lifetime allegiance to the New York Yankees. (Wait, there was one favorable letter once, but she got it all wrong, for all the wrong reasons.) Perhaps the market is already closed. Even if it is, this is what I must do, even if I'm the only one left doing it. (Like rooting for A-Rod.)

I was commiserating with my buddy Mark last week about my time on vestry where 9 out of 10 votes were decided 9 to 1 (guess who?). He responded, "I had an old Army boss who believed in the motto, "dare to be different. I think it truly so in church matters - the single voice may be right, but may be drowned out by others. I think that has also been a feature of the Episcopal Church - trying to make a place for smaller voices."

Well said. It brings to mind an idea I've had for years. Perhaps parishes went awry when they adopted majority rather than consensus voting. If churches didn't take action unless it was instilled in the hearts of the whole vestry, by God, and sensed through prayer, then it's not an action to take. Would that work?

Would that serve the purpose of re-creating genuine discourse without resort to the necessity of the trickery and spin of worldly political campaigns? I don't think it would work at the more unwieldly national level where there are already canons and protocol to manage events - but could it work in a parish?

Let's vote on it.