And We're Back...so, unfortunately, are Chuck Colson and misogyny in Christianity Today

Took an unscheduled hiatus in which I seriously thought about shutting this project down. I've decided I'm too much of a narcissist, so we're back.

The latest issue of Christianity Today has another rant from Chuck Colson on the back page. Does he do anything but rant? He's turning into Mr. Wilson, Dennis the Menace's irascible neighbor. This time though, he tosses in a phrase that the editors at CT should have asked him to clarify, and by not doing so, they appear to condone one of three things: misogyny, gratuitous profanity, or just sloppy conservatism. (I suggested to CT several months ago that they would be better served having Colson just empty the trash in the office. They apparently found no merit in my suggestion.)

Colson is talking about how appalled he was that team leaders in his Centurion Program, a "worldview" course, were unable to teach a section that asserted the truth of Christianity over against other world faiths. Do these people not understand what faith actually means? How do you assert the truth of metaphysical claims over against other metaphysical claims when there aren't clear criteria by which to judge the truth of any set of metaphysical claims? That's why it's faith. But Colson, one of those dinosaurs who believe Christianity is an extension of the modern epistemological project, thanks largely to the influence of another cranky fundamentalist, Francis Schaeffer, on Colson's early faith development post-Watergate, insists that the Centurion Program teach a worldview that offers Christianity as objective truth. Regular readers will sense my cringe.

At the end of the piece, Colson tosses off this phrase: worship at the altar of the bitch goddess of tolerance. You'll note that tolerance, widely considered a virtue except in fundangelical circles, is here demonized by being called both an idol and a female. I'm not sure what Colson is getting at with this phrase. Is tolerance a feminine trait? And if so, why is she a bitch? Can't she be a sweet grandma or a Sunday School teacher? And why the goddess language? Wouldn't "idol" have sufficed to make his point? I find it difficult to believe that this choice of words is anything more than gratuitous profanity to shock and make a point--something I'm quite comfortable with around here, in fact; although, I do try not to be quite so misogynistic in my choice of profanity.

A few of us have been noting the uber-conservative trend in CT of late. If you want proof, just read the ridiculous editorial about Red Letter Christians actually being liberals (blue, if you will). More on that another time. I don't care if a magazine wants to take a conservative stand. It's possible to argue the points and stand on those convictions without being such twits though. Seriously, can we get an explanation of why Colson is allowed to interject such inflammatory, pointless, and sexist language in a Christian magazine? And can we get an explanation of why they keep this cranky old bastard employed?

Comments

[Kevin Powell]

I think CT is hunkering down. They know they’re losing the war they think they’re in. I’m guessing they’ve lost a good chunk of their younger readership and are now preaching to the old, conservative, choir. Re-affirming their prejudices.

Too bad. It was once an excellent publication.

[Dallas Tim]

There's no relationship in a magazine. No community. Colson might have an explanation for what he said. He might even agree after a thoughtful discussion that he could have used a less confusing adjective/title.

There are so many books, articles, opinions, etc... that all we ever hear is how bad/wrong everyone else is.

I'm all for the communication of truth and the quest to be more informed and intelligent, but I think many people are not as concerned in communicating truth/ideas as they are with hearing themselves talk (including me, and I liked hearing myself say that).

[Dallas Tim]

And how 'bout a new title for CT?

Maybe...

"Christianity?... Today?"

[Amanda]

that's just plain wrong.

[Leighton]

It's obviously of deep and weighty significance to this conversation that Christianity Today is an anagram of A Shitty City Inroad. Straight and narrow, or just poorly maintained? News at 11...

(Yes, I cheated.)

[greg]

Brilliant, as always.

[Zossima]

Apart from buying into the fallacy that his little cultural dogma program is somehow about objective truth, Colson buys into the logical fallacy that if you aren't with his program, you're (gasp!) a (double gasp!) "cultural relativist", which to him means that you believe in nothing and everything at the same time and prefer that everyone else does the same. As if there's no way a non-fundagelical-christian could have a well-formed believe system.

Colson has become so engaged in this way of thinking that 30+ years after Watergate, he ironically has become an ideological shill for Bush and the Rovian heirs of the Watergate legacy.

[Tim Sean]

When Jesus said the way to God was a narrow, i am more and more convinced he meant that only those who could deal with big heaps of cognitive dissonance, the wonder of myth and story, and the ability to love and care for others regardless of whether they see the world the way you do would "get" the kingdom. I know I'm stretching my hermeneutic here but I'll take my chances.

[sepherim]

Tim Sean
I think you could just leave it at your last category. Those that love and care for others have always been a very small percentage of those who claim to be christian by any definition. But then I've always been something of a reductionist.

[sepherim]

And Leighton,
Thanks, I think, for the anagram site. I think I have a new addiction.

[chris]

http://www.bartleby.com/68/59/859.html

[Heath Casey]

Great job of teaching tolerance. You got to love those that bash someone they disagree with in the name of "tolerance" and call them names like "fundagelical". How tolerant! Take that plank out of your eye. It's disturbing.

[greg]

Heath,

Welcome. Glad to see you did some background reading before you lobbed your first troll biscuit. I use fundangelical as descriptive of the fundamentalist and evangelical churches. It is shorter than typing both, and evangelicalism has, to a very large degree, become fundamentalist.

[Heath Casey]

I agree that they have, and I know what the term is. You are not the first to use it, but you purpose the use of "fundamentalist" in a negative fashion. If we can be tolerant to Muslims or Hindus why not fundamentals (or I would prefer literal bible believers)?

I just think the whole idea of what many say tolerance should be is flawed. I agree many fundamentalist are stubborn or intolerant, but that shouldn't change what truth is. No person's behavior should ever be able to change any absolute truths. I do wish fundamentals shared truth with more love; that would be ideal!

Sorry if that my previous comment was construed as a troll biscuit. I am a literal Bible believer and libertarian socially. I am firm in my beliefs, but really try to live by them and share them by love first and foremost. That is how I view tolerance, not giving in to my beliefs.

[Floyd Magee]

Just curious...What's wrong with fundamentals?

[greg]

floyd,

depends on what you mean by fundamentals and what they imply as far as obligation. Also important is who gets to say what's fundamental.

[Dallas Tim]

Some see the FUN in Fundamental.

Others see the MENTAL.