What is my primary identity? I am a white man or less crudely, a person of European descent. I am also a citizen of the U.S. And then, rounding out personal identities, I am a member of the communion known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
But if I check my wallet, the only ID card I find comes from the State of Michigan – a driver’s license (the photo on which identifies me as a white guy with receding hair). When I travel I have a passport issued by the United States (and a similarly dopey photo of a follicly challenged white man). So far, no ecclesiastical body has taken me up on my observation of the need for church passports. That way, we could when on the road, show that our papers are in order and that our membership is in good standing. We could also receive a stamp to verify to the home church authorities that we were present for church and if we partook of the Lord’s Supper.
So far, I am unaware of any documents that would certify my racial or ethnic identity. I know some fancy cats and dogs have breeding papers. The last time humans may have thought about such documentation, the effects were not pleasant. So let’s not go there.
These were some of the thoughts I had after listening to a story on NPR about Italian opposition to Cecile Kyenge, recently appointed as the first black cabinet minister within the Italian government. If Americans think that racism is bad on this side of the Atlantic, I wonder what they would do with Italians referring to Kyenge as a monkey and throwing bananas her way when speaking in public. Granted, it would not be fair to tarnish all Italians with the accusation of racism since the Northern League Party has been responsible for the ugly opposition to Kyenge, a party that accounts for 18 of Italy’s 315 Senators. Then again, can anyone imagine any political candidate winning an election in the U.S. if he were associated with this kind of racism?
So far, so nation and race. We have citizens of Italy who are of European descent (duh!) opposing an African-Italian politician. What about Christianity and church membership. Italy (another duh) is a nation whose citizens have long and deep ties to the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, the Vatican was a major speed bump to Italy’s emergence as an independent nation, and tensions between Italian nationalism and Roman Catholicism existed down to World War II. Still, it is not inconceivable to think of Italians as having some awareness and affection for the Roman Catholic church. And that might lead us to think that Christians, like Roman Catholics, would not react in such a hostile way to politicians like Kyenge. After all, this is a church that puts “universal” in its very name. No matter how bad Christian practice is in Europe, being Catholic, you would think, would lift you out of the particularities of race and nation to identify at least with other Christians if not other humans in a universal way. But apparently Roman Catholicism has not had that affect on Italians just as evangelicalism has not lifted Protestants in the United States, despite all that mystical union with the body of Christ business, above identifying the United States with God’s redemptive purposes.
The Vatican has in the past spoken out against Italy’s racism, so it is not as if the Roman curia are unaware of the problem. Even so, this news does remind us of the older associations between Roman Catholicism and a European conservatism that opposed egalitarianism, individualism, and democracy. (Say what you will about the problems of those political sensibilities, they have been largely responsible for countering racial views that elevate one group above others.) I mention this Roman Catholic illiberalism if only because of a fascinating book by Peter D’Agostino about Roman Catholics in the United States and Italy and how the former sided with a Vatican that was opposed to the kind of political structures on which Americans usually prided themselves. (The book is just the start of D’Agostino’s fascination for me.) I have not finished the book, but here is an indication of the argument he makes:
Students of religion in the United States have ignored Fascist Italy. Studies of the interwar years rarely mention the Italy-Vatican rapprochement of the 1920s or the Lateran Pacts of 1929. Historians John McGreevy and Philip Gleason have analyzed mid-twentieth-century American liberal critiques of Catholicism as an antidemocratic, authoritarian culture with affinities to “fascism” or “totalitarianism.” In their work, “fascism (not Fascism) is a generic term for authoritarianism, and the “rise of fascism” happened in the 1930s, as if Fascist Italy did not exist in the 1920s. They tend to conflate informed anti-Fascists struggling for a democratic Italy with the bigotry of Paul Blanshard. . . . Ultimately, they sidestep the issue liberals raised: the substantial links between the American Church and Fascist Italy for two decades. . . .
On occasion American Catholics did criticize Fascism. It does not follow, however, that “what appeared to Italian exiles and American liberals to be a monolithic pro-Mussolini Catholic chorus were in reality the voices of individual churchmen.” This claim ignores hierarchical structures of power and community vigilance that belie the notion that the Church was a group of atomized individuals free to articulate broadly divergent views on matters relating to the Roman Question. Attention to the timing and content of American Catholic criticism of Fascism during the Italy-Vatican rapprochemement of the 1920s reveals the collaboration of a transnational church. When the Vatican praised Fascism for outlawing Masonry, American Catholics voiced similar praise. When the Vatican protested Fascist interference in the moral development of Italian youth, so did American Catholics. When the Vatican instigated the dissolution of the Partito Popolare Italiano (PPI), American Catholics agreed it was a wise policy. When the Vatican withheld commentary on the beating, imprisonment, or murder of an anti-Fascist, American Catholics also remained silent. (159-160)
So sometimes church membership does transcend nation (American Roman Catholics following Rome), and sometimes it does not (Italians today).
My point is not to find more skeletons in Rome’s closet. I do think this is another piece of Roman Catholic history that Jason and the Callers have airbrushed from their philosophical accounts of the papacy. But the fascinating point, I think, is the degree to which Christianity actually affects a person’s politics and identity. Does church membership define someone more than race and nation? Sure, we know what the ideal is. But can Christians actually escape the constraints of history like to whom and where you are born?
Old Life 
Don’t forget all the support that American papists from Boston, New York, and elsewhere provided for the murderous activities of the IRA — not a government, of course, but a group that wanted to form or shape one.
LikeLike
“There has been a great deal of discussion at CTC about the rational superiority of the Catholic interpretive paradigm over the Protestant interpretive paradigm. As Michael Liccione, and others, have pointed out, Protestantism has no principled way to differentiate dogma from theological opinion – no coherent way even to identify the contours of Christian doctrine – that does not reduce to question begging or subjectivism. Catholicism, by contrast, posits an objective way to draw such distinctions.”
– David Anders
Gosh, it must be nice to live in David Anders’ world. I haven’t felt that secure and snug when I lay down in bed at night since I wore footie pajamas.
LikeLike
If we figure out how to make sense of Italian racism we’ll still have to figure out how to make sense of Pier Paolo Pasolini:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom
LikeLike
Great post, DGH. Those who call themselves “The Church of Christ” tend to be the most sectarian. They want to “translate” everything you say into their own idiom (which of course they assume is closer to the “universal”
“We could also receive a stamp to verify to the home church authorities that we were present for church and if we partook of the Lord’s Supper.”
mark: As of a few years back, I knew some Dutch Reformed folks (in North Carolina) who were still practicing this. Of course it did raise some questions for some of the home churches (of other more “elastic” Reformed denominations)
LikeLike
I suppose what might account for these attitudes in Italy- so some degree- is that since Roman Catholicism is a false religion, it’s adherents are almost all certainly unregenerated. Thus it’s not surprising this, mixed with Italy’s ugly and narcissistic culture, leads to the sort of racism mentioned.
(I’d imagine this would apply to a lot of “evangelicals” too.)
LikeLike
We need to seriously consider changing the official Old Life movie from Lebowski to “This is Spinal Tap”. BBC America plays it roughly every-other-day. Hilarious.
LikeLike
David St. Hubbins is named after St. Hubbins, patron saint of quality footwear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmy554Id0w
LikeLike
Erik,
For the life of me, I can’t see why the CTCers don’t see that their argument is utterly without foundation since they have no principled, infallible way to distinguish between which body is the infallible arbiter of doctrine and which is not. It’s a comfort built on nothing—absolutely nothing.
LikeLike
Erik, whenever I play the song “Hellhole” (“you know where you stand in a…”), my stereo isn’t loud enough. The volume knob goes up to 10, but I really need at least 11. And remember: when you order a Stonehenge replication, always specify the dimensions.
LikeLike
Alexander, yeow.
LikeLike
Nothing to say, just want to call attention to my new Bryan Cross’s headwear meets John Calvin avatar. You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Alexander if you would take off your x-ray glasses that show who’s regenerate, you may see that racism cuts across all religions and most ideologies. RC, Calvinism, conservatism, liberalism – it’s a tenacious problem. And, like the poor, we will always have it with us. Of course that doesn’t mean we should just wave the white flag.
LikeLike
CW, with all that preaching, all those questions from the magistrate, all that writing, and his physical maladies, I just can’t see Calvin doing much in the way of chortles.
LikeLike
No, he was a famous hardass — like Sean.
LikeLike
Re: This is Spinal Tap
Have you seen the 8-hour extended version? I haven’t, but my better half stayed up all night once watching it.
LikeLike
“since Roman Catholicism is a false religion, it’s adherents are almost all certainly unregenerated”
Why the “almost”?
LikeLike
MM, Calvins’s annual renumeration package with the city of Geneva did include seven barrels of wine, which might have helped him chortle on occasion. On the inside, at least.
LikeLike
*remuneration*
“It is permissible to use wine not only for necessity, but also to make us merry.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1732689/posts
LikeLike
Erik and Katy, Tap is good but Christopher Guest hit his stride with Guffman and Best in Show. And then there is Home for Purim (within For Your Consideration).
LikeLike
C-Dubs, the Irish never give up a grudge. Ever. It’s a problem, but then so are the English.
LikeLike
Katy, at least the “almost” puts some needed restraint on Alex’s x-rays. But my better half recently purchased “A Mighty Wind” and helped pass along to our children the genius that is Christopher Guest.
LikeLike
Wrong, Sean, we do give up grudges – after the fistfight.
LikeLike
Best in Show doesn’t have the music, though, like TIST and AMW, which is all really good ear candy. And I think you have to be more familiar with dog-show culture to really get it (that’s what my friend says–and she says it’s pretty accurate). Or hate dogs and dog people.
LikeLike
MM, true. But we reserve the right to be offended again.
May those that love us, love us.
For those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn’t turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we’ll know them by their limping.
LikeLike
Robert – For the life of me, I can’t see why the CTCers don’t see that their argument is utterly without foundation since they have no principled, infallible way to distinguish between which body is the infallible arbiter of doctrine and which is not. It’s a comfort built on nothing—absolutely nothing.
Erik – If they could trace Francis all the way back to Jesus through the other 264 Popes (not counting the 2 bogus ones at the time of the Avignon Papacy, I guess) without any bumps in the road that would be a secure foundation. There are bumps in the road, though, which is what I think we endeavor to show people. If these guys would just lose the air of intellectual superiority I think I (we) would back off. I don’t give Mormons and JW’s a hard time, after all, because they’re not in my face.
LikeLike
Katy,
8 hour extended version? Wow, who knew. Since there is a good gag about every minute in the regular version I can only imagine. I need to get that.
LikeLike
Our whole counter-apologetic to the Callers need consist of nothing more than pointing out these bumps in the road — day-after-day, year-after-year. They’ll still win over some of our weaker-minded P&R folks (most likely seminarians and recent graduates coming out of the PCA), but our more seasoned members will see that their apologetic has – um- holes. It’s actually a fun task because it drives some interesting reading of church history and general history – as D.G. is demonstrating.
Of course they’ll always bob, weave, define infallibility down, cite development of doctrine, throw up logical smokescreens yada, yada, yada. Bring it on, though.
LikeLike
Erik, why would a smoother line from Francis back to Jesus give any more security of foundation to the claims? I say grant the succession, but so what? How does a straight line back cover a multitude of errors?
LikeLike
Zrim, what kind of succession? I can’t see any way to track papal primacy from either an apostolic or early church perspective. And how do you have anything resembling tridentine RC before the 11th century?
LikeLike
Sean, neither do I. But my point is that AS isn’t the magic bullet some seem to think it is.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If we had a physical succession of Bishops from Francis to Jesus and they actually acted like Jesus (and Peter) that would be compelling. we don’t, though, so what good is the notion? I’m underwhelmed by the fruit of the succession. Really the succession is the only leg they have to stand on. No succession, no infallible interpreter, no problems with being a Protestant solved.
LikeLike
Erik, if beginning with ecclesia it may add some suasion. But if beginning with scriptura, still not so much. Peter may have begotten Linus (and so forth), but even hand-picked Paul disqualifies himself should he get out of line with holy writ. So have all the physical succession you want. The test is biblical fidelity.
LikeLike
Who succeeds Billy Graham? Sarah P?
Tim Keller has succeeded C S Lewis.
But where’s the guy who replaces Machen?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Paul’s not such a big deal in their world, I guess. He was certainly no Peter. Maybe that’s why they pretty much disregard what he wrote about justification by faith. Oh, but that’s just our paradigm.
LikeLike
Erik, or worldview. Neo-Cals and Catholics Together.
LikeLike
Come on, MMc — the next CSL is that Peter Pan-like being who’s president of The King’s College in NYC.
LikeLike
Mikkelman: it’s not about having x-ray glasses. It’s about recognising that RC is a false religion, a perversion of the Christian religion. As such one should not expect, as a rule, its adherents to be regenerate.
Katy: I used “almost” because although it is a false religion, RC is a false religion with Christian dressing. So Christ is mentioned; the Bible is paid lip-service; some of its doctrines echo those of the Christian religion. This being so, it would be wrong to say that from within this darkness God never brings forth His own. So there may indeed be true believers within its ranks. But as dgh once said: the question is not whether an RC can be a Christian but whether a Christian can be an RC: the answer is no. So anyone within the RC communion who comes to true faith- and is thus given light by the Spirit- must flee at once to a true church.
Having said that at the end of the day RC is not Christianity. It’s not just flawed Christianity: it’s false. We know where the Holy Spirit will pour out blessings; where He will regenerate the elect: within the church. Therefore we should not seek His work outside the church. As a general
rule it makes as much sense to talk about regenerate RCs as it does regenerate Muslims or pagans. The only difference is that RC, for historical reasons, has vestiges of Christianity within her bounds. But more and more, it has less and less.
Further: I do not deny cultural influence when it comes to things such as racism. Of course if is found in the church as well as outwith. However, I take issue with the contention that we would expect Italians- being Catholic- to show Christian acceptance of other races. RC not being Christianity, one should not expect its people to be regenerated and thus exhibit fruits of the Spirit.
I’m continually amazed at the relativism on display when it comes to Roman Catholicism, as seen in discussion of the CTC group. So long as you treat them merely as erring brothers- and not those who have rejected Christ, they will not be brought back and others will think that what they have done is not as serious as it is. Maybe this is what comes from fiddling with Reformed confessions, but the Wrstminster Confession my church subscribes to- strictly, absolutely, no qualifications- recognising the Pope as the Antichrist. Tell me, how can the Antichrist’s domain be viewed as Christian?
What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
LikeLike
But, Alexander, how you glide so easily from unregenerate to racist is bizarre, not to mention how Italy’s culture is “ugly and narcissistic.” What could that possibly mean? Frankly, it sounds like old-fashioned religious and cultural bigotry.
LikeLike
The post itself posited the connection between faith and tolerance. I think that is a fair assumption to make. I think we see bigotry in the church we recognise it as unbecoming and at odds with the teachings of Christ. It still manifests itself because we are fallen.
I think a cursory glance at Italian culture- with it’s hyper-machismo, its vulgarity, its ostentation is enough to justify my comment.
LikeLike
“But can Christians actually escape the constraints of history like to whom and where you are born? ”
And the master said to the servant, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.” Luke 14:23
LikeLike
Have you ever been to Italy, Alexander?
LikeLike
@Mark:
“… Tim Keller has succeeded C S Lewis …”
This is not the first time I’ve heard this comparison. I don’t mean to take this thread down a bunny trail, but I’m really struggling to understand how people think Keller has “succeeded” Lewis. While I don’t agree with everything Lewis had to say about the dimensions of Christianity, I certainly recognize him for the genius that he was (especially within the area of Mediaeval literature), his excellent contributions to both fictional and non-fictional literature, and his astonishing mind and memory.
I’m afraid that I don’t see any of those things, at least not to same level, coming from Keller. Help me out here; where and how do people see him as a “successor” to Lewis?
LikeLike
@CW
Not Peter Pan – Pee Wee Herman. I can almost see him on the bicycle.
LikeLike