Spengler again
Spengler continues his hilariously abusive analysis of American resentment (which I offer not with unqualified endorsement but mostly for your amusement):
Americans who grew up in the 1950s and afterward remain in a perpetual childhood of peer identification, hostile to all authority.
That is not quite true, I concluded in the August 29 essay; most Americans acknowledge the Bible as a supreme authority. But that is not quite the case if the Bible is to be taken “literally”, that is, the way an ignorant man would read it on the surface. In that case, the authority is not the Bible at all, but rather the authority of the ignoramus who reads it. This writer accepts the authority of the Bible, but confesses his inability to understand most of it without the assistance of learned commentators. Paradoxically, biblical literalism is a resentment-driven revolt against authority.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:48 am
Well, this Catholic boy can go along with Spengler this time around. Mark Knoll’s book is great. I’m a BIT more respectful of both Evangelical and Mormon cultures (having a best friend who converted to Mormonism, after I converted him to Evangelicalism, though he planted the seeds that led to my eventual conversion to Catholicism, and . . . well, it’s complicated). Incidentally, Latter Day Saints, wittingly or unwittingly, have an interpretive authority for their texts that is structually much more like the Catholic Magisterium than the “Do-It-Yourself” Evangelical approach. Part of the draw of Mormonism is, I think, the strong male identity, which is a reaction to the feminization of men in American Christianity in the 19th century.
Regarding Spengler’s previous and our discussion, has anyone else heard Christina Aguilera’s latest? As an occasional karaoke practicioner, I can state with some authority that it is MUCH easier to mimic an opera singer (male or female) than it would be to mimic that.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I should have said the “perceived feminization of men” (probably having to do with manner and mores in church socials, prayer groups and the like) in the 19th century. At least, my readings on the subject have suggested that as being involved in the genesis of Mormonism–the “manliness” of its founders and of its social precepts were a big factor. The other draw of Mormonism is that it is (surprisingly to me) a deeply mystical religion. Yet another draw is that it’s a very communal religion; though it might be stifling/suffocating at times, the support of a Mormon community for its own is quite striking, and the “brotherhood”/”sisterhood” of believers among your average Christian sect pales before the example of Mormons. Though I do not accept any of the thological or other precepts of Mormonism, I can certainly understand how people (including my friend, one of the least “dumb” Amercians I know) might be drawn to it.
Another point is that the “do it yourself” ethos of Americans has its up sides and its down sides, even religiously. Like Spengler, I cannot approach the bible without the help of authority and learned commentary, but from living abroad for a long time I have learned to appreciate the initiative and individual audacity of Americans. Including Evangelicals.
Finally, a huge percentage of Christians in East Asia, particularly Korea, China and Taiwan, are Evangelicals, so it is not just an American thing, or at least not any longer.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
re: the earlier post on Spengler below:
Christina’s latest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYXU4ebQ2w8
No, it’s not easy to imitate that, though Christina herself seems to be imitating Aretha Franklin (and with considerable success, I think).
September 24th, 2006 at 4:43 am
You decide. The original Soul Diva:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JELsvvv1V60