Farewell for now, First Things

Long time readers may remember that I have been very well disposed toward First Things for years and have often recommended its articles.

But back in September, the sudden ousting of Maureen Mullarkey alarmed me, and I mentioned I would be watching First Things more closely.

And so I have and have come to a personal conclusion.  I will not be renewing my subscription to First Things, nor renew gifts subscriptions for friends.

Pretty much the last straw was the issue after Pope Francis’ U. S. visit.  It was weak sauce, to be frank.  Editor R. R. Reno was clearly well disposed towards his visit.  And any criticism of Francis was hard to find and weakly said.

This is a far cry from the courageous and critical First Things I used to know.

And R. R. Reno seems to be the problem.  He became editor in 2011.  Not only have I found the journal less interesting since then, I have referred to it favorably only once since he became editor.  That quite in contrast to the years before.

To be honest, I had not noticed that very much.  The Mullarkey episode alerted me that I should take notice, and now I have.

Should First Things be done with Reno and right itself, I will gladly return.  But for now, there are more worthy journals and blogs to read and support.

Farewell, First Things . . . for now.

Francis Divides Even First Things

Anyone who doubts that Pope Francis is dividing the faithful (The world on the other hand seems united in loving him.) should note a fracas at First Things. 

Yesterday, Maureen Mullarkey posted on her blog there a piece on Pope Francis’ U. S. tour, and it pulled few punches.  The editor of First Things, R. R. Reno, in turn not only pulled the piece but evicted her blog before sundown.

His announcement and explanation of the move may be found here.  This complaint of his stood out to me:

[Mullarkey] consistently treats him as an ideological propagandist, accusing him of reducing the faith to secular political categories.

Hmm.  Did not Reno follow the Pope’s trip?  Francis is “an ideological propagandist” who at least comes close to making Leftist politics matters of faith, particularly when it comes to “climate change” and immigration.*  One can disagree with that perception, but to banish it is what the Left does.

The piece that prompted the banishment may be found over at OnePeterFive, Mullarkey’s new blog home.  And, as I said, it pulls few punches.  I can understand (though I might still disagree) if First Things would prefer to cease hosting her for reasons of tone.  She does not sound like a First Things contributor.  But then neither do I on most days.  And I like some "tirades" with my ale myself.

But the manner in which Reno banished her and his explanation for so doing concern this long time First Things subscriber.  If one must be polite and reserved and all that at First Things in calling out church leaders who hijack the faith to push Leftist politics, then perhaps it is time my support comes to an end.

I have not decided.  I will exercise more restraint than R. R. Reno has.  But I will be watching First Things more closely henceforth.

----

*As I write this, word just came that the Vatican has confirmed that Pope Francis met with Kim Davis and encouraged her.  And I have to be fair and give a tip of the hat to that.

On Nazi Analogies

One of the issues with which I wrestle when I blog is when should I use analogies from history or not.  I am something of a history freak and strongly feel we should learn from history and apply its lessons today.  And one lesson is it is much easier to call out and to stop evil early on than after its malevolence is fully unleashed.  Hence my early and frequent warnings about Obama.

At the same time, I neither want to trivialize history and suffering, particularly such dark periods as the Third Reich, nor do I want to become an obnoxious version of the boy who cried wolf.

So there is balance somewhere in referring back to dark historic episodes.  But finding it is often no easy matter.

First Things has just posted one of more thoughtful columns I’ve seen on this quandary, from John-Clark Levin.  I commend it to you. 

First Things Rates Colleges

Over the weekend, I’ve come across so many blogable items, I do not know where to start. But I want to be sure to draw your attention to the November issue of First Things containing its ratings of American colleges.

Unlike most evaluations of colleges, First Things’ looks at a college’s moral, ideological, and religious atmosphere in addition to academics, including whether it is hostile or welcoming to orthodox Christians. And the descriptions are perceptive and even witty. Take, for example, their description of Carleton College as possessing a Leftish “ideological homogeneity greater than one finds in places where there are no local Bible churches to create the anxious thought that not everybody reads the New York Times.” Judging from what a friend who ministers at that campus tells me, that is right on target.

First Things does not presume to tell readers that colleges with low ratings on their moral and religious atmosphere are no-go areas. Instead it makes the wise observation that whereas the faith of some students thrives in a challenging and even hostile atmosphere, the faith of others is not so strong. Students and their families would do well to take that into consideration when choosing a college. The November issue is very helpful in that regard. I heartily recommend getting a copy, especially if someone in your household will be going to college in the near future.

On “the Permanent Scandal of the Vatican”

I am slightly tied up catching up with the world this morning. But I want to direct you to this piece on “the permanent scandal of the Vatican” by First Things’ Joseph Bottum. It is the best big picture take on the subject I’ve seen yet.

Hat tip to The Anchoress, who also has written very thoughtfully on the subject.

First Things Calls Out Bob Casey

My April issue of First Things came in the mail yesterday. The first thing on the cover that caught my eye was “Bob Casey betrays the pro-life cause.” Now that is calling a man out!

But Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) richly deserves to be called out after that supposed pro-life Democrat ran roughshod over the unborn and over those taxpayers who cannot consciously fund abortion in his eagerness to support Obamacare. As John McCormack writes inside, he is a cowardly “sellout.”

Such a calling out may seem slightly out of character from the scholarly First Things. But there is a time to simply tell it like it is. And now is surely such a time.

(And, sorry, the opinion article is not online yet. All the more reason to subscribe to First Things!)

First Things: George Weigel on the 2008 Election

In the excellent March ‘09 issue of First Things is a thoughtful article on the 2008 election by George Weigel. “A Campaign of Narratives” is one of the best summaries of the current political culture I’ve come across.

Now I do disagree with his attributing the ‘08 result to Bush Derangement Syndrome. To be sure, there was plenty of that going around along with the flu. But methinks the sudden downward spiral in the economy is what put Obama over. Remember that McCain was ahead, then the refuse hit the fan in September, and he fell and never recovered. And it is hard to conceive how the candidate of the party then in the White House could have recovered under such a circumstance.

But Weigel nails the political culture in a number of areas. Two areas stand out.

First, he notes well the “secular millenarianism,” even “chiliastic enthusiasm,” behind the adulation of Obama and finds it “deeply troubling” as do I. For the 20th Century shows us that “the passionate investment of inchoate utopian hopes in a political leader is almost always bad news.”

(By the way, that scary adoration of Obama and the dangerous impulses that accompany that are what I mock when I refer to him as “Dear Leader.” I don’t equate Obama with Kim Jong-il.)

Second, he indicts the “mainstream media” for its negligent bias. And the harm that bias inflicts on our political discourse continues. I found the following particularly damning.

But at no point . . . did the national media explain . . . the relation between the credit crunch and the housing policies of the Carter and Clinton administrations [such as pressuring banks to write uncreditworthy mortgages –ed.], or the cozy relations that had built up between current Democratic congressional leaders and the senior management of the about-to-crumble Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Were the partisan shoe on the other foot – such that, say, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, rather than Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, were in the political-economic crosshairs – it is inconceivable that serious investigative reporting would not have ensued.

Absolutely right. And that news media omission is a dereliction of duty that continues even as those two charlatans among many constantly preen in front of the cameras and inflict further harm on our economy and nation.

Well, as you can tell, I could get a really good rant on. So I’ll exercise Lenten restraint here and end by commending the article and the March ‘09 issue of First Things to my good readers.