Hugh Hewitt: The line I’m reading from is on page 220. “The conservative account of Christianity, it is first and foremost of a single life, of one man, Jesus. It’s subsequently both an attempt to distill what it meant to be Jesus, most fatally, in the abstract religious genius of Paul.” And I…what do you mean by fatally there?Andrew Sullivan: Because if you just have doctrine, and you do not feel Jesus in your actual life, if you do not feel it in the practice of faith, if you just cling to doctrines and certitudes, you become what Jesus criticized, which was the Pharisees, who said oh, we’ve got it all down. We know what the laws are. And they did exactly to Jesus what you’re doing to me, which is ask them all these trick questions. And Jesus, actually, was smart enough to be silent, and to say no, what matters is love and forgiveness, and how we live our lives. And that’s what Jesus said.
HH: Well, Jesus didn’t write a book, though.
AS: Hugh, you and your pharisaical form of religion, and your cross-examination. You remind me exactly of the Pharisees and scribes in the Gospels.
HH: But Jesus didn’t write a book or go on a book tour, and you did.
AS: So what?
HH: And so when I ask you about what you’ve written in your book, it’s not really a trick question.
The train wreck continues....
Kathy Shaidle, in the comments -"The parody Hewitt did with Lileks an hour later is pure joy. Since Sullivan obviously isn't a conservative anymore, and some are questioning his fidelity to Catholic dogma, is it safe to wonder if he's even really gay?"
Well Jesus wasn't always, "smart enough to be silent" - but it does seem like Sillivan has granted himself a degree in Theology and concocted his own branch of Christian certaintude.
The parody Hewitt did with Lileks an hour later is pure joy.
Since Sullivan obviously isn't a conservative anymore, and some are questioning his fidelity to Catholic dogma, is it safe to wonder if he's even really gay?
"AS: I’m not defensive at all."
Trick questions for a One trick pony, and riding it around , and around , and around , and around, and ar..
The left is currently incapabale of humor. All they can do is point towards "the other" and claim that it's funny. Guess what guys, it's not. The Nazis and the Commies were humorless too.
Now Lileks and Hewitt are effin HILLARIOUS!
Sullivan was never a conservative.
What Sullivan has always railed against is religion - all religion. This is why his pro-war-on-terror stance is consistent with the rest of his views. He was like Pym Fortyn. An anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, gay socialist.
Warwick, I would elaborate. Sullivan is selective about the religions he is against.
He certinly woships at the altar of secularism and the phallus. He's a high priest in that sect.
I'm used to just reading HH's interviews with Mark Steyn which are pretty friendly. I must say that I don't care for his interview style, he alternates between insulting and attacking his guest and then retreating and saying he is not there to debate he just wants to talk about the book. Anyone with two brain cells can see Hewitt has an axe to grind, the least he could do is be honest about it.
Its clear that Hewitt had real disagreements with Sullivan's book and other political opinions, but he didn't have the balls to come out and debate him openly on the topic(s). Hewitt is clearly an intelligent guy so it was diappointing in that respect as well. There was great potential for a rousing and thought provoking debate and all I got was partisan sniping. I feel cheated.
Thankyou for helping me to see sullivan's humane, human, compassionate side. He's searching for truth and grace. His courage is commendable when he comes out and states his disagreement with the neocons.
He comes out better than I ever thought he was. O, grace and mercies are past the knowledge of men...
Andrew Sullivan has been a disappointment to me.
Like so many conservatives, I started out liking him a lot, but have become very displeased with him recently.
It would take me too long to organize my thoughts about this interview.
I will simply say that the message seems to be "stay out of politics and become a Buddhist."
It doesn't seem to me that Sullivan is so much against religion as it does that he is becoming a Protestant.
His discussion (fight) about not submission, but rather conscience, sounds very much like the theological concept of the protestant principle.
"The protestant principle may negatively be expressed as the protest against any absolute claim made for a finite reality, whether it be a CHURCH, a book, a SYMBOL, a PERSON, or an event. Positively it may be expressed as the confession that GRACE is not bound to any finite form, that GOD is the inexhaustible power and ground of all BEING, and the truest faith is just one that has an element of self-negation in it, because it points beyond itself to that which is really ultimate." -- A Handbook of Theological Terms, by Van A. Harvey
This would be ironic, would it not? Sullivan is becoming a Southern Baptist clothed in Roman robes? But of course that would put him into bed (Protestants would want me to rephrase that) with the very people that he is excoriating in his book.
LOL. Somebody told me once that if you go far enough, you will meet yourself coming around the block wearing a derby.
Beyond that, it's hard to say, because the interview scarcely said anything about his political view, since it was largely dominated by a bitchfest between our two dauntless heroes.
Everyone knows that America was founded by a bunch of Protestants, Freemasons/Hermeticists, Universalists, one Quaker and one Catholic. As far as I can see, we're better off for it.
Yes, yes. We conservatives believe in limited government, strong defense, low taxations, and decision-making at the local level. Huge revelation.
Has anybody actually read this guy's book?
None of you actually believe you are "Christians" do you?
That Jesus guy was a pinko commie if there ever was one, but somehow conservative-types managed to forget all of this "turn the other cheek", and "a camel can sooner pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man can get into heaven" stuff, and pursue a violent and greedy path.
Whatevs. I guess if you're already believing in fairy stories, you're free to pick and choose whatever parts suit your mindset.
What is fascinating about this arguement between Sullivan and Hewitt is that they're basically arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Basically they're arguing about the authority of people who claim to either be god, or at least to have spoken with him. May as well visit a site which discusses which universe would win in a fight... Star Wars or Star Trek.
P.S. Star Trek would win. Transporters dude.