knows wliat else. The only thing worse than schism would be arnfalse nnih’ based on power and self-interest.rnM’ own latitudinarian views, which have succeeded in offendingrnmost of my serious Christian friends (whether Orthodox,rnProtestant, or Catholic), were inspired by English theologiansrnas different from each other as Richard Baxter andrnThomas Browne. The opening pages of Browne’s ReligiornMedici ought to be read and reread by anyone about to engagernin a controversy with Christians of a different tradition. Professingrnhimself a good Anglican Protestant, Browne goes on tornresene certain questions to his own reason or humor. “I condemnrnnot all things in the Council of Trent, nor approve all inrnthe S’nod of Dort.” Although a sincere Protestant, Browne refusedrnto engage in scurriliti,’ against papists: “There is betweenrnus one common name and appellation, one faith, and necessary’rnbody of principles common to us both.” In Europe, hernscandalized his English friends by attending Masses and processions,rnbut, he insists, he could “never see any rationall consequencernfrom those many texts which prohibite the childrenrnof Israel to pollute themselves with the Temples of the Heathens;rnwe being all Christians.”rnConfessing to a certain fondness for superstitious ritual — “Irnlove to use the civility of my knees, my hat, and hands” —rnBrov’ne sa}s that he wept at sacred processions, “while my consorts,rnblinde with opposition and prejudice, have fallen into anrneccesse of scorne and laughter.” He acknowledges the dangersrnlurking in the rituals of the Creek, Roman, and African churches,rnbut they are ceremonies “whereof the wiser zeales doe makerna Christian use.”rnAn Anglican who could attend Mass and find good things tornsa}’ about Calvin would inevitably attract the charge of deism,rnespecially if he constructed a natural theology on the basis ofrnhis scientific research and his reading of pagan philosophy.rnNevertheless, when Dr. Johnson reviewed the evidence, hernconcluded that “Browne was a zealous adherent to the faith ofrnChrist, that he lived in obedience to his laws and died in confidencernof his mercy.”rnNeither Johnson nor Browne ever seriously flirted with thernScarlet Woman; both were staunch Anglicans who occasional-rnIv took up the Catholic perspective and judged it fairly.rnThomas More said that he would give even the Devil the benefitrnof law, and I hope he would have done the same for MartinrnLuther. Chesterton gave the Anglicans their due (perhapsrnmore than their due), and a Catholic priest once reproachedrnme for being too hard on the Pentecostalists for their emotionalrnhysteria. God had been merciful, he said, in giving suchrnemotional blessings to those who were deprived of the consolationrnof the sacraments.rnI have met more than a few evangelicals who conceded thatrnCatholics might actually be Christians, and there must be a fewrnPentecostalists who can match the generosity of my friend, thernpriest. We might all take a cue from a scene in Robert Duval’srnrecent film. The Apostle. Duval plays an all-too-passionate Holinessrnpreacher fleeing a homicide charge. Finding himself onrnthe edge of a bayou in Cajun countr}’, he watches as a Catholicrnpriest blesses a procession of gaily decorated fishing boats. Hernsmiles and says to himself, “You got your way, I got mine, butrnwe both get the job done.”rnDICTATIONSrnParsing or Posing?rnBill Clinton has enriched the American politicalrnvocabulary in so many ways, givingrnus (along with jokes involving knee-padsrnand Buddhist nuns) such expressions as “I feelrnyour pain,” “conduct that was not appropriate,”rnand “depends on what your definition of fs is.”rnThe last example, along with the President’srncelebrated quibbles on the meaning of words likern”sexual” and “alone” inspired his more loyal followersrnto praise him for “parsing” his sentencesrncarefully, by which they apparently meant choosingrnhis words in such a way as to avoid a jail termrnfor perjury. How persuasive these efforts provernwill depend on how Americans will parse “parse.”rnWhen I went to school, the schoolmarms stillrnclung to the definition given in the OED:rnTo describe (a word in a sentence) grammatically,rnby stating the part of speech, inflexion,rnand relation to the rest of the sentence;rnto resolve (a sentence, etc.) into itsrncomponent parts of speech and describernthem grammatically.rnParsing is an honorable, if stodgy, exercise thatrnused to consume half of an intermediate Latinrnclass. What Clinton was doing with his wordsrnwould better be described by such phrases asrn”splitting hairs,” “logic chopping,” and “mincingrnwords.” But all those expressions, appropriate asrnthey are, suggest that the Commander-in-Chief isrnbeing sneaky or underhanded and may even berndissimulating.rnIn other words, the President’s friends cannotrneven be honest when they admit he is lying. Thernnext step will be to issue a statement denying thatrnBill Clinton ever parsed a sentence in his life,rnwhich will be the first true statement made by thisrnadministration.rn—Humpty DumptyrnDECEMBER 1998/13rnrnrn