My landlady told me:
'-But not third-party!
Pick a poison / Pick a poison!'
So . . .
Turpentine, tar, or
Oil or
Hemlock, or gridlock, or
Jams and stockpiles?
My landlady told me
It's a civic duty.
So . . .
In Rome vote as a Roman,
Vote as a Roman votes.
Yes! mend the needs:
Send the freedom missionaries
To save the world through groves of crucifixion stakes
To seed the freedom heaving us our Coliseum,
And thus spake God,
'Make ye the greater Gun than bad-guys'
-In short, vote like a Roman would vote.
(. . . Oh God
Oh God somebody help someone God
Save The Queen.)
-rick
31 January 2008
26 January 2008
Reasons to Not Become Catholic, Part II: Hypocrisy
Let's take a swing at the first paper tent:
Objection #1: Hypocrisy
'Oh, you know how Catholics live: they can do whatever they want and confess it to the priest and everything is good.'
This is often tacked onto the next phrase for consideration, tacked on as a sort of acerbic chuckle. I mention this one first because it's easy to address; it's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever said or heard as a rational human being. 'Catholics can just confess it to their priest and go on' ... as opposed to, what? just confessing it to 'God alone' in silence and moving on? What absolute nonsense. Even on a threadbare 'psychological' scale, whose confession of sin seems to be the more painful and memorable? Of course, this little jewel is said with the understanding that Catholics are lawless hogs, unlike those of us who are shining, pious Protestant people. ...Which is also revealed to be either sheer nonsense or a contradiction when the time comes to denounce those Catholics for their overbearing legalism. (...Ring around the rosey...)
'Catholics have a horrible reputation in the world. They cheat, smoke, drink, cuss, and generally live horrifically hypocritical lifestyles. How can this be the one and only "Church"? Why associate with these people?'
Well, okay - this really isn't an objection to converting. Actually, most of our Protestant objections to converting aren't, strictly speaking, 'objections.' They are nit-picking doubts to pit holes in the substance of the Church. However, out of all the objections, this seems to be the first and most tightly-clad/clung-to grenade intended to keep that damned Catholic Church at Her distance from our position on the field.
In answer to the objection: Yes, I've noticed hypocrisy among Catholics, and I will address this. However, to begin with, maybe it would help for the Protestant to consider a few overlooked inconsistencies in the hurled indictments. Basically, in the first place, the Protestant (I've found) automatically assumes that her/his definition of Christianity - in all its large and minute details - is the prism through which Catholicism should be viewed. The result is a few true snowballs developing into an overwhelming and self-fulfilling avalanche. For example, the Protestant assumes that (in the endangered event of the Catholic faith ever being lived out) there will be some kind of a cohesion between a largely Protestant-based mindset (i.e. American Christianity) and the Catholic faith lived out - and alcohol is a good example of why this is a false assumption. Alcohol is generally (and generally subconsciously) understood by American Protestants (specifically: those traditions based in Puritan and pietistic traditions) to be good for one thing: getting drunk. Even if the denomination of the hypocrite hunter isn't thoroughly 'against' alcohol as a concept, the teachings against consuming alcohol (at least in how I've experienced Nazarene abstaining) creates a huge stigma around consumption of any kind. Hence, many of the 'hypocrite sightings' I hear are from Wesleyan-Holiness types generally involving someone with a cigarette or a glass of beer ... and that's pretty much the extent of the evidence. And perhaps the hypocrite was behaving 'impolitely' - getting loud with her/his friends, etc., which is obviously sin. Again, I don't deny that there are actual hypocrites in the Church, but let's get serious and push aside some of the fluff that puffs up our cases against the Church.
Furthermore, who is this 'they' category that the entire Church is subsumed under? The Protestant should seriously consider the fact that everyone who calls herself/himself a Catholic might not be on the same terms with the Catholic faith as, say, the Pope might be. At this particular juncture, I'm often amused and frustrated. The examples acquaintances/friends give for 'Catholic hypocrisy' are typically those nominal Catholics who have strayed so far from the Faith to be within the line-of-sight of Protestants deep in the hinterlands of Christianity; that is, what I've noticed is that most Protestants encounter Catholics who are, shall we say, in 'deep orbit' around the Church. Unless the Protestant is actually active in leaving strictly Protestant circles, he/she encounters what could be considered the 'free radicals' of the Church. It has apparently never occurred to the hypocrite hunter that, before passing judgment, perhaps someone should take some kind of meaningful step into the Catholic community and really observe.
Now, here's the shocker: both Jew and Gentile have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, double-standards abound. If I were to use hypocrisy as a reason to avoid converting to the Church, I would have left the Nazarene denomination a long time ago. There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere. The shocker is as follows: strictly speaking, from the dictionary definition, 99% of us are hypocrites; and among all of us who fall short of the mark we aspire to live up to, there are blatant hypocrites scattered like so many weeds throughout the one Church and (horrifying, but true!) even the immaculately white-washed communities of Protestantism. I've noticed that Catholic hypocrisy is more easy to observe than Protestant hypocrisy, but that seems to be because (at least in my particular tradition of Protestantism) we've all but equated good visible behaviour/manners with holiness. Pornography and gossip may be running rampant, but at least we're not like those heathens having a beer with friends at the tavern.
So what about the hypocrites that actually do exist - those blatant hypocrites? Again, I don't deny they exist. Furthermore, I offer no defence for them; the Church and Holy Scripture makes it clear that they are reaping judgment for themselves. However, notice the use of the word 'they' there; there's a lot of distancing in that sort of language that tends to help us forget that we, too, are sinners saved by God's grace alone. Also, please regard the fact that the Catholic Church believes God has vested His Spirit's doctrinal/governmental guidance in the bishops of His Church; this does not mean that the layperson is 'scott free' in regard to hypocrisy, but how can the Protestant use the individualised context of her/his community to condemn the Church? I would toss out this little bit of flippancy: let's look at Christ's ministry on earth before we start railing against the existence of hypocrites in His Church. In relation to this, I would also offer one tiny insight I've noticed about human behaviour: the closer one gets to the Truth, the harder it is for the human to approach it. ...The Light pierced the darkness, and the darkness did not understand/comprehend it, etc. etc. As Chesterton wrote in his The Catholic Church and Conversion, 'Christianity was not tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and left untried.' If a scientific study showed that more persons baptised into the Catholic Church were (in percentages) more hypocritical than those baptised (or given a handshake or whatever) into other communions, it would not surprise me. Being a good Catholic is so much more treacherous and full than being a good 'saved by my personal decision' Christian. The stakes are very much higher.
As to the 'associating with those people' aspect of this objection, the hypocrite hunter inadvertently raises a corollary issue (that doesn't have to do with the argument, but is indeed food for thought): am I 'too good' to associate with those dirty Catholics? Yes, the Catholics may be a bunch of curs who are hardly worthy of the Protestant hypocrite hunter's notice or association, but Jesus did say something about coming to those who needed salvation.
-Rick
Objection #1: Hypocrisy
'Oh, you know how Catholics live: they can do whatever they want and confess it to the priest and everything is good.'
This is often tacked onto the next phrase for consideration, tacked on as a sort of acerbic chuckle. I mention this one first because it's easy to address; it's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever said or heard as a rational human being. 'Catholics can just confess it to their priest and go on' ... as opposed to, what? just confessing it to 'God alone' in silence and moving on? What absolute nonsense. Even on a threadbare 'psychological' scale, whose confession of sin seems to be the more painful and memorable? Of course, this little jewel is said with the understanding that Catholics are lawless hogs, unlike those of us who are shining, pious Protestant people. ...Which is also revealed to be either sheer nonsense or a contradiction when the time comes to denounce those Catholics for their overbearing legalism. (...Ring around the rosey...)
'Catholics have a horrible reputation in the world. They cheat, smoke, drink, cuss, and generally live horrifically hypocritical lifestyles. How can this be the one and only "Church"? Why associate with these people?'
Well, okay - this really isn't an objection to converting. Actually, most of our Protestant objections to converting aren't, strictly speaking, 'objections.' They are nit-picking doubts to pit holes in the substance of the Church. However, out of all the objections, this seems to be the first and most tightly-clad/clung-to grenade intended to keep that damned Catholic Church at Her distance from our position on the field.
In answer to the objection: Yes, I've noticed hypocrisy among Catholics, and I will address this. However, to begin with, maybe it would help for the Protestant to consider a few overlooked inconsistencies in the hurled indictments. Basically, in the first place, the Protestant (I've found) automatically assumes that her/his definition of Christianity - in all its large and minute details - is the prism through which Catholicism should be viewed. The result is a few true snowballs developing into an overwhelming and self-fulfilling avalanche. For example, the Protestant assumes that (in the endangered event of the Catholic faith ever being lived out) there will be some kind of a cohesion between a largely Protestant-based mindset (i.e. American Christianity) and the Catholic faith lived out - and alcohol is a good example of why this is a false assumption. Alcohol is generally (and generally subconsciously) understood by American Protestants (specifically: those traditions based in Puritan and pietistic traditions) to be good for one thing: getting drunk. Even if the denomination of the hypocrite hunter isn't thoroughly 'against' alcohol as a concept, the teachings against consuming alcohol (at least in how I've experienced Nazarene abstaining) creates a huge stigma around consumption of any kind. Hence, many of the 'hypocrite sightings' I hear are from Wesleyan-Holiness types generally involving someone with a cigarette or a glass of beer ... and that's pretty much the extent of the evidence. And perhaps the hypocrite was behaving 'impolitely' - getting loud with her/his friends, etc., which is obviously sin. Again, I don't deny that there are actual hypocrites in the Church, but let's get serious and push aside some of the fluff that puffs up our cases against the Church.
Furthermore, who is this 'they' category that the entire Church is subsumed under? The Protestant should seriously consider the fact that everyone who calls herself/himself a Catholic might not be on the same terms with the Catholic faith as, say, the Pope might be. At this particular juncture, I'm often amused and frustrated. The examples acquaintances/friends give for 'Catholic hypocrisy' are typically those nominal Catholics who have strayed so far from the Faith to be within the line-of-sight of Protestants deep in the hinterlands of Christianity; that is, what I've noticed is that most Protestants encounter Catholics who are, shall we say, in 'deep orbit' around the Church. Unless the Protestant is actually active in leaving strictly Protestant circles, he/she encounters what could be considered the 'free radicals' of the Church. It has apparently never occurred to the hypocrite hunter that, before passing judgment, perhaps someone should take some kind of meaningful step into the Catholic community and really observe.
Now, here's the shocker: both Jew and Gentile have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, double-standards abound. If I were to use hypocrisy as a reason to avoid converting to the Church, I would have left the Nazarene denomination a long time ago. There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere. The shocker is as follows: strictly speaking, from the dictionary definition, 99% of us are hypocrites; and among all of us who fall short of the mark we aspire to live up to, there are blatant hypocrites scattered like so many weeds throughout the one Church and (horrifying, but true!) even the immaculately white-washed communities of Protestantism. I've noticed that Catholic hypocrisy is more easy to observe than Protestant hypocrisy, but that seems to be because (at least in my particular tradition of Protestantism) we've all but equated good visible behaviour/manners with holiness. Pornography and gossip may be running rampant, but at least we're not like those heathens having a beer with friends at the tavern.
So what about the hypocrites that actually do exist - those blatant hypocrites? Again, I don't deny they exist. Furthermore, I offer no defence for them; the Church and Holy Scripture makes it clear that they are reaping judgment for themselves. However, notice the use of the word 'they' there; there's a lot of distancing in that sort of language that tends to help us forget that we, too, are sinners saved by God's grace alone. Also, please regard the fact that the Catholic Church believes God has vested His Spirit's doctrinal/governmental guidance in the bishops of His Church; this does not mean that the layperson is 'scott free' in regard to hypocrisy, but how can the Protestant use the individualised context of her/his community to condemn the Church? I would toss out this little bit of flippancy: let's look at Christ's ministry on earth before we start railing against the existence of hypocrites in His Church. In relation to this, I would also offer one tiny insight I've noticed about human behaviour: the closer one gets to the Truth, the harder it is for the human to approach it. ...The Light pierced the darkness, and the darkness did not understand/comprehend it, etc. etc. As Chesterton wrote in his The Catholic Church and Conversion, 'Christianity was not tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and left untried.' If a scientific study showed that more persons baptised into the Catholic Church were (in percentages) more hypocritical than those baptised (or given a handshake or whatever) into other communions, it would not surprise me. Being a good Catholic is so much more treacherous and full than being a good 'saved by my personal decision' Christian. The stakes are very much higher.
As to the 'associating with those people' aspect of this objection, the hypocrite hunter inadvertently raises a corollary issue (that doesn't have to do with the argument, but is indeed food for thought): am I 'too good' to associate with those dirty Catholics? Yes, the Catholics may be a bunch of curs who are hardly worthy of the Protestant hypocrite hunter's notice or association, but Jesus did say something about coming to those who needed salvation.
-Rick
23 January 2008
Mandatory Interruption
Though he's tremendously dense reading, I'm really enjoying Milbank's explorations/lines-of-thought more and more as I read him. This is part of the provocative, no-prisoners introduction to what is turning out to be one of the best books I've ever read:
'Contemporary "political theologians" tend to fasten upon a particular social theory, or else put together their own eclectic theoretical mix, and then work out what residual place is left for Christianity and theology within the reality that is supposed to be authoritatively described by such a theory. Curiously enough, theologians appear specially eager to affirm both the "scientific" and the "humanist" discourses of modernity, although one can, perhaps, suggest reasons for this. First, the faith of humanism has become a substitute for a transcendent faith, now only half-subscribed to. Second, there is a perceived need to discover precisely how to fulfil Christian precepts about charity and freedom in contemporary society in an uncontroversial manner, involving cooperation with the majority of non-Christian fellow citizens. Purportedly scientific diagnoses and recommendations fulfil precisely this role. ... I wish to challenge both the idea that there is a significant sociological "reading" of religion and Christianity, which theology must "take account of", and the idea that theology must borrow its diagnoses of social ills and recommendations of social solutions entirely from Marxist (or usually sub-Marxist) analysis, with some sociological admixture.'
-John Milbanks, Theology and Social Theory, p.3
'Contemporary "political theologians" tend to fasten upon a particular social theory, or else put together their own eclectic theoretical mix, and then work out what residual place is left for Christianity and theology within the reality that is supposed to be authoritatively described by such a theory. Curiously enough, theologians appear specially eager to affirm both the "scientific" and the "humanist" discourses of modernity, although one can, perhaps, suggest reasons for this. First, the faith of humanism has become a substitute for a transcendent faith, now only half-subscribed to. Second, there is a perceived need to discover precisely how to fulfil Christian precepts about charity and freedom in contemporary society in an uncontroversial manner, involving cooperation with the majority of non-Christian fellow citizens. Purportedly scientific diagnoses and recommendations fulfil precisely this role. ... I wish to challenge both the idea that there is a significant sociological "reading" of religion and Christianity, which theology must "take account of", and the idea that theology must borrow its diagnoses of social ills and recommendations of social solutions entirely from Marxist (or usually sub-Marxist) analysis, with some sociological admixture.'
-John Milbanks, Theology and Social Theory, p.3
22 January 2008
Reasons to Not Become Catholic, Part I
'Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.'
-G.K. Chesterton
'One of the signs of modernity is a craving for generality...'
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
I will try my best to speak in specifics and avoid generalities; I have a fetish for dwelling in generalities - or at least I tend to speak in them. It is so delightfully easy to speak in generalities.
In the particular cultural manifestation of America 'over here,' the ideal seems to have scrawled itself on everything available for scrawling: 'Freedom means not being hindered.' The unspoken (and generally unjustified) superstition reeks everywhere: 'God did not design us to be burdened ... at least,' comes the Christian response to American Christianity, 'at least not burdened unjustly.' Yet what 'unjustly' means is highly not debated. How does the song go? -'I am free to...'? Yes. The Christian 'freedom from sin' stands curiously related to the American 'freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
This is a culture that has stood as witness to the 60's, 70's, 80's, and (yes, even the) 90's. We have a Constitution and inalienable rights. I have heard and felt the revolt blooming in the alleys, so to speak: 'what about responsibility?'
I've mumbled and fumbled over my reservations. I've turned my 'outsider' and 'oddball' societal status into something somewhat satisfying and profitable; being true to West Coast survival instincts, I've generally avoided tying myself too tightly to any one institution or group. As the Church eventually began crashing in on me, even still I held onto the infatuation with being a 'Catholic Nazarene' ... embracing Catholicism but not committing to the Church herself.
Yet I'm not alone, and it's not just 'West Coast mentality.' There are many reasons for resistance - expressed by family, friends, professors, acquaintances - concerning the idea of converting to Catholicism. It is not so much that we are all in the process of making that decision; it is that the idea of converting to Catholicism - of 'picking up all that baggage' - is highly controversial, apparently. I would say that we're all in the process of converting, but that is not the foremost issue in most of the minds of those I've encountered; most are concerned with why anyone else would convert. I don't pretend that these people are fools, nor fools to recognise that there is indeed something stark, intensely jarring, and holy in the Church of which it is natural to be afraid at first glance.
Not at all to be haughty or flippant, but (I merely speak from personal experience): don't have anything to do with this entry series if you are not interested in having your world turned upside-down. Furthermore: don't read any of the writings of the saints, don't read or listen to the whole Bible, don't touch Church history, don't study theology, don't discover anything about the history of music. I may utterly fail in proprely representing Catholicism here, but indulging in this sort of stuff will get your heart and mind in motion. And that is ultimately my hope: to use this silly little outlet to address different issues that have arisen in conversations, correspondence, and debates. Frankly, I'm not doing this to make an airtight case for conversion; but I hope to begin publicly mulling over what are (for many of us) the numerous 'reasons' for not converting so as to show how content we've been with insufficient and ironic objections. Converting is indeed something radical, but it is not nearly so illogical as I've heard it made out to be. Conversion - submitting to an actual authority - may in fact be found to be freedom.
-rick
-G.K. Chesterton
'One of the signs of modernity is a craving for generality...'
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
I will try my best to speak in specifics and avoid generalities; I have a fetish for dwelling in generalities - or at least I tend to speak in them. It is so delightfully easy to speak in generalities.
In the particular cultural manifestation of America 'over here,' the ideal seems to have scrawled itself on everything available for scrawling: 'Freedom means not being hindered.' The unspoken (and generally unjustified) superstition reeks everywhere: 'God did not design us to be burdened ... at least,' comes the Christian response to American Christianity, 'at least not burdened unjustly.' Yet what 'unjustly' means is highly not debated. How does the song go? -'I am free to...'? Yes. The Christian 'freedom from sin' stands curiously related to the American 'freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
This is a culture that has stood as witness to the 60's, 70's, 80's, and (yes, even the) 90's. We have a Constitution and inalienable rights. I have heard and felt the revolt blooming in the alleys, so to speak: 'what about responsibility?'
I've mumbled and fumbled over my reservations. I've turned my 'outsider' and 'oddball' societal status into something somewhat satisfying and profitable; being true to West Coast survival instincts, I've generally avoided tying myself too tightly to any one institution or group. As the Church eventually began crashing in on me, even still I held onto the infatuation with being a 'Catholic Nazarene' ... embracing Catholicism but not committing to the Church herself.
Yet I'm not alone, and it's not just 'West Coast mentality.' There are many reasons for resistance - expressed by family, friends, professors, acquaintances - concerning the idea of converting to Catholicism. It is not so much that we are all in the process of making that decision; it is that the idea of converting to Catholicism - of 'picking up all that baggage' - is highly controversial, apparently. I would say that we're all in the process of converting, but that is not the foremost issue in most of the minds of those I've encountered; most are concerned with why anyone else would convert. I don't pretend that these people are fools, nor fools to recognise that there is indeed something stark, intensely jarring, and holy in the Church of which it is natural to be afraid at first glance.
Not at all to be haughty or flippant, but (I merely speak from personal experience): don't have anything to do with this entry series if you are not interested in having your world turned upside-down. Furthermore: don't read any of the writings of the saints, don't read or listen to the whole Bible, don't touch Church history, don't study theology, don't discover anything about the history of music. I may utterly fail in proprely representing Catholicism here, but indulging in this sort of stuff will get your heart and mind in motion. And that is ultimately my hope: to use this silly little outlet to address different issues that have arisen in conversations, correspondence, and debates. Frankly, I'm not doing this to make an airtight case for conversion; but I hope to begin publicly mulling over what are (for many of us) the numerous 'reasons' for not converting so as to show how content we've been with insufficient and ironic objections. Converting is indeed something radical, but it is not nearly so illogical as I've heard it made out to be. Conversion - submitting to an actual authority - may in fact be found to be freedom.
-rick
20 January 2008
Houston and ILS LA FAISAIENT
To keep up the habit...
01/02/08
[Synchronicity I believe they call it . . .
Yes, Houston! crude refinery plumes,
Port Authority, rising monument Star,
imports, factories, factions, risings,
sweat, tears, blood,
Bud Light entrails entreat into
Deluges deluges of
Everlasting
oil
refining
oil
refining
oil
refining
Oil refining oil refining oil refining oil refining oil
(In Houston, city of my birth]
refinery towers fume agape-
Fester, rise, plume, Olympian flame-
Agape, agape before us, in vapours bathed,
Everlasting deluge of
Crude refining Crude refining
Cabarets and Cabarets and
Bud Light strobe-lights, lightnings,
Budding abroad the waves and heights
Of this city.)
...Refineries and recent readings render
Synchonicity of sorts;
' "Tread gently please," plead, whisper
Skeleton refineries
,' Says my rising blood amidst this city,
City of my birth;
Houston plumes, inflamed, say in
So much sodium and crude:
'My child, tread gently on my girth.'
1/19/07, 'Et les soldats faisaient la haie?'
Said he to the waiter,
'Garçon:
Save me some bacon, no fat;
Deal me some veal, no death.'
'Sir!' tried the waiter but floundered;
Gave the man bread; took it
Away when he spit
It out.
('-Dry and stale.')
'Sir,' tried the waiter again, but froze when
The man spit the wine
And said, 'I prefer Eagle.
Bring me the Eagle.'
'How many eagles, sir?
How many trumpets?
How many festivals, feasts, and atonements?'
'-Nay! Eagles have talons
And eyeballs their own
-I want the EAGLE:
Pour me, abort thee the course;
Fork me divorce from the Whore, not the Child;
Embody me Body, but no Corpus Christi.'
'Sir,' said the waiter at last,
So he said:
'You ask not for bacon.
You ask not for veal.
You ask not for bread.
You ask not for wine.'
-rick
01/02/08
[Synchronicity I believe they call it . . .
Yes, Houston! crude refinery plumes,
Port Authority, rising monument Star,
imports, factories, factions, risings,
sweat, tears, blood,
Bud Light entrails entreat into
Deluges deluges of
Everlasting
oil
refining
oil
refining
oil
refining
Oil refining oil refining oil refining oil refining oil
(In Houston, city of my birth]
refinery towers fume agape-
Fester, rise, plume, Olympian flame-
Agape, agape before us, in vapours bathed,
Everlasting deluge of
Crude refining Crude refining
Cabarets and Cabarets and
Bud Light strobe-lights, lightnings,
Budding abroad the waves and heights
Of this city.)
...Refineries and recent readings render
Synchonicity of sorts;
' "Tread gently please," plead, whisper
Skeleton refineries
,' Says my rising blood amidst this city,
City of my birth;
Houston plumes, inflamed, say in
So much sodium and crude:
'My child, tread gently on my girth.'
1/19/07, 'Et les soldats faisaient la haie?'
Said he to the waiter,
'Garçon:
Save me some bacon, no fat;
Deal me some veal, no death.'
'Sir!' tried the waiter but floundered;
Gave the man bread; took it
Away when he spit
It out.
('-Dry and stale.')
'Sir,' tried the waiter again, but froze when
The man spit the wine
And said, 'I prefer Eagle.
Bring me the Eagle.'
'How many eagles, sir?
How many trumpets?
How many festivals, feasts, and atonements?'
'-Nay! Eagles have talons
And eyeballs their own
-I want the EAGLE:
Pour me, abort thee the course;
Fork me divorce from the Whore, not the Child;
Embody me Body, but no Corpus Christi.'
'Sir,' said the waiter at last,
So he said:
'You ask not for bacon.
You ask not for veal.
You ask not for bread.
You ask not for wine.'
-rick
13 January 2008
Ladies and Gentlemen, Please Find Your Agnostic
Or, 'Before You Shame You with the Worst of You'
In Advent,
Oars in hand and
Bark at hand and
Oak oars gripped within my hands,
I peeled the Ocean back
I peeled the Ocean back
I peeled sea back
Until I thought
I saw Her face;
I saw as through a mist the sea as districts
, Chiseled borders in the ripples...
'Aha!
At last,
I see You.
I see myself.
I see You.
I see You.'
She moaned reply to me,
'Romantic fool:
What seems to you so easy is not
All that Is - not
What is to you as what you seem to see.'
(...Um, what?)
Sea spoke to lower sea,
And each spoke all to each in glimmers,
And each saw all of each as though two lovers,
...And only then I glimpsed a glimpse of Her;
I dropped the bone within the my mouth within the sea
And found a fullness in my folly in Her,
For the self itself is each a sea;
These oars I've held for so long so confidently
As though I were a Herculean king
Amid this gentle stream of me
Have hardly held my bark on what I call this Course,
Have hardly held my bark in neatness and predictability upon the glass.
-In fact, (says heart of hearts,) this isn't neatness, isn't glass:
Whispering currents deep within me
Whispering currents deep beyond me take my bark abroad,
And titan waves with glorious titan waves crash
All around me, for
The self itself is sea.
The Ocean showed Herself to us-
Unveiled in beauty, unsuspected freckles on Her thighs-
But Her native tongue is thunder.
-rick
In Advent,
Oars in hand and
Bark at hand and
Oak oars gripped within my hands,
I peeled the Ocean back
I peeled the Ocean back
I peeled sea back
Until I thought
I saw Her face;
I saw as through a mist the sea as districts
, Chiseled borders in the ripples...
'Aha!
At last,
I see You.
I see myself.
I see You.
I see You.'
She moaned reply to me,
'Romantic fool:
What seems to you so easy is not
All that Is - not
What is to you as what you seem to see.'
(...Um, what?)
Sea spoke to lower sea,
And each spoke all to each in glimmers,
And each saw all of each as though two lovers,
...And only then I glimpsed a glimpse of Her;
I dropped the bone within the my mouth within the sea
And found a fullness in my folly in Her,
For the self itself is each a sea;
These oars I've held for so long so confidently
As though I were a Herculean king
Amid this gentle stream of me
Have hardly held my bark on what I call this Course,
Have hardly held my bark in neatness and predictability upon the glass.
-In fact, (says heart of hearts,) this isn't neatness, isn't glass:
Whispering currents deep within me
Whispering currents deep beyond me take my bark abroad,
And titan waves with glorious titan waves crash
All around me, for
The self itself is sea.
The Ocean showed Herself to us-
Unveiled in beauty, unsuspected freckles on Her thighs-
But Her native tongue is thunder.
-rick
05 January 2008
Sanctification and the Pietism/Elitism of a Violent Culture
Interesting entry related to what is here:
http://www.jeffwofford.com/2006/11/wading-in-skubala.html
And He [Jesus] also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and viewed others with contempt:
'Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get."
'But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, the sinner!"
'I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.'
Chesterton proposes at the outset of his The Everlasting Man that 'the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it.' He specifically seeks in that book to view history and the Incarnation as though from the eyes of the utterly 'outside' pagan -- not, as he also addresses, his modernist contemporaries who essentially had (as a historical reality) a pseudo-/post-Christian vantage point and not that of the unbiased, pre-Christian pagan.
The next best thing to being really inside is to be really outside. Hence, it is my opinion that there is cause to rejoice over Western culture's gradually living up to what is called a 'post-Christian reality'; it is better (to say nothing of being more honest) to (1) become disillusioned with an odd, limited strain of cultural Christianity that has devolved into pure nihilism than to (2) blithely remark that the U.S. of A. is a nation 'founded on Christian principles' ... like radical libertarianism and dog-eat-dog capitalism.
It has taken me a little over 23 years (a month or two after that) to 'really' realise that we all are/were 'outside' but for the grace of God. Now, such a statement comes easily without any demand for commitment, because we hear and profess this sort of thing in front of photo-ops and social gatherings. 'We're all sinners but for the saving grace of God.' This becomes an issue, however, when we've forgotten what the words crossing our lips 'really' mean. Such terminology has become so trite, abused, and overly familiar that I'm afraid it has generally lost its radical critique of our lifestyles and world-view.
Legalism generally begins with good motives; in the post-Exilic years of Judah, truly pious Jews petitioned the Pharisees for extremely specific Sabbath laws (out of their love for God), yet by the time Jesus enters the scene we find such laws having taken on a life of their own in an abusive, hypocritical systemme of oppression. I have no doubt that there are Catholics who sneer at people who don't genuflect 'correctly' or who roll their eyes at someone who says the Fatima prayer after the Glory Be ... or whatever; I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. In the Nazarene denomination (historically referring to itself as a pietistic movement), in order to make a 'cultural statement,' Nazarenes refrain from the use of alcohol and the tobacco while not altogether calling it a sin. Perhaps this is a noble-hearted intention, but this has created a truly odd and abusive situation. I have been guilty of (and witnessed) the stratification and 'cold-shoulder' evaluation of persons if they have a cigarette in their hand or beer with their meal. Despite all the flowery words about all of us being saved by grace -- those words that came flowing in rivers from my mouth for 23 years -- I as a Nazarene alienated (on a subconscious level) and witnessed other Nazarenes alienate persons who participate in activities that the Nazarene denomination doesn't even call sin! Such an odd phenomenon could be explored at length (I won't do so here) in 'American-Christian' pietism's treatment of race/nationality (e.g. illegal immigrants? outsiders?), social responsibility, environmental responsibility, political affiliation/views, the use of 'swear words', economic status, and so forth. Ultimately, pietism creates hoops through which to jump and criteria to meet -- a legalistic yoke strapped onto true Christianity.
Now, legalism is legalism, and it's bad. This is neither a Catholic nor a Protestant problem; it's a sin problem. Also, living 'loosely' is certainly just as much a sin as legalism (and one in which human persons similarly fall), but I will tie all of this into this entry in a few moments.
...It had been during a daily Mass; it had been a little over 23 years when the solidarity (the catholicity, if you will) of humanity finally took root within my heart. At that point, I had still been completely unfamiliar with the 'order of service'; the whole liturgy presented itself as a beautiful mystery. Suddenly my eyes were opened, and God planted something within my heart in those moments (and such a thing obviously goes beyond this subject at hand, largely beyond the small dominion of my comprehension). Early in the Mass, those gathered participate in a penitential rite, in which they confess their sin to the entire Church and literally beat their breasts, saying 'I have sinned through my own fault ... in what I have done and what I have failed to do...' and then ask the entire Church for their prayers and the Lord for His mercy. At another place, upon preparing to partake in the Eucharist, those gathered pray, 'Lord, I am not worthy...'. All rejoice together at the Scripture readings. Finally, all come to the one table to receive Sustenance. ...And there is certainly more here for consideration upon which I will not even begin to touch.
T.S. Eliot is said to have remarked, 'True art communicates even before it is understood.' On this particular subject -- of humanity's solidarity in sin and salvation -- the metaphor of the Mass is solid and powerful: all are made penitent together, all have sinned and fall short, and (ultimately) all are invited to the table of Sustenance. Those who partake are those who have accepted the King's invitation to His table, have taken up His cup, and have been confirmed to His banquet; but there are no 'special seats' for those who have been confirmed and those who may or may not eventually accept, take up, and be confirmed. The only distinction is in the partaking, which is a sheerly logical distinction. There are only the same silly sheep of the Shepherd at the Mass -- those who are on His pastures, and those He is still seeking to save.
It is noteworthy that erring toward loose living is even so the embrace of something, whereas 'American-Christian' pietism sets up violent walls with its criteria and marks things 'off' its list. Truly Christian liberty is not this fabricated notion of individualism we've cooked up; Christian liberty is the embrace of life and life more abundant. The Incarnation demonstrates how God has sanctified humanity: by taking on flesh and embracing humanity. This is the sanctification to which we've been called: one that takes all of life -- yes, even the tobacco -- in an embrace and transforms it. This is also a harmonious sanctification, not one that avoids alcohol diligently while being horrifically uncharitable with a Democrat.
'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!'
-rick
http://www.jeffwofford.com/2006/11/wading-in-skubala.html
And He [Jesus] also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and viewed others with contempt:
'Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get."
'But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, the sinner!"
'I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.'
Chesterton proposes at the outset of his The Everlasting Man that 'the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it.' He specifically seeks in that book to view history and the Incarnation as though from the eyes of the utterly 'outside' pagan -- not, as he also addresses, his modernist contemporaries who essentially had (as a historical reality) a pseudo-/post-Christian vantage point and not that of the unbiased, pre-Christian pagan.
The next best thing to being really inside is to be really outside. Hence, it is my opinion that there is cause to rejoice over Western culture's gradually living up to what is called a 'post-Christian reality'; it is better (to say nothing of being more honest) to (1) become disillusioned with an odd, limited strain of cultural Christianity that has devolved into pure nihilism than to (2) blithely remark that the U.S. of A. is a nation 'founded on Christian principles' ... like radical libertarianism and dog-eat-dog capitalism.
It has taken me a little over 23 years (a month or two after that) to 'really' realise that we all are/were 'outside' but for the grace of God. Now, such a statement comes easily without any demand for commitment, because we hear and profess this sort of thing in front of photo-ops and social gatherings. 'We're all sinners but for the saving grace of God.' This becomes an issue, however, when we've forgotten what the words crossing our lips 'really' mean. Such terminology has become so trite, abused, and overly familiar that I'm afraid it has generally lost its radical critique of our lifestyles and world-view.
Legalism generally begins with good motives; in the post-Exilic years of Judah, truly pious Jews petitioned the Pharisees for extremely specific Sabbath laws (out of their love for God), yet by the time Jesus enters the scene we find such laws having taken on a life of their own in an abusive, hypocritical systemme of oppression. I have no doubt that there are Catholics who sneer at people who don't genuflect 'correctly' or who roll their eyes at someone who says the Fatima prayer after the Glory Be ... or whatever; I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. In the Nazarene denomination (historically referring to itself as a pietistic movement), in order to make a 'cultural statement,' Nazarenes refrain from the use of alcohol and the tobacco while not altogether calling it a sin. Perhaps this is a noble-hearted intention, but this has created a truly odd and abusive situation. I have been guilty of (and witnessed) the stratification and 'cold-shoulder' evaluation of persons if they have a cigarette in their hand or beer with their meal. Despite all the flowery words about all of us being saved by grace -- those words that came flowing in rivers from my mouth for 23 years -- I as a Nazarene alienated (on a subconscious level) and witnessed other Nazarenes alienate persons who participate in activities that the Nazarene denomination doesn't even call sin! Such an odd phenomenon could be explored at length (I won't do so here) in 'American-Christian' pietism's treatment of race/nationality (e.g. illegal immigrants? outsiders?), social responsibility, environmental responsibility, political affiliation/views, the use of 'swear words', economic status, and so forth. Ultimately, pietism creates hoops through which to jump and criteria to meet -- a legalistic yoke strapped onto true Christianity.
Now, legalism is legalism, and it's bad. This is neither a Catholic nor a Protestant problem; it's a sin problem. Also, living 'loosely' is certainly just as much a sin as legalism (and one in which human persons similarly fall), but I will tie all of this into this entry in a few moments.
...It had been during a daily Mass; it had been a little over 23 years when the solidarity (the catholicity, if you will) of humanity finally took root within my heart. At that point, I had still been completely unfamiliar with the 'order of service'; the whole liturgy presented itself as a beautiful mystery. Suddenly my eyes were opened, and God planted something within my heart in those moments (and such a thing obviously goes beyond this subject at hand, largely beyond the small dominion of my comprehension). Early in the Mass, those gathered participate in a penitential rite, in which they confess their sin to the entire Church and literally beat their breasts, saying 'I have sinned through my own fault ... in what I have done and what I have failed to do...' and then ask the entire Church for their prayers and the Lord for His mercy. At another place, upon preparing to partake in the Eucharist, those gathered pray, 'Lord, I am not worthy...'. All rejoice together at the Scripture readings. Finally, all come to the one table to receive Sustenance. ...And there is certainly more here for consideration upon which I will not even begin to touch.
T.S. Eliot is said to have remarked, 'True art communicates even before it is understood.' On this particular subject -- of humanity's solidarity in sin and salvation -- the metaphor of the Mass is solid and powerful: all are made penitent together, all have sinned and fall short, and (ultimately) all are invited to the table of Sustenance. Those who partake are those who have accepted the King's invitation to His table, have taken up His cup, and have been confirmed to His banquet; but there are no 'special seats' for those who have been confirmed and those who may or may not eventually accept, take up, and be confirmed. The only distinction is in the partaking, which is a sheerly logical distinction. There are only the same silly sheep of the Shepherd at the Mass -- those who are on His pastures, and those He is still seeking to save.
It is noteworthy that erring toward loose living is even so the embrace of something, whereas 'American-Christian' pietism sets up violent walls with its criteria and marks things 'off' its list. Truly Christian liberty is not this fabricated notion of individualism we've cooked up; Christian liberty is the embrace of life and life more abundant. The Incarnation demonstrates how God has sanctified humanity: by taking on flesh and embracing humanity. This is the sanctification to which we've been called: one that takes all of life -- yes, even the tobacco -- in an embrace and transforms it. This is also a harmonious sanctification, not one that avoids alcohol diligently while being horrifically uncharitable with a Democrat.
'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!'
-rick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)