Rite of Election (a Chiasm)

[As with all chiasms, the middle is the pinnacle]

'All your kind they're coming clean
They shut their eyes, their mess, their scenes. . .'
-From K.C. Accidental by Broken Social Scene


The epiphany
Struck me
Today
In staring at the crucifix
Above the Body of our Lord
(His Kingdom come):
History
Is no abstract fatality;
His very wrists were truly pierced;
He truly drank His cup with Jewish wrists, feet, side.
Before His mighty triumph
In His mighty triumph
He truly bled.


I
My life has historically
Been an unfolding
Of estranged dying,
Hardening into a polished crystal
Until cool to the touch and smooth,
A sputtering so as to not stammer,
A forgetting to not remember,
A dying down, a
Dying.
Writing
This, I admit
All these stitches by which
I've begun to unhinge my inside
By
The seams:
I've become a
Dr. of bandages.

. . .That is to say, specifically:
(And here stitches prick and itch in their release
As they catch on my hardened skin)
You broke my body in half, [name omitted],
The blood draining from my face and soul,
Lifeless gut flopping inside
When you rejected me
Rejected me with a public parade
And our friends laughed at how silly
I had looked
How I warbled in pursuing
('Look
At how funny he looks when he runs-!')
And you all laughed at me, my antics;
So I practised.
I worked on stitching and wishing
To Hope to pursue other girls someday.
I tightened
Tightened
The skin over my heart and wounded knees
Until few would ever see me again.
I refused to bleed again.

. . .That is to say, in another example:
You left me in a warehouse, [name omitted],
After insulting my wits or lack therein
And I caused you
Far too much grief,
So you took me off the forklift
And bruised me repeatedly
Repeatedly
Broke my body badly;
So I stuck my tongue out in concentration-
Not at you, at my concentration-
And I wouldn't again let superiours see my pain,
Because it hurt you.
You mocked me repeatedly;
I shut the doors to
Authorities,
Celebrities,
Family.
I refused to bleed.

This
Has historically been a
Not bleeding,
A pleading in hurried slush under my breath
While continually dressing it up
For the bleeding to stop;
I've clinged
To the mangled clay left of me
While managing to die that ridiculous
Protestant 'Death'
-A dyed Buddhist annihilation-
And bandages rolls and rolls of
Bandages
Wrapped in intricate trappings, patternings,
And I refused to bleed.

[Girl], [Manager], and perhaps best seen
In you, the church-planters,
With our upside-down doctrines floated
Topside by the smiling Popes.
I ventured
I ventured criticism,
But the entire parade was throwing candy
And scowls, so
I would not bleed.

. . .It was the aftermath, and
In one rendering of the story,
You had said, 'Follow Me,'
Which I knew implied
Finally dying
-Not denying the evil in its ghastly woundings,
But trusting
Taking
Up my smaller cross behind, beside Thee
As a thief
Of sorts
And bleeding,
Finally trusting, finally bleeding
Again . . .

II
Lip-quivering,
Arm spasm delivering
Joy
Is building
Building within me;
I'm waiting
I'm waiting.

He who
Gave His life to
Save ours prayed
For us to be united as one
-He in Father, Father in Him,
And us in Spirit in Him-
And He
Said, 'If any forsakes
'His house and family
'And tricycle routes for Me,
'He will bleed
'He will bleed again,
'But find
'His life, home, family,
'Bicycle routes.'

Joy
Is building
Within me;
I'm waiting,
I'm waiting for
Easter morning.

III
I've historically wished,
I wish now
Our Empires would
Just go ahead and finish the job
And croak.
I say that not light-heartedly or
Claiming for me immunity or
Forsaking good bandages foolishly
If they may help;
However, how ever we
Breathe while we are not so keen on being a breathing people;
However we bandage, we are an ever-bleeding people,
Ourselves bleeding and bleeding others,
And we refuse to bleed
Refuse to admit any bleeding
Except the bleeding we can't hide but still bandage
Though bleeding
Bleeding all over our sterile coasters, conversation pieces, carriages.

Hearses-
There are hearses everywhere
-To take all the unwanted and forsaken
(post-mortum, post-conception, pre-conception, pre-nuptials)
-To bury all our pet injustices against our spouses and neighbour
-To applaud social renovations, reasoned erasor rubber to the Invisibles
And out the door with the poor or repentance
. . .Repentance?! Hearses
Are dressed in business suits Sunday clothes
Or like ice-cream delivery trucks
So we don't run our blood cold:
The Invisible Holocaust
So as not to stain our teeth and lifestyles.

Basically, I pray something like:
Save us, O Lord, and
Please be merciful to us, but
Thy Kingdom come and will be done;
We've stubbornly brewed a bowl of judgment for us,
And I would that this cup would pass
-Yet not our ever-bandaging will
But Your will be done.
Amen.


He truly bled for our transgressions;
In His triumph there we are truly healed.
Before His triumph,
He truly drank this cup,
And His wrists were openly pierced;
For history
Is no abstract fatality.

-Rick

From the Grave

In looking for a resource page among the wreckage of my undergraduate filing cabinet, I stumbled upon this article in the debris; this is from several years ago, when I was studying Nazarene history and polity:


'. . .Increasingly, we hear that our assignment is not to make Nazarenes but to win persons to Christ. There is partial truth in the claim, but it is an unbalanced assertion. Those who make it may be applauded for seeking to avoid sectarianism and escape mere institutionalism. But it overlooks the incarnational element of our faith. When Jesus came to earth, He became a part of a particular nation and people—Israel—while at the same time proclaiming a universal gospel (i.e., for all peoples everywhere).

'The Jesus people of the 1960s became a strong, but fleeting, voice in society. While some of their causes have influenced the thought processes and perspectives of succeeding cultures and decades, as a unit or as a united force they are no longer a significant power in America at the close of the century and the beginning of the new millennium. Why is this true? It is true primarily because they would have virtually nothing to do with the institutional or organized or historic Church of Jesus Christ! Consequently their group has dissipated, their voice has been silenced, and their influence minimized. One of the Early Church fathers [St. Cyprian] said, "No man can have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his mother."'

-John A. Knight, former General Superintendent, from his 'Bridge to Our Tomorrows'
http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/centennial/history/heritage/display.aspx


. . .Almost you would make me a Christian, Dr. Knight.

-Rick

Catholic Scandals

'I'm not sure if this fits into the area of hypocrisy so much as being an offshoot of a more serious matter, but do you plan to approach any historical failures of the church? By that I mean times in the history of the CC where doctrine was waylaid for the sake of greed - indulgences (always a biggie in these discussions), crusades, general power struggles between kings & Rome. Big topics - not even sure if they're easily addressable, but i'm intrigued by those in particular because i've been taking Church History classes here at my Baptist college & I'm all too aware of the slant. I really need to do some research into the Catholic perspective on this history. Curious if you ever have.'

Yes, I have researched these topics in seeking to be reconciled with the Church. These issues you mention are actually excellent topics to explore, Laura; I'm probably going to take you up on that exploration, but not anytime in the near future (for reasons mentioned in the previous entry :-)).

Here is a good place to start your search:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.html

I would also like to point out that many of the Protestant objections to Catholic abuses are completely unfair; squatting around in a puddle of a hyper-individualised, decentralised, and nihilistic/semi-Manichean version of Christianity (not to mention also harbouring similar controversies/abuses), many Protestants and Protestant groups begin launching attacks on historical Catholicism - that is, back upon a time when Christianity was something that had such a sway as to be central to any understanding (even one arrived at incorrectly) of human existence (i.e. the Kingdom of God was the central model for earthly kingdom). Everything and anything done in the historic Europe/Mediterranean region was done by Christian people, because Christ was understood to be King. There are no Protestant Crusades because, well, Protestants can't really unite on just about anything (though the secular 'war in Iraq' could be seen as a sort of perverted 'venting' of such efforts). So I find such vitriolic critiques of 'those horrible Crusades' and such to be aggravating and hilarious, in that they are something like that of the homeless and lazy grasshopper standing outside the situation and chiding an entire ant hill when some horrible tunneling brings the ant hill to a collapse. That is to say: at least Catholic peoples did attempt to do something in relation to Christianity, even failing sometimes and in some regards, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Protestantism (in this neo-pagan era it has ignorantly allowed/christened for us).

...So, basically, yes, that's my gut/sheerly-emotional reaction to the sound-byte synopses of Catholic scandals: one shouldn't so blithely and happily rebuke the historical choices of others (1) when one suffers from the same basic disease as the defendant and (2) when one doesn't even have the option of having that responsibility and making such large choices because one's faith tradition is so disjointed.

'I think a necessary distinction to be made is that between Catholic behaviour and the behaviour of Catholics. Perhaps this seems to be hair-splitting, but it is worth considering that the hypocrisy of a Catholic lies not in whether or not he or she commits sins or scandalous activity, but rather if that same person insists on his own innocence before God. Just because a person who is a member of any Church or ecclesial community sins doesn't make them a hypocrite; It makes them a sinner. One of the great glories of the Catholic Church is that in its Sacraments, Christ has instituted the means of purification and grace into the world. So i would encourage you not to consider this deviant behaviour as "hypocrisy" but rather as what it is...sin. Then, one can BEGIN to contemplate hypocrisy based upon the subject in question. But if that same person is kneeling in the confessional the next morning pleading to God to forgive him and indicting himself, it is hardly just to call him a hypocrite. Guilty, weak, sinful: yes...a hypocrite: that is dangerous territory. This is why the Church refers so often to scandal. I believe that is what you are referring to here, scandal. Not necessarily hypocrisy. But as always, we must err on the side of mercy, especially when it comes to such serious allegations as hypocrisy.'

You're right, Terry. And even what I have so vaguely labeled as 'hypocrisy' is often nothing of the case . . . it is simply something of a falling short, which does ring differently. Also, as I've said in a previous entry, (1) I've noticed that Protestant (at least, Nazarene) falling short seems to be just as prominent among members, but it is more 'hush hush' than I have witnessed among Catholics, and (2) most of the 'hypocrisy' - or falling short - I've heard about is generally a Protestant misunderstanding Christianity (e.g. 'They were drinking alcohol with friends on Saturday night and were in church the next morning!!').

Thanks for your clarification; I think it's brought an edge to this consideration that I had let slip.

-Rick

Lofty and 'Reader Response'

So I think up and commit to these 'entry series' generally in the worst possible times of my life. There is too much on my plate already. However, I will plod through it, since this is my sort of 'rough draft' attempt at making cases of this sort - cases like, for instance, the Nazarene Theses project on Facebook. Hopefully I will have some time to work on that before the 2008 General Assembly (seriously doubtful at this point).

Hard as I try, these entry series - geez, entries in general - end up being my setting out with a vision in mind and (typically) ending up somewhere else. It obviously helps (as with the Nazarene Theses project) to have other voices to add context. In this case, I approached hypocrisy as the least challenging of the arguments; RomanIbis's Catholic reflection on Catholic hypocrisy/falling-short, however, helped me to remember that this is indeed an issue just as detracting for some as the 'Mary-worship' arguments are for others. Actually, in considering the entry, it occurred to me that several of my acquaintances who would convert to Catholicism with relative theological ease are disenchanted by Catholic behaviour. I hope I'm being fair to both parties involved here; some reports of 'Catholic hypocrisy' are far too vague, focused, or sensationalised to take seriously, whereas completely overlooking the reality of hypocrisy in the Catholic Church is dishonest and detached.

With that said, I don't felt I gave hypocrisy enough weight in the entry.

-a-

The Primaries

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

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

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