Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Saturday, April 27, 2002 The Quandary What is a Catholic to do when he discovers that the hierarchy of his religion can never be trusted to behave as Christians? I carry no brief for Garry Wills, but many of the things he illustrated in his book about the papacy (was it called Papal Sins?) are matters of fact; and frankly, his definition of "structures of deceit" I found to be essentially accurate. So many other Catholic bloggers have been praying that JPII will somehow set things right, but it doesn't look good. First of all, we have the Vatican scandal of the Legionaries of Christ founder who apparently molested a great many children being covered up and ignored by JPII himself. This story was on ABC's 20/20 last night, but it's been reported in many places for quite some time now. Also, we have the American Cardinals and bishops in Rome lacking any shred of culpability or repentance for their sins - they have no real sympathy for their victims. I realize that Protestants have their own problems with adulterous ministers and similar scandals, but somehow, Billy Graham, apart from a few lapses when he fell in love with being a friend of U.S. Presidents has an entirely unblemished record of probity in himself and his staff. The same with that fellow who ran for President from Focus on the Family. (Gary Bauer) It's been the Jimmy Swaggarts and Jim Bakkers who have hustled after TV popularity and sentimentalism that have demonstrated such a lack of integrity and faith. (And anybody with an ounce of judgment saw through their 'act' and sick piety.) At this point, though, I have to say that the entire history of the Catholic Church is unbearably sordid in the machinations and sins of its hierarchy. There are few bright spots. I realize that many of my fellow Catholic bloggers have no fondness for Vatican II, but John 23rd is one of the few truly Christian and decent men to hold the office of Peter's See in a long, long time. You cannot view film of the man and not fall in love with his transcendent goodness, joviality, and wisdom. The Church was in dire need of reform and he made it happen. Whatever excesses that followed can't be laid at his altar, and in no way equal such periods as the Inquisition (which began about 1000 years ago) on through the Papal Estates in Italy until liberation by Garibaldi. For all the absurdities so many complain of, they don't begin to resemble the pure evil of Torquemada and his predecessors. One would have to be the worst kind of ostrich to not be familiar with the horror that has been the Church of Rome for the last millennium. The history of the popes after 300 A.D. is an incredible litany of murder, debauchery, intrigue, duplicity, forgery, lies, and crime. As a new Catholic, I set all this aside in the belief that only God could have preserved such a Body in the presence of so much pure evil in His name. Now, I think it is both a combination of God and inertia. I have been so thoroughly rejected by the Church that I humbly desired to serve with my whole heart that I can no longer find reasonable excuses or apologies for her behavior. I have lost all hope (which I once had in abundance for the RCC) that my church can ever become anything more than a thoroughly corrupted organization throughout its hierarchy. It is sick in its core structure and can never be made well by the faithful. I have no problem accepting other humans as imperfect and prone to error and sin. I cannot accept that such humans shall never be accountable on earth - that is, that wolves in sheep's clothing may never suffer correction when caught. I can't support an organization that would protect such unctuous and pretentious evil doers in Jesus' name. I am sick at heart over my experience with the priests of my church. A fish rots from the head. Any who absolve JPII of this can't be more wrong about life, people, and wisdom if they think it all happened out of his sight and practice. His autocratic manner sets the tone for the whole church; and his lack of faith which seeks to protect a church as if God couldn't; oh, the conspiracies of silence and secrecy. Well, I must stop here. But I hope, despite how I sound that no one mistakes me for a "progressive" Catholic. I am as conservative as they come, but such evil that goes on without remorse or correction is more than I can bear. No more than Jesus could bear what he saw going on in the Temple. posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:19 AM | Question the Premise Jimmy Tomato at Louder Fenn (link on the right) "I do not believe that churches should be splintered -- I believe that church should be unifying, on many levels -- therefore, I believe that we should seek the universal -- one of those universals is music." Putting the discussion on music in church to rest, Jimmy says this in passing which is worth a look or two at. The assertion of Jimmy's is one I first made as a Christian, too. Perhaps, it's also inherent in Catholics (universalists, after all) to believe this idea of one church, one creed, one authority, one Body since after all, there is only one God (sort of sub-divided, but that's another story). People who might gag at the thought of One world, one government, one police force have no problem of endorsing the same for our religion. The problem is that the idea is based on a false premise - that oneness in things of faith is unity and therefore good. After all, Jesus did say, "May they be one as we are One...may they be so perfected in unity..." We'll set aside the question of whether Jesus ever said such a thing since it only matters that people believe he said such a thing. Anybody who believes that Jesus is God is certainly One with anyone else who believes the same and they are in perfect unity. After that, any other demand must be purely a matter of opinion, not belief or faith. One group or person interprets Scripture thus and there is then division. It is inevitable. It is impossible for people to think exactly alike about all of Reality in this world. To hope for it or insist on it is at best naive, at worst tyrannical. There is also the dimension of insisting that one cannot be happy until everyone agrees with one; that the problem is other people and their intractable notions. If only everyone else would only submit as I have! the believer insists. This is true in heaven, not earth; and any attempt to create heaven on Earth is a basically evil and hopeless plan. Yes, Jimmy, there is unity and lack of division in Heaven, but there is also no church, no sacraments, no mass, no priests, no dogmas, doctrines, creeds, or confessions. That you should want everyone to share in these things on Earth says a great deal more about your will than God's will; more about your insecurity and concept of power than about God's liberality, freedom, and tolerance. Just imagine how unbearably horrible it would be to have a single, mighty, universal, and absolute church on Earth which all Christians adhered to. Can you begin to imagine the monstrous evil it would perpetrate? Far better it is for the Body of Christ to be divided into thousands of small groups who can do so much less harm in His name. Or do you think that some Central Church of All would be inclined to less sin and fallen behavior when all history illustrates the opposite? Do you not recall the Inquisition? Demand for conformity of belief is one of the worst things a Christian could ask for on Earth. If you want a better example, look at Islam now (and even that has major divisions in it of very small, but violent differences of belief [Sunni, Shi'ite, Sufi splits] and nations). Remember the iota of difference in the Schism of East and West? No, if people are not going to come together over their essential agreement as Christians, then it is far better we should separate in thousands of groups which simply must tolerate each other. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:32 AM | Friday, April 26, 2002 From the Sublime to the Ridiculous In today's newspaper I read that some scientists are proposing a new theory of the Cosmos - an oscillating universe based on an idea of strings and 'branes' in which the universe expands to almost nothing and then the 'branes' contract everything and strip it all down and then expand to a new universe ad infinitum. No Big Bang (which is another hare-brain scheme), just continual reoccurrence. There are so many absurdities in this that I hardly know where to begin. 1. The Kalam Argument - there is no Actual Inifinity in Reality. This asserts that the concept of infinity in things like numbers and space is simply an example of a balloon. You are always adding to reality but never arriving at infinity. You just keep expanding the balloon - infinity is conceptual and not actual in space and time. 2. The Absurd - If the universe recreates itself endlessly, then anything which is possible must occur. In an infinite number of successive universes, anything which is possible, must happen. And happen again and again no matter how remote the probability. Any chance of 1 in a billion or a googol must occur because all probabilities will eventually occur. For example, if it is possible for me to exist once - then it is possible for me to exist an infinite number of times exactly as I am and all others are at this moment. That means not only will I type this exact sequence of words an infinite number of times prior to this time, but also after this time. That is simply ridiculous. 3. An endless recreating universe would be its own metaphysical being - otherwise, where did it come from since you can never get something from nothing? It had to come from itself, that is, always was and will be. But materialists insist that the Universe has a purpose - to bring Life to pass and for Life to evolve into ever higher, complex structures of being and consciousness (all for the sake of moving molecules of DNA from one point in time to another - and not even exact copies but reformed DNA). That is, the Universe has a Purpose according to scientists and materialists which doesn't require a God to jump start the whole ball of wax. But in an eternally recurring Universe, where is the mind or soul of such a universe that has "Purpose"? Who can locate or find such a thing? If the universe has no purpose, then what is it doing? Where does one locate such things as truth, reason, desire, and life in a universe that is devoid of such things? Note. I once illustrated the Kalam Argument to Steven den Beste at USS Clueless against his atheism. His response was that he'd heard of it before and that he never found it very compelling, and so dismissed it. He didn't mention that he could refute it, but that it didn't persuade him to alter any view. Strange form of reason which can't disprove or refute a fact or truth, but refuses to submit to logic. "I can't disprove your point, but I refuse to accept it. One plus one still equals three in my book!" Furthermore Where do these fellows ever find any proof or evidence that "the universe as we know it is really a surface in a higher-dimensional space" ? This is simply made up out of whole cloth - pure fantasy (not even science fiction). I mean really - a higher dimensional space? That's quite a euphemism for God; and yet they don't want to mean God, but some sort of Other Ultra Reality (which must surely have been begotten by a Greater Ultimate Really - This Is The Last Turtle Reality). I did better reasoning than this when a child with my brother lying on a hilltop at night and talking about infinity and imagining boxes in boxes and realizing that it couldn't be like that - Russian Dolls or turtles all the way down. How do these guys take themselves seriously? They're exactly like Babylonian priests babbling on about which god descended from who and is pushing the sun across the sky. Only they use words like Strings, Branes, Dimensions, Space/Time, Gravity. For Pete's sake, the bloody emperor has no clothes! posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:43 PM | Yes, I am a Rich Man - didle dee, di deedle didle dum I saw my seventeen year old daughter perform last night in her school's spring musical, Fiddler on the Roof. She played, Chava, third daughter of Tevye who is bookish, marries a Russian, and is banished (but then reconciled with her father). My daughter is really the right age for the part and was perfectly cast. She gets to sing the Matchmaker song with her sisters in the show. She broke my heart. She was so convincing and powerful in her role that she broke my heart and brought me to tears in her passionate scenes with Tevye. And then provoked more tears (mostly in my right eye for some odd reason) at the end with the moment of reconciliation. The high school my daughter attends (Sacramento High, second oldest high school west of the Mississippi after Lowell in San Fran.) Is the "Fame" school of our fair city. It has a special program to attract young people in the performing Arts (although it isn't quite on the level of NYC's "Fame" school as seen on TV and in film). My daughter, Shana, went to this inner city school for that reason and has been in every theater production thus far. The show last night was fairly uneven as such things usually are in high school and college where you have a few students who are very talented, a number who are simply adequate, and a few who are quite bad. Shana is among the very good. And I say this not as an adoring parent (I am), but as a sharp critic (which I also am). But because she is very good, she wants very much to make Acting her life - which scares the heck out of me since I know better than anyone how difficult it can be to survive as an artist of any kind in this world. I think the world would be lucky to have her serve in this way, but the world is generally indifferent to the fates of young, beautiful, talented girls (and boys) who go to NY or LA to seek their fortunes. ("Golden lads and girls all must/ like chimney sweepers come to dust." Shakespeare meant something a little different, but I want her to remember the original sense of this, too.) Frankly, I get all blubbery over real beauty and especially when my daughter (my only child) is a part of such an event. She is absolutely the apple of my eye, and apart from my meetings with God and a few occasions with my wife, I have never known such constant, unmitigated joy and happiness than the hours I have passed in her company. She has never given me or my wife more than a day's worth of trouble her whole life. I know how God feels about us, his creatures, when I see how pure and altruistic my love for my child is. There is simply no greater, earthly joy I can think of than that of raising a child (in a good marriage). It's not simply seeing one's child do well that moves me to tears, though. When I see any young person demonstrate the kind of discipline, talent, persistence, and fortitude that is required for accomplishments to appear, I am deeply moved. Children are capable of so much and yet we seem to ask them for little (or guide them to nowhere). It is an amazing honor for me to be parent to a child, any child, but especially this child. My cup overfloweth. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:30 PM | Whither thou goest? A column at Townhall.com by Paul Craig Roberts here, discusses something I've been wondering about for some time despite my strong sympathy for free markets - what happens when we export all our manufacturing and now research and development work to the third world? Where are there going to be jobs for Americans outside of civil service and retail? We move our jobs abroad to China and Mexico and get lower prices in return for our TV's, shoes, microchips, software, and linen - but where are we going to get the money to buy all those goods as our real wages continually decline, also? I don't know enough about economics to offer any hopeful suggestions. Many have mentioned that it now appears to take two wage earners to afford a decent middle-class lifestyle where 40 years ago, one man in a good blue collar job could lift his whole family up from the ranks of working class. For all I know, the market may make it all work out better than anybody could anticipate. We should never underestimate the power of American men (yes, it is men who exercise the most initiative to get money) to find newer and more clever means of acquisition of lucre. I remain leery, though. I sometimes wonder if our economic future is going to be death by a thousand cuts. Small hemorhages that never amount to an emergency but eventually create one. Still, for all the vaunted cleverness of the various Asian professionals - we rarely witness true innovations from Japan or China or Korea. We see productivity, clever improvement of designs and ideas, but rarely do we see paradigm shifts or startling breakthroughs in wholly new areas of research. The kind of thinking or world view (forward looking optimism) that produces original ideas and leaps of imagination seem to be missing from many cultures for the last few hundred years or longer. America doesn't have a monopoly on innovation and creativity, but it currently does have a dynamism which is unmatched elsewhere in the world. How long that can last is anybody's guess. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:52 PM | Straw Dogs Bryan Preston lets it rip on pro-cloners who distort our position on cloning and science here. About as succinct and right on an inventory of our truths about the matter. posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:00 AM | 99 and 44 100th's pure Mark Byron (link on the right) mentions Ivory Soap in passing and it's old slogan for its brand. It just so happens that my mother was on a train once when she was a young woman (back in the 40's maybe) when the man next to her mentioned he worked for Ivory Soap. She asked him if it really was 99 and 44/100th's pure? "No," he told. "You mean it's a lie?" "Yes." "I don't understand. How can you get away with it?" "Because it's not 99 and 44/100th's per cent pure, it's 100 per cent pure. Our Ad marketers came up with the idea. Say its 100 % pure and who would remember or care? This way we come off as close to pure as you can get so that people think this is a unique product." "Ahh, I see." posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:49 AM | Thought from a Sunny Day (or wondering out loud) 87 If contemplatives are the soul of humanity, what might happen if enough Christian mystics begin to set aside the authority of church and scripture, and teach Love, selflessness, and the bare essentialism of the risen Jesus? Might not Christianity eventually change to embrace the wisdom of God and faith? (That is, put more faith in God than in principles and doctrines about God.) As Thomas Merton saw, contemplation is the heart and soul of the Catholic Mass and liturgy. If contemplatives steer faith toward freedom from the unessential, will the Church ever follow? I tend to doubt it, but I can't rule it out. A church that is purged of dogmas, though, may not be a church many want to belong to. That being the case, then, I don't see how the institution will allow itself to disintegrate. Power rarely abdicates. Yet, I firmly believe that modern contemplatives are creating a movement and literature that is tolerant of skepticism toward dogmas and doctrines. The effects of prayer are such that rationality is increased and systems of theology are more easily discounted. If enough people are able to see and communicate their insights past the previous cut off points (heresy), and if their writings are fair and trustworthy, I don't see how the Church can ignore the Eckharts, Roberts', and Mertons. My writings are subversive, but are they false? I think that will get harder to insist upon as the years go by, as more and more people recognize the truth in some of what I see or question. Of course, a lot of people love and admire William Blake, but has he had much affect on religion? No. He affects many future mystics when they encounter him so he is in the mix but is easily surpassed by a person of real practice in faith and prayer posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:40 AM | Thought from a Sunny Day (from my book Contentions) 92 The mystic path is often described as having three distinct movements: 1) purgative, 2) illuminative, and 3) unitive. The fact is, though, that these movements do not operate sequentially as often stated. They operate concurrently. They seem consequent because conversion brings about changes that appear subsequent. But the purgative process seems preliminary because there is so much to be purged of ego and selfishness that everything else shrinks in comparison. The truth is that we have always been one with God. He is in our souls always, but faith makes it possible to make reality apparent to us. Worship is meant to help us realize what we already have in us - God - and bring it out, open our consciousness, our being. The illuminative process of developing virtue and drawing insights into the necessity of goodness, love, and patience is always present to us also. The Holy Spirit teaches us every step of the way. Awareness of sin (purgation) and selfishness goes hand in hand with developing humility and appreciation for acquiring sympathy and interest in wisdom. But the initial Dark Night, as St. John describes its agonies, tends to overshadow the Bright Days of insight, trust, hope, and peace. It is a disservice to think the three aspects of conversion are sequential. Bernadette Roberts (author of The Experience of No-Self) talks of a life beyond these three processes but I'm beginning to have my doubts. I agree that in the unitive process, God becomes unknown and impersonal to the mystic because there is no Self to create a dualism or dichotomy between Creator and creature; yet, I am not willing to say the unitive process is thus complete. The unitive process does lead to moments of no-Self and a continual sense of prayer (contemplation), but it does not make one perfect, innocent, or absolutely holy. Bad thoughts or false desires still erupt and require further purgation as the onion seems to have endless layers. The illumination of deeper consciousness of Jesus and being continues, also, but with greater subtlety and less frequency (thus seemingly at an end). posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:31 AM | You got that right Hokiepundit had the best little blog of all yesterday. His link's on the right, but I took the whole thing. Serves him right for the best laugh of the day (but surely the angels weep). Quote of the Day: "No, we're not having pre-marital sex. I have no intention of marrying her." -a friend's AIM Profile What's an AIM profile, though? posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:21 AM | Screed Limit 55 MPH Minute Particulars has an excellent blog on truth in ranting here. I just found him the other day and he's now included in my links on the right. He has a fine analytical rather than emotional attack on issues and he's another Mark; so now we have about five or six Marks blogging: me, Mark Byron, Mark Shea, Mark Steyn (who changed his name from something else apparently), and this Mark at MP. He also knows something of Wm. Blake which automatically makes him a good fellow in my book. I devoted many years of study to Blake and in trying to grasp all of his work and vision. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:01 AM | Thursday, April 25, 2002 Nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee. (Does anyone else recall that jingle?) When asked if they love music, I've never heard anyone say, "No." Yet, most people I've met do not love music. Not like a true lover of music, a cognoscenti and musician or composer. Most people tend to like a certain kind of music and even relegate that to a status of mere background noise. I know of few people who experience throes of ecstasy at the sound of a low G on Yo Yo Ma's cello. I know of few people who simply love a single, beautiful tone produced by an instrument or voice; who thrill to the magnificence in the creation of sound. Remember Dick Clark's Bandstand? "It's got a nice beat you can dance to. I give it an 87." Nobody ever said, "This song fills my body with joy and makes me want to leap, fly, dance on the clouds!" Man, people can be so dull! So darned, dreadfully dimwitted, and dull! Talk about the Dead burying the dead (and not at all grateful). There is a music which is better than all others. Which is ultimately more satisfying and rich, more contemplative, simple yet complex and pure. This music is rare and people argue over it to the point that I won't even mention the exact kind I mean since no one or few would have the sense to agree on the fundamental principles of it. Just to give a small example of what I mean - Mozart was a piker. See? Mozart fans are going nuts right this minute. But but but! Yeah, his requiem mass is really very good, but everything else he wrote is light, trite, clever but thin. I could go on and mention other icons who many think are gods, but I won't. While Jimmy Tomato and Louder Fenn are waiting for that perfect liturgical moment on Earth, I wonder how many perfect moments for them otherwise go unnoticed because it is beneath their dignity to celebrate some little girl singing a jingle for God off key? We miss so much by being such carping critics all the time and not simply taking the good as we find it - unexceptional and a little mussed. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:33 PM | You are what you sing? Jimmy Tomato at Louder Fenn's has more to add to his side of "I never want to hear another guitar in church!" debate. Problem is that Jimmy essentially argued himself into a corner and can't get out. Psalms 149 and 150 clearly illustrate an enthusiasm for a "joyful noise unto the Lord" with lots of noisy instruments jingling jangling, thumping, and blasting. What kind of music? It would have been a highly rhythmic, modal with microtone singing and playing. Not a lot different than Klezmer or Middle Eastern music you hear today. Now Jimmy has in mind something rather like Bach or Handel or even Arvo Part. Add Chant to that (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean Taize). This is what I wanted to hear when I first went to church and heard these awful songs and wimpy guitar playing. But I objected to the playing and songs and not the guitars. Why? Because I am a part-time virtuoso guitar player on steel string acoustic, classical, and electric guitars. (Part-time virtuoso since I'm only really good when I'm practicing and keeping my chops in shape.) There are great guitar players and music which belong in church, though. I know, I've written enough fine music and played some, too, in church. A good performer knows when they've communicated something precious and beautiful to an audience - you feel the Presence of Beauty and essence of Peace in the room - contemplation of that which is Perfect. Music can do that more often than any other form of expression. Jimmy (and others) are basically expressing a very snobbish (as he seems to admit) notion of taste and worship. A great many Catholics buy into a whole Tridentine (no, not a sugarless gum) nostalgia for Gregorian chants, Palestrina motets, and Latin mass. There is a solemnity about such moldy things which appeals to many. It makes church seem so serious and important. It's very effective liturgy; no question. But it also becomes a kind of false idol. People start feeling frustrated and unable to pray unless they get the kind of show they prefer. Or they center their whole idea of prayer around a worship style - that prayer only happens effectively in church. And they take slogans to justify their prejudice - as you pray, so you believe - you are what you eat - and so on. But I noticed through my years of study of liturgy and what churches do is that God doesn't seem to mind. Remember the Robert Duval movie, The Apostle? The first service of his new little church he calls for people to make a joyful noise and some child gets up and blows a trumpet not very well. It was perfect. God was smiling not because people execute desires perfectly and beautifully, but because intentions count more with God than a Bach concerto played by atheist pro's who couldn't care less about service and love of faith. It would be nice if the churches (pastors) cared more about quality and excellence in liturgy and music (and quite frankly, Protestant ministers care a whole lot more than Catholic priests), but we get pot luck in our parishes and cathedrals. Also, I can't tell you how much "serious" classical music and Gregorian chant just plain stinks as music; but people think it must be good if it has that certain floridness of classical mannerisms and intoned vocalizing. Sorry, most chant is like most anything - 95% is junk. Same with classical music. But I have guitar music that would make you weep for sadness and joy if you had an open heart and ear for Beauty. Tunes and arrangements on guitar by myself and others which are breathtaking in purity and soulfulness. I know how to play a simple series of chords that would make you dissolve in a pool of molten love, if you had the heart for music instead of a "taste" for proper instruments. Also, I know some rock and roll which would make you want to leap out of the pews and dance in the aisles for pure joy and happiness at being alive and loved by God. Dance music does belong in church, too, along with solemn, sedate, and contemplative strains. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:08 PM | Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Questions Can anyone explain to me why the word processing on Blogger works so weirdly? Hit BACKSPACE and half the time the screen goes back to the Blogger page. Hit Bold button and the instructions jump to the top line, first space. Same with the link button. There are many really annoying little gremlins in this program. posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:00 PM | An Astonishing Sonnet A million years ago I was a thought; a kind of dream of One who is, was, shall. A million years from now I'll have been wrought perfectly in His lovely cathedral. Is there a doubt His will shall not be done? It is accomplished even now. How looks at me in backward glance when time has run it's course. My joy 's already in His books. He knew me before my birth, and knew the place He'd put me and extract me from. My shame is when I lose the thread of His warm grace and falter, wounded in my thoughts, and lame. A million years ago I was a shall; destined to be a living cathedral. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:49 PM | A Simple Chant Love leads to sight. Sight leads to shame. Shame leads to change. Change leads to struggle. Struggle leads to death. Death leads to life. Life leads to heaven. Heaven leads to light. Light leads to vision. Vision leads to God. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:44 PM | A Few More Sunny Thoughts 93 Discussing unity in God naturally leads to language which is vague or Eastern-like. "Mystical" is another word used to describe orphic statements about being. Jesus, of course, was the great Orpheus of all. 94 I'm tired of composers writing great "Passions" and such. I'd rather compose music about the kingdom of heaven - of a Jesus walking around and simply talking about love and heaven. No miracles, no transfigurations, resurrection, or agony - just the lilies of the field, and seek first the kingdom and all else you need will be added unto you. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:38 PM | Thought for a Sunny Day (from my book Contentions) 95 Human language is of such unreliability for conveying the reality of God that God himself did not depend on it or trust it to convey his revelation in Jesus. No, God depended on resurrection to prove his spiritual, personal (not intellectual) reality. He relied on the experience of people by appearing to them to make his statement of truth in person and in his person/Godhead. The idea that salvation depends on reading the Bible in a certain, narrow way is inimical to God and his own manner of action in people's lives. This extends to the Church - that somehow a body of people can define reality in such a way as to speak wholly for God goes against God and his manner of expressing himself, Truth. Yet, God calls people and sends them into the churches to be raised up in faith and discipleship. That's where fellowship and the words of eternal life may be found to propel, sustain, and challenge a person in faith. God keeps sending his prophets, though, and they keep getting rejected. Rejection appears to be deliberately intended by God to cause his children suffering so that they may be refined in fire, all dross purged. Purity of heart requires great misery in order to destroy every vestige of pride and self-will. Faith depends on revelation of experience, yet it also depends on perspective which can only come through understanding - discovering and comparing the experiences of others and allowing the Spirit to guide examination and conclusions about Truth. The Bible is the great source of wisdom of God as others have experienced it. It provides great and multiple perspectives to be absorbed, tested, and evaluated. It is infallible only to the extent that people are infallible. It can only proclaim facts about Truth, and not Truth essentially itself. For example, if it claims that God is real and that Jesus is God and risen, it proclaims a simple fact. (Whether that fact is accepted or rejected is another matter.) But when it tries to predict how God will act in the future and how He evaluates human beings after death, and what the afterlife is like - then the Bible is speculative and not factual (no matter how many insist it is reliably prophetic). Like all literature, the Bible has to be experienced first, and interpreted second. Too often the second precedes the first - the tail wags the dog - and faith is lost because people put their trust in ideas about God rather than in God as he is. Turning the Bible into propaganda obscures its beauty and wisdom. It tries to make Love dance to monotony. But trying to make God endorse every personal thought or private revelation about him makes egotists and monsters of every convert, too. Faith depends on wisdom to grow. Wisdom is found in a variety of ways - through others, through books, through prayer, through graceful insights, through study and examination, and through Art, Beauty, Music, Liturgy, and Play. More than anything, it is found through love and patience, I think. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:36 PM | Sing it Loud! JunkYardBlog has a second take on Jimmie Tomato's rotten (sorry, couldn't resist) prejudice against guitars in church. Bryan skewers (sorry again) his jabs at the Junker's mention of the psalms inter alia. A lively exhange of views. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:28 PM | From my mouth to ?'s ear Dick Morris echoes what I've been saying about Bush's losing the initiative in the war on terrorism and dithering here in this column today. "He cannot play with the emotions of the American people. We expect action and we expect it with the same sense of urgency the president himself generated in his own speeches. " posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:05 PM | Tuesday, April 23, 2002 I have no mouth and I must scream Wesley Smith at NRO here has an article about many recent breakthroughs with adult stem cell research - real payoffs in treatments and therapies rather than pie in the sky hopes and promises from cloning embryos. I have noticed that the various libertarians and pro-cloners have not responded to the actual arguments that we Christian bloggers have raised to them. So much for intellectual honesty and engagement. posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:00 PM | Thought from a Sunny Day (from my book Contentions) 96 Think of heaven as a day at the beach: reclining in the sand, watching the waves, listening to the surf, the wind, the cry of gulls; wading in the water, floating with the waves, falling into the rhythm of life - simply being with others. Watch children at the beach, too. Once they've spent their restless energies, they become quiet, soft, thoughtful, collaborative, and creative (they go to work building sand castles, collecting colored pebbles or shells, bobbing in the water, or walking down the shore. They fall into a peaceful state and rhythm). Heaven is like this every day. Still sound dull, listless, and passive? Yes, it does which seems terrible for most people to imagine - day after endless day living like nothing's important or desired and pursued; no highs, no lows, no whims, no impulses, no contrasts, no thrills? That's right. No thrills. Just the bliss of holding your baby and singing her a sweet song of love; of hearing her first sentence, watching her toddle, having her embrace and kiss your neck, having her fall asleep next to you; or watching your mate dance, observing her features in sunlight, moonlight, or firelight; seeing her in her bath, or at the shore in a loose, billowing dress, feeding your child at her breast, giving birth, or embracing her in the making of a child. All these are Hallmark card moments and romantic clichés which "true" artistes despise as naive and sentimental, but such poignancy in heaven is not emotional as it is here - it is pure grace and the breath of air because these "moments" don't degenerate into ugly realities of a colicky child, a constipated, pregnant wife with morning sickness, a restless and roving husband, insensitive in-laws, a bad job, financial problems, vicious neighbors, a broken down automobile, and a bad case of gas. Heaven is not exciting as humans think, but I believe my stories give some idea of greater possibilities - the extension of curiosity, creativity, and delightful experiences - wonder that is always rewarding and always renewing. This is something worthwhile (and worth dying to Self for), I think. In this life, people often find beauty inspiring, ennobling, deeply satisfying and consoling. In the next life, none of those things are true except for deeply satisfying, for satisfaction there means contemplation, communion, and recognition. Satisfaction means something different when one is all in God, and all others are also. It means a knowing and appreciation that is deeper and transcendent - a form of thanksgiving which is ineffable (but unemotional). I do not see sameness but fluctuations in future life and being which, though subtle, are real and meaningful. I see them as moments of depth apart from ordinary peace and tranquillity. I see them as responsive to different stimuli. For example, there is a difference between starting a piece of music and concluding it. A journey has culminated. You have moved from one state to another (or one place to another). The start has an intention, the journey has a rhythm, and a climax has a satisfaction, a final release of tension. These are fluctuations with certain accompanying feelings or experience. One is richer at the end than at the start. (Yet, I cannot say that after listening to Bach I'm changed particularly.) It is wonderful and human. Being in God does not efface what is also human and creaturely - it just brings it all into peace, balance, and love. Nor does being in God destroy curiosity (wonder), but fuels it since all mysteries are revealed in time; thus it pays to ask since all is answered (while more remains to be 'seen'). posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:46 AM | Donation Amy Welborn has a blog (here) about a priest who donated part of his liver to a parishioner, that the man might live. (Livers can be partial and they are one of the few internal organs that can regenerate; although I don't know if that can happen if a sizeable portion is removed - which it must be for a liver transplant). The priest is portrayed as a heroic, good Samaritan. I've mentioned to Steven den Beste at USS Clueless my growing fear that we may be seeing the start of Donor guilt or pressure applied to people if they don't lend others that extra kidney, bone marrow, liver portion, blood and fluids (and even sperm or eggs). It seems that in the future, sympathy for someone who is ill won't be enough. We'll be asked our blood type and if we match. If we don't want our body sliced open or bones broken to extract marrow and healthy parts of ourselves removed, how soon before we're called selfish and callous people? It sounds callous now or cynical to suggest that the donating priest may be making a play for living sainthood with his "selfless act" when he discouraged the ill man's brother from donating part of his liver to his brother; saying that, "you have a family of four children." But I think these things are best handled within a family when possible. There is something too visibly "well meaning" about some acts; something too public and laudatory. As cruel as it may sound, something too much like praying loudly on the corner so that everyone may hear how religious you are; or contributing large sums and getting your family name plastered all over the church. Or maybe I'm just tired of seeing outward signs or a pretense of holiness where I have seen no inward signs of it. Many folks don't realize it, but some folks get just as addicted to doing "good deeds" as alcoholics to whiskey. Good deed doing makes people feel good. I've seen people neglect their families in order to do good deeds for strangers. Go figure. I see people neglect prayer for good deeds (or for trying to do "social justice") because prayer is hard for them whereas a good deed is an easy, physical act requiring little thought or difficulty. "Feed people for an hour on Thanksgiving Day? Sign me up!" In any event, it's no easy thing to undergo a major operation; and the transplant may not take which would always feel like a crushing blow. I don't much believe in applauding people, though, for their public acts since you never know the motive. "Why call me good? There is only one who is good." Furthermore In today's paper from AP, living organ donors outnumbered the dead last year. People giving a kidney or part of a liver surpassed those from dead folks "as desperate patients have turned increasingly to families or friends." If anyone knows a little bit about family dynamics, tell me that some folks aren't going to feel emotionally coerced. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:26 AM | Monday, April 22, 2002 What Reform? Veritas (link on the right) has a blog on what he's been reading about the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Interesting. Chris concludes about the present day RCC, "the Church has to engage in a grand offensive to take back the world from the secularism which has swept across it. And that's precisely what Vatican II called for, and precisely what we -- Catholic or not -- must do. Engage the world, assimilate what is true therein, and then proclaim the Gospel in a language understandable in our day and age." I once hoped in a similar scheme for Truth, but I don't anymore. I found that the RCC was, at best, only a little better than the world; and at worst, a horror story (as present scandals illustrate). I think the saint must withdraw and return as Chris quotes from his reading, but the returning soul is simply one more person among many. Individual people don't make that much of a difference in the world. It's more as Shakespeare said, " The good that men do is oft interred with their bones, while the evil men do lives on long after they're gone." Truth must be proclaimed (and will be) and some will warm to it or not. I no longer consider the RCC indispensable to that purpose, but the train just keeps rolling anyway. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:48 PM | Psalm for a Sunny Day Fallen petals of California poppies rest on earth like small shards of orange light with text written on them saying, "Behold, I give this color and its light to Man." A maroon rose scents the air with lush perfume proclaiming, "I am beautiful to know." A gingko tree splays leafy arms at heaven and sings, "I wave these banners for your joy." Somewhere a child is crying out to God for love. Mt. Shasta sheds her winter coat and calls, "Climb these rocky, brown slopes and touch clouds." Everywhere the Earth is shining, singing, "I give this color and its light to you. I give this motion and this wave to you. I give this music and eternity to you." Somewhere a child finds God and love in prayer. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:42 PM | Thought from a Sunny Day (from my book Contentions) 37 The world is trying to parody Heaven; that is, to create heaven on earth - which is why I disagree with the churches' emphasis on building the city of God on earth - on improving the world and making it Christian. Here is some of the world's parody: the goal of instant and constant global communication. The goal of all human knowledge instantly accessible anywhere. The goal of rapid (as possible) travel to anywhere. The goal of world government or shared justice system. The goal of borderless, global economies. The goal of a single military police system to enforce good behavior among nations. The goal of a single global, popular culture and language (American language and culture exported and produced everywhere - whether people like it or not.) The goal of global mores regarding environment, population, human rights, egalitarianism in health, education, wages, and opportunity. In heaven, travel is instant and effortless. So too, communication with others anywhere in the universe; so too with information and knowledge from God. There is no government in heaven because Love reigns. The economy has no monetary basis or trading - only in sharing as everyone is pleased to share. All goods are free. There is no police force or courts of law. Culture is not popular but infinitely diverse. There are no morals or issues or claims or rights. Now, what seems so bad about what the world is attempting to create of heaven? Add this: the goal of medical science is to increase human life spans to an indefinite length. The goal of all the sciences is to know all there is to know. What's bad about that? Science will do anything it can do to further its research. It has no morality. Neither has government in conflict between expediency and human lives. The secular human effort has a goal of endless prosperity, pleasure, and health: immortality under Law, productivity for all, usefulness in everything and everyone. The goal is for a civilized tyranny, an enlightened police state, a total society and culture. Not even free of religion because it will all be essentially neutered except for a few small, quaint groups of nuns, monks, or Amish type people here and there. Society will accommodate everyone so long as they are not too obnoxious or expensive to endure. Even so, this brave new world doesn't look so bad. It is civilized after all. People live and work as usual, and inequalities will eventually be ironed out. There'll be the super-rich and then a vast middle and working class. The evil in all of this unifying decency is the godlessness - the utter despair and bankruptcy of real human life. It is peace without real peace; work without real meaning; pleasure without real joy; life without true wisdom or vision. People will live longer and will genetically design their offspring, but we shall not conquer biological death. I wish people did find a cure for aging. Then they might have time to truly get bored with themselves and sick of life. (But people who get bored and sick of life usually turn to evil for pleasure and not to God.) The world's goal to parody heaven is unstoppable. It is the vision driving Man since the Fall - desire for Eden on earth. And it is God's plan to allow Man his ultimate folly; but it is a faithless and loveless endeavor, for its chief characteristic is fear - the sowing of endless fear. Not just fear of death but fear of love. St. John who wrote the book of Revelation (or perhaps Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures, too) was probably the first to notice this tendency toward a total culture, commerce, and government in human life through witnessing the Pax Romana and its underlying drive - absolute organization. Any head of state is, in essence, an anti-Christ: that is, a practicing parody of Christ - good or bad in varying degrees. We say Lincoln was a good Beast while Hitler was a bad Beast. Both were Beasts, though. Same with any Pope of Rome or Archbishop of Canterbury or Metropolitan of Athens. Or local Catholic parish pastor. The incompatibility between love and power always remains. Most people deny they are powerful or want power, but they do not see control as a form of power. Power is a grandiose word or idea. Control seems like a reasonable expectation, a rational desire. But control is the same evil - fear drives it, and it becomes an obsession - sometimes obvious, sometimes hidden. Self-love never wanders far from us and with it comes desire to control. Self-hatred has its roots in frustration, inability to gain a satisfying measure of control. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:40 PM | Over the mountains Emily Stimpson at Fool's Folly appears to have a slight case of the ultra-montane today. We should beware of those "the Church is not a democracy" argument since the fact is (as I've mentioned previously) that the Church is indeed a democracy in its most important office and other significant ones. Nor should we overlook the first 3-6 centuries of Church existence when Bishops needed approval from from the flock before assuming office. The belief that Rome has been protecting us from bad bishops and cardinals cannot be taken seriously in light of recent scandals and malfeasance. After all, how did the "Lavender Mafia" get such a stranglehold on high office? Whenever I see any bishop appear in the news or on TV these days, I immediately wonder if he's not homosexual. I keep wondering if Cardinal Law is. How else explain his inaction and sympathy for the offending priests? I keep thinking that these bishops have something to hide and are being emotionally blackmailed or threatened with exposure such as the bishop of Santa Rosa, California who was indeed blackmailed and threatened with exposure by an embezzling priest who had been (coerced, he says) having sex with the bishop. After hearing assertions that at least 50% of all current priests are homosexual from a variety of sources, such talk (whether true or not) corrupts lay people's desire to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Instead, we now figure the odds are pretty good that our priest may be hiding something. Rome has much to answer for this, too. Furthermore Any organization that adores secrecy and power as much as the RCC does is always ripe for scandal. It doesn't matter whether the power is in Rome, in Dioceses, or Bishops' Conferences. Rome presently has no moral high ground that we can presently point at as exemplary. (I've always tried to give JPII the benefit of the doubt, but he's never really impressed me as anything but a rather autocratic pseudo-intellectual. Very much like his Polish opposites under communism. It is very sad how adversaries often come to resemble each other over time. But prevailing mores tend to produce the same in opposing forces.) posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:31 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
