Ron Moffat: November 2003 Archives

Current Reading

|

I have removed the “Current Reading” list from the side bar of The 7 Habitus primarily because I forgot to update it on a regular basis. I think it would make more sense to simply do an occasional post with current and planned reading and, perhaps, a comment or two on whatever books are presently striking my fancy. So, here is the first installment.

Just Finished:

In the Beginning by Alister McGrath, a history of the King James Version of the Bible. More on this in another post.

Current Reading

The Reformation by Owen Chadwick, part of a series on the history of the Church published by Penguin in the early ‘60’s. I found this copy through Alibris.com and its inscription is a bit unusual. Most owners, if they write anything on the fly, usually put their name and possibly the date. This has only a date, in a small hand, at the upper left of the fly leaf – “Aug 6, 1964”. I wonder who owned this one, and why so cryptic an inscription?

A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson – Although I have only just started this I already have some misgivings; Johnson seems quite ready in this history to attribute less than sincere motives to the Early Church Fathers in their defense of the faith against heresy.

Planned Reading

Faith and Certitude, Fr. Thomas DuBay. I have been distracted by other things and never finished reading this excellent study.

Ascent to the Truth, Thomas Merton. Due to the above mentioned distractions, I also never finished this and must get back to it.

Authenticity, Fr. Thomas DuBay.

Happy Thanksgiving

|

I would like to wish all at St. Blogs and around the world a very Happy and Peaceful Thanksgiving. And don't eat too much turkey!

Pax et bonum

Electronic Knowledge

|

In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote:

"It is well to observe the force and virtue and consequence of inventions, and these are nowhere to be seen nowhere (sic) more conspicuously than in those three which were unknown to ancients, and of which the origins, though recent, are obscure and inglorious; namely, printing, gunpowder, and the magnet. For these three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world."

While it is arguable that we have come a long way since the invention of the printing press, it remains a good thing "to observe the force and virtue and consequence of inventions", even today. I was reminded of this as I read about the new search engine being launched by Amazon.com. This new search engine allows customers to search approximately 120,000 books in a database for a particular word or phrase. In the click of a mouse all references to the search topic found in any of the 120,000 books will appear on the customer's screen. I am quite sure that all appropriate information on acquiring the books containing the desired references will also be made readily available.

To a guy born in Detroit nearly 60 years ago, before computers were anything but an exotic, and expensive, plaything for engineers, this seems wondrous indeed. Anyone who has spent days in a library searching through endless stacks of books, magazines, and papers for a research project can easily see the possibilities. But a guy like me also has to ask, "Is this an entirely good thing?"

The reason for my question is that I wonder how this will affect the way we think about knowledge and truth?

We live in an age in which truth is viewed as relative, even ephemeral. At least part of the reason for this is that we live in a world in which "knowledge" changes quickly. My father, who was 50 years old when I was born, was 6 years old when the Wright brothers first took to the air. In his early years, horses and wagons were the common mode of transportation. My grandfather was born before the Civil War ended and as I was growing up, I knew some elderly folks who were alive when Abraham Lincoln was president. I was 10 when the Russians put the first satellite into earth orbit. I was 21 when the first man walked on the moon. The internet as we know it is only 10 to 15 years old. It was only about 30 years ago that electronic calculators were a marvel. Greater changes in technology, and in the way we live, have taken place in my life time than took place in, at least, the 500 years before I was born. We take for granted the fact that the technology we use today will be obsolete in less than 5 years. The point here is not that I am really old, but to remind those of you who are less than 40 years of age that the world we live in is a very recent invention.

One of the greatest changes taking place in the last 20 years or so has been in the fields of publishing and communications. Prior to the internet, with its blogs, email, and other novelties, publishing was not something open to the average Joe's participation. Publishing nearly any piece of writing required at least a modicum of capital in order to pay writers, buy or hire printing and binding equipment and have access to distribution channels. Publishers of books and magazines were, and are, of course, careful to protect their investments with copyrights and by-lines. Something published the old-fashioned way was not and is not now easy to plagiarize. Publishers also serve as arbiters of what gets published; and, in most cases, as guarantors of the accuracy and quality of the material they publish. Once published in book or magazine form it is not easy for the author or publisher to deny responsibility for it, nor is it always easy to correct errors in such material. Printed material is not, at least to a tradition minded guy like me, ephemeral and subject to manipulation. It carries a certain air of credibility; it can easily be found and referred to again and again, it does not change.

The internet has changed the business of publishing. Now any idiot (including yours truly) can set up a blog or a web-site and be in the publishing business with little or no investment. The web has provided a vehicle for anyone with access to a computer to express himself to the world with the greatest of ease. There are two problems that I see, however, with publishing on the internet -- first, there is no publisher to serve as a protector of quality and accuracy. Another problem is that, because it is so easy and cheap to gain access the internet, there are many folks who think that material appearing there is in the public domain, their own private plaything; for many people, whatever appears on the internet is fair game to do with as they please.

This was brought home to me with the posting of obscene material and ads for items, the marketing of which I certainly have to wish to be associated with, in comments on my blog. I guess the thing I find so upsetting is that, first of all, whoever did that seems to think they have the right to do so without asking my permission. They have no such right, anymore than they would have the right to hi-jack a television signal to broadcast such material. The second thing is that, if they believe they have the right to do what they did, sooner or later some clever hacker is going to figure out that he (or she) has the right to prepare his own posts for my blog or alter posts that I have published here. What is I post on this blog is hardly impervious to being pirated for someone else's purposes, and I might have a hard time proving that the authorship was not my own, or that I published something that is no longer here.

Now, if this is true in my own little world, how true will it be when information that is now in libraries, on paper, is only available electronically? Will we be able to believe anything published on the web is what the author intended to write, and that the facts can be relied upon, if we cannot be sure it has not been tampered with? In future years, will we have confidence that we know the truth of any historical event if the record is solely available in electronic format? It might become incredibly difficult to preserve any original records inviolate from the tampering of those who do not view truth with the same regard as we do. We will have to rely on the integrity of those maintaining the records, and to be honest, I don't have a great deal of confidence that truth is widely thought of as something that must be guarded and preserved.

I don't know if the situation will develop as I see it might. I know we have already seen such a venerable institution as The New York Times fall prey to reporters and editors with little regard for the facts. I don't know what there is to prevent this becoming much more widespread, but then I guess, in the end, this is in God's hands. However, you might see why I am not completely convinced that the coming age of electronic libraries is an unmitigated blessing.

A Crisis of Rabbis

|

Fr. Neuhaus, in the last issue of First Things, points out that there is a vocation crisis among Jewish clergy. It seems there are several factors contributing to the impending shortage of young people entering the Rabbinical field, but primary among them is the loss of respect among Jews for Rabbis. Quoting an article by Jack Wertheimer in Commentary magazine, Fr. Neuhaus points out that Rabbis themselves are to blame for this.

"With particular reference to the rabbinate, Wertheimer notes trends contributing to the diminished appeal of the religious calling: 'Several other developments contributed to the erosion of the rabbis' status. One was the society-wide assault on authority, of which many rabbis were simultaneously victims and initiators. Catering to the newly modish disdain for formality, rabbis refashioned themselves, trading in their suits for leisure wear, abandoning the title 'Rabbi Cohen and dropping formal sermons in favor of free-flowing discussion that might include an exchange of views with congregants.'" There was, however, another, larger, problem. Fr. Neuhaus quotes Wertheimer, "More critically still, many relinquished their roles as authorities in matters of Jewish religious law; to quote Daniel Jeremy Silver . . . by the mid-1980s, rabbis were making 'a virtue of being nonjudgmental.'"

One hardly needs to point out the two primary trends for the loss of the respect one given Rabbis by Jewish people, loss of formality and fear of being "judgmental" are a problem not only among Rabbis but in society at large. For example, I happened to be at church one day when one of the kids, an 8 or 9 year old boy, walked into the room. I was standing with a gentleman who is perhaps 10 years my senior (he's old, man) and the boy greeted him with "Hi, Joe." When I was a boy, that greeting would have gotten the young man a cuff on the ears because of the disrespect implied. Yet no one thought anything of it, nor paid any attention. This exemplifies a trend today of not only a loss of respect for one's elders, but also of a loss of respect for ourselves. We no longer want to be taken seriously and as a result, we do not take anything or anyone seriously. Nothing is worthy of our respect, and traditions that are centuries old can be discarded at the drop of a hat.

I think part of the reason that we do not want to take ourselves seriously is that we do not want to accept the responsibility that inevitably accompanies such an outlook. If we take ourselves seriously, it means we must accept that our actions have consequences and that we must take responsibility for those consequences. It means that it makes a difference if our actions are good or evil. It means there is such a thing as, dare I say it, sin! It means that we cannot determine the moral quality of our actions solely on the basis of whether or not they please us or make us feel good. It also means that there is a need for forgiveness and redemption from Someone external to ourselves, Someone who is able to mitigate the effects of our sin.

The second factor, the fear of being judgmental is another relatively recent and troubling trend. Being judgmental, making judgments, is a fact of human life. There is good and evil. There are things and ideas and philosophies that are good and those that are bad. The bad ones generally are harmful and should either be avoided or condemned. But today, no one it is not fashionable to believe in absolutes, truth, or good or evil, is relative and it is "mean-spirited" to believe otherwise. This attitude has become pervasive, even among those who might generally be thought to be religiously orthodox and socially conservative. For example, in the November 10 issue of Newsweek even George Will falls into this trap. After giving a brilliant analysis of the problems the ECUSA is facing with their new, avowedly homosexual bishop of New Hampshire and, in the process showing why the magisterium of the Church is important, he concludes with a remarkable statement.

"This is not to say that homosexual behavior is inherently wrong, let alone that it is a great intrinsic evil like slavery. The analogy with the popular-sovereignty argument is intended to underscore the fact that although tolerance is a virtue, it is never sufficient as a nation's, or institutions, animating principle. If a nation or institution is limitlessly inclusive, then citizenship or membership is meaningless."

One might counter that if homosexuality is not, in itself, inherently evil, then there is no reason why Gene Robinson should not be bishop of New Hampshire. Yet Will seems to believe it necessary to add this caveat in order to avoid the appearance of being mean spirited.

It should be pointed out that this is not the traditional Christian view of things in two ways. One, in judging the propriety of an act you are not judging the person themselves, only the moral rightness or wrongness of the act itself. Second, the judgment is made out of love, to try to help the person improve the moral rightness of their lives -- help them see the right way, and also to help ourselves in avoiding similar difficulties in our own lives. There are times when properly judging an act can be a matter of life and death, as in the case of mortal sin, and not making a judgment about such acts is foolish and indeed, is the unloving course of action.

FR. Neuhaus quotes Werthiemer’s solution to the problem of the shortage of vocations to the rabbinate:

"Rejecting defeatist advice from among their own colleagues, they would need to gird themselves to combat the present solipsistic moment in American Judaism, reeducating their congregants to think beyond their immediate personal need, their inchoate yearnings for 'spirituality,' and their consumerist notion of religious life. They would need to insist on synagogue ritual focused on communal rather than privatized concerns, and they would need to reorient the synagogue itself as an institution focused on the transcendent needs of the Jewish people. Above all, they would need to take their own role seriously, accepting the burden and the challenge of their calling as individuals who speak with authority not only for themselves but for the Jewish tradition, the Jewish people, and God."

In short, it will take a dramatic shift in "worldview" for the rabbi problem to be solved. People will to return to an understanding that this world is not all there is and that there are things that we do not completely understand that should be taken seriously.

I believe there are lessons here for the Church. While it is true that Jewish clergy can marry, they are still experiencing a “vocation” crisis, just as the Catholic Church is (at least, in some places). The crisis is not brought on by an excessively stringent code of celibacy, rather it seems to have occurred because of a loss of meaning. No one pays any attention to rabbis anymore, so who wants to be a rabbi? In the Church, many folks think they can function in exactly the same way a priest can, so who needs priests? The nuns in certain orders started wearing street clothes and living in apartments 30 years ago – no one wants a vocation in those orders today, as a result, they are rapidly dying off. In this environment, no one wants to be a priest, and make the sacrifices entailed, unless it makes a difference. The crisis in vocations has resulted, I think, not because priests are deprived of the right to marry and have sacrifices, rather it is because those who might have vocations do not understand that there is a real reason to make the sacrifice.

KFC Gets Chicken

|

KFC announced today it was pulling its ads touting fried chicken as healthful after complaints by consumer groups.

"This has been a PR debacle for KFC, trying to pass their fried chicken off as health food," said Michael Jacobson, the group's executive director. "It's just not flying, people see it as a joke."

I guess there's not too many chickens that fly anyway.

Blog Thieves

| | Comments (5)

It seems my blog was inundated recently with unsolicited (believe me) advertising and pornographic comments. I view this as nothing but thievery and it makes me wonder if there are not laws to prevent people from doing something that is so obviously unwelcome.

I apologize to those of you who had the misfortune to read those things. If this continues I will be forced to either limit or remove comments or stop this blog altogether.

A Protestant Mass

| | Comments (2)


Steven Riddle has asked if anyone can comment on a post by Steve Bogner concerning inclusive language in the liturgy. I don’t know if I can offer anything better than Steven has done, but as a former Presbyterian I feel the sudden urge to put in my two-cents worth.

Steve Bogner asks why not allow each parish to determine it’s own liturgical style of worship, including the use of inclusive terms for God the Father.

I don’t understand why it is so difficult these days for anyone to accept the idea that there is such a thing as obedience and that it is not always appropriate for us to have our own way. We want to be pleased, rather than please. We want to fashion God in our image instead of accepting that we are fashioned in God’s image. The fact that we are creatures, not the Creator, the fact that we owe God everything, imposes upon us certain obligations and responsibilities, gratitude and obedience to God, and to His Church, being foremost among them. Recognizing this truth, the documents of Vatican II are quite clear that the Church is hierarchical and that Catholics are called to accept and obey her teachings.

The Mass is not intended for our entertainment, nor is it intended to reinforce the current social trends in society. The Mass is a Sacrament of the Church, not a sacrament of self-esteem. When we attend Mass we offer ourselves on the altar, not to have God offer Himself to us to allow us to feel fulfilled. It seems that there are many folks who do not understand that the purpose of the Mass is to change us, not to change God.

The Catholic Church is not just another Protestant denomination. We are not free to change her teachings or her instructions at will, Presbyterians do that, Catholics don’t. What kind of chaos would result if every parish were free to celebrate its own version of the liturgy? What would the members of that parish come to understand about the deepest truths of the Church? Would they end up with a valid Mass and receive the Blessed Sacrament, which by their presence they openly profess to believe? Would that parish, say one like the one Steve Bogner says he attends, even end up in real communion with the Church itself? How would they know?

There are reasons why Catholics do what they do. The Church is universal, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic," as such it is not subject to our every whim. The term that seems to be so popular these days – Progressive Catholic” is an oxymoron, to be “progressive” is to be Protestant. Is that what we really want?

Yancy and the Church

| | Comments (3)

In a post I did a month or so ago, I wrote that I thought there was an element of bitterness in some of Phillip Yancy’s writing. Bitterness is perhaps the wrong word; unforgiveness may be a better, choice. In order to clarify the point I was trying to make I need to give you a little background.

Yancy grew up in the south in the 1950’s and ‘60’s, a time of tremendous social upheaval in that area of the country. It was the era of the Civil Rights movement and the fight of black people to obtain even the most basic rights accorded all Americans was, in many parts of the south, bitterly, even violently, resisted. Yancy grew up in Georgia, attending a church whose members formed a part of that resistance – Lester Maddox was a semi-regular speaker at Yancy’s church. Yancy describes this church in this way:

“One church I attended during the formative years in Georgia of the 1960’s presented a hermetically sealed view of the world. A sign out front proudly proclaimed our identity with words radiating from a many-pointed star: ‘New Testament, Blood-bought, Born-again, Premillennial, Dispensational, fundamental . . .’ Our little group of two hundred people had a corner on the truth, God’s truth, and everyone who disagreed with us was surely teetering on the edge of hell. Since my family lived in a mobile home on church property, I could never escape the enveloping cloud that blocked my vision and marked the borders of my world.”

Later, Yancy attended a Bible college that had strict rules concerning personal grooming and attire. Of this experience Yancy writes”

“Outside somewhere in the great world beyond, other students were demonstrating against the war in Vietnam, marching for civil rights on a bridge near Selma, Alabama, and gathering to celebrate love and peace at Woodstock, New York. Meanwhile we were preoccupied, mastering supralapsarianism and measuring skirts and hair.”

More recently, Yancy attended the final worship service of the church he grew up in. Yancy describes the thoughts going through his mind during the service as various folks described “how they met God through this church”:

“Listening to them, I imagined a procession of those not present, people like my brother, who had turned away from God in large part because of this church. I now viewed its contentious spirit with pity, whereas in adolescence it had pressed life and faith out of me. The church had now lost any power over me; its stinger held no more venom. But I kept reminding myself that I had nearly abandoned the Christian faith in reaction against this church, and I felt deep sympathy for those who had.”

These quotes come from Yancy’s book, Soul Suvivor, subtitled, How My Faith Survived the Church. The sub-title says a great deal.

Yancy was, rightly so, deeply affected by the duplicity of a church that would openly preach both racism and an arrogant, self-righteously dogmatic Christianity. Yet he seems to blame both the particular church he attended, and the church in general, for this hypocrisy; he seems unable to separate the two, much less to separate the church from those fallible, sinful, human beings who inevitable comprise its membership. And he has reacted against his view of “church” in many ways.

One is he seems to think it more important for young people to have been out practicing free love and doing drugs at Woodstock than to have been living an, albeit enforced, Christian life at a Bible college. His worldview has, I think, become somewhat PC, as I said in my previous post.

He has also reacted against what he calls “the church.” Yancy’s Christianity seems to be very much of the “Jesus and me” variety, with “the church” being a relatively unimportant, if not harmful, element of his faith. He seems to think the church is something to survive.

This view is, of course, not Catholic, nor is it very Scriptural.

The heart of the difficulty for Yancy is that he is very much imbued with the Protestant view of the church. For most Protestants the church is “invisible” and simply the imperfect union of all believers that will be realized in heaven once the Earth’s days have been completed and Christ has come again. For most Protestants, the church being “invisible” ends up meaning it is “unreal”, an ideal that may someday be realized but that here on earth means little more than a gathering place for Christians to share a meaningful worship experience. If the particular church they belong to has any particular theological leanings it is possible for the members, to be unconcerned, if not unaware, of what those leanings are or what they mean. Church is simply a place to go on Sunday mornings. (Caution, of necessity, Catholics need to understand that this is a very generalized picture of the Protestant conception of the idea of “church” – no definitive explanation of this idea can be given because there are so many possible Protestant definitions, one for each denomination, if not more. There is no central Protestant authority to define any theological doctrine.)

The Catholic Church teaches, with Scripture, that the Church is indeed very visible, the Body of Christ here on Earth. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit: “one, holy, Catholic, apostolic Church.” Its members are indeed fallible, we are all hypocrites, but we look to the church as the mediator of God’s grace in our lives. It is possible for us to be hurt, even scarred, by the actions of priests and bishops and fellow members, but it is the Church that offers healing from these things also. It is impossible for us to either reject Her or be rejected by Her; to do so would be to reject Christ.

Yancy does not have the benefit of this view of the Church and, perhaps, he feels consequences of being, in a sense, forced out of the church, alone and apart from this essential element of the Christian life. This sense of, what, rejection, isolation, seems to be present in much of what Yancy writes and is what I originally referred to as “bitterness.” Perhaps, if Yancy does feel isolated from the church, the term “bitterness” may not be all that far off.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries written by Ron Moffat in November 2003.

Ron Moffat: October 2003 is the previous archive.

Ron Moffat: December 2003 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.