Dwight Longenecker's Blog, page 347

If it was only 'Sharing' to Hell with It

I don't know where it was that I first heard some goofy liberal clergyman explain that the 'real miracle' of the feeding of the 5,000 was that everyone shared their lunch. I was brought up with red blooded Christianity and had never heard such poppycock before in my life, so over the years I have asked people whether they'd heard such a sermon and what they made of it.



Christians from virtually every denomination (apart from conservative Evangelicals) claimed that some pastor or priest or teacher had tried to shovel this stuff on to them and the weird and wonderful thing is, everyone who agreed that they'd heard this lame brained 'demythologizing' of the miracle thought how stupid it was, and the well meaning liberal preacher, through his words, had not taught them to share their lunch or anything else. Instead they only came away thinking how dumb the preacher was, and "if that is all there is to the gospels you can keep it."



It reminds me of the story about Flannery O'Connor who was having dinner with some posh writer folks in New York City and the hostess said she thought the Eucharist was 'a symbol'. Eventually one of the snobs said, "And what do you think about this Miss O'Connor?"  Flannery (who all evening had been intimidated and silent) said, "If it's only a symbol to hell with it."



This sort of platitudinous demythologizing is just about the most nauseating thing anybody can do with Christianity. It replaces the wine of the faith with Coke Zero--something sweet, but which doesn't have calories or caffeine and doesn't even quench your thirst properly. Explaining away the miraculous in religion actually changes it from being religion at all. Who wants a religion without the supernatural? Religion without the supernatural is just a set of table manners.



I don't care a button for a religion of good works and 'sharing'. I want full blooded miracles please. I want religion to be about the hope of heaven and the fear of hell and angels and demons and the glory of the saints. I want Padre Pio bi locating and St Theresa of Avila levitating and St Bernadette seeing the Blessed Virgin and then her body not corrupting. I want St Agnes dying for her virginity and Fr Jogues, who was granted a dispensation to celebrate the Mass with no fingers because they had been chopped off and eaten by the savage Iroquois Indians who he insisted on going all the way back across the Atlantic to minister to.



That's the sort of 'sharing' I'm in favor of, and all this sentimental clap trap about 'wasn't it wonderful that the little boy shared his peanut butter and jelly sandwich and so inspired everyone else to share their lunch too!" Makes me want to puke.

'Mere' or 'More' Christianity?

I wrote More Christianity as 'a friendly explanation of the Catholic faith for Evangelical Christians.' Of course, the title puns on C.S.Lewis' famous book Mere Christianity and does so in a way that is not just a smart aleck pun. The 'mere' in Lewis' title represents what he was trying to communicate: Lewis wanted to avoid denominational arguments and get down to the core of the Christian faith. He wanted to write a book to help people understand and accept the essence of Christianity.



In many ways this is a laudable approach and one which fits with the typical Protestant ecclesiology (although my more sarky friends say, " 'Protestant ecclesiology' is a contradiction in terms.") Be that as it may, the typical Protestant says that all denominations and congregations are provisional. They are a necessary aspect of Christianity that is man made and disposable. Thus Lewis wants to get past 'all that denominational stuff' to get down to the heart and soul of the Christian faith.



Whether such an enterprise is possible is debatable. After all, how can you have 'essential Christianity' without a church of some kind? The only way for this to be possible is for the core of Christianity to be an individualistic relationship with Jesus Christ. But is this the core experience of Christianity? No, because even if the personal relationship with Christ is vital, it cannot be mediated authentically to anyone outside the ministry of the Church.



In other words, the gospel has to be proclaimed from within the community of faith. As Catholics we uphold the truth that an essential part of the Christian experience are the sacraments and the steward and administrator of the sacraments is Christ himself working through his body the Church. However, even given the Protestant assumptions, one cannot even 'get saved' or 'accept Jesus into his heart' unless the gospel is preached and the invitation given from and through members of the Church. Evangelism cannot take place in a vacuum.



Therefore 'Mere Christianity' must include a church of some sort, and Lewis admits this in his introduction. He explains that becoming a Christian is rather like entering the hall of a large house, and then you have to choose which side room (or denomination) to belong to. I have always expanded that metaphor to say that becoming a Christian may be like entering an entrance hall, but becoming a Catholic is to find that the 'side room' you've chosen is the lobby of a great country mansion, and the next step is to go up the grand staircase and enter the mansion itself--with countless rooms full of splendid furniture, antiques, paintings and works of art--not to mention the sumptuous gardens and grounds...



So in More Christianity I wanted to challenge the Protestant minimalism and argue sweetly that 'Mere Christianity' is only okay as a starting point, and that we should not be content with 'Mere' when we can have 'More'. 'More Christianity' is, of course, the Catholic faith.



My argument in the book is essentially, "Why have 'mere' when you can have 'more and more and more' Christianity?" Therefore, in each chapter we go through some aspect of the faith like justification or sacraments or authority or the Bible or the saints or the Blessed Virgin Mary and show how Protestantism is minimalist and reductionist and Catholicism does not deny what good things Protestants affirm, it simply affirms much more that is Scriptural, Traditional and Historical about the faith.



More Christianity is available as part of the summer book sale. Why not purchase some copies for yourself and maybe a parish study group? It also makes an excellent gift for that non-Catholic family member or friend. Offer it to them and say, "This book helps explain Catholicism in a friendly way. Why not read it and see what you think?"



Click on the link in the blog sidebar to purchase, and remember the summer sale deal: $5.00 rebate on each first book purchase (or you can choose to have a free copy of my little book How to Be an Ordinary Hero) If you buy more than one book you get a $3.00 rebate on each additional book.



PS: The copies available from my website are the first edition--not the recent second edition published by Ignatius Press.

What's a Church For?

One of the basic principles of architecture is 'form follows function.' In other words, ask what a building is for and it you will know how it should be built. When you are building a garage or an office building or a hospital or a school things a fairly straightforward: a garage is to protect a car and store things in. An office building is a place where people work safely and efficiently. A hospital has to have everything necessary for the health care, treatment and comfort of its patients. That's easy enough.



But what is a church for? If we are being merely practical about it, a church is for people to gather for divine worship. Therefore the seating should be comfortable. Everyone should be able to see the altar and the pulpit. There should be a good sound system and adequate amenities like air conditioning, heating and toilets and cry rooms and bride rooms. However, is a church simply an auditorium? Many modern Protestant churches are built with this criteria. All that is required is a large, comfortable, efficient space for everyone to meet.



The Catholic tradition offers something greater. When we ask what a Catholic Church is for the answer is more than simply an auditorium. Within the Catholic tradition the Church building has more than a practical function. Therefore if 'form follows function' we have to ask what these other functions are for the Catholic Church and people.



A Catholic Church is first and foremost the temple of God. It is God's house. It is where the Divine Presence resides. It is not so much where we come to meet one another. It is where we all come to meet God. God is here and we come here to worship him. The fellowship we share and the community we build is part of our greater life together that flows from our worship of God in God's house.



If the Catholic Church is first and foremost God's temple--and not just an auditorium--then it's function is greater than the simple practical demands of good seating, a good sound system and practical amenities. Now the function of a Catholic Church becomes something harder to define and more difficult to put into a blueprint.



If the Catholic Church is God's house, then it should be worthy of the Divine Presence. It should speak to us of the dwelling place of God on earth and point us to the dwelling place of God in heaven. In fact, it should be a place called 'Bethel'. This is the place where Jacob saw the ladder into heaven with the angels going up and down. He cried out, "This is the very threshold of heaven and the doorstep of God!" In other words, a church should be so beautiful that it points our hearts and minds not only to the presence of God here, but to Holy of Holies in Heaven.



Furthermore, the church should speak of the qualities of the One who dwells there. So the Catholic Church should be beautiful. How do we make it beautiful? We can make it beautiful by putting pretty things in it, but this is only ornamentation. For a church to be truly beautiful it needs not just pretty things in it; it has to be beautiful from the depth of its design. The beauty can't be just skin deep. It has to be integral to the building as a whole. It has to be beautiful from the ground up and has to be designed from the beginning as a beautiful building.



How does one ensure that a building is beautiful at this deep level? This is not an easy question to answer, but the classical answer is that the dimensions and proportions of beauty were established by the architects of the classical world, and these beautiful proportions have come down to us through 2000 years of Christian tradition in architecture. Therefore, when the church is designed these classical proportions should be incorporated so that the essential design of the building at its very heart will be, in itself, beautiful. When we experience these classical proportions we feel the beauty of the design at a deep level in our souls.



Another function of this temple of God is that it should inspire feelings of wonder and awe. There should be a sense of spaciousness and grandeur--even in a small church--which lifts the heart and mind to heaven. These feelings of wonder and awe open the heart to the beauty which lies at the heart of the church, and at the very heart of God. These feelings prepare the soul for worship and help to bring the soul into the presence of God who dwells in this temple.



Another function of the Catholic Church is that it instructs. It is a 'sermon in stone'. It tells everyone who sees it, from the inside to the outside, certain truths about the Catholic faith--that the Catholic faith is beautiful and permanent and strong. That the Catholic faith has inner integrity and honesty and truth. All these things are deep, down impressions that register profoundly within the human heart and mind. The decoration of the church will also seek to instruct. We do not install stained glass and mosaics and wall paintings and carvings just to make it look pretty. All of these things reflect the beauty of God and the eloquent beauty of our Catholic faith.



Finally, the function of a Catholic Church is to connect the faithful with 'the great Tradition'. A traditionally conceived and constructed Catholic Church puts the worshiper within the great stream of tradition that stretches back two thousand years. In a traditionally minded church the modern day worshiper steps into the Catholic tradition and has his own modern concerns swallowed up in something far greater.



How do we build a traditional church, therefore, in the modern age? We follow the classical proportions when designing the church, and we try to establish an honest relationship between methods and materials.  Finally, we do this with materials that are contemporary to our place and time, and are therefore affordable and simple and strong.



When we do all these things together we should therefore produce a church which fulfills all the functions that we expect from a Catholic Church--not just the practical functions of sound system, seating, toilets and storage. Instead we will also fulfill the function stated by the unknown architect of Glastonbury Abbey in England in the Middle Ages, who said, "I want to build a church so beautiful that even the hardest heart will be inspired to pray."



Here's an article I wrote sometime ago which expands these thoughts further.

Summer Book Sale

It's time for the annual summer book sale.



All books are $5.00 off for my faithful blog readers, or if you  like, I'll include a free copy of my little book How to Be an Ordinary Hero.



Here's how it works. Go to my website (or click on the images of books on the right sidebar of the blog) and purchase the book you want, then pay the full price through PayPal. Add a note that you're taking advantage of the special summer book offer. Tell me whether you would like to have the $5.00 rebate or a copy of How to Be an Ordinary Hero. We will then put a rebate check for $5.00 in with your order or send you the extra free book.



If you purchase more than one book, you may receive a $3.00 rebate on each extra book you order.



Remember to say whether you would like the book signed or not. Happy Shopping!

Atheism and Schizophrenia

Jennifer Fulwiler comments here on the futility of reasoning with atheists. It's not because atheists are unreasonable or that they are dumb or that they are incapable of rational debate. It's because they are convinced of one underlying assumption which they are not allowed to question: that there is no God. She points out how many atheists' self identity is also wrapped up in this basic assumption, so to challenge this negative assumption is to challenge the foundations and therefore everything.



The similarity between this and madness is not lost on me. I enjoy discussing mental health issues with my friend Dr Richard, and late into the night he was explaining to me how those who are schizophrenic are not amenable to counseling. The root problem with schizophrenia is that the person who is suffering is experiencing a perception of reality that is incorrect, but which is coming to them through the channels of perception which they must trust, for those channels of perception communicate reality to them.



So, for example, let's say I am having hallucinations of a six foot rabbit named Harvey who talks to me. The part of the brain that normally receives information from the eyes and the ears has malfunctioned in some way and I really do, honestly 'see' and 'hear' a six foot rabbit named Harvey. That no one else can see it is their problem. For me this is reality for it has come to me through all the sense that I must trust for they cannot lie to me.



Apparently you can't reason a schizophrenic out of his belief. What he is seeing and hearing is 'real' to him. This is not to call all atheists schizophrenic, but the analogy is there--because in a similar way you cannot reason him out of his seemingly rock solid perception of reality: that there is no God.



The only thing that can change a schizophrenic is something that alters the chemicals in his brain back to the proper function again. Similarly, the only thing that can convert an atheist (or an agnostic or an unbeliever of any kind) is the divine light--revelation--grace--a supernatural gift which opens blind eyes.



The sad, sad problem is that even when we are given a huge infusion of grace and revelation we too often keep our eyes and hearts clamped closed as tight as can be, for we would rather have the darkness we know than the enlightenment we do not know. We would rather have the sickness we know than the healing we do not know.



Conversion requires courage. To be truly converted we have to launch out into the unknown. We have to leave Egypt and head into the wilderness. We have to step out of the boat and do some wave walking.

Finding Philip

At the recent exhibition of relics at Our Lady of the Rosary Church we had a fragment of the cloak of St Joseph, a piece of the Veil of Our Lady and the True Cross and a reliquary with relics of all twelve apostles.



Naturally the skeptics among us were musing, "Yes, but... the Veil of Our Lady? Come now. Let us be sensible. The relics of all twelve apostles? I'm dubious."



However, the more I think about the relics and their possible authenticity the more this old Protestant boy starts believing. Here is an article, for example, of the recent discovery of the tomb of St Philip in Turkey. Think about the timing. Let's say they really only started seriously collecting relics after Christianity was made legal, after the conversion of Constantine in 315.



In fact, documentary and archeological evidence shows that the early Christians venerated the bones of the martyrs far earlier than that, but let us say, for the sake of argument that they really only started to collect the relics after 315. The apostles all died by the end of the first century. That give us just over 200 years between the death of the apostles and the collection of their relics.



What happened in our time period two hundred years ago? That would be the year 1811. Why, we have lots of corporate memories, artifacts and information of the stuff that was important to us back then. If the early Christians retained the memory of where Peter was buried in Rome, would they not have also retained the memory of where the other apostles were buried? Wouldn't they have built shrines to the ones who walked with the Lord? I think they would have, and the traditions say they did.



Were those bones exhumed and relics taken? Were the relics treasured and authenticated and passed down even to our day? I don't see why not.

Flip Flops and Talk Show Hosts

Deacon Greg comments here about flip flops and tank tops at Mass. A local priest here in Greenville recently preached about this and made some interesting points--one of them being that the clergy dress up for Mass so why shouldn't the people? This led me to wonder what would happen if we rang the bell and the organ started in on the processional hymn and the clergy came sauntering up the aisle in shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, flip flops and shades. Happily, at Our Lady of the Rosary parish most people dress nicely for Mass.



It's a commonplace to blame the people for coming to Mass dressed for a cook out, but is it really all their fault? After all, the way Mass is celebrated is often so casual that it does seem more appropriate to wear fun summertime gear. If the priest has what I call a 'game show host' approach to celebrating the liturgy, no wonder the people come dressed down. If Father Johnny Carson says, "The Lord be With  You, say how're y'all doing this morning? Have you heard the one about the fellow who hadn't been to confession for fifty years..." You get the idea. If the priest celebrates the Mass with dignity and beauty and a sense of solemnity the people will soon respond in the way they come to Mass.



If the music at Mass is a some sort of secular style of music with 'spiritual' words, no wonder the people dress as if they're at a pop concert. Music that is of the style of a Broadway musical, or a country western jamboree or a rock concert or a folk song singalong will produce the behavior and dress that is appropriate. Sacred music, on the other hand, might just start to produce modest and sensible apparel and reverent behavior



This is not meant to be a rant against AmChurch churches with all their attendant, sweet and comfortable heresies. Instead it is a plea to all our people. We deserve better than this don't we? Can't we improve on what we're doing at Mass? Even just a little?

Why Liturgy?

In my Evangelical youth the Protestants would criticize liturgical forms of prayers saying, "You can't have a real realtionship with Jesus if you just read prayers out of a book. You need to have a heart's love for Jesus and speak to him in your own words. All that formal stuff is just 'vain repetition.'"





There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, it is a negative criticism based on ignorance. You don't like a particular thing so you assume the thing you do like is unavailable and then blast away. So, for example, you go to a burger bar, but you want a toasted cheese sandwich. You then blast the burger bar for not having toasted cheese sandwiches because they have burgers. But if you stopped and asked it just might be that they do have toasted cheese sandwiches on the menu. You end up blasting away without knowing what you're talking about.





In fact, the Catholic Church encourages a 'heart to heart' relationship with Jesus. The saints talked quite happily with Jesus and Mary and their patron saints, and most forms of Catholic spirituality encourage the heart's true devotion to Christ in an intimate way. It's just that we have liturgy too. Once again the Protestants are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. Right in affirming heart to heart prayer--wrong in denying liturgy.





So what do we get out of liturgy? First of all, we're using the words of worship that the Church gives us. As we do, we use the same words used by a billion Catholics worldwide. This unison in words of liturgy brings unity of heart and mind at a very deep level. Furthermore, not only are we sharing the words of a billion Catholics worldwide, we are also using the same words with our brothers and sisters down the ages at all times and in all places for the last two thousand years. When you think about the reality of this is is breath taking in its beauty and depth.





Also, using the words that the Church gives us helps our ordinary prayers to transcend our ordinary lives. It's kind of like writing a love letter to your beloved, but you also include a sonnet by Shakespeare. Shakespeare expresses your feelings in a much more exalted and beautiful way than you are able. So it is with liturgy. We use the words of worship given to us by the Church and this lifts our prayer to a higher level.



Finally, when I pray using the words of the liturgy my prayer becomes something greater than I was capable of on my own. I am using the words of Scripture I didn't know myself. I am praying through the doctrines and mysteries that I only partially understand on my own. I am entering into new and deeper dimensions of my faith that, on my own, I was only partially able to glimpse.The new translation of the liturgy will help all these aspects to come alive for us in a new way, and I for one, am looking forward to the change.

Creepy and Disturbing

I learned over the weekend that the Norwegian assassin/terrorist actually read my blog.



Here's how it happened: On Saturday I noticed a surge in my hits. When I checked the referral I saw that they were coming from a Norwegian website that Anders Breivik had been contributing to, and that in November 2009 he linked to one of my posts.



The post was one of my usual rants about modernist Christianity, and when I later saw a translation of Breivik's comments about my post it was nothing extreme or weird in itself.



Nevertheless, to think that my blog is out there as part of this new global publishing phenomenon and that anybody at all can read it is always amazing. To think that this madman read at least one post on my blog was disturbing at first. Naturally I wondered if I had written anything to prompt such hatred and violence.



I don't think I have. Still, I was creeped out by it. Breivik is clearly both mad and bad, and I guess all we can do in the face of such horror is be silent and pray.

Dissenting Priests

This article from the New York Times trumpets the news that Catholic priests worldwide are rebelling against Vatican teaching forbidding women from being ordained. Guess what? The 'rebellion' consists of about 150 priests in the US and about 300 in Austria and some in Australia. Errr, that would be what percentage of the 400-500,000 priests worldwide? I'm sure the Vatican is extremely worried.



The galling thing about this push for women priests is that it comes from the very men who have been engineering an artificial crisis in the priesthood for the last few decades. When I was in England I visited different parishes every weekend and hob nobbed with the priests. They told me how bishops and seminary rectors would regularly reject young men because they were 'rigid' (code for orthodox) My own bishop rejected all convert clergy from the Church of England--even the celibates. Others spoke of how 'England had too many priests' and compared the situation to Peru where one priest covers a territory the size of Scotland and the 'core communities' are governed by the people with a 'catechist' in charge. They thought this was a wonderful thing and wanted to move their own dioceses to that 'model of ministry'.



Why was that?  So that by engineering a crisis in vocations they hoped to force Rome to sanction the ordination of married men and women. I wish I were exaggerating, but they told me this themselves. What they wanted was a 'priest's house' for six or seven priests to live together and serve a whole deanery and the parishes would be led by 'lay catechists' who (of course) would be male or female. The lay catechists would determine the wishes of the people of God democratically and tell the priest what to do. In other words, "If Rome won't let us have women priests we'd rather have no priests at all."



I always found this hilarious and terrifying. The Bishops and high ranking clergy who thought this was so wonderful obviously had no experience of Protestant congregationalism with its in fighting, bickering and power struggles amongst the laity. Furthermore, they had no plan for how these lay leaders would be educated and trained, much less paid.



Finally, they had no clue how the whole thing could backfire against their own liberal ideals. What would they do when St. Hilda's parish was taken over by 'lay leadership' who turned out to be members of some exclusive new ecclesial movement? What would happen when the 'lay leadership' turned out to be a group of Duane Mandible-like Latin Mass conspiracy nuts? What would happen when a the local charismatic ladies took over? You wanted lay women to be leaders. Did you really want that sort of lay woman? How would they get rid of them? Had they any recourse in canon law? Did any of these lay people take vows of obedience to their bishop?



It's a nightmare scenario and the (now aging) seventies priests and bishops are sleep walking into it with blissful expressions on their faces singing Kumbayah.