Hitchhiker's Guide to Humility
I had a great talk with a friend recently, a member of the American Orthodox Church. Since I'm an evangelical, naturally we started to beat up on the Catholics, in absentia. More on that later, but out of the conversation came a religious concept I'd never really heard before: the Eighth Day. This is an Orthodox view of all of history that reduces it to a single phase of God's work, not unlike the seven days prior. It emphasizes the intimate relationship of such events as Noah's flood and Christ's blood because these events all happened, in effect, on the same day. Christ's birth and my salvation: same day. Christ's horrific death happened virtually simultaneously with my last batch of sins. It is the mystical order of the world that we simply convert to the mundane by the narrow time-shackled view afforded by our senses.
Coincidentally, I'd been thinking a lot about a story by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges titled "The Aleph." The Aleph is a spot where all of time and space converges and all can be experienced by the senses. All Borges' works have a kind of equatorial Zen quality to them, shaking deeply buried associations out of the past, and this Eighth Day concept seemed to ring a similar set of neurons in me.
Then I realized another cultural event had reminded me of the Aleph. When the movie remake of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy came out recently, I was moved to review the far superior BBC TV version. It was there I rediscovered Douglas Adams's concept of the perfect galactic punishment: being tossed into the "total perspective vortex," where one's ego is confronted by the actual relationship of an individual, in size and importance, to the whole of creation.
Finally, I had just finished reading a great memoir by David Horowitz titled "Radical Son." Horowitz, now a Neocon, was raised in an intellectual family of Commies. He set forth as his life work to write the perfect defense of Marxism as the solution to the problems of the world. At a certain point, after his faith in the Communist faith had been shaken by numerous events, he walked into a book store and realized that the place of the shelf where his life's work would go was just one small section of one shelf of the Political Science stacks. Competing views of the world by brilliant minds argued silently from every nook and cranny of the store. His epiphany was humbling, as all real epiphanies are.
In my own hubris, I'd planned to try to knit all these concepts together into some kind of seamless whole, but I realized that this would wind up taking an entire book, that would then sit on one small shelf of one bookstore (probably in the remainder bin). I still may try, but I thought I'd toss it out here on Detente for comment. And to tick off Ernesto by alluding to the arguments against Catholicism that were discussed over coffee when he wasn't there to spar.
Coincidentally, I'd been thinking a lot about a story by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges titled "The Aleph." The Aleph is a spot where all of time and space converges and all can be experienced by the senses. All Borges' works have a kind of equatorial Zen quality to them, shaking deeply buried associations out of the past, and this Eighth Day concept seemed to ring a similar set of neurons in me.
Then I realized another cultural event had reminded me of the Aleph. When the movie remake of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy came out recently, I was moved to review the far superior BBC TV version. It was there I rediscovered Douglas Adams's concept of the perfect galactic punishment: being tossed into the "total perspective vortex," where one's ego is confronted by the actual relationship of an individual, in size and importance, to the whole of creation.
Finally, I had just finished reading a great memoir by David Horowitz titled "Radical Son." Horowitz, now a Neocon, was raised in an intellectual family of Commies. He set forth as his life work to write the perfect defense of Marxism as the solution to the problems of the world. At a certain point, after his faith in the Communist faith had been shaken by numerous events, he walked into a book store and realized that the place of the shelf where his life's work would go was just one small section of one shelf of the Political Science stacks. Competing views of the world by brilliant minds argued silently from every nook and cranny of the store. His epiphany was humbling, as all real epiphanies are.
In my own hubris, I'd planned to try to knit all these concepts together into some kind of seamless whole, but I realized that this would wind up taking an entire book, that would then sit on one small shelf of one bookstore (probably in the remainder bin). I still may try, but I thought I'd toss it out here on Detente for comment. And to tick off Ernesto by alluding to the arguments against Catholicism that were discussed over coffee when he wasn't there to spar.
posted by Rick Broussard at 2:05 PM
10 Comments:
Just for grins, what are your arguments against Catholicism?
Likely really all arguments against misconceptions of Catholicism! ;>
On the humility concept: I had an aleph-like moment in college, when I was studying a lot, partying a lot, sleeping not very much, and really had all this amazing stuff rampaging around my imagination. I was a tutor for a class on James Joyce's Ulysses. Early one dark winter evening I was in a classroom, waiting to see if any of my students were going to show up, when I was slammed by this gut knowing that everything I was studying was connected (which I'd sort of thought before, but never felt). From Rabelais to astronomy to oil painting, I thought I could, for an instant, see how every single piece fit together to make up this all encompassing story before which I felt both infinitely small and infinitely large. Then it went away, no students showed up, and I went for drinks.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure what I'm describing is related to the concept Rick described or the process of his arriving at that concept.
I don't suppose I argue *against* Catholicism so much as *for* a less hierarchical and rule-oriented spiritual life. My Orthodox friend, cited in the post, has said the difference between Protestants (as he characterizes me) and Catholics is that Catholics have one Pope and we have millions of them. I think this may be a fair statement. I was born again just over 20 years ago and my early Christian life was in the South where fundamentalism is in the water. Many of my friends and even some mentors in the faith viewed Catholics as members of the world's largest cult. I was pretty impressionable as I emerged from my pagan past into a relationship with God in Christ, but I never felt judgmental of Catholics. I did accumulate a number of criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, the typical ones that evangelicals cite. I've overcome most of the prejudices and now my argument is basically with the nature of the church. The Catholic view is that the Catholic Church and the catholic church are the same thing. I believe that the universal church is an invisible structure, defined and preserved by the Holy Spirit and nourished by scripture. The Catholics and other apostolic, liturgical groups are parts of the body of Christ. So are fundamentalists and charismatics and Baptists. Doctrine is important, but defined or extracted from scripture by mortals and therefore imperfect. Within these organizations there are the saved and the unsaved, functioning alongside one another. There is such a thing as true doctrine, but no one has it all right. Those groups that are more right tend to have more of the saved in their ranks (Christ's sheep recognize his voice) but even those with wrong doctrines might have some true believers in their midst. God is able to work with the whole mess to achieve his purposes and to bring about his kingdom. This is a pretty sloppy job of answering your question, but it characterizes my beliefs, even though I'm not sure I can intellectually defend everything I just jotted down. But I'm willing to try, if you want me to elaborate.
By the way, here's a cool link to a short Flash movie dedicated to Borges's "The Aleph." It captures the spirit of the story and enough of the content to be a primer.
http://www.e-merl.com/aleph.htm
Guys, I love the blog. Richard, I think you should keep having epiphanies and discussing your questions about Catholicism, until you finally become a Catholic :-).
Thanks for the candid response Rick. And wow, deja vu all over again. I also became a disciple of Christ 20 years ago in the South. And I am still here! And you are right Fundamentalism is in the soil. Salt of the earth folks tho. Just don't talk religion.
I have spent my whole Christian life in these waters, mainly in an Evangelical stream.
Due to my role in a burgeoning home group/church, I was forced to consider the question: What is the Church? Which of course involves the nature of the church.
I have spent the past 18 months studying this question 2-3 hours a day.
I would like to flesh out a couple of points you make and one that you have yet to make. ;)
1. One of the pillars of the Reformers was sola Scriptura. Would you say you subscribe to their understanding of the Scripture as the only source of truth regarding matters of faith?
2. You wrote, "I believe that the universal church is an invisible structure, defined and preserved by the Holy Spirit and nourished by scripture". In light of Scripture (or?) how do you come by that understanding?
3. "The Catholic view is that the Catholic Church and the catholic church are the same thing."
Would you say this means the Catholic view is that those who are not Catholic are not in the 'catholic church'?
Regards
1. No. Scripture and the Church (in the sense of authority and experience handed down and in the sense of one brother advising another brother) both assist the seeker of truth, as does the Holy Spirit. And since "the Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork," creation itself is a source of truth regarding matters of faith.
2. Not sure I can answer this one without some notes. I do think that I can corroborate this idea with scripture, but it also just flows logically from the nature of Christ's ministry. He sent people out with just the clothes on their backs, not vestments, uniforms or tool kits. He built no buildings, except rebuilding the temple of his own body. The Spirit is invisible and is the presence of God with us. The nourishment of scripture makes sense as well. It's something that doesn't change amidst a world of changes so there's always a template to go back to. It sets forth ideal standards, beyond our grasp, so there's no way that we can be done with it and move on. It is sufficient. Lies, no matter how cleverly they are wound up, are doomed to fizzle out at some point. Truth is alive and infinitely divisible. My experience is that the Bible never stops giving new insights yet I appreciate the focus, checks and balances provided by church and individual authority.
3. I would assume that the Catholic Church defines itself as "all Christians everywhere," and then sets forth standards and rules which position individuals in relationships inside and outside itself. I agree that the church is the sum of all Christians everywhere forming a body with Christ as the head. I take exception to some of the rules and standards that the Catholic Church sets forth for one's position within the body of Christ. But I have no real beef with those who accept, say, the papacy and the priesthood. I see them as the cells of a certain kind of organ within the body that needs liturgical and ecclesiastical hardwiring to operate. If the Pope has just as benign and wistful a view of people of think as I do, then call me a Catholic.
Lovely response, Rick. Nicely put. That's why I think I can keep having nearly the same arguments with you over and over again and always enjoy them so much! I'm sensing some comparison to British and American English seeping up here, but I'm going to suppress it for the moment.
Fair enough Rick, thanks.
Before going further I wonder if I could back up and get you to expound on one of your statements above.
"Doctrine is important, but defined or extracted from scripture by mortals and therefore imperfect."
How is doctrine important?
What would you mean by imperfect?
Regards
Doctrine is an agreed-upon set of rules. For collaborative work or play, a group has to agree, in principle to the rules. You can work and play with people who disagree with some of your rules, but when they disagree with many of them there is a breakdown, sometimes competitive, sometimes worse.
For work to be meaningful or successful the rules have to describe reality to some degree. The greater they accord with what is, the more useful they are.
The rules of the holy life, i.e. getting along with God, are probably no simpler than the rules of life, i.e. getting along with neighbors and co-workers. If they were simple, I'd imagine that there would be some kind of outline in the Bible. Of course, there is, but the commandments of God and the Great Command of Christ are not exactly simple when you start to put them into practice. And no church, to my knowledge, has ever let well enough alone and said that those definitive statements are all the doctrine we need.
Doctrine is imperfect because people tend to group with others who think like they do and then they tend to shape their understanding of God's word into rules and priorities based upon shared values, aspirations and prejudices.
Post a Comment
<< Home