Rock Island, IL
Lawn signs around town advertising an event called the “Easter Experience,” to be held in the local multi-purpose arena, have me scouring the cabinets for my Emergency Cyanide Kit.
The event is “free.” There will be child care available for anyone who wants to watch the show. It will feature guest musicians–very contemporary and up-to-date people–and a special appearance by an ex-professional athlete.
No official word on whether the ten virgins will be in attendance with their lamps and oil.
And it is not clear to me whether this sacred space (once called “The Mark of the Quad Cities,” now the “iWireless Center”) will have been decontaminated after hosting its most recent rock concert —or exorcised, if you prefer—but I doubt the event staff will remove the banners for the arena football and hockey teams or the ads for all the radio stations that hang therein. These holy ornaments will stare down solemnly on the rolled stone just as they did the night before on the Rolling Stones or Miley Cyrus or the Mighty Ducks.
Let’s hope the sepulchral stone doesn’t start rolling out of control and kill someone, because you’re always reading about how this or that Today-Show-style Krustian cherch lost someone due to a harness malfunction or a technical failure in the crucifixion scene. It seems a wire is always snapping, and next thing you know the cross on the left tips over on Criminal Number One and kills him prematurely, when everyone knows he’s supposed to die slowly like the rest of the thieves, murderers, and redeemers.
The wife of the guy squashed beneath the rolling stone is likely to think that resurrecting a Lord at the cost of a flattening a husband is too high a price for any Eester Experience, even if the event is free, the concessions stands are open, and the guy’s slice of pepperoni pizza is only half gone.
Let’s not just hope this doesn’t happen. Let’s pray it doesn’t. Let’s pray for that stone. Let’s bind it in Jesus’ holy name. Stone! I bind you! I bind you, stone! Don’t roll too far from the tomb, stone! Don’t kill that woman’s husband—that one, there, with his cap on backwards!
Beg your pardon. This sometimes happens. But you know it is written: ‘Zeal for thy arena shall consume me.’
Now I’ve looked into this Easter Experience a little, because I’m never quite depressed enough, and it’s pretty clear that the entertainment value of the ELO Resurrection Show will be high, which isn’t surprising. Krustianity has fully accommodated itself to the age of entertainment. It’s deep in the entertainment business. It’s a variety show, really. It moves expertly from one thing to the next, and no one is ever abandoned to his own thoughts or meditations. The pacing is impeccable, the stimuli unceasing.
But like a variety show it never goes anywhere, never proceeds toward a mystery, never takes anyone deeper in or higher up. This dog chases its tail. Add animals or beer and you might think you’re at the circus or a sports bar. Feelin’ good in the neighborhood. Check, please. Yes, everything was fine. No, we’re stuffed.
Having eaten nothing.
I once heard someone unaccustomed to anything other than high-energy fast-moving Krustian wership pronounce a Catholic ordination service he happened to attend “boring.”
And I once invited a Chercher friend to attend a Divine Liturgy with me. I gave him a copy of the liturgy ahead of time. He leafed through it and said, “that looks like work!”—and he wasn’t even a particularly ironic fellow.
These two brief episodes, separated, I suppose, by something like twenty years, provide a decent commentary on Krustianity today [note to self: start a new satirical magazine]: wholly given over to the structures and demands of entertainment, it requires nothing in the way of work or effort. There is no preparation involved, no motion involved, no movement of the soul toward something. It’s great purpose is to keep everyone’s attention right till the end.
Flannery O’Connor didn’t live to see arena Krustianity, but she had a name for its precursor: “do-it-yourself religion.” Make it up as you go along.
Yes indeed. It’s beginning to look a lot like Eester around here. The cherches not ordinarily given to pomp and circumstance are getting all pompy and circumstancy, and when that happens it’s time to get nervous.
Their allure is considerable, their unsuspecting victims almost defenseless. The Pharisees said among themselves, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after him.”
After seeing so many yard signs advertising the Eester Experience (free, don’t forget), I think I know how they felt.
Related posts:
- Power Made Perfect in Weakness If we expect others to rely on our fairness and...
- Wendell Berry on the Old Victrola Wendell Berry will appear on this morning’s Diane Rehm Show....
- Scary Story Next time your kids ask you to tell them a...
- A Discourse Concerning Stone-Cutters and Yellowbellies St Louis, MO… Was the Son of Man reneging on...
- B Movies–in Black and White No, not the tune by the Fabulous Poodles, but rather...
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
“Zeal for thy arena shall consume me” – Funny and on target.
As they express it so eloquently in twitter-land, ROFLOL.
As someone who is familiar with the Krustian Kult I find your critique spot-on and quite amusing. However, as ridiculous as the Krustian Kult it is, I can’t say Catholicism is any better. Do you really think it is a divine requirement that dim-witted humans wade through a Divine Liturgy to commune with his body? Perhaps it suits your IQ and tastes, but most people I know are a tad simpler. And if I remember correctly, Jesus got on well with the simple folk. It was those high and mighty religious types he saved his wrath for.
I’m a huge fan Peters, but you’ve kind of covered this tawdry, slightly comical ground already. You’re just starting to sound more like a bitter crank than a bemused wit.
I share the objection to the confusion nowadays between “worship” and “entertainment”. I’m not sure though that all such ventures are purely entertainment. I grew up in a small city – 6 Catholic parishes – 2 of which were German in their origins. The two German parishes both put on Passion Plays during the Lenten season, two performances every Saturday. The plays required virtually the entire parish volunteering to put these productions on. And of course every Lent Grandma took my sisters and I to see them. I recall also that clapping was discouraged and the players did not do curtain calls or any such thing. I have to say that the response of the audience to these productions (which occurred in the Church auditoriums and did not feature refreshments) was solemn and respectful. These productions were always sold out and it did seem like they created an opportunity for people to reflect on the real meaning of the Passion of Christ. I concede there may be a huge difference between these Passion Plays which of course are based on traditions which go back to the Middle Ages and were brought here by German immigrants versus an arena show. The Passion Plays are following a very formalized tradition and biblical script and do not feature singing or advertisements for the local hockey team. So I do think it is possible for these re-enactments of the Passion – if done in a proper setting and with a solemn and respectful audience – to promote worship as opposed to simply being family entertainment feel good fare.
Of course part of the problem may be that no matter what the intention of those who put such performances on the audience nowadays approaches everything with the expectation that they will be entertained and amused so the intention of the producers is perverted by the audience expectations.
Since I am an outsider, or at best a guest who is tolerated here on the Porch, I know no explanation is owed to me, but I, having read three of these Krustianity pieces, find myself wondering thricely, why are these criticisms of a particular branch of Evangelicalism even found here? Again, it’s your porch, and you can dump what you want on it, but it just doesn’t seem strategically wise. But then what do I know, I recently attended a Baptist church’s production of a passion play with nary a vestment nor icon in sight, and I rather appreciated it. To confess my holy-sappiness it nearly brought me to tears, and and I don’t cry easily. I found that it clearly did go somewhere, and pointed to something much deeper and higher—I suspect that the program Mr. Peter’s so ardently criticizes does, as well. As to the question I’ll come back to it.
I’m not sure whether I was more tolerant when I read Mr. Peters’ piece about Easter-in-the-arena than I had been when I read his previous screeds about Krustianity and Krustmas, or whether he was kinder and maybe wiser when he wrote this one. Whatever, I found this one less offensive than previous pieces. (If your intention, Jason, was to continue to offend at your previous high foul-water mark, I hope this doesn’t disappoint you too badly. It could be my fault.) I thought he was more careful to aim his comments at a particular kind of Evangelical expression, rather than paint the whole movement with a broad—though Orthodox—brush. Actually, I was, in a way, disappointed in this piece. It lacked the “Pick up anything you can find—SUV, Halloween Pumpkin, cup of coffee (good coffee though), misconceptions about Evangelical ignorance—and throw it at the unholy, non-liturgical rascals” exuberance that the last two pieces contained. If it is an olive twig, I offer thanks. If it represents some decline in Mr. Peters’ obvious ability with words, I am truly sorry. Sometimes his prodigious talents are directed productively and I would hate to see them diminished
From a guy who has been doing church for nearly four decades, I’ll tell you it is tough. Churches of various traditions are finding it difficult to communicate faith in the Bible to a younger generation of Postmodern Post-Christians. This is reflected in this article I found on a website identified with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:
“As the visible presence of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, each Orthodox Christian parish is called to witness to those within and those outside the community of believers. If we believe that in Orthodoxy we have the fullness of the Truth, then we have the great responsibility to share it with all people.” (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/outreach/greatlent) I certainly agree with the sentiment that followers of Christ have a responsibility to share the Truth.
The article goes on to point out that Easter is a prime time for churches to reach out to “people on the fringes of our communities.” An order form is included for churches to order a “3 x 6 or 4 x 8 foot Outdoor LENTEN WELCOME BANNER.” Among other ideas for outreach are these: (BTW: Maybe the Orthodox churches in Mr. Peter’s area could hang their banners over the offending signs in the arena. It would be an act of Christian kindness, as well as good advertizing.)
Orthodox churches are encouraged to:
• Prepare to reach out to visitors.
• Plan a series of messages on a “compelling topic.”
• Schedule a special event or guest speaker “which will draw people back to the church.” (I didn’t find anything in this article, but somewhere there must be a list of qualifications for these guest speakers that would prevent one from inviting a former baseball pitcher, no matter how compelling his story of faith.
Communicating the Gospel to people who don’t get it—even before that, getting people to listen to the story—is tough. In my estimation it is getting harder. So, while I certainly don’t approve of all the methods that folk use to get a hearing, I am more sympathetic than the average English teacher. I look at the way the Apostle Paul struggled to make meaningful contact with people of various cultures, 1 Corinthians 9:19-27, and I figure the Lord espects me to do some stretching in that direction, myself. Granted, I live and minister in a small declining community (One that could use the kind of invigoration spoken about in other articles on FPR.) Our population has been in decline for forty years, and for the most part, so have churches. Around here the healthiest congregations are not much like the ones Mr. Peters longs for. Right Theology is not established by popular vote, but if the Bible rather than the Bible and tradition are used as a guide for what right Theology is, there is a considerable overlap between the churches that are doing the best in head count, and those with the most passion for communicating the message of Scripture.
In the past, when a large portion of the population could not read, some churches chose to use paintings, icons, as a means of visually communicating the story of redemption to the illiterate. I could make jokes about people breathing the fumes from the paint, but I’ll resist. At different points in history movements have arisen which found icons to be an inappropriate expression of Christianity. Had websites like this one existed, I have no doubt that these iconoclasts would have posted powerful articles. These movements arose both within the Orthodox branch of Christendom, and from the outside. These controversies have not been limited to that portion of Christendom, either. Of course there is the disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches as to whether images can be 3-D or only flat, or base-relief. Luther at some points in his career discouraged the use of images while at other times he made use of them. I read one report that Luther was not so much opposed to the use of images because he feared image-worship, but because he objected to the cost of these works of art. He came down in opposition to the iconoclasts associated with his movement, and commissioned art in the Bibles that were produced under his leadership. Churches that use images have had to draw some lines. When it comes to icons, veneration, as I understand it is acceptable, worship is not. Even among the Fundamentalists there is a version of the argument. Some find pictures of Jesus acceptable; others claim it violates the second commandment.
The Gospel of Christ does not need to be made relevant. It already is. Getting people to recognize its applicability to their needs is a challenge. I don’t know what will go on in the program that Mr. Peters refers to in his article. I don’t know whether I agree with the program or not. Bottom line, though, what this church in Peters’ neighborhood is doing is not all that different than what his spiritual ancestors did when they put the first paintings in their houses of worship. “How can we get the message to these people who don’t know, don’t know they don’t know, and in some cases don’t care that they don’t know? And, how can we inspire them to a closer walk with the Lord?
I’m not an apologist for Dave Dravecky, the retired professional athlete to whom Mr. Peters refers. I did hear him speak, however, at a men’s conference. The Bible content of his presentation outweighed the baseball by something like ten to one. His is a story of being broken, and finding that life—the kind of life the Bible recommends–in the final analysis consists not in one’s ability to pitch a baseball, skillfully preach a sermon, or eloquently write a piece for a popular website (He didn’t put it that way exactly.) but in entering into a life-changing relationship with the Risen Lord. I’m not normally referred to as, “Your All Holiness,” “Your Beatitude,” or, “Your Excellency,” but in my humble opinion Dave Dravecky’s story is far more appropriate to Easter than the retelling of a tired tale about a bridge-keeper who sacrificed his son to save the people in the approaching train. “How,” you wonder, “did the keeper of the draw-bridge get into this article?” I’m glad you asked. The Bridge-keeper story is offered as a “Holy Friday Reflection,” on the website referenced above. It is a nice tear-jerking story, true only in the sense that any good parable is true, but useful to a point in getting people who aren’t interested to pay attention to something that they desperately need to hear. I’m certainly not going to condemn or make fun of someone who uses the story—though, I think they could do better. Likely, the story is offered on the website mentioned above, and will be used by some day-after-tomorrow for a very good reason—the same reason that the church doing the special service in the arena has invited a musical group to share their songs. They want to communicate Truth, and as the farmer said about training mules, right after he hit one in the head with a 2×4, “First, you got to get their attention.”
Not everything is an acceptable attention-getter when it comes to doing the Lord’s business, but my tastes nor Mr. Peters are the standard. As the iconoclastic conflicts of the past, and disputes in just about every branch of Christianity today would indicate, it is a discussion that is ongoing—a discussion that is more likely to be profitable if it is pursued over a cup of coffee, rather than while dodging and throwing ecclesiastical molotovs—whether they are filled with sanctified olive-oil from the trees planted on Sinai and tended by monks, or with French-fry grease from the last church supper. (Not to be confused with THE Last Supper. I do know the difference.)
Back to the question I deferred. Maybe I’m all together wrong here, but I see the DNA of FPR including a suspicion of big-government “solutions,” a desire for the preservation of true neighborhood and valuable tradition, a respect for God’s creation, self-reliance (or reliance on those nearby, rather than those in Washington, a knowledge that people need something spiritual—dare I say, Christian–plus an appreciation for good thought and writing. I just don’t see Mr. Peters’ harsh criticisms of a group of people who share many of those values as being particularly productive—that is if the Porch plans to be anything other than a very small porch. Just a thought, but it may be that you are unnecessarily running off some allies.
But, as I said, you folk are kind enough to let me stop in from time to time, lean back and listen to some good conversation, and you are even kind enough to allow me to think that you listen to me from time to time. I figure I’ve about worn out my welcome. I’m going to go upstairs and see if I can get some coffee in the church kitchen—no Starbucks, but I do have a bag of some Honduran roasted by a missionary friend of mine–and then I need to set up chairs for our Easter Show. No ex-Major Leaguer, but maybe a gal who shut-out the last USA National Softball team will be with us. Maybe I’ll make her sit in the overflow, so no one will know.
Howard, don’t apologize.
And I don’t care how he spells it, anyone who thinks Christianity in toto ain’t the greatest vaudeville act on earth has misplaced his 3D glasses under the couch cushion. Peters’ performance is an admirable contribution to the endless show.
O ma Gawd! Usin’ spektickle and multi-purpose spaces fer to talk about relijun! How hideous!
Okay, I laughed really hard at this: “Let’s not just hope this doesn’t happen. Let’s pray it doesn’t. Let’s pray for that stone. Let’s bind it in Jesus’ holy name. Stone! I bind you! I bind you, stone! Don’t roll too far from the tomb, stone! Don’t kill that woman’s husband—that one, there, with his cap on backwards!”
And while I agree with much of what you’re criticizing, I am a little incredulous about your glass-house-rock-throwing wholesale dismissal of all low-church Protestants based on their poor taste, awful awful music, big-box architecture, and all-around low culture…
As crappy and embarrassing as those things are (and being an Anglican from an evangelical background, I would know), I feel there’s much more reasonable ground for wholesale dismissal of:
(a) the Catholic Church, because of, you know, the whole international pedophilia conspiracy business… the revelation that, while Pope Benedict has been very admirable in his response to the crisis, Joseph Ratzinger… not so much. The Easter Experience might be embarrassing, but if that’s grounds for demotion to Krustianity, what do you do about an organization whose upper hierarchy all but endorsed child rape, molestation, and abuse?
(b) the Anglican Communion, because of, you know, flat-out embrace of homosexuality and/or failure to make any kind of stand regarding what Scripture and tradition resoundingly say; an openly, unrepentant, non-celibate gay bishop; Muslim and Hindu bishops; and so forth.
(c) the Orthodox Catholic Church, because of, you know, the whole KGB infiltration; various levels of terrorism in Greece and elsewhere; saints who are saints basically because they liked their booze and military success; general failures in various places at various times to distinguish between religion and nationalism (okay that last one goes for Catholicism too).
Granted, I don’t actually believe that any of the above listed things are grounds for dismissal of Catholicism, Anglicanism, or Eastern Orthodoxy… but they sure seem like a more cutting indictment than the Easter Experience…
I don’t think Jason is trashing ALL low-church Protestantism; I certainly don’t and I was raised in it. It is the shallow kitschy-spectacle type that he’s nailing, and deservedly so.
For a look at a decidedly NON-shallow, NON-kitschy expression of low church Protestantism, watch the absolutely wonderful DVD film of which this is the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHUfHNEZDPc
As an Orthodox convert, I will say that if in our churches we sang our hymns with half this joy and expressiveness, we’d have a hell of a lot more bums in our pews (if you have pews.)
By the way, all Front Porchers should watch this film, if only to see how transmission of a cultural tradition works in practice: passing the tradition along to the younger generation while at the same time honoring those who’ve gone before. Watch it — it is powerful and moving, and you won’t regret it.
Hey! I totally saw Styx rock the Mark (none of this iWireless mumbo-jumbo) when I was in middle school. And I’m only 21, which means that they were OLD. And around these parts I probably shouldn’t even mention the Christmas concert I attended there by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra…..
Mr. Perkins,
It strikes me that the entitled-to-entertainment mentality makes ‘Krustianity’ especially as represented by the ‘Eester Experience’ utterly impossible for a sober-minded fellow to take seriously.
Leaning Orthodox as I do, I think one ought to be able to take the Faith (whichever one thinks it might be) seriously.
Of course, this might also eliminate the silliness of the ‘Episcopagans’ and the ‘AmCherch Cathies,’ as well as some of the ridiculousness in some American Orthodox churches…
JLB
Personally I don’t think that it is all low church Protestantism that is being attacked but a very tacky and dubious version of it. Now as a Christian Perennialism I see certain low church varieties such as traditional evangelical Lutheranism and non-calvinist versions of low church Anglican as perfectly valid, if not exhaustive, extensions of certain possibilities inherent in the Christian archetype but there many criticisms to be made of a lot of low church Protestantism anyway where it deviates from traditional Christianity and the Christian tradition and therefore revelation.
But on the other hand even Jehovah’s witnesses let alone Krustianity or Calvinists are a hell of a lot better than the secularists, agnostics and atheists and I do envy the amount of serious Christians, of all varieties, that the US has compared to Britain and the level of respect Christianity still commands in popular culture there.
Jordan wrote:
“As someone who is familiar with the Krustian Kult I find your critique spot-on and quite amusing. However, as ridiculous as the Krustian Kult it is, I can’t say Catholicism is any better. Do you really think it is a divine requirement that dim-witted humans wade through a Divine Liturgy to commune with his body? ”
This doesn’t make much sense. It is really apples and oranges to compare the intellectual and ritual elaborations of the RCC to the modernist, consumerist ideal that Jason is talking about.
“Perhaps it suits your IQ and tastes, but most people I know are a tad simpler. And if I remember correctly, Jesus got on well with the simple folk. It was those high and mighty religious types he saved his wrath for.”
Actually it was the high and mighty legalistic types he had a problem with; those who preached form without content rahther than any who preached form.
Wessexman,
I see your point, but what interests me more are the inanities of all doctrines and denominations. And I can’t help but detect a faint, smug superiority in Peter’s Catholicism. I think, in the end, he is critiquing more than just the slide of the Kult into consumerism. (BTW: How does the term “modernist ideal” relate in ANY way to the Krustian Kult? Perhaps I am mistaken, but the Kult is definitely a POST-modern phenomena.)
My comment was just a broad observation. I am not interest in splitting hairs. Which, judging by your final sentence, is precisely what you are interested in.
What was it your Bard wrote with such delicious irony?
Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honor’s at the stake
Just to clarify for those who might be (but are probably not) wondering, I am not he who goes by the name of “Rob G” on this site. In any case, I must second the motion of Mark Perkins.
I third the motion of Mark Perkins.
Though, to be fair, I also deplore Krustianity, interpreted narrowly.
Peters is just bitter because the Villanova Delta-Delta-Hey girls interrupted his lecture with a musical version of nuns on the run.
It’s a good thing he has a better sense of humor than his commentators, though I’m sure in a joking mood he could spew vitriol as acrid but tasteless as they.
Just to be clear: deriding and insulting the faith of millions (many or most of whom are sincere if perhaps a little deluded) is charitable so long as there is humor involved, but suggesting that such scorn and derision is in poor taste (particularly when the more refined traditions are in such disrepair) is vitriolic, acidic, and tasteless.
Got it.
Jordan all true faiths have doctrine, they cannot not have doctrine this is just their cosmological, ethical, symbolic, communal and ritual working out of their tradition. The average believer requires this in order to better situated within a strong, supporting worldview and even the mystic or saint needs to start with these.
Post-modernism is built on modernist conceits, it is just a particularly incoherent sub-branch of modernism as far as I can see. Anyway I very much doubt these people are post-modernist.
What you call splitting hairs I call attacking modernism. The very idea that organised religion and dogma, as opposed to less splendour and hierarchy say in the Islamic or traditional evangelical Lutheran meaning, is some kind of evil is a modernist error based on individualism, empirical-rationalism and similar heresies.
I have no problem with low church Protestants in theory(ignoring disputes over Calvinism and such.) but I do have problems with people who go around preaching the error of all organised religion and dogma. This has nothing to do with low church or any genuine faith or even mysticism but is a modernist conceit. It seems you sail perilously close to such a position.
Mark they don’t know how lucky they are. All my prejudices are against Krustianity but compared to what we have in general in Britain, mass apostasy, it seems many, many times better.
On the other hand sincere faith can still be open to jibes, after all I have little doubt many Scientologists and neo-”pagans” are sincere as well. But I still see little point in lampooning these people, they are still Christians after all.
I could be wrong, but I thought the whole point of these posts was that they *aren’t* Christians–that due to their commercialism, bad architecture, crappy music, lack of liturgy, emotionalism, interpenetration with a corrupt culture, etc they have become something outside the Church–the cherch, Krustianity, etc.
I absolutely agree that sincerity does not exempt one from being made fun of. Sincerity often is the perfect grounds for it. It’s why a sincere effort like “Jesus is my Friend” is much, much funnier than any satire. But there’s a point where humor becomes derision, and I think the difference between the two is charity. These Krustianity posts are funny, but where there should be charity I’m sensing only scorn.
And, again, as regrettable many of the things he’s lampooning are, I don’t think they quite merit anathema.
I agree, they have serious problems particularly due to the commercialism and penetration of our corrupt culture and in this sense a lack of metaphysical, theological and cosmological grounding which accounts for a lot of their problems, but their faith is still a lot better than nothing.
Wessexman,
I appreciate your perspective on the nature of faith more than I let on. But in the end I disagree, and that is where I depart from probably 98% of those who write or comment here.
Cheeks has elsewhere claimed I suffer from an alienation complex, and his observation is accurate. I am a “Christian” who currently does not identify with any particular doctrine, denomination, community or set of rituals. All I have is a physical and spiritual “place”. (I live on an almost completely deserted island, and thus my interest in FPR’s focus on “place” and “limits”.) Suffice it to say, it is an interesting perch from which to observe. I believe I am on this island for a reason, and my best guess is that in order for me to be able to know God, and perceive who He is and what He is doing, I first must have all my preconceived notions of who God is and how He works stripped away. It’s a frightening condition. In this place there is nothing to hang onto but God Himself.
After many years of this withdrawal process or “detox”, I am beginning to see how the entirety of Western culture is built on a disintegrating, but erroneous notion of “truth”. On one hand, you have the conservatives screaming at the top of their lungs trying to re-establish or defend this dying notion of “truth”, and on the other you have the liberals using the disintegration of “truth” as an excuse to justify their agenda and all types of immorality. It’s painful, angering and frustrating to watch.
Einstein established that “truth” is not only relative in space, but also in time. That reality is built into the very fabric of the Universe. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. That’s a scary notion for religious, doctrinal types, yet as I see it is consistent with Scripture. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is living. No, He does not change, but what He might be saying, or how He might be saying it, might change. What He says to me today, might not be what He says to me tomorrow. To reduce something to a doctrine or law is a subtle, but certain idolatry that allows me to lean on my own understanding, not on God’s. Ideas are easier to lean on and identify with than a relationship with a living and often difficult to understand God.
I believe that the current “descent” into a subjectivism is part of God’s plan, and not as you see it: “a modernist error based on individualism, empirical-rationalism and similar heresies.” It is no less than the God of the Universe contending with our addiction to the fruit of “knowledge of good and evil” and wanting to introduce us to true “Life”. It is God contending with our arrogance and idolatry, and exercising control after first freeing us from the “objective” (what a farce!) prisons of truth we have been locking ourselves into ever since Jesus returned to Heaven.
Now I am not ignorant to the importance of “forms”. I understand the need for languages to express what ideas. We live in a physical world and thus need physical expressions of spiritual truths. So at some point God may release me from this island and choose for me some sort of language and expression and form for my faith so I can better communicate and commune with others. Much in the same way that God Himself became a Jewish carpenter who spoke Aramaic to communicate and demonstrate what it means to be a son of God. But first I must be stripped down and learn how to be like Jesus. I must be able to perceive Him unencumbered by my own tradition, language, ethnic background, and beliefs. I must first be a follower of Jesus, and second Catholic, Krustian, American, Canadian, Republican or Liberal.
I confess, I have failed on that score on FPR. I have been a crank, and am often not proud of my contributions, but for some reason I have had more hope for the dialogue here because of the unusually high level of intelligence of the average FPR contributor. But in my disappointment I have taken shots at those who seem to be so CERTAIN about things. The STRONG who tend to bully people with words into seeing things their way. The ones with power. But that is easy to do, and hardly a noble calling, and so I think it may be time for me to move on. In essence I have just lowered myself to doing the same thing… using words in a futile attempt to undermine the power of those who control it. The harder thing to do is walk away and trust that ultimately God, and his left-handed agenda, are, have been, and always will be, in control.
Cheeks quoted Dylan at me the other day, and so I will leave off with my own Dylan quote:
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s naming.’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.
Mark, you are a breath of fresh air.
It is a good to see so many excellent commentators joining us in our differentiations and analysis of a distorted and derailed modernity.
Jordon you sir, are a human being. You exist in the metaxical tension. You are a searching, questing, seeking philosopher, a lover of God and He will not desert you now or in your hour of need.
The modern word is a corrupted by a pernicious gnosticism that acts to pervert all of creation, to corrupt all that it touches with a false and perverse gnosis, to mock God himself.
So hang around a bit. We have much to discuss; the experience of the Christ, the resistance of evil, the teleological wisdom of the remnant.
“I appreciate your perspective on the nature of faith more than I let on. But in the end I disagree, and that is where I depart from probably 98% of those who write or comment here.
Cheeks has elsewhere claimed I suffer from an alienation complex, and his observation is accurate. I am a “Christian” who currently does not identify with any particular doctrine, denomination, community or set of rituals. All I have is a physical and spiritual “place”. (I live on an almost completely deserted island, and thus my interest in FPR’s focus on “place” and “limits”.) Suffice it to say, it is an interesting perch from which to observe. I believe I am on this island for a reason, and my best guess is that in order for me to be able to know God, and perceive who He is and what He is doing, I first must have all my preconceived notions of who God is and how He works stripped away. It’s a frightening condition. In this place there is nothing to hang onto but God Himself.
After many years of this withdrawal process or “detox”, I am beginning to see how the entirety of Western culture is built on a disintegrating, but erroneous notion of “truth”. On one hand, you have the conservatives screaming at the top of their lungs trying to re-establish or defend this dying notion of “truth”, and on the other you have the liberals using the disintegration of “truth” as an excuse to justify their agenda and all types of immorality. It’s painful, angering and frustrating to watch. ”
I see you have insights Jordan, I just feel you have made a few wrong turns. The hermit or the mystic, though his abilities are not that of most people, is perhaps the most pure of all believers. However true hermits and mystics build on and through exoteric traditions to the esoteric, though they may realise the ultimate relativity(not in the modernist sense but in the sense of Plotinus or Laozi or Meister Eckhart.) of doctrine and ethics they do not denigrate these as they realise their importance to the average believer and even in the grounding of the path of the mystic.
“Einstein established that “truth” is not only relative in space, but also in time. That reality is built into the very fabric of the Universe. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. That’s a scary notion for religious, doctrinal types, yet as I see it is consistent with Scripture. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is living. No, He does not change, but what He might be saying, or how He might be saying it, might change. What He says to me today, might not be what He says to me tomorrow. To reduce something to a doctrine or law is a subtle, but certain idolatry that allows me to lean on my own understanding, not on God’s. Ideas are easier to lean on and identify with than a relationship with a living and often difficult to understand God.”
Sorry but I fail to see what Einstein or any other natural scientist ha to say about the core of metaphysical, cosmological and spiritual true at qua their role as a natural scientist. It is only through Intellect and not through empirical science that true wisdom about the higher levels will be obtained.
You seem confused by the idea of revelation, tradition and the relativity of doctrine and ethics and such. These later are relative because all that ultimately matters is the union of the soul with the absolute, unchanging truth or divine essence and these things belong to the changing, finite world of relative manifestation. However this does not mean they do not have value for us nor that they are not in some sense divine and can be willy nilly changed or abandoned.
Each genuine revelation is a gift of collective Intellection from God to help guide a particular race or cultural group to him. Each revelation contains a particular perspective and emphasis of God and truth and it aims to contain this ultimately formless knowledge in a limited human form. It then represents an archetype within which all the possibilities and extensions of that form, that revelation or faith, from ritual to symbolism to ethics to doctrine to religious organisation, are contained. Its tradition then is a playing out of these possibilities, in certain ways in any particular situation, in time. It is through these that both the average believer has his supportive universe provided so that he can better be able to find salvation(the moving upwards of the spirit though not yet its final destination.) and the mystic finds the beginning of his pathway towards sanctification or enlightenment(the moving of the spirit very far upwards if not to its final destination.).
Now it becomes clear these external things are just tools but important ones, it becomes clear they are complex and contain quite a few extensions and adaptions but they are not to be played with willy nilly by bringing in possibilities from other archetypes randomly or indeed degeneration not contained in any genuine revelation. I completely agree with you when you maintain the ultimate personal, or in Platonic terms Intellectual(not to be confused with discursive thought of ratio.), experience of God and the relativity of religious forms, however when you take this and present the mystic as what should be imitated by all men, as if all men could be hermits or mystics, or you attack religious forms and revelations completely, then I must rebuke you.
“I believe that the current “descent” into a subjectivism is part of God’s plan, and not as you see it: “a modernist error based on individualism, empirical-rationalism and similar heresies.” It is no less than the God of the Universe contending with our addiction to the fruit of “knowledge of good and evil” and wanting to introduce us to true “Life”. It is God contending with our arrogance and idolatry, and exercising control after first freeing us from the “objective” (what a farce!) prisons of truth we have been locking ourselves into ever since Jesus returned to Heaven. ”
It is part of a necessary cosmological cycle yes. As the Hindus would say we are at the depths of Kali-yuga or dark ages but it is not a positive pathway to God but a negative allowance of degenerate possibilities within our realm of manifestation. We need to break out of and attack it not see its intrinsic tendencies as positive.
“Now I am not ignorant to the importance of “forms”. I understand the need for languages to express what ideas. We live in a physical world and thus need physical expressions of spiritual truths. So at some point God may release me from this island and choose for me some sort of language and expression and form for my faith so I can better communicate and commune with others. Much in the same way that God Himself became a Jewish carpenter who spoke Aramaic to communicate and demonstrate what it means to be a son of God. But first I must be stripped down and learn how to be like Jesus. I must be able to perceive Him unencumbered by my own tradition, language, ethnic background, and beliefs. I must first be a follower of Jesus, and second Catholic, Krustian, American, Canadian, Republican or Liberal.”
You have it the wrong way around. First you must follow the tradition, you must seek the support of faith and its guidance and exoteric doctrine and then you can, allow most do not and cannot be expected to, go beyond into the realms of the esoteric and mystic. Only by first grounding yourself in a tradition and therefore revelation, because tradition is simply the historical appearance of possibilities inherent in the revelation, can you hope to have the necessary guidance for such an undertaking.
Wessexman,
No disrespect meant, but I didn’t even make it halfway through your post. I got lost in all the jargon. I suspect that even if I tried I couldn’t make heads or tails of what you were trying to say, let alone respond in any coherent or meaningful manner. Your response is precisely why I think I ought to move on. (I am guessing your copy of “Meditations on the Tarot” is well worn?) I just don’t believe faith is that complicated. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself. The rest are details.
For the record I am not interested in being a mystic or a hermit. I am not in my current “place” out of choice. That is an important distinction. But thank you for taking the time to respond.
Bob,
You sir, are a schol… er, autodidact and a gentleman. While I appreciate your encouragement, I really am not sure there is much to discuss. Or maybe there is much to discuss, but almost nothing will come of it.
I am sure I will drop by from time to time to enjoy Peter’s art (providing he is not banging on about Krustianity), and maybe I will still comment from time to time. But I am no political or scholastic animal. I am a poet who has tired of the arrogance and impotence of the intellectual elite. Indeed, the Emperor is wearing no clothing.
My point is relatively simple but there is nothing wrong with jargon. You may call it using too much jargon but for my part I simply think you don’t have much grounding in this subject and are just hiding behind modernist, individualist arguments about how “awful” dogma or organisation or religious community must be without really thinking about religion, God and man and if you are thinking about these topics then it is how a new age Wiccan or freethinking deist might and not how Shankara or Ibn Arabi or the Schoolmen would.
You say you don’t think faith is complicated, that is itcan all be reduced to a platitude, as you seem to use the phrase. This phrase is so very wrong but yet has a kernel of truth. Yes ultimately faith is simple but the paths to it are complex. To think that most people’s faith will flourish without any ritual, symbolism, doctrinal, ethical and communal supports is foolish. Even the mystic and hermit must start with these. In the end I appeal to history, to the strong and beautiful, genuine faiths and constrast them with the nonsense that you kind of attitude has cast up in its very limited appearance(the last few hundred years basically and perhaps some influence during the later Greco-Roman period.).
Any yes I think we ought to move on no doubt you need to get back to that copy of Paine’s Age of Reason or Voltaire’s collective works you were looking for a chance to finish(see anyone can be snide.).
I should add I get rightfully and immediately suspicion any anyone introduces modern scientific discoveries as having a key relevance to theological and metaphysical debates.
Well I am not exactly the same as you, so of course I am wrong.
No you wrong firstly because then ideas you offer are wrong and secondly because you then seem to devolve into dismissal, sulky comments like simply labelling a whole argument as jargon or as simply intolerance of any differing opinion rather than politely and properly deal with the discussion and opposing points.
Bottomline low church and quietism are one thing, modernist attacks on any sort of religious doctrine, ethics and indeed shared tradition like some new age “pagan” who thinks any objection to whatever practices his individual fancies lead him to is “dogmatist” oppression is something completely different.
Jordon, dude, re: the poet thing..hey, it worked for T.S. Eliot and you seem to have that subtle mind necessary for such endeavors. Stop back and raise a little hell. These people require a good scolding from time to time..the righteousness here can be suffocating, as you know.
Best to you, dude!
Wessexman,
A guy who is bleeding from a bunch of wounds inflicted by the rough edges of this fallen world doesn’t need an explanation of the composition of the circulatory system. He needs what the Samaritan offered.
“. . . when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.”
Jordan,
It is not that this site lacks those who care. Bob, for all of his talk about gnosticism and Voegelin, I am convinced, really cares. I figure Jason, when he is not swinging his Byzantine sword, slaying the unorthodox, may be a pretty good guy. I hear he is helping folk get in decent housing–a downright Samaritan activity. You won’t find what you need here. You need a face that communicates that the person behind it cares. You need a hand that will genuinely communicate compassion. These words hurled through the wherever, thanks to Bill Gates and his kind, are no substitute for the real thing. The Bible speaks of the Church being Christ’s body, (The Book of Colossians, and 1 Corinthians 12-14 talk about this.) You won’t find that touch here. Even though I wish I could right now, this medium won’t let me offer what you need. In fact, it won’t even let me see what you need. I’m reduced to guessing, based on the words from you on my screen. I’m not being critical in saying that this site won’t meet your need–at least mostly–I’m just being honest. This site is one of intellectual discussion/argument. If I understood you, I agree with you. What you need does not exist at the end of a carefully formed syllogism or an artfully crafted polemic.
At the basic level, what you need is simple. Jesus used a child, not a philosopher, preacher, professor, or other worldly-wise person as an example (Mark 10:14). There is much more, but the base must simple enough for a child to pass the entrance exam. The Apostle Paul, a guy of massive intellect and learning pointed out that it was not great learning, power, or persuasion that accomplished the Lord’s work, but the weak, foolish, even the things which seem to have no substance at all (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5).
Find someone with a Samaritan-face who will sit down and listen, like Job’s friends did before they started trying to prove they were right, and lovingly open the Bible so you can find rest for your soul.
Lord,
Forgive me for being more concerned about winning an argument than caring for a neighbor in need. On this day I’m reminded of the gift of your Son. Help me to live in that light.
Amen
(I’ll have to leave it to the porch-watchers as to whether one can pray here or not.)
BTW: If there are others of you lying by the side of the road, whom I have ignored as I rushed by trying to look all wise, clever, and like I could hunt with the big dogs, please forgive me.
I’m unsure of your point Howard. The spiritual path is complex, from this perspective at least, as is religion. To attempt to reduce it to a new age laissez faire ideal of anything goes, I can invent whatever rituals or doctrine I damn well feel like with not a moments thought about metaphysics, theology or sacred tradition, is modernist nonsense. That is all I’m attacking. I’m perfectly willing to accept low church Protestantism and quietism, even though I’m a high church Anglican, but I must draw the line the idea that all doctrine, organisation or religious community is unncessary even as a grounding.
Peters, I give in!
Turns out that the vaudevillian show that “traditional” faiths put on is actually far superior to those yahoos standing on stilts pictured above. And much more “real” too!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100402/lf_nm_life/us_philippines_crucifixion_1
I think that’s what Jesus said.
Is this what it means to be hoisted by one’s own petard?
Last night at Oakland Methodist Cherch, during their Maundy Thursday services, in the East End of East Liverpool, Ohio my hometown and a river town that much resembles Beruit, my wife washed the feet of a ‘saved’ alcoholic…can I get an amen?
I have put off reading this for a few days because I knew I was probably going to need to be in an environment where I could uncontrollably laugh. I was not disappointed, nor was I disappointed with the discussion that I was sure would ensue (as always does).
To Howard,
Maybe the reason that religion, relijun, etc. are discussed here on the porch is because it tends to draw the most discussion. I won’t say that all of Mr. Peters critiques are accurate, but I don’t know if he would even care if they were always accurate in every circumstance. One of the biggest fallacies the modern world has going is that you should not bring up controversial things because people will be turned off by them, as you seem to suggest by your reference to a “smaller porch.” It is a paradox that I am sure Chesterton pointed out. Rather than being turned off by the controversial, quite the opposite takes place. Sure, we could all sit around and talk about the weather, but it is a much more interesting, thought provoking, and ultimately revealing conversation to talk about the reality of the Immaculate Conception.
Yes, Bob, AMEN!
To Kevin H,
I’m totally for talking about matters of faith. Maybe it’s just me, but Mr. Peter’s piece, especially taking into consideration the previous two on the subject, hardly seems like an invitation to dialogue.
I would not come near a place like this if I were not willing to be offended. I have no problem with that. Offense, delivered with opportunity for instruction can be very helpful.
My question had to do with strategy. If FPR’s purpose is to, from time to time, start an interesting fight, then articles like the one that started this discussion are certainly useful. If that is the management’s purpose, I would encourage commissioning some pieces satirically critical of other branches of Christendom, and even other religious traditions. If the purpose is to assemble a group willing to coalesce around, and build on, the core values that lead to people building FPR-looking communities, then I don’t see the kind of article that began this discussion as being very productive.
A while back Mr. Peter’s wrote a piece about coming to peace with his NASCAR-watching, redneck neighbors.
I’m not in the least equating a like or dislike of auto-racing with the eternal truth revealed in the Bible or (even, though I reject placing tradition on an equal footing with the Bible–whether it comes from Rome, Constatinople, Canterbury, Wittenburg, or Covington), church tradition, but I think these two quotes separated by most of the rest of Mr. Peters’ article express a notion that might apply to this cyber-porch in the same way these neighbors found they applied to the ones attached to their homes.
“We aren’t NASCAR people; this didn’t thrill us.”
“And thanks to the example of some unlettered neighbors, with whom I’ll share a drink and a dead bird tomorrow, I can endeavor to be a good neighbor.” (http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/11/thanksgiving-with-the-neighbors/)
As to your bait at the end of your post, I’ll pass for now.
Wessexman,
Thank you for your gracious acceptance.
I wish to clarify a point.
I and, I think, a great many more of the low church people, totally reject a great deal of your description:
I know beyond any shadow of a doubt, for instance, that I can’t “invent whatever rituals or doctrine” I choose.
Thanks to all for taking the time to engage.
Howard,
I may be mistaken, but I don’t remember where I stated that I thought people on FPR don’t care. On the contrary, I am certain that you, Cheeks, Willson, Peters, Medaille, and many others that come here care a great deal.
As for what I need, as much as I appreciate offers of help, I must admit I find them condescending and presumptuous. I come here for the dialogue and much of what I read I enjoy or find edifying. The times I comment, as I have stated, usually are when I feel someone has mounted a high horse of some sort.
Personally I am fine, and any Sturm und Drang I exhibit is simply that. You rightly cite Job, but if I read that brilliant work of art correctly, the only thing that brought rest to Job’s soul was a response from the Almighty. And in hope of that meeting I will continue to groan before him. No friend, no matter how Samaritan-like and compassionate can calm the storm.
Mr. Peters, thank you for making me laugh at this incredibly disturbing phenomena. The rise of entertainment-oriented churches in my city has risen drastically in the last 5-10 years.
Howard, I think the DNA of the Porch is a suspicion of not only of big government, but of the marriage of big government and big business. So the critique of the entertainment-oriented churches is completely in line with that, because they are churches dripping with the consumerism that is central to the growth of big business. Check out (http://www2.journeychurch.cc/) if you don’t believe me.
Jordan, I found what you say about experience compelling. I do think it is the day in the sun for subjective truth and calling us to look more deeply at our experiences. But I don’t think that experience and subjective truth are opposed to objective truth. I don’t know that I can elaborate on this in the comment section of a blog post, but read Luigi Giussani, starting with The Religious Sense. Truth is truth, subjective or objective.
Jordan,
No condescension was intended. I apologize for communicating such.
Thanks for including me in such fine company. I try, but I’m not sure I deserve to be in that group.
Indeed you are right about Job. But, still, I think the best his 3 friends said was nothing–not that there was nothing helpful they could have said; they just didn’t.
Actually, there was nothing you said that led me to believe that others on this site don’t care. My comment came from the observation–a good bit of it in a mirror–that there are those of us who forget that this is more than an acedemic matter. Your transparency helped me be reminded that these are matters of life.
The Apostle Paul, likewise was a groaner. Romans 8 from v. 18 on.
I certainly understand the high-horse concept. Flail away. Not that you need my permission–take that as a cheer from the bleachers.
I trust that the reminder Easter brings will be useful in your journey.
Geez, I keep thinking I need to get outside and get some work done in the rain and wind, and then I get another email in my inbox announcing a new comment. I shall procrastinate further.
Anamaria: I agree that “Truth” is beyond the subjective or objective. I see it as Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures, and his Spirt as it manifests it’s presence in our daily lives. I find the most compelling secular analysis of this to be found in Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. If I stumble upon Luigi Giussani I will pick him up.
Thanks Howard,
My comments were not so much directed at you (I appreciated your interjection a great deal) as they were referring to previous proffers of “help”.
Jordan,
Not to delay you from your work in the wind and rain, but have you read Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge”? He works through this issue of objective and subjective truth in a way that is creative and helpful. Some have seen his work as related to Pirsig’s.
Hey Mark,
Thank you for another delay. In fact, a storm is moving through with winds up to 35 knots, not to mention the steady rain, so I have decided to sit inside and read and write.
I haven’t read Michael Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge”, but it sounds interesting. I shall look it up.
Howard I’m unsure what you mean. Can you show me where I ever made that description of low churchers? I simply, and rightfully, rebuked what I percieved as Jordan’s attack on doctrine and organisation as a whole which is not low church but closer to new age or at least deism. I’m unsure what you keep talking about care for either.
Jordan an excellent work in this area is Frithjof Schuon’s Logic and transcendence.
I drew the conclusion from the following. I guess I was mistaken.
“The spiritual path is complex, from this perspective at least, as is religion. To attempt to reduce it to a new age laissez faire ideal of anything goes, I can invent whatever rituals or doctrine I damn well feel like with not a moments thought about metaphysics, theology or sacred tradition, is modernist nonsense. That is all I’m attacking. I’m perfectly willing to accept low church Protestantism and quietism, even though I’m a high church Anglican, but . . . ”
I thought you were including my kind in that description . . . Obviously, you weren’t.
Have a great Easter.
I still find it hard how you could draw such a conclusion from my comments in this discussion. If you check them the only thing I have attacked is the idea that doctrine and other aspects beyond simply loving God do not matter in general which I take to be an enlightenment and modernist doctrine and not one grounded in traditional ideas of religion.
It is strikingly similar to a view recently put to me by a neo-”pagan” who claimed pridefully that his faith has no dogma to bind the individual at all, presumably meaning you can invent whatever you like as a ritual or doctrinal element of this supposed faith he was talking about.
I’m unsure what your type of Christianity you are Howard but as I always made clear I very much accept many low church and quietist types of Christianity.
Caleb:
I agree the traditional faiths have made many mistakes as well, the thing about the megachurches though seems to be theirs are very much based on modernist and consumerist influences with little wish to have rituals grow from any traditional Christian body of theological, cosmological, symbolic or metaphysical thought on the subject. This is what I find most disturbing. Take an a gothic cathedral, its plan and decoration was rooted in traditional Christian cosmology, theology and symbolism as much as the liturgy and ceremonies performed in it were. I don’t think megachurch buildings themselves nor their services are anywhere near so well grounded. Not that many of the contemporary followers of more traditional versions of Christianity probably grasp these ideas too deeply either of course.
“Do you really think it is a divine requirement that dim-witted humans wade through a Divine Liturgy to commune with his body?”
If one takes the NT and the understandings of the early Church to be normative, you’d have to say yes. Liturgical worship is assumed to be the norm in the NT (see th Epistle to the Hebrews and Revelation especially) and the writings of the early Church.
I take nothing to be normative. Sort of a rule with me.
And was the early church not able to commune until somebody cooked up some liturgy?
There is nothing wrong with liturgy, or any other dogma, ritual, symbols or doctrine. But to suggest that someone cannot commune with God or others without these wonderful, HUMANLY conceived tools is RIDICULOUS. But I guess it’s an easy mistake to make when one mistakes a bunch of words for the living Word.
In essense the religious experience or knowledge, like all experience or knowledge, is one of Intellection in the Platonic sense where one spiritually percieves truth and there is a unity of knowledge and being. The first flash of Intellect comes before any doctrine or symbolism but straight afterwards one requires the support of a valid revelation and its tradition. Even those who go beyond these must indeed go through and then beyond them and not around them. To suggest otherwise is indeed RIDICULOUS, hence the anything goes attitude is only seen in our degenerate age and culture and never in any traditional one.
If you think that the sacred tradition of a faith is just words then you really need to consider the religious and Christian experience in more depth. Ultimately one is forced to wonder, when you reject all systemised metaphysics, theology, cosmology and revelatory tradition why you hold onto monotheism or the importance of Christ or the trinity or resurrection or the Christian canon or anything like this. It is simply modernist, new age nonsense like the neopagan who recently told me there was no set doctrine or beliefs in his “religion”.
And if you take nothing to normative why the hell are you giving religious advise? This sort of new age nonsense is not useful in the slightest to genuine, orthodox religious knowledge and experience. I’m sorry to be blunt but sometimes one has to put their foot down and defend orthodoxy against anything goes nonsense.
Dude, seek therapy.
I love it. Someone dares to stand up for orthodoxy and your only real replies are snide little dismissive comments. Grow up mate and perhaps follow your own advise. All I have done is defend a traditional Christian Platonist position in pretty meek terms simply refusing to retreat from the last redoubt of some kind of orthodoxy and you take exception to even this limited resistance to your new-age, modernist agenda. Well I’m sorry one has to draw the line. In the end, without some sense of a core committment to traditional orthodoxy, not a narrow kind certainly but a core nonetheless, then the basis of a traditionalist conservative revival is unlikely to ever occur. It will never occur if your individualist, modernist platitudes became acceptable within such a movement.
I just don’t think a conversation between us is going to help in anyway. And I can’t understand why you have made it your personal mission to convert me or change my mind on the comments page of a web site. Can’t we just agree to disagree?
Now that I know you can unsubscribe from this thread, I will follow suit.
You simply made comments on this site that I disagreed with. If you didn’t want to continue the discussion then you should have said so earlier instead of simply replying with snide comments. Sometimes I reply to things I disagree with and sometimes I don’t but your comments hit a nerve. Namely this site is something of a traditionalist rallying point, as I see it, and I feel any traditionalist revival needs a core foundation on traditional orthodoxy when it comes to spirituality, religion and metaphysics and cosmology, not necessarily anything exclusivist(it certainly doesn’t have to be Christian only.) or narrow(only high church or whatever.) or fundamentalist but based in support for traditional faith nonetheless which I feel your plea for almost anything goes in religion is a modernist, individualist attack in essense of the same kind as those stretching from Voltaire to neopagans; in some sense representing the most basic motives of the forces arrayed against traditionalists in the contemporary climare these past centuries.
I certainly cannot agree to give your points any credibility, it is simply not true that much can be gained outside a traditional revelation when it comes to faith.
I awoke before dawn this morning to lovely Baroque music put to scripture proclaiming the wonder of the event I will clelebrate today.
“Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:”
My hope and prayer is that all* of you would find the peace, that trust in this truth has brought to my heart. May your Easter be wonderful.
In arguing how to best remember, live out, and proclaim the Gospel of Christ, may we not forget to do so.
(*Be you high, low, or no church, even Krustians (should there be such) and those dedicated to saving the world there from.)
Peters’ screeds against “Krustianity” have begun to remind me of a recruiting phone call from Bob Jones University a friend got in high school. After they asked him all the usual questions that universities ask, and he gave all the usual answers a (Christian) teenager might, they also asked him what kind of music he listened to. He gave the names of a number of bands and one-man acts, some of which wrote religious lyrics. To his surprise, the recruiter told him he would probably not fit in well there because they only listened to “God’s music.”
God’s music! Really! They actually seemed to believe that, if someone were to check God’s celestial iPod (or his heavenly iTunes for the full range, assuming he hasn’t synched up lately) they would only find 19th and early 20th century hymns. Apparently God stopped liking music right around 1950, appalled as he was at the gyrations of Elvis’s hips.
But Peters seems caught up in the same kind of delineation between his preferred liturgy, which he takes to be “God’s liturgy,” and anything that offends his oh so fine sensibilities. He seems to have raised an ebenezer on the place most suitable to his tastes, then sanctified it as if it were Biblical truth. And isn’t that what we’re after, at the end of it all? Those of us who are serious about our faith care more about having a relationship with God, through the Word made flesh in Christ, than we do about the style in which someone comes to their Biblical faith. Because I am such a person, like Howard I would normally hesitate to criticize another poor pilgrim along the narrow path; Peters seems interested only in making himself feel superior while justifying his dislike of different traditions, and so deserves the criticism he receives here.