Posts Tagged ‘The Anchoress’

Why I Can Not Mock

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

I doubt that I will ever believe, as Elizabeth Scalia does, in the God she professes her faith to. I don’t think I can.

But as I have said before, there is a profound and beautiful core of truth to what the Anchoress believes, and I read her every day for the glimpses she vouchsafes us of that beauty.

In a former parish, there was a sister-liturgist who–eager to promote “sensitivity”–decided that the Gloria should be sung with the refrain “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to God’s people on earth;” she was content to brutalize the ear, change a liturgical prayer that is not supposed to be changed, and disorient the people just a tad, in order that no one should be subjected to that troubling male pronoun, “His.”

I always thought it was a nonsensical point; why go to the trouble of training the people to avoid the “His” in that sung prayer, when it proceed to refer to God as “Heavenly King, Almighty God and Father,” and to Jesus as “only Son of the Father.” And of course, I got into a civil debate with her about it.

“You don’t understand,” she said kindly (because she was a very kind sister) “it’s important that we begin to think of God as having no gender at all, containing aspects of both mother and father, but not limited to our understanding as “Father.”

“Yes, mysticism if fine; I’m a fan,” I said. “But the prayer–which is liturgical and not subject for editing by you or me–makes enough male references throughout that it seems incongruous and silly, to enforce this clumsy and cold “Glory to God and peace to God’s people,” phrasing. It’s ick to my ear. And it puts God at a distance; it’s not intimate.”

To sister’s credit she remained kind but she did buckle down and let me know she wasn’t budging. “There are a lot of people in the world who have had bad fathers, they have bad memories, a lot of people find referring to God as “Father” to be distancing and hurtful. They cannot relate.”

“Well, sister, I happen to be one of those people who had a bad father and carries bad memories, and I like referencing God as Father; I happen to find great comfort and solace in having a Heavenly Father who more than fills the void left by my earthly one.”

She looked stunned. “You are the first person who has ever said that to me; that is not the usual perspective.”

“But don’t you think that’s a perspective worth promoting? Isn’t it a much better thing to tell people whose fathers have failed that they may be consoled by a Father who will never fail? Wouldn’t that be more positive, and ultimately more healing, than wrecking the liturgy to pander to neurotic sadness?”

Read it all.

This is why I continue to read Scalia, but have given up on, say, P.Z. Meyers. There is a profound and beautiful truth to what Meyers teaches as well, a truth arrived at by pathways easier for me to follow than the one illuminated by Scalia, a path that rejects the rigor of faith for a sharper, narrower rigor of another kind. But somehow, somewhere, Meyers has lost sight of that beauty, and has long ago ceased to teach his audience how to find it.

Instead, he wastes his time and talents mocking people like the Anchoress…and, yes, I see much to be mocked about them. I no longer care. Their various blindnesses and failings are trivial compared to their beauties and truths, which science cannot address, and may never be able to address — it is simply not the right tool to do so.

Not at all incidentally, I mind myself of Eric S. Raymond’s definition of “truth” , that truth is what makes the future less surprising. In what sense, you may then reasonably ask, do the Anchoress’ “truths” make the future less surprising? How may her words be unpacked as predictions?

I admit, I’m still struggling with how to express that. But in general, I think that people who think and believe as the Anchoress does are more likely to be, for lack of a better word, decent.

A Crisis of Faith

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

I recently added Instapunk to my feed reader. Good thing, because it just now pointed me to the ‘Punk’s crisis of faith.

The Punk starts with James Cameron’s Avatar, which I guess I’m going to have to see, because even people who hate it and its message are using it as an anchor for all kinds of useful and interesting discussions, plus it’s supposed to be really pretty.

He pulls in an essay “by the new enfant terrible of the conservative elitist class, Ross Douthat“, which makes the point that

“Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

and which concludes by “[framing] an existential crisis for anyone who’s paying attention”:

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

Now, I am not a Christian. I am a militant skeptic. A friend of mine was shocked recently to learn that although my father is a priest, I haven’t even been baptized. (Why not? When I was born, my father was in a church that did not believe in infant baptism, and by the time I was old enough, I didn’t want to be. Why not? Flippant version: “Because I don’t believe in an invisible superhero from outer space who cares, intimately and personally, about my sex life.” Serious version: Because I’d have to stand up and take the Nicene Creed in public, and the Nicene Creed neatly summarizes all the magical crap I explicitly believe is not true. “We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” Really? How the hell can you take that seriously?)

And given that, I’m missing about half of his crisis; I had it and dealt with it when I was in kindergarten, and no one, not even my father (who is a learned man, if not quite a scholar, and a pretty right guy) could answer my kindergarten questions about who made God, and what happens, really, when we die, and most of all, how do you know all that for sure?

Instead, I find myself approaching his crisis from the opposite side: I want to be baptized, I want to join in the Church, I want to take Communion from my father’s hand before he dies and make Confession and all the rest, and I can’t, because I’d have to lie to do it.

I’m looking for something to believe in, something to anchor me, and all I have at this point is scepticism, an unquenchable need to ask the next question and do my best to refute the answer.

I’m begging the Christians around me to come up with something better than the Nicene Fourth Century Crackpot Superstition that I can swear to as I am baptized and take Communion. Please. I’m dying here.

Gregory Bateson has some of the pieces, a vague outline of The Sacred, and a couple of handles: “The Pattern That Connects” and “A Necessary Unity”. He understood things in terms of feedback loops, and was most interested in systems controlled by feedback, particularly informational feedback, as opposed to those controlled by mere physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. He talked about evolution and the mind, how both are driven by feedback, and how evolution gives rise to mindfulness, both in the large scale of biology and the small scale of the workings of your own brain. (I’m crudely summarizing some fairly subtle ideas; expounding on Bateson is far beyond the scope of my rambling here.)

The Anchoress is a regular read of mine, precisely because she’s the exemplar of people I know seeking the Numinous, and doing their best to live their lives accordingly. She, too, subscribes to a pack of nonsense, but somehow sees through it to the truth it shrouds about how we should live our lives with love and grace. Her view even makes sense of transubstantiation.

And today, Instapunk in his agony shines light on another small but crucial facet:

What is with this idiotic notion that Nature is good and Mankind is bad? Fact is, Nature is cruel, even demonstrably vicious, and Mankind is, uh, more kind than not. That’s why Mankind has prospered and proliferated. DUH. Consider this: Christianity is the biggest ever departure from Nature. Its central premise is that we all matter. Odd. Wrong? Perhaps. But absolutely right in human terms. It has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of. No other kind of human philosophy has produced such sheer gorgeousness. Now we are being asked to regard ourselves as vile, a scientifically verifiable pollution on the face of the earth, something akin to the AIDS virus. The President of the United States subscribes to this view. Let me repeat that. The President of the United States subscribes to this view.

While I am struggling on matters of faith, patriotism, and survival. My response? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. The Split does matter. Not just because I’m going to die, but because we all know we’re going to die and we all still care about what happens after Human religion is by definition the Split with Nature, the proof that we are better than lions, hyenas, wolves, and black mambas. Most of us live every day with the proof — the species that remade themselves just for the privilege of living with us and acquired a moral sense along the way — dogs.

[Bold mine.]

There. “We all matter.” Not that we’re all equally qualified. Not that we’re all entitled to equal outcomes. Not that we’re all just as good, or just as bad, as everyone else. But in some sense, we all matter, for good or ill, even in the face of the awful scale of Time, The Universe, and Everything, even God Itself, whatever It is. And we should all strive, as hard as we can, to lift each other up and away from Nature’s savage muck, away from superstition, and towards the numinous, the sacred.

Even though we create it, not the other way around.

Heinlein said it, and he didn’t mean it as compliment or blessing: “Thou Art God”.


Late thought:

[Christianity] has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of.

What, exactly, in the scriptures, led to this?

I’m reminded of how our slave-owning founders, such as Jefferson, managed to produce the greatest framework for liberty ever devised.

“Watch Me Pull a Revelation Out of My Hat”

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Penn Jillette gets yelled at by his idol, and suffers self-doubt.


Headline stolen from Knowledge is Power, which credits American Digest, who comments, “This is a man who takes his role as a “citizen” and not as a “Republican” or “Democrat” seriously.”


I originally saw this over at the Anchoress, but failed to bookmark her. I’ve stumbled across her again, and find her comments on this video wise and worth reading, as I often do. Even though I am, yes, a militant skeptic, and she is a devout Catholic, she manages to show me the parts of her faith that make sense even to me.

Corpus Christi

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

Via The Anchoress, Deacon Greg Kandra tells a story:

Back in the 1970s, when there was a lot of liturgical innovation going on, Dorothy Day invited a young priest to celebrate mass at the Catholic Worker. He decided to do something that he thought was relevant and hip. He asked Dorothy if she had a coffee cup he could borrow. She found one in the kitchen and brought it to him. And, he took that cup and used it as the chalice to celebrate mass.

When it was over, Dorothy picked up the cup, found a small gardening tool, and went to the backyard. She knelt down, dug a hole, kissed the coffee cup, and buried it in the earth.

With that simple gesture, Dorothy Day showed that she understood something that so many of us today don’t: she knew that Christ was truly present in something as ordinary as a ceramic cup. And that it could never be just a coffee cup again.

She understood the power and reality of His presence in the blessed sacrament.

Which is really the sum and substance of what we celebrate on this feast, Corpus Christi. The reason for what we will do today – celebrating with the monstrance, the music, the procession – isn’t to glorify an inanimate object, a bit of bread contained in glass.

It is to remind the world that in that bread we have been given Christ.

Not an idea. Not a symbol. Not an abstract bit of arcane theology. No.

It is wider and deeper and more mysterious than that.

Look at that host — and you look at Christ.

Yes, read the whole thing.

Now, here’s the deal: Go to the store, and buy two bottles of wine, and two boxes of crackers.

Have your priest bless one bottle and box. Have him pour some wine from his bottle into a randomly selected vessel, maybe a cup, maybe a golden chalice, maybe a crystal wineglass, and set out half a dozen crackers and the cup on a tray.

I, a militant skeptic, will then pour the same amount of wine from the other bottle into another vessel, and set out half a dozen crackers from my box on another tray.

Someone who doesn’t know either of us, and who did not observe us preparing our trays, will then arrange the contents of both trays identically, and leave the room. A group of priests and scientists will then enter the room, and be challenged to identify which tray carries The Blessed Body and Blood Of Christ, and which one carries some cheap wine and stale crackers.

The results, over many repetitions with a large enough sample, will most likely be indistinguishable from random chance. Yes, even if one of the preparers is Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the other is P.Z. Meyers.

Now, what that means is, the wine and crackers were not changed, in any way, by the priest.

However, Dorothy Day was changed by her reverence for an ordinary kitchen coffee cup. The young priest was changed by the act of consecrating the Host and (presumably, watching Dorothy’s act). Deacon Kandra and the Anchoress were changed by relaying the story, and many of their readers, including my obstinately skeptical self, were changed by reading it. Changed, I believe, very much for the better.

And what that means is exactly that the ceremonies involved were symbolic, and that the ideas involved are far from abstract and arcane. They are very powerful symbols and ideas, and the world would be a far poorer place without them.

There must somehow be a way to preserve these ideas, these symbols, and preserve their power to change people for the better, without asking me to believe that the Sacraments have undergone some detectable change. The change is not in the wine, not in the bread, not in the cup or chalice. It’s in those who participate in the ceremony, or watch it, or even hear about it.

Deacon Kandra’s story has given me a glimpse of that way. I can’t write it down, not yet, and it may not even be something that can be written down, but it’s there, and I’m very grateful for that.

Below the fold, my comment at the Anchoress’ site, still awaiting moderation, concerning objections to the use of a coffee cup as a chalice:
(more…)