Oh lawdy…I’m so tired of politics this Friday night. Let us discuss a less controversial subject. Like, say, religion.
October 4th was The Feast of St. Francis in the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal Calendar, which (I’ve decided without his input.) is a very important day in my trusty dog’s life. More on that in a minute.
I happen to be Episcopal by default. I come from a long line of devout Episcopalians.Most 3rd or 4th or 8th generation devout Episcopalians know the label is an oxymoron. I can confirm this via observation in the field. Church going is usually an intermittent habit for most. My natural bent in youth was toward a Buddhism that invited desire. Which is to say I wanted things but needed an avenue to eliminate the alleged pain of wanting things. I discovered early this misses the point of Buddhism. So, still wanting things, I quit that. Plus I got bored. So much sitting still. Yikes!
Later, I began to miss the big show on Sunday morning. I wandered back to the denomination of my youth. Now I attend at a fine old church in a my neighborhood with a high mass, a choir that routinely leaves me awestruck, and a broad, messy congregation of Korean and West African immigrants, an elderly white contingent, and a smattering of gay men. I usually join them on Sunday morning for catholic calisthenics. Sit, stand, sing kneel, sit, kneel, stand, sing, walk to alter, kneel, stand, sing, sit…leave.
The more liberal episcopal church is not a perfect fit but I like it. No religion is ever a perfect for a questioner. For example I realize now that social justice Jesus misses the point every bit as much as superhero Jesus. So I just ignore social justice Jesus sermons. Ignoring is a hard won skill….and I’ve won it. I suppose when the Episcopal church is down to its last few thousand adherents social justice Jesus will be reimagined again. Hopefully the rebooted Jesus will have a little more muscularity and a lot less gooey, hippie nonsense. I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t vote for Eugene McCarthy or participate in Hands Across America. The reporting we have on the man indicates his community organizing consisted mostly of inviting 12 dudes to ditch the well established communities they were already in. Wandering into town and telling 12 men to abandon everyone and everything to hike around the desert with a stranger is not in the community organizers’ handbook. (Sorry kids, Obama has nothing in common with Jesus.)
No offense to Siddhartha but it turns out Jesus is a much more interesting and demanding character too. As with Mr. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Cleopatra it’s impossible to get anywhere near the totality of Jesus’ personality. I don’t mean to fictionalize Jesus (But you’re certainly welcome to.) but to point out that we know about these “characters” exists exclusively via words on a page and yet they always surprise. They are never boxed in by the fads of the moment. There will never be a perfect Hamlet. Hamlet explains the actor playing him, not the other way round. No actress will ever fully capture the volatile intelligence of Cleopatra. It is simply too large. And the Jesus of the synoptic gospels is always bigger and more surprising than those who preach about him. I like this. It’s demanding. Mostly it demands awe, a very underrated state of being.
I almost never write about my church going because it’s nearly always off topic. It’s personal to an unseemly degree and a bit dull frankly. Every few months I feel compelled to- and now I have. In January or so I’ll probably do it again. The truth is that the excessive expulsion above is entirely a set up for me to state that Sunday is the blessing of the animals at many churches, mine included. It pleases me no end to bring Bob Barker to church. He seems to love it each year as well. It’s funny what one finds joy in as one gets older. Seeing my dog sitting in a pew in a grand old church is one of my favorite events of the year. So hats off to St. Francis, who was kind enough, or cranky enough, or wise enough to spend most of his time with animals.
John, I loved your post. Your admission of being a questioner, applies, I suspect, to most of us. I don’t think being a questioner and a church goer are mutually exclusive.
thanks Conner. It’s funny, i meant to sit down and write something sweet about Bob Barker going to church…then everything went black and 90 minutes later i posted this. And for the record, I do not question my theism much at all. I am a believer 98% of the time.. I question religious doctrine and the silliness attached to it.
Totally know what you mean here. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and then suddenly at age 13 was told that I could take it a seriously as I wanted to. No more forced Sunday service, etc. Of course, I bolted out the door of the church, much like a vampire fleeing a crucifix.
After a while, I understood that besides being force fed religious ideology, the church served a greater function: It was a communal institution that provided a sense of structure and inclusiveness, and even though I only saw the congregants at services, we all “knew” each other enough to share parts of our lives with each other.
I remained a “recovering Catholic” until about ten years ago, when I found a tiny Episcopal church on W. 69th Street. ( http://www.csschurch.org ) The Episcopal church is close enough to the RC to feel familiar, and the greatest difference I found between the two churches is that the Episcopal experience is “all the glory, none of the guilt” of the RC’s. That, along with a real pipe organ (not electronic) and an amazing choir is more than enough for me to visit about once a month. Totally lifts my spirits.
Plus, why no women priests? That’s just weird to me at this point. The Catholic church SHOULD feel guilty about that.
The answer to that goes all the way back to St. Augustine, who was the Father of Roman Catholicism, which brought about the schism with Orthodox Catholicism.
The short, short story is that Augustine, the son of a very powerful man (Patricius Aurelias, a Pagan married to Monica, a Christian) was a HUGE whoremaster, and banged anything that was remotely room temperature. Because of the social status of the family, the early church was called upon to intervene. Church and State were intermingled tightly in those days, and the people were getting riled to the point of rioting, so the two struck a deal. Eventually, the church got a hold of his Dad and they agreed to put Augustine in a monastery, where he would be in seclusion. The compromise was that a new branch of Catholicism would emerge called Roman Catholicism (after Patricius Aurelias’s roots), where NOBODY could get laid. The role of women remains as it was in the 4th Century, when Augustine was born.
To this day, the Roman Catholic religion demands that priests and nuns take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Priests could rise through the ranks of the church to climb the Vatican ladder, Nuns unfortunately have to remain nuns, or handservants to the priests and the community at large. Criminal, if you ask me.
The Orthodox Catholic priests are allowed to marry and are not as nuts as the RC’s because of that (imo). I realize I’ve simplified the historical account, but if you want to research it you will find those exact facts. My version, I think, is far more succinct and entertaining.
I’m Orthodox and Anthony is right — our priests can marry (as they did in the traditional catholic Church until the schism, as Anthony explains). However, not *all* Orthodox priests can marry — there are 2 tracks of priesthood in the Orthodox Church: (1) the married clergy, who are the local/parish priests and (2) the monastic clergy, who are the Bishops, Metropolitan,etc. So if you want to rise through the ranks of the Church structure, you have to choose the monastic clergy track; if you choose to marry, you will never rise above parish priest. The idea behind the 2 tracks is that parish priests, who marry people, baptize children, counsel married couples, etc. as a daily part of their job are better able to relate to the problems/concerns/needs of the members of their congregation if they have those experiences in their own lives, while the monastic clergy, who administer the affairs of the Church itself, should be “married” to the Church so that their focus is completely on it’s well-being as a whole.
Anthony, I would only add that after taking a year long course that studied only the Gospel of Paul, and Paul himself, I concluded that at bottom, he was not exactly female friendly, even for his times…. Much of our doctrine is based on the letters and writings of Paul. All of my education was in the classrooms of Jesuits, and their female counterparts, SSJ’s. . Those dear ladies were often brilliant, funny, well educated, and unflappable, no matter what. I should know, I tried their patience mightily, at times.
All that said, I really didn’t understand how much of Catholicism sprang from Judaism until I married a mostly-secular Jew who also thinks about such things. Jesus was born and died a Jew, some Christians would be shocked to learn this, sadly.
Agree about Paul. His Epistles to the Romans reeked of hatred, and his overall demeanor about women are what prompted a later Pope to extract several gospels from the original bible, particularly The Gospel of the Magdalene. Fortunately, all of those works are available (The Gnostic Gospels) as are The Apocrypha.
Here’s an excellent and accurate link if you feel up to exploring (or don’t know of them already)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm
Thanks for the link and the context about Augustine, Anthony. Fascinating.
Glad you enjoyed it, run.
I’ve been interested in what makes us “believe” (in anything) since I was a child, and have attended many a seminar and taken some courses in comparative religions. Also was a HUGE fan of Joseph Campbell, and appreciated his ability to find similarities in all mythologies
All of Paul’s epistles are 2nd – 3rd century forgeries, created to support one sect or the other’s views. The figure of Paul of Tarsus himself is a fictional character created by Marcion (who also likely created the Urmark out of whole cloth). Pauls travels & travails closely mirror those of Marcion.
Humans are hardwired to need religion. Whether that’s a feature or a bug is debatable, what’s certain is that denying that need can cause a lot of unhappiness.
As an atheist, I would not describe myself as unhappy so for me there’s no denying that the “religious need” is not necessary for happiness. I suppose denying religion to a religious person would make them unhappy, but likewise imposing religion on someone like me would cause much unhappiness.
You may be interested in the work of Pascal Boyer for a very singular approach to the study of religion. (I wish he had as wide an audience as Richard Dawkins, of whom I’m not a fan.) I have always seen the similarity between religious ritual and OCD behavior and that is one of the avenues he explores in his evolved Precaution Model.
Here are some links if you’re interested:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_is_religion_natural
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/index.html
Thanks for the links, gxm, I always love reading about this stuff.
I was commenting via tablet so I it was hard to type, so I tried too hard to be pithy. Now that I have a keyboard, I can clarify. I meant humans as a species, and “denying” meant institutionalized suppression (such as in communist countries).
Individuals always vary from group norms – there are always perfectly well-adjusted atheists throughout history, and many many completely batshit crazy religious wackos. But as a species, we continually invent religions, so as a species, I think we might as well accept that it will always be so, and look towards welcoming the best (aka least harmful) religions around. That’s where I was going – we should manage the need and not deny it.
Dennett, and some others (incl. Pinker??) believe religions offers some ‘fitness’ to societal groups. Dawkins believes religiosity is a side-effect of other fitness-improving traits. (And Dawkins is always wary of group-selection as an answer to anything.)
Thanks Anthony, A year of Paul was about 11 and 1/2 months too long, but I am familiar with the texts you cite.
If I may, allow me a slight segue into religious and ethnic stereotypes…A few days ago, I had an appointment with a new Dr. to have my ankle ex-rayed, and to also finally acknowledge my need for help with my expanding arthritis.. He had a Jewish surname and looked like Bennett Cerf. We confessed to being the same age, and started testing each other on old Big Bopper and Buddy Holley lyrics.. He kept looking at me oddly, and finally blurted out, ‘how can you have a Jewish name, yet look and act {act ?} so Irish? I explained that inter-faith marriages are now legal, he could look it up..
He nodded grimly and said he had an Irish/Catholic girlfriend in college who he was crazy about but his parents disapproved..Thank Goddess, parents and ‘ism’s”’ seldom have that kind of control anymore, at least in the Western world. Stereotypes have become just silly, and that was one slightly odd dr.’s appointment, even with Buddy Holley in tow.
For example, I am terrible at Bingo, have only played it once, at a synagogue, when my elderly neighbor needed a ride to her weekly game.
P.S. to John, I love the Feast of St Francis, Sophie has had a bath and a blow dry. I have a statue of St Frank in my Fl. garden, it is very old and mossy. No dog has ever dared pee there, and the area draws tons of butterflies, go figure.
WHen you’re in NY, check out the reference library at the Metropolitan Museum of Art http://library.metmuseum.org/screens/opacmenu.html
Although its focused on art, most early (even pre-Christian) art was religious in nature. There are also ancient texts that are carefully translated that reflect the evolution of spiritual traditions lay out the timeline of how they segue from one to another and to even another using the evolution of sacred art as a guide. The Old Testament exists in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and each faith’s version is more than just a little similar.
Best. Post. Ever. And, loved the pay-off at the end. If I could take my dogs to church, I might actually start going again for the first time since I turned 18, left my mom’s house and could stop going.
Animals are the holiest creatures in church on St Francis Day.If only Man could half as kind, loving and forgiving as our pets.
Satan lives in my cat
One thing that really bothers me about the New Left is that in the process of rejecting the church they seem to have taken all the bad with them and left behind the good. For example, they frequently tell me I’m going to burn in the fires of hell, but there’s no heavenly choir or comforting rituals.
A conservative Catholic chum of mine (I was raised as such myself) posted on FB last week a comment that gave me pause (not paws, Bob B. but happy Feast of St Francis who is/was my confirmation patron saint–milquetoast name nowadays but fearsome saint, if a bit too much for moderate me–a fanatic, he died in his 40s after he relentlessly drove his Brother Ass of a body to an early grave; sprinkling ashes on his veggies could not have helped his scanty, frugal diet).
Anyhow: we hear a lot of liberal Christian assertions from such as the Episcopalians or Catholic advocates for the poor that Jesus would have backed gay marriage, healthcare, minimum wage etc. But, given Christ taught us to render to Caesar his and to the community theirs–is it the government’s duty to enact a progressive set of policies and programs, or the believer and his/her “faith community”‘s obligation to do good works, to dispense more than a widow’s mite to assist the destitute, the imprisoned, the sick, widows, orphans, et al.? Does a Christian Left in conflating public policy with a Dem platform confuse a “corporal work of mercy” with Obamacare?
Thanks Fio for this remark. After spending a few years at a very liberal Anglican church, I came to realize how shallow “social justice” Jesus was. It’s only a slightly deeper reading of the 4 books than the superhero Jesus of the right. The Christian Left is often every bit as lazy as the Christian Right. And it’s killing the church. For anyone interested i recommend Christianity After Religion by Diana Butler Bass.
http://www.dianabutlerbass.com/books-mainmenu-4/132-christianity-after-religion
gxm – thanks for the input from the atheist perspective. I appreciate it. I resigned from the debating society on this one a while back. I’ve got an opinion…but what, really, is the point of arguing it? It’s interesting to read stuff from atheists. Some works for me, some doesn’t. Hitchens wrote bitter, ranting nonsense on the topic. I find what I’ve read of Dawkins’ work compelling even though he annoys. Steven Hawkings makes the best argument if you ask me. He’s not fighting religion out of some resentment. He’s making the case against God being needed at all. That’s honest. But even his “proof” leaves me shrugging.
“But even his “proof” leaves me shrugging.”
The onus is not on the atheist to disprove God, rather on the believer to offer extraordinary proof of their extraordinary claim of God’s existence.
In any case, Hawking very forcefully shows how no deity is required to explain the existence of the Universe. If your personal peace of mind “needs” a God, that’s: 1) a false semantic equation of two different “needs”; 2) neither here nor there.
It is my impression that the highest purpose of any religion should be to create better, more fulfilled people.
” Sit, stand, sing kneel, sit, kneel, stand, sing, walk to alter, kneel, stand, sing, sit…leave.”
Holy Macarena, Batman!