As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #3 Written that you may believe Ch. 6.
04/22/10
Women in John’s Gospel
Women play an important role in John’s Gospel. They have much greater prominence here than in the Synoptics. Luke brings women into his accounts, but in John they have extraordinarily prestigious roles. There is a subtle undermining of the male hierarchy found in the early tradition and even the other Gospels. In Paul’s account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus found in 1 Cor 15:5 (an account that he himself received – most probably from the Jerusalem church) Jesus appears first to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to five hundred brothers, then to James, and lastly to Paul himself. In this account the message is only given to men. In Matthew and the longer ending of Mark the first witnesses of the resurrection are women, but in John the first witness is exclusively Mary Magdalene and an extended scene of recognition is devoted to her. In John all the key moments include women with individual roles.
In Chapter 4 there is the account of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. In v. 28-30 & 39-42 she is described as the person who leads people to faith. “Come and see a man who has told me everything… can he be the Messiah?” In this she appears to fulfill Jesus’ commission made the night before he died. At that time he prays for his disciples (the “priestly prayer of Jesus”). In this prayer he leads his disciples into communion with himself and with the Father, through him. Then in Jn 17:20 he prays for those who will believe through the word of these disciples. The Samaritan woman has already modeled this for the disciples. In v. 24 he also prays that people will enter into a direct relationship with him, “to see (his) glory”. This woman, who is not even Jewish, has achieved this for her townspeople. Through her they have entered into this relationship, have believed for themselves and begun to see the glory of Christ. She stands in contrast to Nicodemus from the previous chapter who seeks Jesus by night and while he enters into conversation with Jesus, does not move forward in faith as she does.
The confession of the Christ Mt 16:16 by Peter at Caesarea Philippi is seen as the turning point of the Synoptic gospels. It gives Peter a tremendous prestige. In John’s Gospel this role is assumed by Martha of Bethany. In Jn 11:27 after the death of her brother, Lazarus, it is Martha who proclaims Jesus “the Messiah, the Son of God”. The woman at the well in Samaria makes a tentative question “Can he be the Messiah? For Martha there is no doubt. No man in John’s Gospel does anything equivalent.
The woman who anoints Jesus as Messiah ahead of his crucifixion is Mary of Bethany. She does not wait for an official priest or prophet but takes the role upon herself. Jn 11:5 identifies the only named persons in the Gospel whom Jesus loved – Mary, Martha and Lazarus. To some theologians they are therefore the best candidates for the historical figure of the beloved disciple. It is noteworthy that two of the three are women, and the man is placed last.
The key woman in the Gospel appears at the beginning and end of the Gospel. In Chapter 2:1-11 we have the account of the wedding at Cana. The wedding itself evokes the final image of the New Testament: the new Jerusalem descending like a bride adorned for her husband (Christ). The wedding at Cana is the first of the signs and marks the re-beginning of the Gospel (following the Prologue and the calling of the disciples). It takes place on the third day, the day of resurrection, anticipating the end of the Gospel. Conversely the garden scene at the end of the Gospel evokes both Eden and the New Jerusalem with its trees of life and healing.
The scene opens with the wine running out and Jesus’ mother asking Jesus to intervene. He replies “Woman what is this to you and to me?” adding that his hour has not yet come. This sounds like a semi-rebuke – we should not be getting involved. This semi-rejection reflects other accounts in the Synoptics where Jesus keeps his mother and brothers at a remove in order to establish a new community not based on ties of blood.
Strangely Jesus then acts counter to his words by working the miracle. The woman prompts him to act before he wants to. He produces an enormous quantity of wine (about 600 liters) and his glory is revealed. This seems to indicate that his hour has indeed come. The transformed wine is a symbol of the transformed earth. It symbolizes the joy of the resurrection.
So who is this woman? This figure’s primary importance is in her symbolism not as an historical figure. Traditionally this passage has been understood as Mary, the mother of Jesus, displaying her influence over her son. Why then does Jesus call her “Woman”— a term that would have been as strange then as today when addressing one’s mother?
At the foot of the cross in Jn 19:25-27 Jesus addresses the two key figures of the beloved disciple and the woman. He says “Woman here is your son” and to the disciple “here is your mother”. From that moment the beloved disciple “took her into his own” - that is brought her into close relationship. This has been read traditionally as Jesus looking out for his mother, Mary, as a dutiful son. Instead (as so much in the Gospel) this passage can only be read symbolically.
The word for disciple is masculine – there is no female form. Some modern scholars say that the male pronoun “he” and also the word “son” is used as a substitute for this male noun. There is no way of knowing from the text the gender of the beloved disciple. This had led some to identify Mary Magdalene as the beloved disciple here. This is corroborated by the Gospel accounts that state that all the male disciples scattered after Jesus’ arrest –with only the women remaining at the foot of the cross.
The significance of Jesus’ words is that the beloved disciple should enter in to a relationship with the woman. Theologian Raymond Brown argued that by bringing the woman into his home, this makes the beloved disciple a brother of Jesus. This seems trivial. If read at a wider level of symbolism, however, the meaning becomes deeper. The figure of the beloved disciple symbolizes both the reader, the one entering into relationship with Jesus through the Word, and also the new redeemed human community. The Woman is both Jesus’ mother (Mary) from whom Jesus was born. But she also stands for more than this – for the natural created order – the earth, nature, physical motherhood and God’s feminine Wisdom poured forth into all of this. At Cana she is the created order that brings forth Jesus. At the cross she becomes the earth redeemed from violence – embraced and transformed by the beloved disciple in a new creation in the shadow of the cross. She therefore represents the old creation on the way to transformation. The Christian disciple brings creation into relationship with her/himself in order to bring it to the perfection God intends.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
John #2
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (2003) Crossroad Publishing Co. New York, NY.
Background reading to study #2- Written that you may believe chapters 1&2.
04/15/10
The Prologue
The Prologue to John’s Gospel is found in Jn 1:1-18. In the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church this passage was included as part of the ritual at the end of every mass – demonstrating its importance. John’s prologue is often compared with the beginning of Genesis, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void…,” describing the beginning of the world. The Johannine Prologue has traditionally been used as the underpinning for doctrine – the teaching that Jesus pre-existed with the Father even before the creation of the world.
The Prologue gives Jesus immense status. Unlike the Synoptics, Jesus is not baptized by John in the Jordan – there is no need, his authority has already been proclaimed.
John’s prologue says that in the beginning was the Word. The Word essentially means communication. The end of John’s Gospel sees an inclusion re. the Word – though this time in written form—when it says that “these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah” (20:30-31; this is also reiterated in the revised ending in Chapter 21:24 “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them…”). (The inclusion leads you back to the beginning of the Gospel. Read in this way the Gospel is saying that the beginning of Christian life begins with the communication of the gospel message. Everything begins with the Word…
The Evangelist probably intended both meanings – the cosmic and pre-existent Christ and the concrete, present, life-transforming Jesus. By placing Jesus in both paradigms the evangelist describes the mystery of Jesus.
However, the Prologue, suggesting the pre-existence of Jesus, gave credence to the dualistic Gnostic heresies emerging at that time. These made Jesus more spiritual and removed. They believed that Jesus wasn’t really human. The subsequent letters of John seek to counter this belief. In the prologue of the first letter of John (1John1:1-4) the author takes pains to state that what is written comes from witnesses who saw, heard, touched and watched the human Jesus. The emphasis is on the physical senses. The message is that Jesus was real. The gospel is totally available to the physical realm and it is only through the physical world that fellowship with God is achieved. It is almost like a correction to the tendency towards the “spiritual” found in the Gospel’s prologue.
The Johannine letters proceed to challenge the Gnostic claims . In 1 John 1:8-10 the author states that those who say that they have no sin deceive themselves and make Jesus a liar. Gnostics, who divided the world into spiritual (good) and physical (bad), could make that claim. If truth and meaning is found only in the spiritual world then the physical realm is meaningless and whatever takes place in it insignificant. This is a belief that continues today in Christian fundamentalism and in new age religions; in any religion or faith that seeks escape into the purely spiritual and fails to see the spirit at work in and through the world. What makes you a Christian is love, and this love in communion with the concrete other (koinonia).
In 1 John 4:1-3 the author states that the Spirit of God is known because it confesses that Jesus came in the flesh. Flesh here is used to denote the physical body, not the Pauline understanding of the powers and systems of world.
In 2 John 7 the author calls those that do not confess that Jesus came in the flesh to be deceivers and antichrist.
In 1 Jn 3: 11-17 the message of the gospel is of love. We know we have passed from death to life because we love one another. This is not a hidden knowledge or a spiritual sense. Rather it is a lived experience. In v.17 it goes on to say that you can’t be spiritual and be unjust to the poor.
The Gnostic crisis was the first that the Johannine community had to face. A second crisis can also be discerned from the Johannine letters. This was a crisis in its relationship to the emerging hierarchical church. The second letter opens with an address to “the elder to the elect lady and her children”. The Johannine community would be the elect lady (with Jesus as her Lord). The local community understood itself in intense relational terms as the bride of the Lord. 3 John 2-8 paints a picture of people being sent from one community of the beloved to another, sharing a message of brotherhood and sisterhood. In v. 9 a figure (Diotrephes) is discussed. He is an official of the church (possibly the Petrine Church) who refuses to recognize the status of the Johannine sisters and brothers and refuses to welcome them as friends. They are not officially licensed – and are therefore expelled. The letter goes on to reaffirm the Johannine community – it is through love rather than obedience to an organization that true authority comes.
This letter illustrates the tension between the Johannine community and the emerging hierarchical church. On the one hand the community understands the need to establish a relationship with the Petrine church – standing with them against Gnosticism. On the other hand they have a very different focus and anti-hierarchical structure founded in Christian fellowship. John does not use the word church (ecclesia), except in 3 John 6 and 9 (which is possibly distant in tone), preferring “communion” (koinonia) and love. In the second ending to the Gospel (Ch 22) Peter is reinstated and his pastoral role recognized (although he is not the shepherd); but in v.22 there is a hint in Jesus’ response to Peter of a continued difference in the Johannine community. When Peter asks about the Beloved disciple Jesus replies “what is that to you?” suggesting that the Johannine community should be given space to retain its identity and sense of communion—i.e. “remain until I come.” Peter should focus on following the Lord. There is a subtle critique of Petrine authority. Similarly in the empty tomb narrative, while Peter is the first to go inside the tomb, it is the Beloved disciple who gets there first!
Background reading to study #2- Written that you may believe chapters 1&2.
04/15/10
The Prologue
The Prologue to John’s Gospel is found in Jn 1:1-18. In the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church this passage was included as part of the ritual at the end of every mass – demonstrating its importance. John’s prologue is often compared with the beginning of Genesis, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void…,” describing the beginning of the world. The Johannine Prologue has traditionally been used as the underpinning for doctrine – the teaching that Jesus pre-existed with the Father even before the creation of the world.
The Prologue gives Jesus immense status. Unlike the Synoptics, Jesus is not baptized by John in the Jordan – there is no need, his authority has already been proclaimed.
John’s prologue says that in the beginning was the Word. The Word essentially means communication. The end of John’s Gospel sees an inclusion re. the Word – though this time in written form—when it says that “these [signs] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah” (20:30-31; this is also reiterated in the revised ending in Chapter 21:24 “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them…”). (The inclusion leads you back to the beginning of the Gospel. Read in this way the Gospel is saying that the beginning of Christian life begins with the communication of the gospel message. Everything begins with the Word…
The Evangelist probably intended both meanings – the cosmic and pre-existent Christ and the concrete, present, life-transforming Jesus. By placing Jesus in both paradigms the evangelist describes the mystery of Jesus.
However, the Prologue, suggesting the pre-existence of Jesus, gave credence to the dualistic Gnostic heresies emerging at that time. These made Jesus more spiritual and removed. They believed that Jesus wasn’t really human. The subsequent letters of John seek to counter this belief. In the prologue of the first letter of John (1John1:1-4) the author takes pains to state that what is written comes from witnesses who saw, heard, touched and watched the human Jesus. The emphasis is on the physical senses. The message is that Jesus was real. The gospel is totally available to the physical realm and it is only through the physical world that fellowship with God is achieved. It is almost like a correction to the tendency towards the “spiritual” found in the Gospel’s prologue.
The Johannine letters proceed to challenge the Gnostic claims . In 1 John 1:8-10 the author states that those who say that they have no sin deceive themselves and make Jesus a liar. Gnostics, who divided the world into spiritual (good) and physical (bad), could make that claim. If truth and meaning is found only in the spiritual world then the physical realm is meaningless and whatever takes place in it insignificant. This is a belief that continues today in Christian fundamentalism and in new age religions; in any religion or faith that seeks escape into the purely spiritual and fails to see the spirit at work in and through the world. What makes you a Christian is love, and this love in communion with the concrete other (koinonia).
In 1 John 4:1-3 the author states that the Spirit of God is known because it confesses that Jesus came in the flesh. Flesh here is used to denote the physical body, not the Pauline understanding of the powers and systems of world.
In 2 John 7 the author calls those that do not confess that Jesus came in the flesh to be deceivers and antichrist.
In 1 Jn 3: 11-17 the message of the gospel is of love. We know we have passed from death to life because we love one another. This is not a hidden knowledge or a spiritual sense. Rather it is a lived experience. In v.17 it goes on to say that you can’t be spiritual and be unjust to the poor.
The Gnostic crisis was the first that the Johannine community had to face. A second crisis can also be discerned from the Johannine letters. This was a crisis in its relationship to the emerging hierarchical church. The second letter opens with an address to “the elder to the elect lady and her children”. The Johannine community would be the elect lady (with Jesus as her Lord). The local community understood itself in intense relational terms as the bride of the Lord. 3 John 2-8 paints a picture of people being sent from one community of the beloved to another, sharing a message of brotherhood and sisterhood. In v. 9 a figure (Diotrephes) is discussed. He is an official of the church (possibly the Petrine Church) who refuses to recognize the status of the Johannine sisters and brothers and refuses to welcome them as friends. They are not officially licensed – and are therefore expelled. The letter goes on to reaffirm the Johannine community – it is through love rather than obedience to an organization that true authority comes.
This letter illustrates the tension between the Johannine community and the emerging hierarchical church. On the one hand the community understands the need to establish a relationship with the Petrine church – standing with them against Gnosticism. On the other hand they have a very different focus and anti-hierarchical structure founded in Christian fellowship. John does not use the word church (ecclesia), except in 3 John 6 and 9 (which is possibly distant in tone), preferring “communion” (koinonia) and love. In the second ending to the Gospel (Ch 22) Peter is reinstated and his pastoral role recognized (although he is not the shepherd); but in v.22 there is a hint in Jesus’ response to Peter of a continued difference in the Johannine community. When Peter asks about the Beloved disciple Jesus replies “what is that to you?” suggesting that the Johannine community should be given space to retain its identity and sense of communion—i.e. “remain until I come.” Peter should focus on following the Lord. There is a subtle critique of Petrine authority. Similarly in the empty tomb narrative, while Peter is the first to go inside the tomb, it is the Beloved disciple who gets there first!
John #1
Welcome to the new Bible study - this one on the writings of John. We meet every week and my plan is to post a summary within a few days of each of the studies. Here to begin are the first three study summaries ...
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing, 2003).
Background reading to study #1- Written that you may believe chapters 1&2.
04/08/10
The Johannine Community
John’s Gospel is the last of the canonical Gospels to be written and stands apart from the Synoptics in style and material. (For example the ministry of Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke lasts a year, in John three years). It offers a non-hierarchical and non-traditional source of New Testament authority, apart from the figures of Paul or Peter. This authority lies in the witness and relationship with Jesus of the beloved disciple.
In John’s Gospel the beloved disciple is the central figure apart from Jesus. S/he is the witness to the material – the person around whom the material gathers and who guarantees its authenticity. The beloved disciple takes a pivotal role but is not identified in the Gospel. Traditionally the beloved disciple has been associated with John, the son of Zebedee. In John’s Gospel Jesus uses signs to communicate his message. This has especially loaded meaning in John, but also in the Synoptics Jesus works through signs. Jesus chose twelve men to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. However, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels the twelve are only mentioned once and not in association with the initial call of disciples. And no authority is given them. In light of this, recent scholarship tends not to associate the beloved disciple with one of the twelve.
The beloved disciple was most probably someone who lived for many years in a Christian community which was originally based in Palestine (Israel) but perhaps later relocated to Ephesus in Asia Minor. The Gospel, though based on the reflections and memories of this individual, was probably written by someone else. The evangelist was probably a younger, second generation member of the Johannine community. Gospels emerge within the context from which they are written. They are shaped by the needs of these communities and the audience they are targeting. The features of the Johannine community identified by the theologian Raymond Brown are as follows:
The original community was probably made up of highly motivated Jews such as the followers of John the Baptist described in Jn 1and 3. Though highly religious they were not zealots. They would most likely have included Galileans and lived outside of Jerusalem. At some point a significant number of Samaritans joined the community. Samaritans were some of the first to receive the gospel (Acts 8:4-8) – the story of the woman at the well provides the Gospel’s evidence for this. Also joining the community were Diaspora Jews – Jews who had settled outside Israel without ties to Jerusalem. Gentiles were the final group to join.
Brown argues that because of the prominence given to women in the Gospel of John that the original community would likely have had a strong female leadership. Sandra Schneiders argues that the beloved disciple was a woman – possibly Mary Magdalene. The Evangelist could also have been a woman – or if not, then an enlightened man, sympathetic to women. (The role of women in the Gospel will be explored more fully in a later study).
The beloved disciple, while based on a historical figure, is not identified, creating an open set or cipher. The “beloved disciple” becomes a literary device – a representative figure with which the reader can identify. In this way the beloved disciple becomes the means by which the reader is drawn into the Gospel and into a relationship with Jesus. This relationship lies at the heart of the Gospel.
The Johannine community was, therefore, a non-hierarchical community that existed independently from the Jerusalem church. It did not promote priesthood or hierarchical leadership but instilled a direct communion with Christ.
Probably after the death of the beloved disciple the text is edited and an additional ending added – Chapter 21. This story – of Jesus meeting the disciples on the sea of Galilee and the rehabilitation of Peter – is an attempt by the Johannine community to build a relationship with the emerging hierarchical church. In part this was an effort by the Johannine community to counter the growing challenge of an early form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, influenced heavily by Greek thought, believed that the body was an empty shell. This form of thought typically denied the bodily incarnation of Jesus – that Jesus was really human, suffered and died. The Johannine letters, written after the Gospel around 100 CE/AD, address this by stressing the human, physical Jesus.
By aligning with the Petrine church, the Johannine community was affirming its belief in the fully human Jesus and the bodily resurrection. The second ending gives Peter a pastoral role and in so doing indicates that the Johannine community were accepting the pastoral role of the Petrine church. However the ending is also written in such a way that it allowed the community to retain their own unique identity and spiritual independence.
As well as the Gospel and letters of John this Bible study uses the book “Written that you may believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel” by Sandra M. Schneiders (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing, 2003).
Background reading to study #1- Written that you may believe chapters 1&2.
04/08/10
The Johannine Community
John’s Gospel is the last of the canonical Gospels to be written and stands apart from the Synoptics in style and material. (For example the ministry of Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke lasts a year, in John three years). It offers a non-hierarchical and non-traditional source of New Testament authority, apart from the figures of Paul or Peter. This authority lies in the witness and relationship with Jesus of the beloved disciple.
In John’s Gospel the beloved disciple is the central figure apart from Jesus. S/he is the witness to the material – the person around whom the material gathers and who guarantees its authenticity. The beloved disciple takes a pivotal role but is not identified in the Gospel. Traditionally the beloved disciple has been associated with John, the son of Zebedee. In John’s Gospel Jesus uses signs to communicate his message. This has especially loaded meaning in John, but also in the Synoptics Jesus works through signs. Jesus chose twelve men to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. However, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels the twelve are only mentioned once and not in association with the initial call of disciples. And no authority is given them. In light of this, recent scholarship tends not to associate the beloved disciple with one of the twelve.
The beloved disciple was most probably someone who lived for many years in a Christian community which was originally based in Palestine (Israel) but perhaps later relocated to Ephesus in Asia Minor. The Gospel, though based on the reflections and memories of this individual, was probably written by someone else. The evangelist was probably a younger, second generation member of the Johannine community. Gospels emerge within the context from which they are written. They are shaped by the needs of these communities and the audience they are targeting. The features of the Johannine community identified by the theologian Raymond Brown are as follows:
The original community was probably made up of highly motivated Jews such as the followers of John the Baptist described in Jn 1and 3. Though highly religious they were not zealots. They would most likely have included Galileans and lived outside of Jerusalem. At some point a significant number of Samaritans joined the community. Samaritans were some of the first to receive the gospel (Acts 8:4-8) – the story of the woman at the well provides the Gospel’s evidence for this. Also joining the community were Diaspora Jews – Jews who had settled outside Israel without ties to Jerusalem. Gentiles were the final group to join.
Brown argues that because of the prominence given to women in the Gospel of John that the original community would likely have had a strong female leadership. Sandra Schneiders argues that the beloved disciple was a woman – possibly Mary Magdalene. The Evangelist could also have been a woman – or if not, then an enlightened man, sympathetic to women. (The role of women in the Gospel will be explored more fully in a later study).
The beloved disciple, while based on a historical figure, is not identified, creating an open set or cipher. The “beloved disciple” becomes a literary device – a representative figure with which the reader can identify. In this way the beloved disciple becomes the means by which the reader is drawn into the Gospel and into a relationship with Jesus. This relationship lies at the heart of the Gospel.
The Johannine community was, therefore, a non-hierarchical community that existed independently from the Jerusalem church. It did not promote priesthood or hierarchical leadership but instilled a direct communion with Christ.
Probably after the death of the beloved disciple the text is edited and an additional ending added – Chapter 21. This story – of Jesus meeting the disciples on the sea of Galilee and the rehabilitation of Peter – is an attempt by the Johannine community to build a relationship with the emerging hierarchical church. In part this was an effort by the Johannine community to counter the growing challenge of an early form of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, influenced heavily by Greek thought, believed that the body was an empty shell. This form of thought typically denied the bodily incarnation of Jesus – that Jesus was really human, suffered and died. The Johannine letters, written after the Gospel around 100 CE/AD, address this by stressing the human, physical Jesus.
By aligning with the Petrine church, the Johannine community was affirming its belief in the fully human Jesus and the bodily resurrection. The second ending gives Peter a pastoral role and in so doing indicates that the Johannine community were accepting the pastoral role of the Petrine church. However the ending is also written in such a way that it allowed the community to retain their own unique identity and spiritual independence.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Mother Teresa's Foot
I think I finally got it figured out. No, really. This whole thing with the RC church, and using Girard’s theory of course, it’s made me focus down on the problem of desire.
There can be no doubt that desire is imitative and violent. (Quick big frame example: Mr. Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapon. Why? Because everyone else has one. If you’ve never encountered Girard before check the study page on this site.)
Way back, in the very first springs of human development this violent desire gets impacted into human culture through myth and ritual forms of all sorts. Rules and hierarchy are very important too. What results is that humans don’t know which end is up. They think violence is part of the order of things. In fact it is divine. You can know the gods by their cosmic violence. And so the whole of society follows suit.
Something new had to come into the world in order to break wide open this rigged system. The name of the new thing is Jesus and the fore-giveness he shows. Because of Jesus it is always possible for individuals to live in a Holy Spirit of love, free of the kingdoms of death that rule this world. But, exactly, the whole world remains a dense system of violence. It takes centuries and centuries to break down its apparatus of falsehood, let alone the violence by which it lives.
I believe that is actually happening, but in the meantime it does not solve the problem of desire for a believer, and that’s what the focus is here.
Imitation of the other could not happen unless there was an even more primordial unity with the other. How would we want what the other wants unless we’re somehow already linked, unless somehow I am already the other person and the other person is me? So there is in fact a more original at-traction or drawing together of me and the other. The fact that it quickly becomes competitive does not negate its original condition. At the organic and sub-organic level it goes without saying that this huge force of attraction exists. I will call this primordial attraction “eros” to distinguish it from desire.
In the past Christians, once they have learned the message of forgiveness and love, have pointed their eros at heaven. That’s the place where it will be possible to release and experience fully the aboriginal unity of all things. In the RC church this has been the case but, at the same time, they also pointed the eros toward themselves, toward their concrete forms, and that is one of the key things that marked out this tradition and has led to its profound crisis.
I do think scripture intends us to recognize and actively seek earthly eros. It can only be done in a heart free of violence and it will express itself in service, justice and peace, but it is real, physical and intended for creation. I think the “woman” of the Johannine writings, in all her multiple realizations, is a figure of this physical eros. At the point of the cross, standing under it, creation is freed from violence, and the disciple is brought into relation with her as his mother. The disciple accepts the woman into his/her closest life. Then at the end of the bible the whole earth becomes this woman, the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven as a bride of Christ. God and Christ are themselves in the most powerful erotic relation with the earth.
So now back to the crisis in the RC church. The RC tradition in some measure relied on this eros to make celibacy work. The priest loves the people and the people love the priest. But it was all mixed up with power and militancy against the world, and with societal changes in the 20th century it became more and more actively corrupt. That’s the way I see it. I think the crisis in the RC church is a crisis of eros and it simply cannot be resolved in the present set-up of the church in this present moment of history. The forms of eros in our contemporary world are far too diverse, multiple, subtle and generative to be ever contained in the strategy of celibacy devised in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
But that does not mean that true Christian eros for this earth has gone away. No, it is more vital and real than ever. Against the collapse of clericalism on the one hand and Left Behind violence on the other communities of emerging Christianity will practice a true physical eros, a closeness to the earth and to each other, without violence but also without separation. Only communities of such fullness of life will be able to embrace the rampant eros of the modern world and transform it into love, through and through. I look forward to a time when Christian leadership will express itself in real Christ-like humble proximity to the physical, to the world’s pain and, even more deeply, to the world’s joy, its longing for union with itself.
I once had a long one-on-one conversation with Mother Teresa. We talked about the church for over an hour. It was my big moment, my dancing-with-the-stars in the Catholic stratosphere. The content of the conversation doesn’t much matter—in fact I didn’t really get answers—but what was fascinating was being with this woman who had an immense passion for the physical world expressed in service to the poor. The most impressive thing was the power of her passion, which was humble but galactic in weight. Being next to her was how I would imagine the experience of being a small spaceship circling a giant star, being pulled into her orbit. At one point I noticed her foot extending beneath her sari. I could see the bones and the blue veins and I became fixed on it. She saw me looking and quickly pulled her foot back. But the image is sealed in my mind and I think it’s because it was so physical. The whole weight of this woman’s eros was expressed in it. I’m always longing for Mother Teresa’s foot.
Tony
There can be no doubt that desire is imitative and violent. (Quick big frame example: Mr. Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapon. Why? Because everyone else has one. If you’ve never encountered Girard before check the study page on this site.)
Way back, in the very first springs of human development this violent desire gets impacted into human culture through myth and ritual forms of all sorts. Rules and hierarchy are very important too. What results is that humans don’t know which end is up. They think violence is part of the order of things. In fact it is divine. You can know the gods by their cosmic violence. And so the whole of society follows suit.
Something new had to come into the world in order to break wide open this rigged system. The name of the new thing is Jesus and the fore-giveness he shows. Because of Jesus it is always possible for individuals to live in a Holy Spirit of love, free of the kingdoms of death that rule this world. But, exactly, the whole world remains a dense system of violence. It takes centuries and centuries to break down its apparatus of falsehood, let alone the violence by which it lives.
I believe that is actually happening, but in the meantime it does not solve the problem of desire for a believer, and that’s what the focus is here.
Imitation of the other could not happen unless there was an even more primordial unity with the other. How would we want what the other wants unless we’re somehow already linked, unless somehow I am already the other person and the other person is me? So there is in fact a more original at-traction or drawing together of me and the other. The fact that it quickly becomes competitive does not negate its original condition. At the organic and sub-organic level it goes without saying that this huge force of attraction exists. I will call this primordial attraction “eros” to distinguish it from desire.
In the past Christians, once they have learned the message of forgiveness and love, have pointed their eros at heaven. That’s the place where it will be possible to release and experience fully the aboriginal unity of all things. In the RC church this has been the case but, at the same time, they also pointed the eros toward themselves, toward their concrete forms, and that is one of the key things that marked out this tradition and has led to its profound crisis.
I do think scripture intends us to recognize and actively seek earthly eros. It can only be done in a heart free of violence and it will express itself in service, justice and peace, but it is real, physical and intended for creation. I think the “woman” of the Johannine writings, in all her multiple realizations, is a figure of this physical eros. At the point of the cross, standing under it, creation is freed from violence, and the disciple is brought into relation with her as his mother. The disciple accepts the woman into his/her closest life. Then at the end of the bible the whole earth becomes this woman, the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven as a bride of Christ. God and Christ are themselves in the most powerful erotic relation with the earth.
So now back to the crisis in the RC church. The RC tradition in some measure relied on this eros to make celibacy work. The priest loves the people and the people love the priest. But it was all mixed up with power and militancy against the world, and with societal changes in the 20th century it became more and more actively corrupt. That’s the way I see it. I think the crisis in the RC church is a crisis of eros and it simply cannot be resolved in the present set-up of the church in this present moment of history. The forms of eros in our contemporary world are far too diverse, multiple, subtle and generative to be ever contained in the strategy of celibacy devised in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
But that does not mean that true Christian eros for this earth has gone away. No, it is more vital and real than ever. Against the collapse of clericalism on the one hand and Left Behind violence on the other communities of emerging Christianity will practice a true physical eros, a closeness to the earth and to each other, without violence but also without separation. Only communities of such fullness of life will be able to embrace the rampant eros of the modern world and transform it into love, through and through. I look forward to a time when Christian leadership will express itself in real Christ-like humble proximity to the physical, to the world’s pain and, even more deeply, to the world’s joy, its longing for union with itself.
I once had a long one-on-one conversation with Mother Teresa. We talked about the church for over an hour. It was my big moment, my dancing-with-the-stars in the Catholic stratosphere. The content of the conversation doesn’t much matter—in fact I didn’t really get answers—but what was fascinating was being with this woman who had an immense passion for the physical world expressed in service to the poor. The most impressive thing was the power of her passion, which was humble but galactic in weight. Being next to her was how I would imagine the experience of being a small spaceship circling a giant star, being pulled into her orbit. At one point I noticed her foot extending beneath her sari. I could see the bones and the blue veins and I became fixed on it. She saw me looking and quickly pulled her foot back. But the image is sealed in my mind and I think it’s because it was so physical. The whole weight of this woman’s eros was expressed in it. I’m always longing for Mother Teresa’s foot.
Tony
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Resurrection, The Killer App.
I know priests who don’t believe in a physical resurrection; two thousand years of Platonism have done for that. They should call themselves “pratons” perhaps, not priests! All the energy of the New Testament is in the cross and resurrection, both together and inseparable.
You can’t overcome the catastrophe of the cross in a “spiritual” way. It has to be a real physical reversal. That’s the only intelligible explanation for the first-century Christian movement.
Even in formal doctrine the resurrection remains seriously underrated. According to Anthony Kelly the Resurrection is the poor cousin of Christian themes. It’s always subordinate to the grand idea of the Incarnation, of Jesus as God. But if you think about it the way it’s meant to be, in human terms, then it becomes suddenly explosive in meaning.
It means a real human being has overcome the physical drag and philosophical doom of death. It means that the actual constitution of the cosmos at some point in its surface and depth is now fully and irreversibly turned to life. Because we have been taught to think Platonically we were told that Jesus’ resurrected body went “to heaven,” where in fact it is indistinguishable from all that heavenly stuff and has nothing to do with the earth. The opposite is the case.
If Jesus triumphed over violence and death he did it in the human order of reality and not somewhere else. That’s why his disciples could meet him on the road, in a garden, on the shore of a lake cooking breakfast. And the more you think about it this has some really marvelous implications.
Jesus’ withdrawal from his disciples after forty days was not “to go to heaven” but in order to let the resurrection as meaning sink into human consciousness (rather than simply remain an amazing miracle). The truth of resurrection has to be received freely, but as a matter of fact because of the resurrection all material reality is bent round to immortality. And time as we know it has come to a stop.
Because the thought of Jesus’ resurrection has entered human consciousness then little by little all the fantastic stupidity of life as we lead it at the moment is shown for what it is, fantastically stupid. All the greed, the lies, the hate, the pride, the violence. Instead there is another life, one based on inexhaustible love, a love that never dies. And so the time of violence which has ruled all our timepieces since the beginning—the forward march of nations and empires, the glory of Rome, the British empire on which the sun never set, the irresistible “spread of democracy” (a.k.a. capitalism) throughout the world, all of this has slowly congealed on itself and shown itself literally to have no future. Not simply because the planet cannot bear the weight of the violence but because in the depth of the human heart we know all this is pointless, false and wrong. Because of the resurrection.
My son has a smartphone. He shows me what he calls “apps” or applications. For example, one in which he can google any place on earth and then add in a three-d sketch of new buildings. Right there on his phone. Now every marketer is looking for the “killer app,” the one that everyone will want, so useful that no one could be without it.
Well, that’s the resurrection. Somewhere in the universe, which means right here in your room, death and violence are done, defeated, put to death. You can’t see it on your Blackberry, but you can with your heart. You can click on the new time of peace and forgiveness and all the old ways of doing things seem like Pony Express. Moreover this application is not going to go down because there is a power cut, or a cyber attack, or even because someone drops a nuclear bomb. It is irreversible in the material order. You can always trust it.
This is why Christians say “Alleluia” at Eastertide, and really anytime. A new time has come into our world, and we laugh at the old time as it melts horribly into itself on all the old media screens of the planet. Death and violence are the most tried and most tired of applications. Try Resurrection instead!
Tony
You can’t overcome the catastrophe of the cross in a “spiritual” way. It has to be a real physical reversal. That’s the only intelligible explanation for the first-century Christian movement.
Even in formal doctrine the resurrection remains seriously underrated. According to Anthony Kelly the Resurrection is the poor cousin of Christian themes. It’s always subordinate to the grand idea of the Incarnation, of Jesus as God. But if you think about it the way it’s meant to be, in human terms, then it becomes suddenly explosive in meaning.
It means a real human being has overcome the physical drag and philosophical doom of death. It means that the actual constitution of the cosmos at some point in its surface and depth is now fully and irreversibly turned to life. Because we have been taught to think Platonically we were told that Jesus’ resurrected body went “to heaven,” where in fact it is indistinguishable from all that heavenly stuff and has nothing to do with the earth. The opposite is the case.
If Jesus triumphed over violence and death he did it in the human order of reality and not somewhere else. That’s why his disciples could meet him on the road, in a garden, on the shore of a lake cooking breakfast. And the more you think about it this has some really marvelous implications.
Jesus’ withdrawal from his disciples after forty days was not “to go to heaven” but in order to let the resurrection as meaning sink into human consciousness (rather than simply remain an amazing miracle). The truth of resurrection has to be received freely, but as a matter of fact because of the resurrection all material reality is bent round to immortality. And time as we know it has come to a stop.
Because the thought of Jesus’ resurrection has entered human consciousness then little by little all the fantastic stupidity of life as we lead it at the moment is shown for what it is, fantastically stupid. All the greed, the lies, the hate, the pride, the violence. Instead there is another life, one based on inexhaustible love, a love that never dies. And so the time of violence which has ruled all our timepieces since the beginning—the forward march of nations and empires, the glory of Rome, the British empire on which the sun never set, the irresistible “spread of democracy” (a.k.a. capitalism) throughout the world, all of this has slowly congealed on itself and shown itself literally to have no future. Not simply because the planet cannot bear the weight of the violence but because in the depth of the human heart we know all this is pointless, false and wrong. Because of the resurrection.
My son has a smartphone. He shows me what he calls “apps” or applications. For example, one in which he can google any place on earth and then add in a three-d sketch of new buildings. Right there on his phone. Now every marketer is looking for the “killer app,” the one that everyone will want, so useful that no one could be without it.
Well, that’s the resurrection. Somewhere in the universe, which means right here in your room, death and violence are done, defeated, put to death. You can’t see it on your Blackberry, but you can with your heart. You can click on the new time of peace and forgiveness and all the old ways of doing things seem like Pony Express. Moreover this application is not going to go down because there is a power cut, or a cyber attack, or even because someone drops a nuclear bomb. It is irreversible in the material order. You can always trust it.
This is why Christians say “Alleluia” at Eastertide, and really anytime. A new time has come into our world, and we laugh at the old time as it melts horribly into itself on all the old media screens of the planet. Death and violence are the most tried and most tired of applications. Try Resurrection instead!
Tony
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Celestine the Last?
It’s hard to get off this topic, especially in the present season. The waves of the pedophile crisis are lapping against the doors of the Vatican itself, and right during the peak activity of Holy Week and Easter. Pictures of the Bavarian pope carrying the symbols of Christ’s passion make great copy, suggesting a delicious irony (or malicious, depending on how you see it) against the roiled background of suspicions about how much he knew and how much he covered up. And now even the inconceivable has been suggested: that he resign.
Only one other pope has ever resigned on his own personal account, it was Celestine V back at the end of the 13th century. (There was another resignation to end the crisis of three rival popes early in the fifteenth century, but that was to resolve an ecclesiatical power struggle and really someone had to go.) According to tradition Celestine is the nameless figure Dante placed in the antechamber of hell because of “his great refusal.” However, Celestine was really a mystic and actually a canonized saint: he simply couldn’t stand the job. The nature of Benedict’s departure would be immensely different: a pope resigning under pressure from a secular society because it had gained the moral high ground and made the pope’s position untenable. Who would Dante send to hell here and for what reasons?
In an article in the New York Times Maureen Dowd suggested that the R.C. church needs a ‘nope’ not a pope, meaning a nun should fill its top post. I am sure this is tongue-in-cheek. Ms. Dowd is a shrewd commentator and must have some inkling of the geological resistance to a shift of that order. The Vatican would prefer to let the pope resign precisely to forestall something like that, putting in his place ‘a good man’ to restore the reputation of the papacy.
But even so I think she is onto something. The very meaning of celibacy is in crisis and mention of a woman in the papal seat does by its flight of fancy throw a light on something very disturbing about the character of the male R.C. priesthood. I have recently been writing some of my own recollections of my priesthood days, and so it is on my mind, and as is the way with what is written the matter can suddenly show itself in an entirely new light.
The pedophile crisis is not simply a crisis of crime and punishment, as it is often understood. The way that offending priests were systematically protected (something I witnessed at first hand) speaks to clerical celibate culture as such. Priests because of their special sexual situation are bonded to each other as a single caste of males, seamless from the pope to the lowliest parish curate. The analogous institution in the past was the band of male warriors around their chieftain and I think this is the correct sociological model for the priesthood over centuries. In past times, perhaps up to the 2nd World War, the caste of priests experienced themselves in militant opposition to the world, including political forces, and so, I believe, the dominant tone among them was one of a military brotherhood, the feeling tone of a professional officer class.
But in the middle of the century and especially from the Vatican Council onward the militant character waned and what took its place was a much warmer, more positive energy toward human society and culture. The latent eroticism in the band of brothers, focused aggressively against a common enemy, became confused, reflexive, awakened in and for itself. Hundreds of thousands of men left to get married, but those who stayed found themselves swimming in a much more powerful current of desire. In this situation infantilized members of the caste turned to children as their sexual prey. But the whole brotherhood protected its members in a kind of vast erotic conspiracy. The hushing-up and moving ever onward of offending priests were explained as attempts to avoid scandal but really what was at stake was the collective self-desire of the priestly caste. How else account for the actions of otherwise intelligent men who knew the cyclical behaviors of those in their charge, the criminal acts, the trauma to children, the permanent spiritual damage to those affected?
I know this is a sweeping, broad-brush description which does not take into consideration the variety of circumstance, the possibility that the division of periods is not exact (what was the incidence of sexual abuse of children by clergy before the 2nd World War?), and the presence of mature and genuine men among it all. But I believe I speak from something of a vantage point and the time to name the real malaise of priestly celibacy is now. If the scandal has touched the pope surely it is not accidental or passing? Priestly celibacy is an institutional misuse of human eros for the sake of power and control and it corrupts the consciences of men.
What we are talking about eventually is the gospel of Jesus Christ, its clarity and truth, and a world that so desperately needs it. Those who read the signs of the times are obliged to think through the situation and prepare and act for something different, something new. Pope Benedict and those around him have tried to return the Roman church to a sense of militancy, hoping that it might save the day at this desperate hour. I think they have a sense of how far we’ve come. But the genie cannot be put back in the bottle because, as I argue elsewhere, it is the gospel itself which has sprung it loose: chaotic desire can and must find only love as its solution. What is needed is a style of Christian community marked by the four essential characteristics as I see them: a scale that does not exceed the face-to-face; understanding the work of Christ as remaking the human from violence to love; resurrection as the true afterlife; sacraments arising spontaneously in and from the community.
And we cannot worry about the huge numbers of Roman Catholics who perhaps will stop going to church, or will turn to a mega-church etc. They probably already have in the West, and early Christians did not stop meeting in each other’s houses just because there was such a huge crowd last night at the Coliseum! Today we can seek only the authenticity and faithfulness of the face-to-face group to which we become committed in Christ.
Meanwhile it’s interesting to note that to mark the 800th anniversary of Celestine's birth, Pope Benedict has proclaimed a ‘Celestine year’ from 28 August 2009 through 29 August 2010. Does that mean we are to expect some announcement before the end of August?
Tony
Only one other pope has ever resigned on his own personal account, it was Celestine V back at the end of the 13th century. (There was another resignation to end the crisis of three rival popes early in the fifteenth century, but that was to resolve an ecclesiatical power struggle and really someone had to go.) According to tradition Celestine is the nameless figure Dante placed in the antechamber of hell because of “his great refusal.” However, Celestine was really a mystic and actually a canonized saint: he simply couldn’t stand the job. The nature of Benedict’s departure would be immensely different: a pope resigning under pressure from a secular society because it had gained the moral high ground and made the pope’s position untenable. Who would Dante send to hell here and for what reasons?
In an article in the New York Times Maureen Dowd suggested that the R.C. church needs a ‘nope’ not a pope, meaning a nun should fill its top post. I am sure this is tongue-in-cheek. Ms. Dowd is a shrewd commentator and must have some inkling of the geological resistance to a shift of that order. The Vatican would prefer to let the pope resign precisely to forestall something like that, putting in his place ‘a good man’ to restore the reputation of the papacy.
But even so I think she is onto something. The very meaning of celibacy is in crisis and mention of a woman in the papal seat does by its flight of fancy throw a light on something very disturbing about the character of the male R.C. priesthood. I have recently been writing some of my own recollections of my priesthood days, and so it is on my mind, and as is the way with what is written the matter can suddenly show itself in an entirely new light.
The pedophile crisis is not simply a crisis of crime and punishment, as it is often understood. The way that offending priests were systematically protected (something I witnessed at first hand) speaks to clerical celibate culture as such. Priests because of their special sexual situation are bonded to each other as a single caste of males, seamless from the pope to the lowliest parish curate. The analogous institution in the past was the band of male warriors around their chieftain and I think this is the correct sociological model for the priesthood over centuries. In past times, perhaps up to the 2nd World War, the caste of priests experienced themselves in militant opposition to the world, including political forces, and so, I believe, the dominant tone among them was one of a military brotherhood, the feeling tone of a professional officer class.
But in the middle of the century and especially from the Vatican Council onward the militant character waned and what took its place was a much warmer, more positive energy toward human society and culture. The latent eroticism in the band of brothers, focused aggressively against a common enemy, became confused, reflexive, awakened in and for itself. Hundreds of thousands of men left to get married, but those who stayed found themselves swimming in a much more powerful current of desire. In this situation infantilized members of the caste turned to children as their sexual prey. But the whole brotherhood protected its members in a kind of vast erotic conspiracy. The hushing-up and moving ever onward of offending priests were explained as attempts to avoid scandal but really what was at stake was the collective self-desire of the priestly caste. How else account for the actions of otherwise intelligent men who knew the cyclical behaviors of those in their charge, the criminal acts, the trauma to children, the permanent spiritual damage to those affected?
I know this is a sweeping, broad-brush description which does not take into consideration the variety of circumstance, the possibility that the division of periods is not exact (what was the incidence of sexual abuse of children by clergy before the 2nd World War?), and the presence of mature and genuine men among it all. But I believe I speak from something of a vantage point and the time to name the real malaise of priestly celibacy is now. If the scandal has touched the pope surely it is not accidental or passing? Priestly celibacy is an institutional misuse of human eros for the sake of power and control and it corrupts the consciences of men.
What we are talking about eventually is the gospel of Jesus Christ, its clarity and truth, and a world that so desperately needs it. Those who read the signs of the times are obliged to think through the situation and prepare and act for something different, something new. Pope Benedict and those around him have tried to return the Roman church to a sense of militancy, hoping that it might save the day at this desperate hour. I think they have a sense of how far we’ve come. But the genie cannot be put back in the bottle because, as I argue elsewhere, it is the gospel itself which has sprung it loose: chaotic desire can and must find only love as its solution. What is needed is a style of Christian community marked by the four essential characteristics as I see them: a scale that does not exceed the face-to-face; understanding the work of Christ as remaking the human from violence to love; resurrection as the true afterlife; sacraments arising spontaneously in and from the community.
And we cannot worry about the huge numbers of Roman Catholics who perhaps will stop going to church, or will turn to a mega-church etc. They probably already have in the West, and early Christians did not stop meeting in each other’s houses just because there was such a huge crowd last night at the Coliseum! Today we can seek only the authenticity and faithfulness of the face-to-face group to which we become committed in Christ.
Meanwhile it’s interesting to note that to mark the 800th anniversary of Celestine's birth, Pope Benedict has proclaimed a ‘Celestine year’ from 28 August 2009 through 29 August 2010. Does that mean we are to expect some announcement before the end of August?
Tony
Sunday, March 21, 2010
A (W)holy Breakfast Group
This Sunday morning as I write there are thousands of men who are getting their game face on to go speak to millions of people and suggest that despite its current sins and difficulties the Roman Catholic Church is good for the long haul. That it has had huge problems before and survived, and that is because it remains God’s uniquely approved instrument in the world.
Pope Benedict’s eight page letter apologizing to the people of Ireland for the abuse of children by clergy is to be read today throughout the churches of Ireland and it is by most standards an extraordinary historical event—when has a pontiff ever apologized to a single nation for the misdeeds of his officials? Even so the letter is problematic, leaving the impression this is just a difficulty in Ireland, singling out the Irish ecclesiastical authorities, and failing to connect the abuse to systemic issues in the worldwide church. Now full disclosure: I have a personal stake in the matter, having both been a Roman Catholic priest myself and birthed by an Irish mother. I know about this stuff from the inside—both the generational cascades of cultural and actual violence which narrow human reality for a young man so he becomes a celibate priest or brother in the first place, and then the resulting privilege which places that man above and beyond the law—but my interest is not to rehash the past. What draws me is the anthropological consequence of this moment.
If you go online and follow the conversations in the various discussion forums there seem to be three key trends in response to the pope’s letter: wholesale and violent condemnation of the church and its criminal priests, specious attempts to salvage the situation arguing the number of pedophiles in the church parallels that of the broader population, and anxious remarks on how this whole thing will only serve to bolster fundamentalist or mega-churches with refugees from Roman Catholicism. The second two are relevant.
If you argue the church is no worse or better than the population in general you surrender a key concept of the RC church, and perhaps every church. You reduce it to sociological continuity with the rest of the world—something that the single most important book of late antiquity and the middle ages, Augustine’s City of God, denies with relentless dialectic. According to Augustine there is an ontological difference between the church and the world. But you don’t have to read Augustine to believe this. One of the tenets of the Nicene creed is that the church is “holy”. So when your last-ditch defense of this institution is that it is no worse and so no better than the rest of society it must forfeit that article of faith. Or it may be that the actual concrete form of a holy church is no longer the one claimed by that institution, or indeed any large scale institution. Really, you can’t have it both ways. This then touches on the issue of fundamentalism and the mega-churches. Let me give an example.
I have a neighbor who is a strong supporter of an RC parish here in Syracuse, one that has a solid reputation for working with the poor and disadvantaged. He and a bunch of guys attend a weekday mass at that church once every week. Afterward they go for breakfast together. I know a good few of these men, some ex-priests, some social justice Episcopalians, and they are among the greatest people I've had the pleasure to meet. In my opinion what these guys are doing is taking the eucharist in a traditional manner and then going off to find personal support and nourishment from a small-group faith community. They have a foot in the old and challenged institutional order and a foot in something new, something deeply human, relational and holy.
There’s no way of course of stopping people going to fundamentalist or big churches (and in some cases of the latter neither would you want to—for example perhaps Rob Bell’s church in Grand Rapids MI). But what is possible is to shift the theological accent progressively to these small face-to-face groups of committed this-world-rooted compassionate Christians which are springing up spontaneously all over the place. So that a group like this would not have first to do a cafeteria style eucharist and then turn to the vital matter of face-to-face relationship, but would consciously find the eucharist arising exactly from their own Christ-centered small-scale community. If this theological shift were taken then suddenly the whole tradition of the sacramental churches would take on a radically new and dynamic existence.
And lest anyone think I’m idealizing the small group I am totally aware that problems can occur there just as much as in the big legal structures. I am also aware of the reflex response that these groups could very easily turn fundamentalist or authoritarian. But in response to both challenges I believe there is something of the Spirit happening, something that arises from the rubble of the old order, that exemplifies the holiness claimed for the church and that it is possible to have faith in. It is something I call “the matrix of Christ” present in our actual cultural world (described in the forthcoming book Virtually Christian.) It means that there really is something to tap into, which represents the tradition but is not just in the past. It is the deep transformation in the human order brought about by Jesus, meaning forgiveness, compassion, nonviolence in the here and now and rising to the surface in all sorts of ways. Having faith in the life and truth of this human shift gives vigor and coherence to these small groups and allows genuine ecclesial life to occur among them. In other words, this is not a man-made phenomenon but a move by the Spirit in her own right and that carries her stamp of authenticity.
So although it’s not a bad thing that the pope makes his apology I don’t think it’s going to turn the clock back. He’s lost half of his Irish legions, the infantry that in the past carried the Roman cause across the world. Many of those disaffected troops, and surely many others from other failing institutions, are looking for a new, different model. My friends who meet every week to share eggs, bagels and coffee bear witness to this, and I believe they and others like them will continue to do so in a more and more consistent, radical and wonderful way.
Pope Benedict’s eight page letter apologizing to the people of Ireland for the abuse of children by clergy is to be read today throughout the churches of Ireland and it is by most standards an extraordinary historical event—when has a pontiff ever apologized to a single nation for the misdeeds of his officials? Even so the letter is problematic, leaving the impression this is just a difficulty in Ireland, singling out the Irish ecclesiastical authorities, and failing to connect the abuse to systemic issues in the worldwide church. Now full disclosure: I have a personal stake in the matter, having both been a Roman Catholic priest myself and birthed by an Irish mother. I know about this stuff from the inside—both the generational cascades of cultural and actual violence which narrow human reality for a young man so he becomes a celibate priest or brother in the first place, and then the resulting privilege which places that man above and beyond the law—but my interest is not to rehash the past. What draws me is the anthropological consequence of this moment.
If you go online and follow the conversations in the various discussion forums there seem to be three key trends in response to the pope’s letter: wholesale and violent condemnation of the church and its criminal priests, specious attempts to salvage the situation arguing the number of pedophiles in the church parallels that of the broader population, and anxious remarks on how this whole thing will only serve to bolster fundamentalist or mega-churches with refugees from Roman Catholicism. The second two are relevant.
If you argue the church is no worse or better than the population in general you surrender a key concept of the RC church, and perhaps every church. You reduce it to sociological continuity with the rest of the world—something that the single most important book of late antiquity and the middle ages, Augustine’s City of God, denies with relentless dialectic. According to Augustine there is an ontological difference between the church and the world. But you don’t have to read Augustine to believe this. One of the tenets of the Nicene creed is that the church is “holy”. So when your last-ditch defense of this institution is that it is no worse and so no better than the rest of society it must forfeit that article of faith. Or it may be that the actual concrete form of a holy church is no longer the one claimed by that institution, or indeed any large scale institution. Really, you can’t have it both ways. This then touches on the issue of fundamentalism and the mega-churches. Let me give an example.
I have a neighbor who is a strong supporter of an RC parish here in Syracuse, one that has a solid reputation for working with the poor and disadvantaged. He and a bunch of guys attend a weekday mass at that church once every week. Afterward they go for breakfast together. I know a good few of these men, some ex-priests, some social justice Episcopalians, and they are among the greatest people I've had the pleasure to meet. In my opinion what these guys are doing is taking the eucharist in a traditional manner and then going off to find personal support and nourishment from a small-group faith community. They have a foot in the old and challenged institutional order and a foot in something new, something deeply human, relational and holy.
There’s no way of course of stopping people going to fundamentalist or big churches (and in some cases of the latter neither would you want to—for example perhaps Rob Bell’s church in Grand Rapids MI). But what is possible is to shift the theological accent progressively to these small face-to-face groups of committed this-world-rooted compassionate Christians which are springing up spontaneously all over the place. So that a group like this would not have first to do a cafeteria style eucharist and then turn to the vital matter of face-to-face relationship, but would consciously find the eucharist arising exactly from their own Christ-centered small-scale community. If this theological shift were taken then suddenly the whole tradition of the sacramental churches would take on a radically new and dynamic existence.
And lest anyone think I’m idealizing the small group I am totally aware that problems can occur there just as much as in the big legal structures. I am also aware of the reflex response that these groups could very easily turn fundamentalist or authoritarian. But in response to both challenges I believe there is something of the Spirit happening, something that arises from the rubble of the old order, that exemplifies the holiness claimed for the church and that it is possible to have faith in. It is something I call “the matrix of Christ” present in our actual cultural world (described in the forthcoming book Virtually Christian.) It means that there really is something to tap into, which represents the tradition but is not just in the past. It is the deep transformation in the human order brought about by Jesus, meaning forgiveness, compassion, nonviolence in the here and now and rising to the surface in all sorts of ways. Having faith in the life and truth of this human shift gives vigor and coherence to these small groups and allows genuine ecclesial life to occur among them. In other words, this is not a man-made phenomenon but a move by the Spirit in her own right and that carries her stamp of authenticity.
So although it’s not a bad thing that the pope makes his apology I don’t think it’s going to turn the clock back. He’s lost half of his Irish legions, the infantry that in the past carried the Roman cause across the world. Many of those disaffected troops, and surely many others from other failing institutions, are looking for a new, different model. My friends who meet every week to share eggs, bagels and coffee bear witness to this, and I believe they and others like them will continue to do so in a more and more consistent, radical and wonderful way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
