When I was young, I thought a frozen pizza was a complete meal, because it contained the 4 Food Groups. The problem is that the cheese was more vegetable oil than dairy, the flour wasn't whole, there really weren't that many veggies and the meat was anyone's guess--loaded with chemicals, no doubt.
This example illustrates a problem with the kind of nutritional perspective Americans have. Let me explain:
Most of us were raised on the 4 Food Groups. While this approach has been denounced in recent years (and for good reasons), I will go out on a line and say that all in all, it is not a bad model for eating, if you don't take it too strictly. At its basic, it reminds us that we should balance our eating between fruits, veggies, starches, meats and dairy, with slightly less on the meats and dairy. That's not bad advice.
The 4 Food Groups has become so fundamental to how we view eating, it is hard to imagine not having such a perspective. Most people know they shouldn't sit down to a meal of just steak. We take it for granted now, but people did not always see it this way before that. I still plan my meals with a meat, a starch and two of the fruit/veggie group. For people who don't take much interest in knowing the details of food nutrition, this is a simple, straightforward approach that will serve you well when you serve yourself.
But the 4 Food Groups is misleading in that a starch is not equal to another starch, and one person's veggies are not the same as another person's veggies.
Look at the hamburgers I ate for lunch today: Grass-fed, organic beef patties on fluffy, whole-grain wheat buns with minimal additives--cooked on a cast iron skillet with some olive oil and simple spices. Compare that to what you get at your local fast food joint: Grain-fed, unhealthy beef on the cheapest refined white bread, cooked in God-knows what kind of fats and oils. The beef is full of the bad fats, low on the good fats (the reverse of mine). Additives, preservatives and maybe even taste enhancers are everywhere. The problem is that in both cases you can use the word "hamburger" to describe your lunch. Yet, I would say these are two entirely different meals.
The 4 Food Groups unconsciously taught us that beef is beef, grain is grain and apples are apples. Not so. How you prepare your foods and how they are raised can put them into an entirely different class of foods. The 4 Food Groups does not take into account the "wholeness" of foods, the cooking method used, the way it was farmed or the amount of additives it has.
We may need a whole new vocabulary for talking about foods this way.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
How to Read the Bible
One of the best tools for studying the Bible is the historical-critical method. The idea is to understand as much of the literary and historical context as you can so you can arrive at what the authors probably meant when they wrote their works. The Catholic Church officially calls this an "indispensable" method for Biblical study.
It is the arch enemy of Biblical fundamentalism. Fundamentalists will often pick up the Bible, open it up to a random page, read it, then immediately come to an understanding without any complimentary study. They believe all you need is the Word by itself, and even in an empty room the Spirit will guide you to a right interpretation. The problem with fundamentalism is that it does not take seriously the humanity of the Bible and its authors. Even among many Catholics today, there is a strong movement to see the Bible as a means of personal reflection and dispose of the HC method, despite the Church's stance.
The historical-critical method is not meant to be used by itself to come to a full theological understanding--that is a more complex task of faith, community as well as study. But the HC methoc is essential if we are to do the best we can to honestly and critically understand what the authors are saying to us.
Two good examples of this came out of my recent class on the Synoptic Gospels & Acts.
The Good Samaritan
We all know the story of the Good Samaritan. A man (probably Jewish) is seriously injured and lying by a roadside. Some pass by but do not help. The Good Samaritan arrives, does some emergency field dressings, and even buys the guy a stay at a hotel. It is a wonderful story of helping a stranger. And we can even intuit from this story that being a Samaritan makes the one man different than the others, so there is some sense of helping people from different ethnic backgrounds.
With a serious historical study, we can learn through other texts and archaeology that the Jews and Samaritans absolutely hated each other. While the Jews revered their own temple in Jerusalem, they destroyed the one the Samaritans had at Mount Gerizim. This was a bitter, bitter relationship. Yet, it was the Samaritan who helps the wounded man, not the others who were probably of closer ethnicity and faith as the man by the road.
You can still walk away from this story with a generally good understanding of it even if you know nothing of the conflict between the Jews and Samaritans. But doesn't it add a whole new dimension knowing this historical fact? The kind of love Jesus is talking about isn't just between random strangers, but even among the strongest of enemies. In modern terms, that would be like a Jew helping a Palestinian or the English helping the Irish in Northern Ireland.
"At the Feet"
The historical-critical method does not just enhance our understanding--it can prevent errors, as well:
In Luke's story of Mary and Martha, he shows that Mary is "at the feet" of Jesus, listening intently and absorbed in his words (Luke 10:38-42). Reading this with 21st century eyes and in standard American English, it is easy to think that the term "at the feet" is somewhat derogatory. Dogs are generally the ones at your feet, or perhaps kids. There is a clear meaning of submission with the expression the way we are accustomed to it. It might be easy to see Mary as a second-class citizen from this.
However, a proper analysis of 1st century usage reveals that "at the feet" was a euphemism for discipleship itself. It was a privileged place to be. Jesus was a man talking to crowds that numbered in the thousands, in a world without microphones, recording devices or even much writing, and she was the one with a front-row seat--sensing his breath, his every movement, his emotional responses in intimate detail. She was there to catch every word that fell from his mouth. There is a sense of immediacy--she was right there with him. There is closeness and even perhaps imitation--she was emulating him.
In The Life of Brian, there is a comical scene where onlookers totally misunderstand the Sermon on the Mount, because they are too far away from Jesus to hear him properly--to them, he sounds like the teacher in the Peanuts movies. That was the reality of the 1st century, but Mary did not have to struggle with that. "At the feet" is still a lower position in the sense of being a student or follower, but it is not second-rate, at all. In fact, Mary being "at the feet" could imply she was the star pupil, the first among equals--much like the beloved disciple in John's gospel who was "reclining by his side" (John 13:23)--right at the breast--and heart--of Jesus.
Alas
So there you have two great examples of why it is not only enriching but also crucial to know as much about the history and literary context of the Bible stories as we can. Without that, we run the risk of totally missing critical details or even getting a story completely wrong. We can never be guaranteed 100% accuracy in this--for all we know, the Bible is full of inside jokes we'll never get or even notice. This is why it is problematic to get caught up in individual details and not on the overall direction the Scriptures point to. If you read a particular line too literally, how do you know you're not missing something really big? The best way to deal with this is to take the scriptures as a whole and know that you're not going to take every word literally.
You can argue that the Spirit won't let you interpret a passage in error. But it seems to me that the Spirit respects our humanity as well, and if we are bound and determined to be stubborn about it then Spirit will let us be as wrong as rain--as evidenced by numerous people of faith who have been plain ole wrong throughout the ages. The best we can do is to humbly and continually challenge our assumptions and study more and more.
It is the arch enemy of Biblical fundamentalism. Fundamentalists will often pick up the Bible, open it up to a random page, read it, then immediately come to an understanding without any complimentary study. They believe all you need is the Word by itself, and even in an empty room the Spirit will guide you to a right interpretation. The problem with fundamentalism is that it does not take seriously the humanity of the Bible and its authors. Even among many Catholics today, there is a strong movement to see the Bible as a means of personal reflection and dispose of the HC method, despite the Church's stance.
The historical-critical method is not meant to be used by itself to come to a full theological understanding--that is a more complex task of faith, community as well as study. But the HC methoc is essential if we are to do the best we can to honestly and critically understand what the authors are saying to us.
Two good examples of this came out of my recent class on the Synoptic Gospels & Acts.
The Good Samaritan
We all know the story of the Good Samaritan. A man (probably Jewish) is seriously injured and lying by a roadside. Some pass by but do not help. The Good Samaritan arrives, does some emergency field dressings, and even buys the guy a stay at a hotel. It is a wonderful story of helping a stranger. And we can even intuit from this story that being a Samaritan makes the one man different than the others, so there is some sense of helping people from different ethnic backgrounds.
With a serious historical study, we can learn through other texts and archaeology that the Jews and Samaritans absolutely hated each other. While the Jews revered their own temple in Jerusalem, they destroyed the one the Samaritans had at Mount Gerizim. This was a bitter, bitter relationship. Yet, it was the Samaritan who helps the wounded man, not the others who were probably of closer ethnicity and faith as the man by the road.
You can still walk away from this story with a generally good understanding of it even if you know nothing of the conflict between the Jews and Samaritans. But doesn't it add a whole new dimension knowing this historical fact? The kind of love Jesus is talking about isn't just between random strangers, but even among the strongest of enemies. In modern terms, that would be like a Jew helping a Palestinian or the English helping the Irish in Northern Ireland.
"At the Feet"
The historical-critical method does not just enhance our understanding--it can prevent errors, as well:
In Luke's story of Mary and Martha, he shows that Mary is "at the feet" of Jesus, listening intently and absorbed in his words (Luke 10:38-42). Reading this with 21st century eyes and in standard American English, it is easy to think that the term "at the feet" is somewhat derogatory. Dogs are generally the ones at your feet, or perhaps kids. There is a clear meaning of submission with the expression the way we are accustomed to it. It might be easy to see Mary as a second-class citizen from this.
However, a proper analysis of 1st century usage reveals that "at the feet" was a euphemism for discipleship itself. It was a privileged place to be. Jesus was a man talking to crowds that numbered in the thousands, in a world without microphones, recording devices or even much writing, and she was the one with a front-row seat--sensing his breath, his every movement, his emotional responses in intimate detail. She was there to catch every word that fell from his mouth. There is a sense of immediacy--she was right there with him. There is closeness and even perhaps imitation--she was emulating him.
In The Life of Brian, there is a comical scene where onlookers totally misunderstand the Sermon on the Mount, because they are too far away from Jesus to hear him properly--to them, he sounds like the teacher in the Peanuts movies. That was the reality of the 1st century, but Mary did not have to struggle with that. "At the feet" is still a lower position in the sense of being a student or follower, but it is not second-rate, at all. In fact, Mary being "at the feet" could imply she was the star pupil, the first among equals--much like the beloved disciple in John's gospel who was "reclining by his side" (John 13:23)--right at the breast--and heart--of Jesus.
Alas
So there you have two great examples of why it is not only enriching but also crucial to know as much about the history and literary context of the Bible stories as we can. Without that, we run the risk of totally missing critical details or even getting a story completely wrong. We can never be guaranteed 100% accuracy in this--for all we know, the Bible is full of inside jokes we'll never get or even notice. This is why it is problematic to get caught up in individual details and not on the overall direction the Scriptures point to. If you read a particular line too literally, how do you know you're not missing something really big? The best way to deal with this is to take the scriptures as a whole and know that you're not going to take every word literally.
You can argue that the Spirit won't let you interpret a passage in error. But it seems to me that the Spirit respects our humanity as well, and if we are bound and determined to be stubborn about it then Spirit will let us be as wrong as rain--as evidenced by numerous people of faith who have been plain ole wrong throughout the ages. The best we can do is to humbly and continually challenge our assumptions and study more and more.
Snoozing on the Job: Pope Benedict
My uncle predicts that in 10 years the ecclesial structure of the Catholic Church is going to come crashing down.
It is not hard to see why. 3 priests retire or die for every new priest ordained. I can quote dozens of other statistics, but none of them says it as well as that one. It doesn't take a mathematician . . .
So what wise words does the pontiff have for us? Here's what he says:
"The first question . . . is: Are there true believers? And only then comes the second question: Are priests coming from them?"
Thanks, Benny! Way to do something about the problem.
Granted, these words were quoted from 1997, back in his 'pit bull of the Vatican' days and before he was pope. But what has he been doing lately? Touring around, writing some theological treatises on topics such as "hope", and imposing on us a ridiculous re-translation the words of the mass. And for what?
The Pope as CEO
With decades of John Paul II and now Benedict, people don't realize that the Pope--with all that power that they have worked so hard to centralize in his office--can actually be a Church administrator, and not just someone floating around making statements. They can study the problems--look at solutions--implement them.
The Cost of Discipleship
Let's all face the cold, hard truth: Folks out there just don't think the vocation of priesthood is worth forsaking marriage, parenthood and sex for anymore. There, I said it. If you have to balance between a call to ministry and a call to family, it's no surprise people pick the one with more flexibility than the option with no flexibility.
And let's be clear: No one thinks the ordained are on a higher plane than the rest of the rabble, anymore. In the past, the clergy had a more "pure" lifestyle, without the stain of sex, one step closer to God. People just don't buy that anymore. The pope also can't figure out why folks wouldn't want to be a priest in a church structure where power is more centralized by the day and where free, progressive thinking is actively fought against. The sad reality is that celibacy probably isn't the biggest problem out there, but we gotta start somewhere.
It is not hard to see why. 3 priests retire or die for every new priest ordained. I can quote dozens of other statistics, but none of them says it as well as that one. It doesn't take a mathematician . . .
So what wise words does the pontiff have for us? Here's what he says:
"The first question . . . is: Are there true believers? And only then comes the second question: Are priests coming from them?"
Thanks, Benny! Way to do something about the problem.
Granted, these words were quoted from 1997, back in his 'pit bull of the Vatican' days and before he was pope. But what has he been doing lately? Touring around, writing some theological treatises on topics such as "hope", and imposing on us a ridiculous re-translation the words of the mass. And for what?
The Pope as CEO
With decades of John Paul II and now Benedict, people don't realize that the Pope--with all that power that they have worked so hard to centralize in his office--can actually be a Church administrator, and not just someone floating around making statements. They can study the problems--look at solutions--implement them.
The Cost of Discipleship
Let's all face the cold, hard truth: Folks out there just don't think the vocation of priesthood is worth forsaking marriage, parenthood and sex for anymore. There, I said it. If you have to balance between a call to ministry and a call to family, it's no surprise people pick the one with more flexibility than the option with no flexibility.
And let's be clear: No one thinks the ordained are on a higher plane than the rest of the rabble, anymore. In the past, the clergy had a more "pure" lifestyle, without the stain of sex, one step closer to God. People just don't buy that anymore. The pope also can't figure out why folks wouldn't want to be a priest in a church structure where power is more centralized by the day and where free, progressive thinking is actively fought against. The sad reality is that celibacy probably isn't the biggest problem out there, but we gotta start somewhere.
I think it is truly impressive that so many people have chosen a celibate lifestyle in order to follow their call. Regardless of all the pervs out there and others using religious orders to hide from their sexuality, there have really been a lot of folks who have made a supreme sacrifice. That is not a small thing by any means. It is a very impressive tradition, and there is no shortage of intense stories of heartbreak as people have wrestled with their call. But should such a high sacrifice be mandatory? I would love it if all clergy lived a life of radical poverty with the poor and willing to lead social justice causes, too. Let's require that sacrifice and forget the celibacy stuff.
So What's the Deal
The quoted article mentions smaller families as a source of the problem, too. Even Benedict recognizes this. But yet . . . he doesn't see how celibacy is an issue in relation to this! Let me explain this to him: People may not want to join the priesthood because it is up to them to continue their family lineage. With only 1-2 kids per family, there is a stronger expectation to produce children and provide financial security for the whole family. In the old days, poor families with multiple children were probably happy to offload some of them to the seminary.
The Good News
The good news is that the Church is going to have to do something about the shortage of priests. We are either going to diminish (and devalue) their role, recruit like hell in the third world, or open up the potential pool of priests to a larger population: Married folks and women. We are simply going to run out of priests, and there is very little reason to think that there is going to be any change in that without an institutional change of some kind. A more collegial, horizontal style of church organization (instead of hierarchical) would go a long way to help this, as well. The Church seems more than willing to just sit around and wait until the crisis become unbearable--but it will happen and it will happen soon.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
It's Time: The Ordination of Women
What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the ordination of women to the priesthood:
"Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."
What I find most striking about this is the board assumption that this is based on. The Church is cherry-picking an attribute of Jesus and his 12 and making an all-reaching rule out of it. Jesus was a man and he picked 12 men . . . 12 Jewish men. But why is the qualification of "men" considered so important? By this logic, it seems like all Catholic priests should be Jewish men. By this logic, there should only be 12. Where did the authority come to grow beyond this? 12. Jewish. Men. Probably all married.
Maybe they all had black hair. Maybe they all worked in the skilled trades. Are those traits mandatory for priests today?
In a male-dominated society, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Jesus to have picked 12 men. Representing the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 men were needed to represent the 12 patriarchs. This was a patriarchal society in a very literal sense--not just with patriarchal overtones like we have today. It was legally patriarchal. To represent 12 patriarchs you're gonna need 12 men, it's that simple. It would be like having a movie about the Vietnam war but using black people as actors to play the part of the Viet Cong. Sure, you could be taking some artistic license to show that the Vietnam War was not limited to one time or place, but is rather representative of racism in America or something to that effect (actually this is a rather good idea), but to most movie-goers, it just wouldn't make sense. If you want to portray Vietnamese people in a movie, you're gonna want to have people of at least some kind of Asian ancestry to play the parts in most cases. That is why there are 12 men in the gospels.
Jesus could have overturned the traditions of his society to appoint women to represent these patriarchs, thereby working against the social order--but he just didn't. That doesn't mean Jesus was supporting patriarchy, it just means that was one reform he either never thought of or didn't think necessary given the point he was trying to make. It would be irresponsible to read into this an exclusion of women from apostolic functions. Besides, we know that there were more apostles than just the 12--Paul is a perfect example. So excluding priests today based on characteristics of the 12 is very weak grounds. Heck, for all we know Jesus had women among the 12 and it was the gospel writers who edited the names to make them--shall we say--more male. It wouldn't be the only time that happened in scripture or in a translation.
Historically speaking, it would have been improper to have been a patriarch of one of the tribes of Israel and also a single, celibate male. Yet, the Church does not require marriage for its priests, in fact, it prohibits it (at least for the last 900 years or so). Peter seems to have been married, with scripture references to his mother-in-law. So why isn't marriage required for priests? Why is the maleness mandatory but the marriage optional?
Jesus also picked 12 really confused men. Does that mean that being dense should also be a prerequisite for apostolic succession?
Many pagan sects of the day had women priestesses, but not in the Jewish faith. But there is strong evidence that Jesus had women disciples. Paul certainly traveled with deaconesses and other women who were "co-workers in the vineyard."
Tradition
While the Church has not supported the ordination of women over the centuries, it must be asked whether this was on theological grounds or whether the Church was reflecting the cultural limitations of a specific time and place--just like Jesus or the gospel writers were doing when 12 men were picked. Many claim the argument from Tradition is more valid than the argument from scripture, but then I have to ask why does the Church use a scriptural argument in the quote above?
I am sympathetic to an argument from Tradition. I don't think the Church should change on a dime. The Church is a long history of a faith community. It has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. Still, the Church needs to be responsive to its own time. And many, many traditions have changed even after hundreds of years of practice--mandatory celibacy is one of them. The authority and prominence of the pope is also a rather "recent" phenomenon in the Church, as well. Speaking the vernacular at mass is another.
Priesthood at Baptism?
We can all be Christians--men and women. You don't have to be male to be Christian. It is along these lines that the logic against womens' ordination falls apart. Even though Jesus was a young man, with a Jewish mixed ancestry, living in 1st century Palestine, speaking Aramaic and possibly Greek, having grown up in a family of skilled trades, does not mean that to be a follower of Christ one needs to manifest any of these traits. The Incarnation happens in a specific person, time and place, but it is not limited to that. In fact, many of the early arguments recorded in scripture prevail along these lines--the Holy Spirit comes to all, regardless of your social class, ethnicity, degree of sinfulness, and yes, even gender. Why is the maleness of Jesus and the 12 so important when it comes to priesthood but not important at all for baptism?
Sex at Mass
One of the primary arguments is that Christ--being male--consecrates himself in the Eucharist and gives himself freely to others. This "giving" is a male act similar to the sex act and representative of male sexuality (apparently some people think that only men can be givers!) Interesting. Anyway, in a similar gesture, the male Catholic priests continue the same tradition to this day. These men--who are standing in for Christ himself--perform a nuptial union with the Church, which is the bride of Christ. Priests must be male to be in union with the Bride of Christ.
Does anyone else see some glaring details right there? If all priests have to be men, since male sexuality is an essential element of the priesthood, then doesn't it follow that everyone in the congregation has to be female? Because in a church that has such issues with homosexuality, I am not sure what to think when as a male I take communion as a part of the congregation--which is the female Bride of Christ.
And if men can be part of the female Bride of Christ, then . . .
. . . it stands to reason that women could represent the Bridegroom just as well as a man.
This idea that Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride has be used as a support for a male-only priesthood. But if you take that logic at face value, then all men should be priests and only women would comprise the Church. Throw in the issue of homosexuality or transgendered folks or effeminate males and masculine females and the whole house of cards collapses.
By the way, there are some women who have already been ordained as Roman Catholic priests and bishops. Ahh . . . what they don't teach you in Sunday School.
"Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."
What I find most striking about this is the board assumption that this is based on. The Church is cherry-picking an attribute of Jesus and his 12 and making an all-reaching rule out of it. Jesus was a man and he picked 12 men . . . 12 Jewish men. But why is the qualification of "men" considered so important? By this logic, it seems like all Catholic priests should be Jewish men. By this logic, there should only be 12. Where did the authority come to grow beyond this? 12. Jewish. Men. Probably all married.
Maybe they all had black hair. Maybe they all worked in the skilled trades. Are those traits mandatory for priests today?
In a male-dominated society, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Jesus to have picked 12 men. Representing the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 men were needed to represent the 12 patriarchs. This was a patriarchal society in a very literal sense--not just with patriarchal overtones like we have today. It was legally patriarchal. To represent 12 patriarchs you're gonna need 12 men, it's that simple. It would be like having a movie about the Vietnam war but using black people as actors to play the part of the Viet Cong. Sure, you could be taking some artistic license to show that the Vietnam War was not limited to one time or place, but is rather representative of racism in America or something to that effect (actually this is a rather good idea), but to most movie-goers, it just wouldn't make sense. If you want to portray Vietnamese people in a movie, you're gonna want to have people of at least some kind of Asian ancestry to play the parts in most cases. That is why there are 12 men in the gospels.
Jesus could have overturned the traditions of his society to appoint women to represent these patriarchs, thereby working against the social order--but he just didn't. That doesn't mean Jesus was supporting patriarchy, it just means that was one reform he either never thought of or didn't think necessary given the point he was trying to make. It would be irresponsible to read into this an exclusion of women from apostolic functions. Besides, we know that there were more apostles than just the 12--Paul is a perfect example. So excluding priests today based on characteristics of the 12 is very weak grounds. Heck, for all we know Jesus had women among the 12 and it was the gospel writers who edited the names to make them--shall we say--more male. It wouldn't be the only time that happened in scripture or in a translation.
Historically speaking, it would have been improper to have been a patriarch of one of the tribes of Israel and also a single, celibate male. Yet, the Church does not require marriage for its priests, in fact, it prohibits it (at least for the last 900 years or so). Peter seems to have been married, with scripture references to his mother-in-law. So why isn't marriage required for priests? Why is the maleness mandatory but the marriage optional?
Jesus also picked 12 really confused men. Does that mean that being dense should also be a prerequisite for apostolic succession?
Many pagan sects of the day had women priestesses, but not in the Jewish faith. But there is strong evidence that Jesus had women disciples. Paul certainly traveled with deaconesses and other women who were "co-workers in the vineyard."
Tradition
While the Church has not supported the ordination of women over the centuries, it must be asked whether this was on theological grounds or whether the Church was reflecting the cultural limitations of a specific time and place--just like Jesus or the gospel writers were doing when 12 men were picked. Many claim the argument from Tradition is more valid than the argument from scripture, but then I have to ask why does the Church use a scriptural argument in the quote above?
I am sympathetic to an argument from Tradition. I don't think the Church should change on a dime. The Church is a long history of a faith community. It has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. Still, the Church needs to be responsive to its own time. And many, many traditions have changed even after hundreds of years of practice--mandatory celibacy is one of them. The authority and prominence of the pope is also a rather "recent" phenomenon in the Church, as well. Speaking the vernacular at mass is another.
Priesthood at Baptism?
We can all be Christians--men and women. You don't have to be male to be Christian. It is along these lines that the logic against womens' ordination falls apart. Even though Jesus was a young man, with a Jewish mixed ancestry, living in 1st century Palestine, speaking Aramaic and possibly Greek, having grown up in a family of skilled trades, does not mean that to be a follower of Christ one needs to manifest any of these traits. The Incarnation happens in a specific person, time and place, but it is not limited to that. In fact, many of the early arguments recorded in scripture prevail along these lines--the Holy Spirit comes to all, regardless of your social class, ethnicity, degree of sinfulness, and yes, even gender. Why is the maleness of Jesus and the 12 so important when it comes to priesthood but not important at all for baptism?
Sex at Mass
One of the primary arguments is that Christ--being male--consecrates himself in the Eucharist and gives himself freely to others. This "giving" is a male act similar to the sex act and representative of male sexuality (apparently some people think that only men can be givers!) Interesting. Anyway, in a similar gesture, the male Catholic priests continue the same tradition to this day. These men--who are standing in for Christ himself--perform a nuptial union with the Church, which is the bride of Christ. Priests must be male to be in union with the Bride of Christ.
Does anyone else see some glaring details right there? If all priests have to be men, since male sexuality is an essential element of the priesthood, then doesn't it follow that everyone in the congregation has to be female? Because in a church that has such issues with homosexuality, I am not sure what to think when as a male I take communion as a part of the congregation--which is the female Bride of Christ.
And if men can be part of the female Bride of Christ, then . . .
. . . it stands to reason that women could represent the Bridegroom just as well as a man.
This idea that Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride has be used as a support for a male-only priesthood. But if you take that logic at face value, then all men should be priests and only women would comprise the Church. Throw in the issue of homosexuality or transgendered folks or effeminate males and masculine females and the whole house of cards collapses.
By the way, there are some women who have already been ordained as Roman Catholic priests and bishops. Ahh . . . what they don't teach you in Sunday School.
Its the Rhythm That's Gonna Get Ya
One of the things that makes Metallica great is that they understand that music is about the rhythm. I respect them from afar, since heavy metal music rarely does anything for me. But I can see why this group is a standout in their field. Their distinctive rhythms really get the body moving in a genre where rhythm is often considered a second-class vocation.
Rock music lost its rhythmic centerpiece in the late 70s. It became increasingly about the melody and the intensity, but lost the groove. Look at all the hair bands of the 80s and on through heavy metal music, and you can see this trend. People today may find it hard to believe that the driving beat was the foundation of rock and roll, not guitar solos or soaring vocals. It had a beat that moved your body.
When you lose the rhythm as the focal point, it leaves you without your primary palette to work on. Without rhythm, your music is like a body without a skeleton--just a pile of flesh and chords on the floor (the manager of Goose Acres Music in Cleveland once told me that).
Without rhythm, the only way to communicate strong emotions (or any emotions at all) is to simply play louder and faster. Harder. Heavier. You have to be more sensational than the last time. There are no other options. This can be fun for a while, but it is a trap. You get put into a box where your only tools for communicating emotion is loudness and speed. There is a limit to how loud and fast you can play, and it doesn't take long to find that apex. It is also incredibly burdensome to be forced to play this way all the time.
Rock music lost its rhythmic centerpiece in the late 70s. It became increasingly about the melody and the intensity, but lost the groove. Look at all the hair bands of the 80s and on through heavy metal music, and you can see this trend. People today may find it hard to believe that the driving beat was the foundation of rock and roll, not guitar solos or soaring vocals. It had a beat that moved your body.
When you lose the rhythm as the focal point, it leaves you without your primary palette to work on. Without rhythm, your music is like a body without a skeleton--just a pile of flesh and chords on the floor (the manager of Goose Acres Music in Cleveland once told me that).
Without rhythm, the only way to communicate strong emotions (or any emotions at all) is to simply play louder and faster. Harder. Heavier. You have to be more sensational than the last time. There are no other options. This can be fun for a while, but it is a trap. You get put into a box where your only tools for communicating emotion is loudness and speed. There is a limit to how loud and fast you can play, and it doesn't take long to find that apex. It is also incredibly burdensome to be forced to play this way all the time.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Hawk Update
My dad talked to the folks at the Hiram College Field Station. A woman there (a biology professor?) told him that the hawks are probably Red-Shouldered Hawks. The behavior is indicative of parents teaching their young. My dad said that there are sometimes a few birds flying around, so this could back that up.
It is hard to tell. Wikipedia has it that "It is while establishing territories that the distinctive, screaming kee-aah call (usually repeated 3 to 4 times) of this bird are heard." This is definitely the behavior we are hearing.
I wish I could have gotten some good footage, but all I took was a short movie on my camera. You can't see anything, but the call of the hawks is clear as a bell in there. Maybe I'll post the audio when I get a chance.
This is a follow-up of this post.
It is hard to tell. Wikipedia has it that "It is while establishing territories that the distinctive, screaming kee-aah call (usually repeated 3 to 4 times) of this bird are heard." This is definitely the behavior we are hearing.
I wish I could have gotten some good footage, but all I took was a short movie on my camera. You can't see anything, but the call of the hawks is clear as a bell in there. Maybe I'll post the audio when I get a chance.
This is a follow-up of this post.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Road Rage Rant
The world is divided between those who support Road Rage and those who don't, and ne'er the twain shall meet. But before you go flipping the bird to some little old lady because didn't manage a stop sign in precisely the same way you think she needs to, consider this:
You have no idea who is in the car next to you. For all you know, that person has had the worst day of their lives--perhaps beaten by a boyfriend. They may have lost their job or are spending their nights taking care of a loved one who is slipping away to some illness. Perhaps it is an elderly person struggling to live independently or someone who has had a string of the worst-day-of-their-lives. There are some folks out there really living their lives and dealing with some tough stuff.
To be living with that kind of heartache and then for someone to erupt in a fit of rage because you didn't accelerate after a green light on cue like a trained animal is darn near inhumane.
I know it may sound hard to believe, but the world actually does not revolve around you. Assuming it should is probably where some of your rage is coming from. I realize you are stressed--but so are others. Your stress does not give you license to abuse others, and neither does your license.
Many of us drive slowly or cautiously. We're allowed. We are well within the legal limits. Before you spout that everyone should be 'off to the races' whenever they put rubber to the road, I will suggest that if there is anyone pushing the limits of the law and jeopardizing all of our safety, it would be those with Road Rage.
You have no idea who is in the car next to you. For all you know, that person has had the worst day of their lives--perhaps beaten by a boyfriend. They may have lost their job or are spending their nights taking care of a loved one who is slipping away to some illness. Perhaps it is an elderly person struggling to live independently or someone who has had a string of the worst-day-of-their-lives. There are some folks out there really living their lives and dealing with some tough stuff.
To be living with that kind of heartache and then for someone to erupt in a fit of rage because you didn't accelerate after a green light on cue like a trained animal is darn near inhumane.
I know it may sound hard to believe, but the world actually does not revolve around you. Assuming it should is probably where some of your rage is coming from. I realize you are stressed--but so are others. Your stress does not give you license to abuse others, and neither does your license.
Many of us drive slowly or cautiously. We're allowed. We are well within the legal limits. Before you spout that everyone should be 'off to the races' whenever they put rubber to the road, I will suggest that if there is anyone pushing the limits of the law and jeopardizing all of our safety, it would be those with Road Rage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)