‘App-ologetics’?
Somehow The New York Times resisted the temptation to use that headline for this story. But I can resist anything except temptation:
An explosion of smart-phone software has placed an arsenal of trivia at the fingertips of every corner-bar debater, with talking points on sports, politics and how to kill a zombie. Now it is taking on the least trivial topic of all: God.
Publishers of Christian material have begun producing iPhone applications that can cough up quick comebacks and rhetorical strategies for believers who want to fight back against what they view as a new strain of strident atheism. And a competing crop of apps is arming nonbelievers for battle.
“Say someone calls you narrow-minded because you think Jesus is the only way to God,” says one top-selling application introduced in March by a Christian publishing company. “Your first answer should be: ‘What do you mean by narrow-minded?’ ”
For religious skeptics, the “BibleThumper” iPhone app boasts that it “allows the atheist to keep the most funny and irrational Bible verses right in their pocket” to be “always ready to confront fundamentalist Christians or have a little fun among friends.”
The war of ideas between believers and nonbelievers has been part of the Western tradition at least since Socrates. For the most part, it has been waged by intellectual giants: Augustine, Spinoza, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche.
And of course, Commonweal. Is there an app for that?
Jack Chick doesn’t have an app yet, but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time.
http://www.chick.com/default.asp
If commonweal were to create an app they would first have to understand that in order to be in communion with the Church, one must be in communion both in body and in spirit.(Filioque)
Thus if we look at the article on the Commonweal site entitled, “The Limits of Authority”, and one was to argue “Catholics today are still free to ignore or reject the Church’s teaching…” or some such, a buzzer would sound, and that person would be directed to:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm AND
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
I know! How about, instead of a buzzer, you deliver an electric shock, like my neighbor does to train his dogs to stay within certain parameters! The intensity of the shock could be calibrated to its distance from correct teaching.
If Catholics can’t use the brains God gave them, which will inevitably lead to poor judgment and mistakes sometimes, or the hearts God gave them to repent of those mistakes, then there is no free will, we are all simply motivated by fear, not love, and God is indeed the sadistic bastard my fundamentalist relatives believe in.
Catholic Answers has a whole group of professional apologists. Most seem to be converts from some form of evangelical Christianity–none advertise any formal training in theology or Catholic theology. They advertise no mandate from any bishop. They advertise their own conversion stories, and their own inspiration to do this sort of work. And they do seem to be pugnacious. Who is this all for? What’s the goal?
Jeffrey Stout, in Ethics After Babel, has a “lexicon of postmodern philosophy.’ One of the entries is “superpower view of argument” (I think–don’t have the book at hand.) Its definition: “an argument so powerful it sets up reverberations in the brain; either you accept the conclusion or you die.”
I guess some people would like an app for that.
Just think: if some Catholics got “buzzed” enough, then they eventually could be thrown to the lions in the local zoo by Nancy’s Orthodoxy Police.
“If Catholics can’t use the brains God gave them…”
Sometimes I think we forget that “God so Loved the World that He sent His only Son”, so that through Him, The Word of Love Made Flesh, we could have eternal Life.
Thank God, (pun intended) for His Love and His Mercy.
Nancy,
I wish you’d reflect some of that ‘love and mercy’ you thank God for…to those who dare to disagree with what you think. Teaspoon of honey…or a gallon of vinegar?
Some app-ologies that come in handy when the game’s afoot at Commonweal:
Moral theology:
-The principle of double effect involves much more than just intention
-Intention involves the act, not just the mind
Media:
-Is the New York Times finished?
Sacramental Theology:
-”Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”–Flannery O’Connor
Christology:
-”Before Abraham was, I am.”
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is good to have indexed as well, in case the Bible fails to answer a particular question.
Jean
Your neighbor is misguided. Please don’t say is an RC. Training animals through the application of pain is inhumane and also can have negative results. There are better ways!
Ken, to be clear, I believe, that is all.(everything)
Jimmy Mac, perhaps now you will finally answer my question:
Why would Christ Found His Church and not ensure that The Word of Love remain consistent?
Speaking of APPs (spelling?) is it true that there may soon be an Index of Prohibited Apps and perhaps an Index of Prohibited Websites. One problem is how do you say this in Latin.
Prohibited Apps Times New Roman
As long as we have Nancy and Kathy, Commonweal doesn’t need an app — brains! Just push their button and out comes the handy dandy answer.
Cathy Kaveny — good questions. I would decry the influence of such converts, except that I’m one. I was just never good with going with the in crowd, however. I grew up with such “apologetics,” such as they are. Methinks those folks cite Aquinas the way we used to cite verses as proof texts.
Joseph, my neighbor is a moron such that he could not even get elected to the local school board, and that takes some doing. However, everybody hates him and his three Jack Russells that bark incessantly when they’re not yipping from trying to jump the invisible fence.
He does happen to be RC, so perhaps there’s hope for him.
Meantime, he is my object lesson in forbearance. I have never once acted on my impulse to tape said dogs during one of their relentless barking sessions and then called up Mr. Neighbor to play the tape at 3 a.m.
David, as you are well aware, App–scoff is an incredibly easy button to push. Just act as though the joke has already been made. Good one.
re Cathleen’s post:
Coming Home Network, which has changed quite a lot since I last looked at it, is an interesting site, mostly aimed at convert Protestant clergy. It does a lot of apologetics, but it is sanctioned by various bishops and Catholic “celebrities” like Mother Angelica.
http://www.chnetwork.org/index.html
It promises to be a partner in the journey, and I like that approach.
I’ve read conversion stories, which used to be highlighted on Coming Home–read them exhaustively about the time I converted and wondered why they didn’t speak to me (I should have taken a clue from that, perhaps …)
Anyhow, most of these stories follow a specific formula and the writers seem to believe, with all sincerity, that God was guiding them every single solitary step of the way through a series of seemingly unconnected coincidences, from their meth addiction, to the deaths of their mothers, to finding a discarded rosary on a park bench.
Sadly, I cannot seem to reconstruct my take on reality to believe that God really is that involved with the mundane and quotidian events of my life here in rural Michigan.
At best, I believe God leaves the light on for you (like at Motel 6!) and expects you to figure out how to get there.
I don’t think David was the first to push App-Scoff; I see it was used July 4th, 2010 at 11:57 am.
Might as well start the fireworks early!
I should have known better than to invoke LOTR. Sorry, Jean.
Peter did advise that we should explain the hope that is in us. But I doubt he meant the gyrations and fulminations that make up apologetics. Apologetics is a good word because it mostly indicates an apology for the faith rather than the real response which is to live Jesus Crucified. Then there is no explanation needed.
App-Matt. 25
I have no problem with converts. I have a problem with people who convert to Catholicism expecting it to enforce or inculcate evangelical Protestant sensibilities–particularly against cradle Catholics –I get ticked off when people try to do that to my family members–a pet peeve (that’s my problem with Sherry Wadddell’s program).
So David’s quite right–turning a fundamentalist mindset to CCC rather than scripture isn’t, in my view, a successful conversion to a Catholic sensibility. It’s simply buying a bigger gun and more powerful ammunition to enforce a fundamentalist Protestant one.
The serious question here is what do apologists hope to do–whom do they hope to convince. How do we convince one another of anything, anyway? What I think would be interesting would be to get a couple of Catholics who are jury consultants and ask them to look at the apologetics crowd.
Jean, that is a great question. I was talking with another theologian a few weeks ago,and we were trying to figure out why the idea of “God’s [detailed] plan for your life,” now so popular in conservative Catholic as well as Protestant evangelical influenced circles (especially around no birth control) , hasn’t historically been a big thing in Catholic circles. It’s the a) the higher role of free will; and b) the stronger natural law tradition which sets the rubric within we cooperate with God’s grace in setting the terms of the plan; and c) the lesser emphasis placed on immediate inspiration.
Kathy, judging by your interventions on this blog post, I think your software needs to be updated before it will run that Mat. 25 app.
Cathy, counseling the doubtful is one of the spiritual works of mercy.
Moral theology:
-The principle of double effect involves much more than just intention
-Intention involves the act, not just the mind
And yet it seems to me (as I have argued before) that the exact same act can be considered licit — and justified by double effect — or illicit, depending on the circumstances. A hysterectomy with the intention of terminating a pregnancy and sterilizing the mother-to-be would qualify as a direct abortion and doubly illicit (since not only is abortion forbidden, but sterilization as well). But a hysterectomy performed on a pregnant woman with cancer of the uterus is a classic example of a licit action justifiable by double effect. Yes, the circumstances are different, but the act (the hysterectomy) is absolutely identical in both cases. So somehow an act can be a direct abortion under some circumstances and an indirect abortion under others.
I think it is difficult to define an “act” without taking into account the mind. The usual analysis is done by looking at object, intention, and circumstances. Object and intention seem to me to be very much about what goes on in the mind.
The date stamp on messages is incorrect. I am posting this one at 3:39 p.m. on July 4. Let’s see what the date stamp is.
I am posting at 3:47; the CWL clock seems to be set at Icelandic Daylight Time!
David, you’re right, of course.
Kathy, the blind leading the blind-they consider themselves counseling the doubtful too.
Rather, I think, Chicago time, if it is one hour earlier.
David,
Yes, you are right. The mental intention can be *an* important determining factor. However these are two very different situations. I would have to think more about this, but I would hazard a guess that removal of a healthy uterus is a different act than the removal of a cancerous uterus. In other words, it’s not the classic “object of the act” that determines the distinction here but the physical situation of the organ itself.
Cathy,
Yes, I think in some cases they do think they are counseling the doubtful. In other cases I would guess that they are magnifying their own doubts and making disciples for social or political reasons. Hard to say.
Right. Chicago Daylight Time. Is Grant there?
“Catholic Answers has a whole group of professional apologists. Most seem to be converts from some form of evangelical Christianity–none advertise any formal training in theology or Catholic theology.”
None?
http://www.catholic.com/seminars/evert.asp
http://www.catholic.com/seminars/staples.asp
http://www.catholic.com/seminars/coffin.asp
http://www.catholic.com/seminars/angelette.asp
Interesting post. And I think applicable to today’s gospel of Luke about the harvest being great but the workers few. Our wise, holy and loving assistant pastor did a side rif fat Mass this morning about evangelization (not apolegetics certainly!) and quoted from, I believe St. Francis of Assisi,”‘preach constantly and when necessary use words.” Oh, so many gimmicks to lure the hurting and the unsuspecting. It is Christianity without too many words and PR strategies that is the most honest and the most effective. I blow off steam on blogs about current happenings and disasters in the institutional church, but I try to remind myself daily that, well, not to do that very thing in my personal relations. In the end, it is about being a witness to the gospel, without words, rancor, apologetics, and oneupmanship. Many folks have the desire and possibly, need to have certainty in their beliefs, leading to the apologetic style. However, in this world, ambiguity reigns. We call our system of belief, “faith”. We don’t call it “certainty.” Humility is key.
You’re right Stuart. I should have checked. I should have said, that was the case when I was looking into the website at the time that they issued the “Voters’ Guide for Serious Catholics” in 2008. Nonetheless, the leadership still advertises no formal training in theology and the whole group is heavily oriented toward engaging and combatting evangelical protestantism–but it seems with the tools of evangelical Protestantism.
Here’s the bio of Karl Keating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Keating
Here’s the bio of Jimmy Akin, “Catholic Answers Director of Apologetics and Evangelization”
http://www.catholic.com/media/akin.asp
Mr Staples, whom you cite, has a strong background in fundamentalist protestantism–He even attended Jimmy Swaggart Bible College!
Incidentally, the honoraria they get are quite substantial–more than Commonweal speakers get, for sure.
http://www.catholic.com/seminars/coffin.asp
Mr. Coffin, who presents himself as an expert in the history of Christianity (sacred Tradition), ecclesiology (priesthood), and moral theology (human vitae). Why, he seems to know almost as much as Kathy does!
He charged $2500 a day–the most of the group. Maybe that’s because he’s also a magician.
Mr Jim Burnam, who was valedictorian of Hillsdale College, but who has no advanced degree listed, charges $1200 for a talk. Since he was a philosophy major, he’ll tell you how to prove the existence of God and the divinity of Christ.
One talk a week, and he’s making more than an an assistant professor at ND–with a Ph.D.
Wow. But it is true, I suppose, that most professors would end up giving a course entitled “Catholic Answers and Catholic Questions?” Who wants to hear that talk!
LOTR isn’t where I go for answers I cannot find in Scripture. I don’t go to LOTR unless I want to be bored out of my gourd, though Mr. William Collier feels otherwise.
However, I always like to be reminded of my friendly feeling for Mr. Collier even through references to LOTR.
If I need answers I can’t find in Scripture, I can usually find them in Haley’s Household Hints and they usually involve old panty hose (the best material to tie up climbing vines). I hasten to note that most of the questions to such questions are not of a spiritual nature.
OK, Raber says the stuff on the grill is within five minutes of being done, so I gotta go make some cole slaw.
Happy 4th!
I never could get through Lord of the Riggs either–or Harry Potter years later–and I knew from the very beginning that Lewis was trying to manipulate me when I read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe–and I didn’t like it one bit, although I didn’t know what he was doing til later.
Now, what was very funny was the episode of the Big Bang Theory where the three guys get the ring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6bctcchmjQ&feature=related
I’ve heard Tim Staples speak–about John, emphasizing the sacraments. He sure did know his Bible. I don’t have a ton of spare cash but I’d lay down some cash for that kind of encouragement.
Behind door #1, positivism. Behind door #2, encouragement. That’s been the choice of Catholic consumers for 40 years.
Some professors seem to do very well in their vocations.
Yes–business, medicine, and law schools pay a little better. But tenure track in the humanities–not so much. And that’s if you can get tenure track.
An adjunct might get $5,000 for a whole course. 40 lectures and grading.
One of my hobbies is guessing which app St. Thomas is going to put in play. Long ago I developed the habit of reading the Summa T out of order: obj 1, response to obj 1; obj 2, response to obj 2, etc. I find the objections and responses to be much more entertaining than the body of an article. It’s fun to try to guess how Thomas will answer a given objection. Reductio ad absurdam? Reductio ad Sabellius? Intriguing!
“Why would Christ Found His Church and not ensure that The Word of Love remain consistent?”
Huh???
I’ve always liked this from LOTR. In fact, I want it on the front cover of my funeral program (no, nothing imminent planned, but best to be prepared nonetheless):
PIPPIN: “I didn’t think it would end this way.”
GANDALF: “End? No, the journey doesn’t end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.”
PIPPIN: “What? Gandalf? See what?”
GANDALF: “White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.”
PIPPIN: “Well, that isn’t so bad.”
GANDALF: “No. No, it isn’t.”
Not LOTR, but what I’d like on my funeral program by Jessica Powers:
The spirit, newly freed from earth
is all amazed at the surprise
of her belonging: suddenly
as native to eternity
to see herself, to realize
the heritage that lets her be
at home where all this glory lies.
By naught foretold could she have guessed
such welcome home: the robe, the ring,
music and endless banqueting,
these people hers; this place of rest
known, as of long remembering,
herself a child of God and pressed
with warm endearments to His breast.
Huh???
Do you believe that The Truth can be transformed?
I don’t expect to be folded to the bosom of the Lord on my demise; certainly don’t expect robes or rings or music or banqueting to be immediately forthcoming in the part of Purgatory I’m headed to.
So I’ll take Tom Waits’ “I’ll Never Let Go of Your Hand” and choose Door #2, Encouragement:
Well, ring the bell backwards and bury the axe
Fall down on your knees in the dirt
I’m tied to the mast between water and wind
Believe me, you’ll never get hurt
Our ring’s in the pawnshop, the rain’s in the hole
Down at the Five Points I stand
I’ll lose everything
But I won’t let go of your hand
Well, Peter denied and Judas betrayed
I’ll bail with the roll of the drum
And the wind will tell the turn from the wheel
And the watchman is making his rounds
Well, you’ll leave me hanging by the skin of my teeth
I’ve only got one leg to stand
You can send me to hell
But I’ll never let go of your hand
Swing from a rope on a cross-legged dream
Signed with One Eyed Jack’s blood
From Temple to Union, to LA and Grand
Walking back home in the mud
Now I must make my best of the only way home
Molly deals only in stone
I’m lost on the midway, I’m reckless in your eyes
Just give me a couple more throws
I’ll dare you to dine with the cross-legged knight
Dare me to jump and I will
I’ll fall from your grace
But I’ll never let go of your hand
I’ll never let go of your hand
Great. Funeral apps.
I’ll follow the tweets on both your obsequies.
The issue of apologetics is very interesting — I think Cdl Dulles had something on it in First Things a few years back? In any case, the kind of apologetics that is about point-scoring, seems to me to be about one’s ego, which is the opposite of Christian apologetics. So I’m not really sure where an app gets you. It becomes the rhetorical version of Tourettes’s, which is what Kathy and Nancy’s comments often seem to amount to. Ejaculations with no real context aimed at providing for fertile ground for debate.
Apologetics that is no more than a college debating society, or just one-ups and offends the interlocutor, doesn’t really serve the purpose of apologetics, I’d say.
David, do you believe The Truth can be transformed or do you believe The Truth as He Has revealed Himself to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium?
B.T.W., if you are looking for some encouragement I love to listen to this:
http://payplay.fm/Mallett7
Try the top track songs, they are wonderful!
While I am concerned with the tone and style of some apologeticists working today as well, I am equally concerned with the implication that they require a missioning from the Bishops to do their work.
I think another kind of quality assurance mechanism can be developed that is in accord with the documents on the vocation of the laity. Recall, that the laity require no technical dispensation to evangalize appropriate to their state and calling (cf, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity). As long as they are not engaged in sacramental ministry of Eucharist, ordination, confirmation and reconciliation they are within the scope of their baptismal calling.
An imprimatur may be one such mechanism although it has long been controversial since the Second Vatican council. However, technically an imprimatur simply means that the content has been examined by a competent authority and there are no doctrinal errors. It is not a statement that how it is said, or the style or tone, is in agreement with the Church – only that it contains no doctrinal errors.
PS
Prior to the Reformation, the way the Church in the West handled stylistic difference was simply through religious orders.
The Eastern churches have been more or less able to maintain unity due to a looser ecclesiology. Afterall most Orthodox churches have no problem associating with the World Council of Churches while the RCC does.
“Ejaculations with no real context aimed at providing for fertile ground for debate.”
This sentence needs the freudian analysis app., stat!
David, re apologetics: At the close of RCIA we were given a guide to Bible verses (laminated!) that “proved” Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and the like so that when the fundies and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to the door we could have ready answers, i.e., score points with the “competition.”
It was suggested we keep it handy by the door.
The problem is that door-to-door evangelists are very well prepared before they embark on their missions, so there’s no point arguing with them anyway. You can get rid of them faster by thanking them for their interest in your soul, asking them what kind of reception they’ve received on their rounds, offering them a cup of coffee or tea, and sending them packing.
Which makes me wonder: Could apologetics be actions instead of arguments? Instead of local parishioners making pointed comments about the frequency of other people’s Mass attendance, mightn’t they be better apologists by welcoming people when they do show up?
Nancy, “Deliver Me from Me” sounds intriguing. In fact, if I ever write an autobiography, I’m using that as the title.
Thanks, Jean, for your insight. Jesus said, “By this will all know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.” Apologetics doesn’t get better than that!
Kathy, I think he’s offering a definition of contraception there. :)
If by The Truth you mean Jesus – no. However, what we know about Jesus is filtered through so many eyes, ears and experiences that I am not sure now we can really know Jesus qua Jesus to begin with.
If you mean the word of God, i.e., scriptures, not so much transformed as reunderstood in the light of scholarship, science and experience.
Jean asked: “Could apologetics be actions instead of arguments? ”
Yes, and there is ample scriptural evidence in support: Matthew 25: 34-46, Matthew 5: 38-48 and, of course James 2: 14-26.
John Locke told us that “The actions of men (sic) are the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
“Christianity is not just a cluster of things to believe, things for theologians sitting round a table to sort out, but the living out of those beliefs in a culture.”
John Orme Mills, OP, New Blackfriars, May 89.
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/gadgets/apps/index.html
Jimmy Mac- is that LOTR dialogue from the script of one of the films? I don’t remember it in the book. (Isn’t that kinda like quoting from “The Greatest Story Ever Told” and claiming it’s from scripture? :-))
I like this one. It reminds me of those plastic eight balls with the window that would tell your fortune:
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/gadgets/apps/230.html
Elsewhere on SOF are the Rapture greeting cards. I need to get a bunch of those.
SOF is truly one of the under-appreciated sites for wit, clever visits to churches (the “Mystery Worshipper” spot — this one was particularly good: http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2010/1951.html), gadgetry you can definitely live without, caption contests, etc. I don’t visit it daily but a trip at least once a fortnight (well, it IS a UK site!) never fails to uncover goodies worth chuckling about.
JP – I came across the quote a few months back and, for the life of me, can’t remember whether it was from a book or the movie. It has a definitely “flick feel” to it so I presume that it would be the latter.
It certainly isn’t canonical, but has an apocryphal feel (and I have it on good grounds that Elaine Pagels approves!).
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/like/pippin-i-didn-t-think-it-would-end-this-way/366008/
It’s from The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Return_of_the_King_(film)
It’s obviously from the movie, because nothing in LOTR reads that good.
Jimmy, Anglicans everywhere know about Ship of Fools. Mention of SoF is almost like code among Anglicans of a certain stripe–like Masons who seek each other out by asking someone if they’ve come from the east with their grandmothers while trying to whistle and eat Weetabix (or whatever it is the Masons say).
Jean, does that mean that I’m an honorary Anglican? I have been a denizen of SOF for at least 8 years now. I wouldn’t miss the Mystery Worshipper for anything. All else is figs in the pudding.
A number of the Catholic Answers type of converts that I know are actually baptized Catholics who went fundie and now are back. I think things might be more complicated than Prof Kaveny imagines.
I also don’t understand why Sherry Waddell gets lumped with the CAtholic Answers people just because she is a convert from evangelicalism. As for the Prof Kaveny’s attempt on an earlier post to link Waddell in a guilt by association with Mark Shea, they are friends because they at one time belonged to the same parish, I believe.
All of this personal Jesus stuff didn’t come into the Church from evangelical converts, but was part of the renewal of Vatican II. You can’t have it both ways.
JC, as this thread draws to a close, I have to say that I think evangelicals and Catholics who subscribe to the notion of a “personal Jesus” have somewhat different ideas in mind.
In my experience Catholics imagine a Jesus who cares about everybody and whom they could talk to about their trials and temptations, and whose life would provide example and inspiration.
Evangelicals often got a step further, believing in a Jesus who pulls strings for them, looking out for all their little needs. My sister-in-law once got a rebate on a new furnace the day that they were short on paying their car insurance bill–”and the rebate was EXACTLY the amount we needed for the bill!” Praise Jesus for making sure she got her car payment paid on time. Proof she’s saved!
I have known individual Catholics who were a bit superstitious about these types of things, but I’m not sure that the Church would count getting your furnace rebate the day your car insurance was due as a miracle.
Jean –
There are two kinds of people in this world — those who think little miracles do sometimes happen and those who don’t.
I’m in the first group. Why wouldn’t God do little favors for folks? If He took the trouble to create this whole world, why wouldn’t He ever bend some laws of physics for us?
“If He took the trouble to create this whole world, why wouldn’t He ever bend some laws of physics for us?”
Because bending the laws of physics for a fortunate few individuals, in my view, goes against the whole notion of the Body of Christ. God doesn’t have favorite individuals who get the furnace rebate in the nick of time (which I think is probably less a miracle than it is prompt payment by Lennox people), and the rest of us who have to haggle with the insurance company for a partial payment and an extension.
I think God is concerned with the entire human family and its well being, and isn’t going to do for one of us what he can’t do for all of us. Miracles and signs are there to strengthen the faith of all of us, not to help a particular individual.
On the other hand, God’s ways are not my ways, and for all I know, God could be up there like some beneficent Republican Lady a la Barbara Bush doling out charity in the form of small rebate checks and relief from sciatica here and there as daily duties and social obligations allow.
Jean,
Do you really think that some people don’t start out disadvanteged? That many people don’t live lives with greater suffering than others? And look around. Some are physically, emotionally, and intellectually more blessed than others. I’m sure that God showers His spiritual blessings on each of us as each needs — and then some.
Why not a few little miracles, especially if that’s what somebody needs spiritually?
Ann, I don’t exactly understand what you mean.
For me, God is remote and inscrutable. Those old Unitarian teachings from childhood die hard.
All’s I know is that God sent us Jesus Christ to show us how to live, and a host of saints down the ages to keep the teaching fresh.
I don’t belive He rains down little gifts in the form of insurance checks and miraculous cures on a fortunate few. (Though I realize that if He wants to, He can; he can do whatever He wants.)
I do believe he opens hearts and minds to the teachings of Christ that may make good things happen. And that’s miracle enough.
Jean –
Yes, our childhood images of God are so very, very important. I have certainly been influenced by my notions of the three Persons. None of them seem remote to me anymore. Christ is no problem. But my image of the Father was sort of the classic venerable old man with the gray beard. Worthy of most respect, “out there”, and pretty boring. My image of the Holy Spirit was just an image of something fuzzy and ethereal at the same time. Sort of like dandelion gossamer (you know, the little wings of dandelion seeds). Here, but hard to grasp.
I was lucky, or, rather, God gave me a great grace. At my First Communion I was aware that Jesus was indeed present in the host, though I can’t tell you *how* I knew it. This seems to be a rather common experience with some Catholics.)
Graces are certainly not products of nature, and they are made-to-order so to speak, so I think that graces/the gratuitous/God’s extra gifts are in fact miracles — free, unearned, personal gifts, and they are both large and small. Saints are big ones who help us along the way.
If I thought God was remote, I think I’d probably join Flannery O’Connor and say “The hell with it”. The mystics have helped me become more aware of God’s immanence. As I got older I realized that mystics might actually encounter God within themselves. Why not? I was still suspicious of all sorts of nature mystics, but now I’m convinced some nature mystics (see Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey), do become aware of God’s presence in nature.
I’ve also learned that there seems to be an English suspicion, still present in American culture, of contemplative prayer. The English distrust of such prayer is no doubt due to the English monks who by the time of the Reformation had become greedy and worldly, and many were dissolute (e.g., “the mad monks of Mendenhall”. Love that phrase.)
Anyway, especially since Thomas Merton, many Catholic laity are into contemplative prayer, which actually includes many kinds of prayer that involve turning our attention away from things and towards God. Thomas Merton’s writings about the more far out sorts seem to reach people of all sorts of traditions. If you haven’t tried him already, his “New Seeds of Contemplation” might give you a good view of what that is and why it is.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1590300491?tag=thomasmertonc-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=1590300491&creative=373489&camp=211189
Then there’s the more ordinary sort, Centering Prayer. Fr. Thomas Keating is the most popular writer about it. Open Mind Open Heart is a great book :-) Marvelous teacher.
azon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Open+heart+open+mind&x=0&y=0
Granted, some contemplatives are, sadly, not a little crazy, so there’s reason to distrust them. But my thinking is that if a person is otherwise sane and truthful, then I figure I have reason to trust them. Sure, some seem barking mad, but I find some of them persuasive.
Sorry to have gone on at such length, but I think grace in its varied forms needs to be talked about. The young especially don’t seem to have been taught much about it.