Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

Michael Jackson’s Death

Once again the Neo-Con talking heads (NCTH) have missed an opportunity. With the untimely death of Michael Jackson, and the subsequent near pandemonium, the NCTH have taken the position that he was talented, if only a bit strange. To their credit they do bring up his more questionable antics, not in order to cast the first stone (who among us hasn't sinned), but rather to ask if this is sort of person we should idolize. Yet, in the exuberance to appeal to pop culture they have let go unquestioned Michael Jackson's talent level. His talent level is not beyond dispute, nor is his chosen genre of music the one upon which true culture is built. Hey, I'll admit it I have some of his stuff on my Ipod, but I won't go so far as to state publically that every song on my Ipod is true art. Some songs are there for utilitarian reasons, being good workout music. It seems to me, that before we speak about someone's skill level we ought to ask ourselves if their area of expertise is necessary to begin with, or at the very least if it does not tend toward decadence.

In the case of Michael Jackson his chosen form of music was popular music (POP), so we must look at POP music in order to answer the question. Pop music developed in the 1950's as a lighter alternative to Rock 'n' Roll. Pop Music's general structure is marked by a simple rhythmic beat and 'catchy,' artificial lyrics. According to widipedia pop music has the following characteristics:

• Orientated towards the singles market and individual songs
  
• Emphasis on recording over live performance
  
• Emphasis on technology over musicianship
  
• Emphasis on artificiality or craftsmanship over artistic values
  
• Tendency to deal with simple or trivial themes
  
• Tendency to follow existing practice and fashionable trends over progressive developments
  
• Appeal to the general population rather than a sub-culture or ideology
  

The characteristics of pop music are not conducive to building culture. Indeed, as Richard Weaver argued in "Ideas Have Consequences" with regard to Jazz, this sort of music tends more toward decadence than it does toward true culture. A steady diet of this sort of music, be it pop, rock, country, or what have you, may in fact danger the individual's soul. The community being made up of individuals suffers when one member suffers. Thus a society built upon fashionable trends, artificial craftsmanship cannot be sustained. As a result of our culture accepting this sort of art to the extent that it does, with its emphases of style over substance, has left the flood gates open for these same tendencies to make inroads in cinema, and video games. Like in all things moderation is called for. I am not here arguing for a ban of these things, but rather for their proper context. We need not seek to ban something that would probably decrease in popularity if we sought the higher rather than the lower. If we listened to classical music more, our appreciation for the lower genres would lessen. If we trained ourselves to seek the good rather than the quick and easy we would find that the easy is typically not better.

The opportunity that the NCTH have missed then is to point these things out to their listeners. It is okay to lament the passing of any man, but we need not sink to the level of pretending that the ability to perform a low form of music, even if you happen to be the best at it (which isn't a given in the case of Jackson anyway), is somehow significant. It would be better to say that in the realm of pop music he had a successful run, but pop music as such is not culturally enriching. Let us stop pretending that our popular entertainment is somehow uplifting if it happens to not be. They (the NCTH) ought to recognize what is really going on. The majority of the people who are mourning rather excessively for the passing of someone that they did not personally know are not so much mourning his lose, as they are mourning their own mortality. His passing for them is a reminder that they too are getting closer to death, that if it can happen to him, someone who seemingly had it all, it will happen to them too. What they need to do is hear the remedy for death, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the conqueror of death and Hades. In other words look beyond our sickened culture toward the eternal kingdom.

Eastern Understanding of the Atonement

I will probably be posting more on this topic on a future date. Here are two important talks given by Father Pat Reardon of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago, IL.

Father Pat on The Love of God and the Passion of Christ

All Saints Homily

Why Can’t the Terminator Kill People?

Long before James Cameron did his documentary on the Lost Tomb Of Jesus, a rather silly attempt to disprove Christianity he was involved in the Sci-Fi Terminator trilogy. Why do I bring up his work on the Lost Tomb of Jesus film since I am writing about the Terminator? Good question. The answer is because I think that his views on such things as religion are important since he deals with ultimate questions of life and death in the Termintor movies. During one scene in Terminator 2 a young John Connor attempts to explain to his bodyguard/terminator why he can't kill someone. The dialogue is instructive in as much as it is, I think, the best that the atheist can offer. Here is the dialogue:

JOHN - Listen to me, very carefully, okay? You're not a terminator any more. Alright? You got that? You can't just go around killing people!

TERMINATOR -    Why?

JOHN -     Whattaya mean, why? 'Cause you can't!

TERMINATOR -     Why?

JOHN -    You just can't, okay? Trust me on this.

Now, I will grant that John is a very young kid, so we probably shouldn't expect too much from him on this difficult question, but I also think that this is about a good an answer as one could expect if you take away the idea of the transcendent. That is to say that if there is no God then there really isn't a reason not to kill people. I would rather people believe that they shouldn't kill because of the commandment, thou shalt not kill, than this sort of nebulous idea that it's wrong to kill because society is against it, or because people have feelings (John offers this in a later scene because the Terminator still doesn't understand why he can't kill whoever he wants to).

I would submit that if there is no God, there is no standard of behavior, and it is inconsistent, and a bit self-serving, to suggest that murder is wrong (accept of course in the case of the unborn or near death). Why self-serving? I think it obvious that the athesists who professes not to do harm to others is ultimately afraid that it will eventually be their turn to be harmed, if they don't take a stand against it. While it is true that their turn would come eventually it is begs the question as to why they think they shouldn't be harmed? The answer, of course, is that they are created in the image and likeness of God, and thus have an inherited dignity that goes beyond the natural. They don't recognize this, at least they won't admit it, but it is built into their DNA, which is the real reason they are against harming others.

On the use of incense

I am often perplexed by the lack of incense in the Roman Church. I'm not sure why the use of incense fell out of favor in the western church. This is a very quick post so I won't go into the history of the practice, but the use of incense for worship goes back to Old Testament times. When incense if used all the time it leaves a distinct aroma that is present to the worshiper, and greets them as they enter the house of God. But today I want to briefly talk about the benefit of using it for private prayer at home (along with an icon corner). I have the benefit of being able to work from home so this maybe more obvious to me now, but it was still 'there,' when I had to go into the office. I find that the use of incense in the home helps me to remember God throughout the day when I go past the area where I used it the fragrance is still present, and is a reminder of God. If you are not in the habit of using incense at home during your prayer time may I humbly suggest that it could be a benefit to do so?

Easter 2009

If someone were to inquire what Easter means to me or to humanity in general, I would be hard pressed to give an account. One may offer that it offers hope, forgiveness of sins, and communion with God. To the Christian these all signify something, but for the unbeliever they don't have the same force. So, while these are all true I can't help but feel that the inquirer may feel they are a dodge. What do they really mean, after all? Hope? Hope in what? What is sin, and how are they forgiven? What do we mean by communion with God? The non-believer sees us celebrate the life, death, and burial of an ancient Jewish man, and cannot be blamed for thinking that the whole procedure is a bit odd. For the believers part they don't quite understand why the non-believer isn't joining in with them. Why don't they get it? Why this difference of perspective? It is not 'sin,' that is culprit for all have sinned. If not sin, then what gives? It is what the person believes about sin that makes the difference. In the first place is there a moral order? If not then sin is rendered meaningless – it is no more sinful to go on a violent shooting spree, than to feed the poor. But does anyone in the right mind really believe this to be true? No, they do not. Their intuition tells them that it is not morally equivalent, that to do evil is wrong, while doing good (helping others) is good.

If everyone were to be honest with themselves, they would be forced to acknowledge that haven't always done the good, but rather have at times done evil. Oh, they may not have gone on a shooting spree with a physical gun, but they very well may have gone on one with their mouth. The tongue, we are told, can wound and kill just as easily as a gun and bullet. Have we, by our words, hurt others? Have we participated in coarse joking that caused someone to view the world negatively? We are perhaps too comfortable with things as simple as crude humor, not realizing the effect that it can have, but like all sin it reverberates further than we can see. The same is true of gossip, slander, and the like. We have all wounded others, we have all set ourselves above others, and we have all of us sinned. It does us no good to think otherwise. To think otherwise is to seek blindness rather than sight. It is like going to the ophthalmologist, having ones' eyes examined, but asking for the removal of the eye in favor of corrective lenses. It is better to see clearly, than not at all. If it is admitted that some actions are wrong, the implication of this admission is that there is a standard. If there is a standard then there must be a standard giver. That standard giver is God. When we fail to live up to the standard we sin against the standard giver; God.

We fail to live up to this standard because our nature is weakened due to sin and death. Death was not part of our original design. It came later, when we, through Adam, sinned. After death entered the world we were more prone to sin because death held sway over us. We feared death, and attempted to live for the here and now since death was seemingly the end. Death was the great unknown. Being fearful of death we attempt to put death off by pursuing what we think will make us happy in this life, often times this involves sin.

Because of Easter, however, we need no longer be fearful of death. Death is swallowed up, and reigns no more. Oh, we still must face a physical death, our own, and those of whom we love. Yet the good news is that death is not final, that it has been defeated, and so we sing on Easter "By death He conquered death, and to those in tombs He granted life!" How did this victory come about? By His Incarnation the Divine Logos took on a human nature. He suffered, dead on the cross of Calvary, and was buried. On the third day he arose again because He was, and is, Life, and so death had no power over Him. We are united to him through baptism, and partake of his Divinity in the Holy Eucharist.

So what does Easter mean to me? It means though I am a great sinner, my sins have been forgiven, that death is not a thing to be feared any longer for I have been made a partaker of the Divine Nature, physical death is now a passing over to true life. It means that the suffering of this present age is not worth comparing to the joy of the one to come. Will I at times forget this? Undoubtedly, I will forget this, I will choose that which has it basis in the temporal, in death, but when I do fall into this trap I know that there is ongoing forgiveness. Not because of any good that I have done, but because of the great love that God has for mankind. Blessed is Our God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit now and ever and forever, Amen.

I hope that everyone has a wonderful Easter. If you are not a member of a church go anyway! If at all possible try to attend an Eastern Christian Church – where you can hear the wonderful news that death has been defeated, life has overcome death, and Christ has won the victory!

Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!

The Crucifixion

Today is hung upon the tree He Who suspended the land in the midst of the waters. A crown of thorns crowns Him, Who is the King of Angels. He is wrapped about with the purple of mockery, Who wrapped the Heavens with clouds. He received buffetings, Who freed Adam in the Jordan. He was transfixed with nails, Who is the bridegroom of the Church. He was pierced with a spear, Who is the Son of the Virgin.

We worship Thy Passion, O Christ:

Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection!

• From the entombment vespers on Great and Holy Friday.
  

Eastern Catholicism – The Middle Ground?

On their wonderful website (designer envy) Holy Trinity includes an article, "What Exactly is the Orthodox Church," Here. The note on the bottom indicates that it was originally published by Conciliar Press, and so we know that this short introduction to the Orthodox Church enjoys a certain pedigree. That is to say it goes beyond the confines of this local parish. What I found interesting about the article is the notion that Orthodoxy enjoys the middle ground between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as such. Now the middle ground is not always the best place to be. For instance many Americans, or so I have read, are personally opposed to abortion, but don't believe that it should be against the law either. For them the middle ground is for society not to outlaw the procedure. In this instance the middle ground is nonsensical. The only reason to be personally opposed to abortion is because it is wrong to take innocent human life. If abortion is not that, then opposition, either private or social, to it crumbles. There is no middle ground when it comes to be opposed to murder.

There are, however, times when the middle is the place to be. The great English author, G.K. Chesterton noted that the impetuous for his beginning to investigate Catholicism was due to the Church the middle ground that the Church often took between two extremes. He made this discovery from reading Christianity's opponents. "For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reason. No sooner had on rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west… Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on christianly as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin… They did prove to me in chapter 1 that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in chapter 2 they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery" (Orthodoxy, the paradoxes of Christianity, pg. 91). And so it is that Christianity often solves the paradoxes that riddle mankind. As we live in a fallen world often the Church, the mother of the soul, needs to mediate between this world and the next. So for instance, St. Paul says to let the younger widows marry in his epistle to Timothy due to human weakness that is part and parcel to their youthfulness. Though the ideal is for them to remain unmarried, since marriage is eternal, he allows them to marry so they avoid sin.

It might be right, at this point, to inquire if ecclesiology is a topic that lends itself toward the middle ground, or if either of the extremes (Catholic or Protestant) is correct? It must be the case that if both are incorrect then that which is in middle may be correct. So I answer in the affirmative that it is a correct question to ask. Does the Orthodox Church still retain the ecclesial structure of the undivided church? That is the question, and it not an easy question to answer. For the purposes of this discussion we can safely rule out the Protestants view of ecclesiology. We are now left with the Roman Catholic view and that of the Orthodox, or so it would seem. The historical evidence, depending on how it is read, lends support to both sides. The councilor councils did not deal with the question enough to give us a suitable answer.

I am uncomfortable with defining ecclesiology by stating who we are not in communion with, rather than with whom we are. As an eastern Catholic there is no joy that comes from being out of communion with our mother churches of the east – the Orthodox Patriarchs. Rather, the desire is to have that union and communion. Yet, the question is should we have to forfeit communion with Rome in order to do so? It is, from my point of view, to simplistic to say that the church of the first 1000 years did not believe in the later papal developments. We simply do not have the evidence that they did not. We do know that the east spoke, at times of the necessity of their communion with Rome, even amidst the tension. Is then, the true, middle ground in this instance they ground on which Eastern Catholics are? By not forfeiting the communion with the Roman Church while believing all that comes to us from the east are we not saying that the paradigm of the first millennium can still be lived?