I subscribe to a Catholic journal called First Things. I don't remember how I originally came across it, but I liked what I read. Their by-line is "The Journal of Religion, Culture & Public Life." Intrigued I signed up and what I have found is an interesting look into not only the Catholic Church, but at devout people digging into the Bible and their theology, arguing sometimes, agreeing sometimes, but always thinking about how to bring a knowledge of Christ into our culture. Every month I get at least one thought to mull over, which to me is worth the price of the subscription.
At the end of each journal, the founder & editor, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, writes an article. After the article is done he throws in several things he's been reading about, talking to people about, thinking about, basically very stream-of-consciousness in an organized intellectual way. Below is an excerpt from the article The Possibilities and Perils in Being a Really Smart Bishop by Richard John Neuhaus in this month's issue:
The comedian Bill Maher recently delivered himself of some rather decided views on religion in general and Catholicism in particular. He said, “You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith. That makes you schizophrenic.” He added that anyone who is religious is schizophrenic, “sort of.” ... (We) might ask whether the Maher's, at least at times, do not, however inadvertently, render a service in pointing to the astonishing nature of Christian truth claims. Astonishing if they are not true, and more astonishing if they are. We are not schizophrenic, but we are keenly aware of the tension and, at times, the conflict between the gospel and culturally conventional understandings of reality. Christianity is indefatigably dialogical but never without an edge. Matthew Lickona puts it nicely in his memoir of a young Catholic, Swimming with Scapulars: “Let’s be open and clean. Let’s drag this out into the light and discuss. Let’s not be shocked and resentful; let’s love the lonely. Perhaps, coming from a fanatic, the message of God’s love will regain some of its wonderful outrageousness. ‘Listen. I have a secret. I eat God, and I have His life in me. It’s the best thing in the world; it leads to everlasting life. But first, you have to die to yourself.’” **
The quote from Matthew Lickona really grabbed me & got me thinking. As Christians our tendency can be to not really talk about the outrageous claims in the Bible. We try to make it more "acceptable" or "palatable" for those outside the faith. We sometimes act as if parts of the Bible are the crazy old aunt we love but don't really want to bring around our friends. Those parts embarrass us by their bluntness or political incorrectness (sorry, Mr. Maher). We want people to love Jesus like we do, but part of us thinks that if we hide certain parts of Him, people will like Him right way & later on, when they are as madly in love with Him as we are, we'll take them out to coffee & explain the whole "eat my body, drink my blood" stuff and we are sure that they'll understand by that point.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lickona. Let's just let God be God, let the Bible be the Bible, and not apologize or "tone down" any part of the message God has given to the world. After all, God gave the scriptures in total to us for a reason. He in divine wisdom put it all in there: the parts that soothe us, the parts that cheer us and, yes, the parts that shock us.
Barack Obama has a book titled "The Audacity of Hope". The definition of audacity is:
- Fearless daring; intrepidity.
- Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.
I suggest we have the "Audacity of Faith". Let's dare to believe that generations numbed by overexposure to sex, violence, consumerism, etc. can be shocked out of their complacency by the "wonderful outrageousness" of the Gospel.
** Copyright (c) 2000 by First Things. This data file is the sole property of First Things. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. This data file may not be used without the permission of First Things for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.
Lori,
I used to read First Things. I loved the way it helped broaden my perspective on what other Christian groups were thinking. The book reviews were often about interesting books and the poetry was usually good. In the end I gave it up because 1. I have less time now than I did and 2. I was bothered by the way that the journal often seemed in lock-step with neoconservative opinion without seeming to question it. I hope you continue to enjoy it, I think RJN is witty and his acerbic reviews of the news are fun.
I heard an interview with Austin Dacey on his book "The Secular Conscience" and I understand that Nehaus reviewed it in First Things. They agree that religion and morality are to be debated openly, though they come from different perspectives. It was interesting to hear Dacey make his case as it was one I had read from Nehaus repeatedly, though for different reasons.
Posted by: Dennis | March 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM