I have just completed Mathew Fox's "A New Reformation" and it delivers the counter-point to many of the ideas that I have elucidated from the Traditionalist - in spades. Unfortunately, most of the first half is spent on a diatribe against fundamentalist Christians, Protestantism, and especially the Catholic Church. He insists time and again, for instance, that the Church since and including Pope John Paul II is fascist and far more corrupt than the worst of the Borgia era during the Italian Renaissance, something I found incredible. During that era, for instance, one Pope was noted for sex parties, where contests were held using several prostitutes to see who could "do it" the most. Orgies often raged amid outright warfare and conquest of territory by the Papal army, tens of thousands were killed as heretics, and the Inquisition was instigated with all its horrors. Worse than that era? His opinion was based on the child molestation scandal, and the dismissal or chastisement of several clerics and theologians for having unorthodox practices or opinions. His treatment of Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict 16, was almost scandalous in itself, calling the man a fascist admirer of Hitler. Further, he claimed that the reaction of the Cardinals in America to abortion during the Bush-Kerry election of 2004 was contrived to win Bush the election - not for his stance against abortion so much as for his shared neo-fascist ideology. Good lord. As a theologian, he must be aware that the Church of today has no secular power, only the power to influence the flock, and a poor influence at that: Catholics did and continue to vote in step with the rest of American voters. His constant reference to LGBT people and another reference to his quitting of the Catholic Church to become an Episcopalian priest draws one to think that he might have been a Catholic priest who was chastised, or dismissed, for practicing his homosexual preferences. Of course, he knows too that priests are not supposed to practice ANY sexuality. Like it or not, he cannot rightfully claim that he was bullied for his preferences, but his acts. But on this, I guess.
The second half of the book gets to the meat of his thoughts, and on those I was often sympathetic. In an obvious symbolic act, he went to the Wittenberg church in Germany, where he tacked up his own 95 theses on the door - or at least, a simulacrum of the door, given that it is now a tourist attraction, and it is in the latter half that he lists them. Besides denouncing the Patriarchal attitudes of a church dedicated to a punishing god, he notes that the rituals of the mass are no longer relevant - and on this I somewhat agree. As I wrote before, much of the church service is boring, and it attracts me only because I have been given the grace to feel the intent of the Eucharist, and because I am in my late middle years and more tolerant of boredom. Unlike Fox, however, I do not think we find the service boring because we have evolved past its stale patriarchy and textual rationalism, but because we are no longer peasants working long, monotonous hours in the fields, or even factory workers burdened with a similarly monotonous occupation. Rather, as he states, we are post moderns, by which he means "multicultural" but by which I can also include "wired," both as a description of our mentality and of our nervous systems. Patient meditation is simply no longer our cup of tea. We want action, and as much as I disagree with the "evolved" part about this attitude, I do agree that the mainstream churches lack encouragement for the personal experience of the Absolute.
He also notes that the churches should emphasize ecological balance, to which I also agree, as well as social justice for the poor (although the many churches, including the Catholic, preach just this), with which I agree to a point. And of course he preaches Love over judgment, and who could not also agree? Yet in all of this, I believe he fails to understand the human condition; as with many liberation theologians, he believes it is only the power structures that keep human kind from heaven on earth, forgetting that it was and is human kind that creates these power structures. More to the point, I think he believes that humans are essentially good, ready and willing to discard their sins if only given a chance in a loving environment. In this, I believe the old churches and beliefs - including those of primitives, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on - realize that selfishness and blind egotism are just as much a part of human nature, regardless of the power structure, as sweetness and light. The Revealed Traditions and Traditionalists in general have this right: to be born human is to be born separate from ultimate reality; it is a condition of this world. Without it, we would not be of this world. The Amazon Indians understand this as well as the Buddhists; this is not an image solely of the patriarchal, judgmental Abrahamic religions. The point of all the true religions is to help guide us past the gates that lock us from greater spiritual heights. Why this is so is referred to as Original Sin by the Middle Eastern religions, and this term is not brought to light to make us feel like sinners, but rather to describe our plight - that is, that most of us have to WORK at getting beyond ourselves. Just as the communists found that humanity is not perfectible by simply removing a class system, so Utopians like Fox have, or will, learn that neither is humanity perfectible by stating loving principles. Judas had the direct love and attention of the Christ, and yet...he did what many would have done, and would still do today. We are blinded by the reality of this world as we experience it as humans, and only God and our own work can get us beyond it. Nice intentions will always be abused.
He is also fighting a battle that is, for the most part, over; his act of defiance required little bravery. The Western world has become largely secular, and few fear the power of a punishing god. Few in Europe bother to attend Church or read the Bible, and America is quickly following suit. It is the Traditions, both of the tribals and of the nation states, that are on the run (with the eception of Islam, although one can argue that this, too, has become far too involved with secular power and materialism). It is this fact that made the Traditionalists write what they have - that is, in defense of certain fundamental spiritual principles and truths which they believe are being trampled by the modern and the post-modern world. I agree. I would like, in theory, Fox's vision of the New Reformation, but I believe his is wrong if he believes he can make it all happen with his personal love and tolerance - (of which he showed none when discussing the Catholic Church - far more meaningful to this discussion than first meets the eye).
Some good counterpoints were made to the Traditionalist, however, ones that simply must be addressed with greater reference to the (post) modern mentality. And Fox's ideals took me back to my youth, where I believed in and sought much the same thing. However, just as I learned in my youth that I was as great an obstacle to heaven on earth as my government was, through my own grasping for personal desires and ego-boosts, so I believe Fox must take into account what he despises in the churches - that judgments on personal behavior must be made, and that right directions must be encouraged at times with a call to self-discipline. Not as cool or fun as we would want it, I know, but simply true. FK
The second half of the book gets to the meat of his thoughts, and on those I was often sympathetic. In an obvious symbolic act, he went to the Wittenberg church in Germany, where he tacked up his own 95 theses on the door - or at least, a simulacrum of the door, given that it is now a tourist attraction, and it is in the latter half that he lists them. Besides denouncing the Patriarchal attitudes of a church dedicated to a punishing god, he notes that the rituals of the mass are no longer relevant - and on this I somewhat agree. As I wrote before, much of the church service is boring, and it attracts me only because I have been given the grace to feel the intent of the Eucharist, and because I am in my late middle years and more tolerant of boredom. Unlike Fox, however, I do not think we find the service boring because we have evolved past its stale patriarchy and textual rationalism, but because we are no longer peasants working long, monotonous hours in the fields, or even factory workers burdened with a similarly monotonous occupation. Rather, as he states, we are post moderns, by which he means "multicultural" but by which I can also include "wired," both as a description of our mentality and of our nervous systems. Patient meditation is simply no longer our cup of tea. We want action, and as much as I disagree with the "evolved" part about this attitude, I do agree that the mainstream churches lack encouragement for the personal experience of the Absolute.
He also notes that the churches should emphasize ecological balance, to which I also agree, as well as social justice for the poor (although the many churches, including the Catholic, preach just this), with which I agree to a point. And of course he preaches Love over judgment, and who could not also agree? Yet in all of this, I believe he fails to understand the human condition; as with many liberation theologians, he believes it is only the power structures that keep human kind from heaven on earth, forgetting that it was and is human kind that creates these power structures. More to the point, I think he believes that humans are essentially good, ready and willing to discard their sins if only given a chance in a loving environment. In this, I believe the old churches and beliefs - including those of primitives, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on - realize that selfishness and blind egotism are just as much a part of human nature, regardless of the power structure, as sweetness and light. The Revealed Traditions and Traditionalists in general have this right: to be born human is to be born separate from ultimate reality; it is a condition of this world. Without it, we would not be of this world. The Amazon Indians understand this as well as the Buddhists; this is not an image solely of the patriarchal, judgmental Abrahamic religions. The point of all the true religions is to help guide us past the gates that lock us from greater spiritual heights. Why this is so is referred to as Original Sin by the Middle Eastern religions, and this term is not brought to light to make us feel like sinners, but rather to describe our plight - that is, that most of us have to WORK at getting beyond ourselves. Just as the communists found that humanity is not perfectible by simply removing a class system, so Utopians like Fox have, or will, learn that neither is humanity perfectible by stating loving principles. Judas had the direct love and attention of the Christ, and yet...he did what many would have done, and would still do today. We are blinded by the reality of this world as we experience it as humans, and only God and our own work can get us beyond it. Nice intentions will always be abused.
He is also fighting a battle that is, for the most part, over; his act of defiance required little bravery. The Western world has become largely secular, and few fear the power of a punishing god. Few in Europe bother to attend Church or read the Bible, and America is quickly following suit. It is the Traditions, both of the tribals and of the nation states, that are on the run (with the eception of Islam, although one can argue that this, too, has become far too involved with secular power and materialism). It is this fact that made the Traditionalists write what they have - that is, in defense of certain fundamental spiritual principles and truths which they believe are being trampled by the modern and the post-modern world. I agree. I would like, in theory, Fox's vision of the New Reformation, but I believe his is wrong if he believes he can make it all happen with his personal love and tolerance - (of which he showed none when discussing the Catholic Church - far more meaningful to this discussion than first meets the eye).
Some good counterpoints were made to the Traditionalist, however, ones that simply must be addressed with greater reference to the (post) modern mentality. And Fox's ideals took me back to my youth, where I believed in and sought much the same thing. However, just as I learned in my youth that I was as great an obstacle to heaven on earth as my government was, through my own grasping for personal desires and ego-boosts, so I believe Fox must take into account what he despises in the churches - that judgments on personal behavior must be made, and that right directions must be encouraged at times with a call to self-discipline. Not as cool or fun as we would want it, I know, but simply true. FK
RSS Feed