 |
| Paul leaves Ephesus (public domain image) |
The intentions may have been good but the wisdom bypassed me. My late mother who read the whole Bible advised me that the Old Testament had a lot of depressing stuff. My young generation was more interested in Paul McCartney than Paul of the Bible.
My outlook today? My eyes have not been opened about the need or desirability for digesting the violent and depressing stuff.
The bishop's column is short so I breezed through the whole thing. Bishop Eaton tells us about Paul's journey to Rome. Why the trip? Well, he was being transported to stand trial. "He would be placed under house arrest and finally executed."
I had a flashback to a Cheech and Chong record album from when my generation ate up the irreverent stuff from the clever duo. "Clever," in that they positioned themselves to take advantage of our naivete and the trendy nature of our rebelliousness. Their "Big Bambu" album included this: A couple typical "stoners" were at a drive-in movie. The fare on the screen was gratuitous violence. A guy is tortured. Finally one of the stoners says to the other "this movie a bummer, man."
That's precisely the reaction I have re. Bible stories such as the one about Paul. I remember sitting in a Sunday school classroom and being exposed to material like this, material which even if not violent per se, was disturbing and certainly had no connection or relevance to our lives as kids in America. I could have uttered the same line as the guy at the drive-in movie.
You should be aware that Morris once had its own drive-in movie place. It was out where the Hosanna church is now. Some of us boys would go out there to catch a movie with risque elements.
Misery at sea
The story of Paul had him as prisoner on a ship that ran into bad weather. Bishop Eaton informs us that the story is at the end of the book of Acts. Naturally the story develops into a "bummer" of the first order. I don't think the kids of today are interested in reading a story with such misery.
My generation was raised by Cold War-influenced parents who felt rumination was a necessary part of life. They deemed these depressing stories necessary. They didn't see the forest for the trees when it came to the Vietnam war. Yes countless young men were fighting, dying, getting maimed and tortured, being exposed to chemicals that would kill them years later. But our parents deferred to our leaders who obviously felt there was some grand purpose, just like the violent and depressing Bible stories were supposed to somehow be constructive.
The passengers, prisoners and crew of the (expletive) boat were cold and wet and had gone without food for days. They weren't sure if they were near land. The ship might founder on rocks. Some of the crew tried to mutiny. Paul in his magical/mystical way assured everyone that all would be saved. He told them to eat. Eat, in the face of panic? Why eat if death is near?
"This story a bummer, man."
The lesson here - yes, one must grope - is that eating was an act of faith and trust. Eaton reminds us of the night on which Christ was betrayed. Isn't "betrayal" another example of the depressing stuff kids can be forced to consume in Sunday school? I don't think I had ever heard the word before. Christ took bread at the fateful time, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples.
"This is the food God gives us for forgiveness, life and salvation," Eaton wrote.
All of which is good, if you believe that profound suffering and even death is a prerequisite for somehow emerging triumphant. I guess we experience the latter as we prance into heaven? We must go through such arduous stuff first? I think all the dark stories can give kids a complex.
Is this what our existence is supposed to be all about? Is it "pain equals gain?" I think this whole model for thinking has grown dated. Was it foisted by the Victorian frame of mind? Or, by the industrial age in which so many people considered their job a "grind?"
We want our kids today to feel more uplifted, happy and optimistic. Maybe this helps us understand why organized religion is in such a panic trying to attract young adults into the pews. This is reaching crisis proportions. We are nearing Easter which reveals to us the horribly violent crucifixion. I think Christmas is wonderful but Easter is at the other end of the scale. (Radio voice Garner Ted Armstrong once told us that Christmas began as a pagan holiday.)
The Mel Gibson movie about the crucifixion underscores the points I'm seeking to make. I want no part of this. I would prefer understanding the Christ story in the abstract rather than being reminded of all the blood.
Monty Python for relief
As an escape, each year on Easter Sunday I re-watch the concluding scene of "Life of Brian" - no, not a movie about me. It's a parody and provides relief as such. It reminds of the violence that is so spread out in the Christian faith, and uses humor to help us detach, to laugh at it and maybe even to reject it. Hey, let's eat again! The movie was of course done by Monty Python.
Eaton reminds us that "on his way to the cross - the ultimate showdown with death - Jesus stopped to eat. Death was defeated."
We "defeat death" by contemplating such unspeakable violence? Sorry, I will pass on all of that. Us kids would depart church and go back to paying attention to Paul McCartney, not Paul of the Bible.
The Bible stuff, besides seeming irrelevant to the maximum degree, was just troubling. "This movie a bummer, man." The stoner guy who gave this line was reacting to a scene where a tortured guy was pleading with his tormenter after having had both hands cut off. The comedy short worked because it was a satire on gratuitous violence. It poked fun at drive-in movie fare.
The stoners seemed sympathetic because of their frank honesty, how they'd gravitate to the most simple pleasures like, for them, inhaling on a "joint." Marijuana has pretty much gone mainstream. So the Cheech and Chong humor comes off as dated. Those guys knew what made the boomer youth tick. Heaven knows we had plenty of faults. But we also extolled "peace and love." We just needed some rough edges in our behavior ironed out. It took time.
Churches on the precipice
Boomers can now be described as "old." Can we keep our churches going? It might be up to us, based on the general skepticism shown by young adults. I can't see the millennnials being much interested in reading stories like the one about Paul adrift at sea. It's a "bummer."
It's wonderful if Christ "died for our sins." Just leave the torture and misery out of it, or present it more in the abstract please. If you want young people to continue coming to church.
And then there's politics. Yes, the current association of "evangelicals" with a certain political strain has probably already caused a major downturn for the faith. People who work in religion know all about this. To make Donald Trump a symbol for Christianity is about the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.
 |
| Aaron Schock |
I would say that 100 percent of the local Apostolics vote for Trump and Republicans. I wonder how they are reacting to the recent announcement by Aaron Schock that he is gay?
I'm happy for the young man if the announcement liberates him from the discomfort of having perhaps concealed this. I wouldn't consider it "news" at all except there is irony in his announcement versus his political background of not being responsive to gay rights issues.
I wonder how he is now reconciling this in his own mind. I would like to see him re-think his basic approach to politics, to "break bread" with people on the other side. How refreshing that would be, n'est-ce pas?
I like many of the local Apostolics on a personal level, have known many for much of my life. I went to high school with Jerry Wulf. But they seem monolithic and I feel intimidated by them. These are intelligent people who should analyze certain issues with a little more depth.
Addendum: This is one of those posts where I wrestle with a grammatical matter. I write near the top "as a young person, me and my peers. . ." I remember once doing a feature for the Morris paper, on Tom Erickson, where I quote Tom saying "me and my wife" which might have been a paraphrase by me, but maybe not. Someone pounced on that. To this day I can sense how this construction might be an error but I can't latch onto this. Because my sentence starts "as a young person," I reason that the next reference should be to me and not the others. "I and my peers?" That rubs me the wrong way. The English language is fluid and I don't think the hard and fast old rule applies as much, if at all. "Me and my writing" will go on. My old critics in this community would pounce on this as evidence that my brainpan is deficient. To them I say, go sit under a cow.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment