« Unearthed treasures | Main | School's In »
September 01, 2003
As usual, I'm torn
Once again, I'm confronted with a wildly successful evangelical product, and I'm not sure what to think.
On the one hand, I look at this:
(It's a New Testament, in case you didn't figure it out. And I don't think that's Julia Roberts in the middle.)and I think, on a certain level, it's an okay idea. As critical as I can be of the CBA way of life, the basic motivation is admirable and true: help people see what Jesus has to do them here, right now, in their life, in this culture. Because He has everything to do with it. We can't meet Jesus in 17th century Provence or 2nd century Antioch, because that's not where we are. We're in the 21st century USofA and this is the way we think and this how we've been shaped. And our kids, while maybe not all screaming for techno liturgies quite as much as we might think they are, are...kids.
So why not dress up the New Testament as a fashion magazine?
...we wanted to give the teens a point of relevance, a way that they could get into the Scripture and make it apply to their lives. Many of the teens we talked to said they just didn't know where to start. It was too much black and white, you know, 1,600 pages of Scripture. And so in this Bible, we tried to find a way to address topics that we knew were important to the teens, like guys and shopping and family relationships, but give them a way to relate that back to the Scripture.
We touched on this a week or so ago as we discussed Os Guiness and his book Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance. It's just such a knotty question. We are embodied creatures, which means we are encultured people. Religious expression is always encultured too, which is how you can tell if a piece of religious music was written in the 13th or 19th century, or you can tell if a crucifix comes from a 9th-century Carolingian court or from 17th century Spain. Modes of piety are varied and what's evocative spiritual writing in one era strikes another as overly sentimental. What hits closest to the core, however, lasts.
And perhaps that's the key. Every culture reaches for God, tries to talk about God, tries to explain God to itself. The best lasts and can still inform us today, but along the way, there's always a lot that doesn't get quite as far, but that's okay, because at least it gets somewhere.
I guess then, the problem is that we look around us - not just in the pop evangelical world, but certainly in our Catholic world - and we see a dearth of the heights, and just lots of middling. Lots of attempts to bring God down to us, but not so much seeking to draw us up and outward and beyond, to free ourselves from the culture that can be so helpful and necessary, but can also become a trap.
So things like this...as a former youth worker, I might say, well, sure. Okay. For now. But what is this giving these girls that really lays a foundation for an adult faith, a faith in which no one is frantically working to assure how cool all of this is, and one in which you have left all the concerns highlighted in this magazine behind...how well have you prepared to deal with life and faith when the hook they've used to get you interested - boys and makeup and shopping - has faded into the background. What's left? Perhaps what's left is the knowledge, gleaned from stuff like this, the one core fact that God does care about you where ever you are and what ever you're doing...and perhaps that's fruit enough. But I'm still not quite sure.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834202d0d53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference As usual, I'm torn:
» Hair, nails, boys, and Jesus from Foreword
Thanks Amy Welborn for finding this newest embarrassment to postmodern Christianity. CNN has the story behind this Seventeen magazine + New Testament. The publisher is Transit Books.... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2003 7:20:58 AM
» Bible in Disguise from LilacRose
When I first heard about Revolve, the New Testament of the Bible in the form of a fashion magazine (like... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 20, 2003 7:39:35 PM
Comments
Amy, I'm with you (mostly) on this one.
Yes, I think we desperately need to find effective ways to communicate the gospel message to our culture. Especially youth culture.
Is "Revolve" an effective way of doing it? I don't know . . . I tend to doubt it.
I see this as much more a triumph of capitalism than of Christianity impacting the larger culture. In fact, I don't think there is a serious attempt here at doing anything apart from selling more Bibles to the choir.
What is tragic is that Christianity, Christian thought and Christian culture have been in such retreat for so many years, we easily mistake "intra-ghetto marketing" for authentic cultural innovation.
For example, look at the top right-hand headline on the cover of "Revolve." Why would any teen-age girl who already wasn't totally steeped in (basically) the Evangelical ethos and subculture CARE whether she was "dating a Godly guy"?
The headline even is written in Evangelical churchspeak. My wife and I are in our ninth year as adult volunteers with our parish's youth group, and I don't think I've ever heard the word "Godly" used in normal teen conversation.
This is relevance? Would this pass the teen-age "This is *so* queer" test? I have my doubts.
Furthermore, I wonder how much you can make the gospel seem "cool" and "hip" and "fun" without straying into misrepresentation. Is the gospel without "Pick up your cross and follow Me" up front and plainly stated really the gospel?
Yeah, I'm all for making things understandable. And I'm all for adjusting one's approach to shorter attention spans and making the content as user-friendly as possible.
And I'm all for attractive graphics and conveying Christianity as a joy-filled faith.
But I'm not for bulls****ing young people. They're not stupid. They can handle the plain-spoken truth, and we need to respect them enough to give it to them straight.
They need something that endures when "the fit hits the shan," as it most assuredly will sooner or later. Probably sooner.
If Christians are serious about evangelizing the young, we need to bring the gospel *TO* them. We DON'T need yet another marketing ploy aimed squarely at the choir, piously labeled "evangelism" when the real motivation probably has much more to do with capitalism.
Posted by: James Freeman at Sep 2, 2003 1:27:28 AM
Dear Amy,
Your article on "Revolve" was very good. The post by James Freeman basically sums up my thoughts
I begin to get very worried when Christianity is presented as something that is cool to be a part of.
Give youth the full truth in faith and morals, some will walk away but many will respond. For example, read the Pope's addresses to young people and watch the World Youth Days. He asks a lot of them, indeed he asks them to be Saints. But they respond.
I'm sure the creators of "Revolve" are good intentioned, and I want to like it, but it makes me uneasy, especially seeing the smiling faces of the Julia Roberts lookalikes.
So many young people are broken, come from homes torn apart by divorce and so many youth face enormous trials in their lives. I think that those smiling faces are far removed from the reality of the daily lives of thousands of young people.
God bless
Posted by: Simon Russell at Sep 2, 2003 6:04:24 AM
Amy,
I think you make some excellent points (as do James and Simon). I looked at the photo of this "magazine" and tried to be objective.
Although I can see the value in attempting to make faith cool and contemporary (which of course it is), I think what bothers me about all this is how "disposable" it appears. I'm a former teenage girl myself and read plenty of Tiger Beats, Seventeens and Glamours in my day. I tossed them in my beach bag and "flipped" through them and thoroughly enjoyed it. But they ended up in the trash pretty quickly because reading certain magazines (especially those aimed at teen girls and adult women) are basically an exercise in escapism. They don't have staying power and they're not designed to have staying power.
Will this picque interest and possibly hook some teenage girls on the Real Thing? Maybe. But I guess like James, I'd prefer to treat teenagers with a bit more respect. Respect, and expectations, are powerful motivators.
Posted by: Cheryl at Sep 2, 2003 8:58:59 AM
As good as a publication is, and it might get someone's interest at first, but the necessary ingredient is another person who can lead and guide the person. So this might be good for evangelizing out of the choir, but only just a tool to begin a process of example and word for conversion and further growth with a hands-on learning process.
Posted by: Jeanne Schmelzer at Sep 2, 2003 9:15:49 AM
I have the same concern about this as I have about the charismatic movement, and WYD. It's based in pure emotionalism. Happy, Happy. But life isn't always happy. So what happens to these young people when their boyfriend goes out with another girl or pressures them for sex, when their parents fight, when they fail an exam? They are required by what they've been taught to feel that if they aren't happy, if they're not on an emotional high, they aren't in tune with God.
A criticism similar to this was lodged against the ecclesial communities in Urquhart's book.
We don't meet God so much in the emotional highs as we do in the emotional lows. When the world rejects us, God with His acceptance and love, looks mighty good. But when the world loves us, why would we be persuaded that we need God?
Posted by: Carrie Tomko at Sep 2, 2003 9:26:51 AM
I think I see your objection or suspicions or reservations, but I think a very strong case can be made in favor of these "cool" approaches. The case is basically--they work!
It is no mistake that the Pentecostals are raking in millions of young people. I was one of them and am 110% for all they do. My experience partly explains my disgust at the Catholic approach. I think we Catholics tend to be dismisive of the contemporary Christian music/coolness approach because we get defensive about our relative lack of success. But the truth is that it produces solid Christians.(And please don't tell me that WYD is "success" it is start, it is where the Pentecostals where in the late 70s and early 80s)
In my undergrad days as a Pentecostal, our group did a lot within our school and in tandem with other local universities and there was no adult involvement. The reason it could happen was that all we young people were completely sold on our faith and were convinced it was a faith for young people as well as the elderly. These young men and women had ownership and unshakeable personal and unquenchable faith. You'd be hard pressed to find that sort of independent hard driving motivation in the Catholic Church today on a comparable scale.
Another quick note--I knew a very beautiful young lady who was part of our Pentecostal college group. She definitely played the part of being pretty and she was just as apt to talk about nail polish as she was about Jesus. A couple of years ago, I learned that this young lady has spent the past few years in a remote province of China as a missionary. Now, she was the last person you'd ever see doing that, but that's evidence of the real faith being engendered in this cool young movement thing. I have seen the results and firmly believe that it is working. For this reason, I am a passionate advocate of having the Church leaders sit down, sutdy what the Pentecostals are doing and flat out copy them. It may be unpopular to say so, but it works.
The criticism I am seeing in the comments basically seem to be looking for something to criticize--that they are "too happy"--that's a bad thing?--it merely "pique's interest"--What we are "selling" as Christians is the joy of the Lord. This precisely what these products are doing and we have to remember--these people have much more success than we have and so if their reaching out to teens and young people more successfully, then we need to give their approach much more credibility.
Posted by: Ono at Sep 2, 2003 10:25:22 AM
Ono writes:
"It is no mistake that the Pentecostals are raking in millions of young people. I was one of them and am 110% for all they do. My experience partly explains my disgust at the Catholic approach. I think we Catholics tend to be dismisive of the contemporary Christian music/coolness approach because we get defensive about our relative lack of success. But the truth is that it produces solid Christians.(And please don't tell me that WYD is "success" it is start, it is where the Pentecostals where in the late 70s and early 80s)"
I think you misstate the reason many of us are taking a hard, and less than unreservedly positive, look at the "Revolve" approach to presenting the gospel.
In fact, your criticisms of the ineffective "Catholic approach" to reaching youth and the broader culture have been positively civil compared to what I've been known to say. I bear the scars -- and I suspect that Amy and many others of us here do as well -- from having gone tooth-and-nail with the Real Catholics Go Around Like They're Nailed to the Cross school of cultural engagement.
For the record, I think Catholic media today is, with a very few exceptions, utterly culturally irrelevant and positively amateurish. And this 13-year convert thinks that *some* among the new wave of "orthodox Catholics" dominating Catholic broadcasting, for instance, come close to living down to the slurs and stereotypes many "Bible Christians" ascribe to our faith.
See, I worked in Catholic radio. Even produced a no-holds-barred rock show that strove to mix relevant faith-based talk with the music that kids actually listen to (both Christian and "positive" secular music). In one instance, the show actually attracted positive (secular) national notice.
Here is the kind of feedback I would get at work:
-- "You need to spend less time on (name of show)."
-- "Young people don't contribute to the station."
-- "It's really good, but Catholic radio's not ready for that kind of thing."
-- "Can you play that on Catholic radio?"
-- "You need to invite your audience to the sacraments."
I digress, but I hope you get the picture that defensiveness over Catholics' evangelical ineffectiveness motivates (my, at least) skepticism concerning the bubblegum Bible.
Instead, I would say MY core issues over "Revolve" concern full disclosure and "marketing to the choir."
The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of profound contradiction. It is NOT cool by societal standards, and one way or another one will pay a price for being a disciple of Christ.
Yes, the gospel is one of joy. Profound joy. But living the gospel is hard. It . . . is . . . very . . . hard.
We need to respect young people enough to lay all that on the line. Our "sales pitch" needs to make it clear that "there is some there there."
Furthermore, our "selling" needs to come in a language regular folks actually speak. Teasers like "Are you dating a Godly guy?" tip one off to the true inward focus of the product.
Posted by: James Freeman at Sep 2, 2003 12:00:07 PM
The problem with being on the cutting edge is that it dulls very rapidly. The Roman Catholic church in the US liturgical music and approach in general is dominated by the modern approach to "get with the times". Of course this was done in the 70s, and its often the same exact self appointed laity pushiung the same stuff, and the results are clear. The hymns from the likes of the OCP sound as outdated as the Carpenters, the parish' themselves look quite outdated now. And among all of this, there has been a failure to reach the youth.
I disagree that Catholic radio is not relevant, because Catholic radio is aimed at people who want to learn their faith, it is not marketed as pop culture like so many Evangelicals market their media as. The faith itself is not about the here and now, it is about the enternal, it can not be boiled down to "Once saved allways saved". If so called "orthdox" Catholics do fit the sterotypes that Evangelicals have, than that is a problem that Evangelicals must deal with.
Posted by: John B at Sep 2, 2003 12:14:34 PM
My point is that it (cool XTY) is not "bubble gum christianity." There's probably no argument that someone like me can give that would change a skeptic's mind, but remember what Gamaliel said in Acts and Jesus in Mt 7, basically the fruit tells all. But then again, that's not proof enough because we all judge fruit differently.
I will say this also, God does care whether you date a godly guy or not, it is not isignificant to Him. Knowing that and ensuring that you date a godly guy or gal can make a world of difference in one's spiritual life.
I think this is a question of ecclesiastical culture. I believe that this culture of "bubble gum XTY" has real flavor. And BTW, the coolness of the Gospel for teens and young people is in its "sign of contradiction." This coolness is what makes many young people proud to wait to get married before sexual intimacy. This coolness is what enpowers them to stand up for living clean without being labelled "uncool" or whatever.
If this bubble gum approach is not the answer for Catholic youth, then I am truly curious as to what is? What else coild possibly work and briong about comparable success? (I ask that honestly)
Posted by: Ono at Sep 2, 2003 12:29:54 PM
John B. writes:
"I disagree that Catholic radio is not relevant, because Catholic radio is aimed at people who want to learn their faith, it is not marketed as pop culture like so many Evangelicals market their media as. The faith itself is not about the here and now, it is about the enternal, it can not be boiled down to "Once saved allways saved". If so called "orthdox" Catholics do fit the sterotypes that Evangelicals have, than that is a problem that Evangelicals must deal with."
Rule 1: Liturgy is liturgy. Liturgy is not media.
Rule 2: Media are not liturgy.
Your comments prove the general point that Catholics couldn't care less about impacting the culture or evangelizing a fallen world. If Catholics could put out a media "product" compelling enough to reach the larger culture, why would it not be of value to Catholics as well?
As far as aiming Catholic radio at "people who want to learn their faith," there is a place for that. The problem is that is the SOLE focus of Catholic radio, and there's no room for anything else. Like young people, who the Catholic Church continues to lose in droves because, frankly, most Catholics couldn't care less about them.
And wack attitudes by "orthodox" Catholics are not something Evangelicals have to deal with, because Evangelicals don't care. Many just take a quick look, decide "Whore of Babylon" and are on their way.
No, it's something that Catholics are left to deal with because it's just as grave a distortion of the faith as what one might find at a Call to Action convention.
Posted by: James Freeman at Sep 2, 2003 12:39:04 PM
Several years ago I was responsible for market research on a series of videos designed to present episodes from the life of Jesus in a totally cool, "music video" format that teens would love and connect with. An unmentionable amount of money was spent on the first three of these. The problem: adults loved them and thought they were totally cool. Teenagers (the polite ones) smiled weakly and said they appreciated the thought, but no thanks. The project directors said we were using the wrong teens in our focus groups - OK, we did more and more of them - no luck. The "already churched" teens wanted historical biblical representations and thought the videos tasteless. Those who weren't churched, just weren't interested. Teenagers/young adults are a moving target - by the time you've done something that WAS cool, they've gone on to something else and you're dated. Further, the teens who wanted to be radically counter-cultural Christians were highly critical of media that aped the larger culture. They didn't want a Christianized version of mass culture. Think of the continuing appeal of Taize. It is true to itself - and you can't keep the kids away from simple Bible study and simple, clean-lined music.
Posted by: Mary Jane at Sep 2, 2003 12:54:03 PM
Two points.
#1. Some of this fake cool stuff in Evangelicalism just plain backfires. Christian rap isn't like real rap. Christian hard rock isn't like real hard rock. That Bible is not like a real teenie magazine. Really, if you care about cool, that stuff is still dorky. It's doubly dorky because it tries to be cool but it isn't. Seriously, do you think a 15-year old Eminem fan is going to see DC Rap on TBN and throw out his Eminem albums? There are lot of non-Christians who aren't interested so much in what is cool, as in what is real. Be real and you'll get more out of it. Sure, speak to the culture. Be all things to all people. But, c'mon. Don't dumb down the message.
#2. This aping of the culture leads to Christians that live no differently from anyone else, except they drive their Explorer to the megachurch on Sunday. You can't be worried about being a Christian but not being "too different." So many adult Evangelicals spend just as much time worrying about material things as non-Christians (the "health and wealth" gospel many of them believe in soothes their consciences, I guess). It's all very skin deep.
Posted by: S.F. at Sep 2, 2003 12:58:01 PM
I understand part of the appeal is that you can read the bible in public without it being obvious (i.e. no black leather cover).
How about a plain brown wrapper? Then I'd be able to tell my grandchildren: "When I was a boy, Playboy magazine came in plain brown wrappers instead of bibles!"
Posted by: TSO at Sep 2, 2003 1:25:20 PM
Ono said:
What we are "selling" as Christians is the joy of the Lord.
Trust me, there are devot Christians who have never felt "the joy in the Lord."
Is this really what we're selling to unbelievers?
Posted by: Amanda at Sep 2, 2003 1:34:46 PM
S.F. writes:
"This aping of the culture leads to Christians that live no differently from anyone else, except they drive their Explorer to the megachurch on Sunday. You can't be worried about being a Christian but not being "too different." So many adult Evangelicals spend just as much time worrying about material things as non-Christians (the 'health and wealth' gospel many of them believe in soothes their consciences, I guess). It's all very skin deep."
No, "aping" DOES NOT lead to what you describe. It just doesn't much change it.
Catholics have been just as materialistic as any Evangelical for at least a couple of generations, and a lot worse than most.
Furthermore, I have little respect for those Christians who try to "ape" the culture. Those efforts usually are laughable on many fronts.
On the other hand, I greatly respect those Christians who go out there and try to LEAD culturally. Oftentimes, folks who are predisposed to believing that something cannot sound (or look) like rock, rap, etc., and still be authentically Christian are incapable of discerning the difference between artistry and aping.
But then again, couldn't it be said that a combination of Puritanism and tin ears is a big reason why Christianity became a cultural non-force to start with?
Posted by: James Freeman at Sep 2, 2003 1:39:40 PM
Trust me, there are devot Christians who have never felt "the joy in the Lord."Is this really what we're selling to unbelievers?
If you are Pentecostal--Yes. If you are Catholic--I think Amanda is suggesting, No. I would say, no, but the answer should be, yes.
Again, it's apparently all about ecclesiastical culture.
Some of this fake cool stuff in Evangelicalism just plain backfires. Christian rap isn't like real rap
Completely untrue. DC Talk were pioneers but not even close to the stuff that's out there right now. There is a group I used to listen to called Soldiers for Christ, I would challenge anyone to show any quality difference between them and a secular rapper. The other point being missed here is that all this is not solely for the sake of outreach. As a young person I wanted to listen to music that was hip and CCM filled that need. Are young Christians supposed to kill their vibrancy and hipness for the sake of XTY?
The bottomline here is that it works!. A negative opinion is not going to change that fact-solid Christians are being developed by these cool ministries. There is a reason why CCM has become a multi-million dolar industry. That only happens if its real.
It's ecclesiastical culture. Catholics may not like it, but I would be reluctant to condemn it. What was Jesus's response when his apostles complained about someone not of their lot, doing miracles in his name? He said, fine. He that is not against us is for us. The bubble gum cool stuff may not work too well in the Catholic setting, or the goals may be different, but are kids getting saved from drugs? Yes. Is it keeping teens from pre-marital sex? Yes. Is is empowering young people to proudly proclaim their allegiance to XT? Yes. It can't be all that bad even if one does not appreciate it--it has worked and does work.
Posted by: Ono at Sep 2, 2003 1:55:25 PM
"What is tragic is that Christianity, Christian thought and Christian culture have been in such retreat for so many years, we easily mistake "intra-ghetto marketing" for authentic cultural innovation."
This is a true story: for years I had a friend who did coke. She was a wild, over-the-top partier. She had her first child when she was 18, after sex with a man she went on maybe 6 dates with. She is completely irreligious, but when the kid turned 7 she started taking her him to church every Sunday, because she knew it was good for him.
If I took the time I could tell you a dozen stories like that, all of them drawn only from my own personal experience. Irreligious mothers taking their kids to church because they know it is a good thing.
It is hard for me to consider these stories and then feel that Christianity is in retreat. It has a terrific strength in the minds of most people as the thing which it is best to give to one's child.
The numbers seem to bear out the continuing strength of the Christian faith. Yes, there was a strong decline in numbers between 1960 and 1990, but that has leveled off and now reversed. If the above remark was confined to Catholics then I suppose it is true, but Christianity as a whole seems to me resurgent. At least if you're willing to go by the numbers, which is, after all, an important indicator.
What is different, what has changed, is that the self-identity of America is now less solidly Christian than it used to be. There is more the sense that the American govenment needs to play it neutral between the many faiths in America, both Christian and non-Christian.
Also, starting at some point in the early 1990s, a number of ideas that were first introduced into America by the counter-culture of the 1960s began to gain mainstream acceptance, even among people who call themselves Christian.
A few stories:
In 1993 I was renting an apartment in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. My apartment complex was owned by a guy who had worked in construction all his life. His wife was deeply Christian, and I suppose he tried to be too. But on his truck was the bumper sticker: "My kharma just run over my dogma." A joke, yes, but one that I don't remember seeing before then, not among people who thought of themselves as at least nominally Christian.
In 1994 I was visiting Arlington, Virginia, where my very good friend D lived. She is from a Catholic house and herself was deeply Christian (though she had decided that if she ever had kids she would not raise them Catholic - she would find some other Christian faith she felt more at home with. She worried about how she would ever be able to tell her parents of this, for she knew it would break their hearts). Of her new boyfriend, who struck her as very wise about the world, she said, "I think he must have very old soul."
I jokingly said: "Hey, you're Catholic, you're not allowed to believe in old souls."
She, also joking, but not really, said: "Oh, I mix and match. Everyone does that."
I, again jokingly, said: "Does the Pope know about this?"
And then we both laughed.
Perhaps most surprising of all: I met my good friend Kathryn C in 1996, and later that year had the chance to meet her parents. Her father is a part-time minister with the United Methodists and considers himself a conservative Christian. And yet he belives in reincarnation!!!! I asked him how he could reconcile a belief in reincarnation with the Bible and he explained that he felt people kept coming back to Earth until they were good enough to go to Heaven. And this from a man who self-indentifies as a religious conservative!!!!!
These last two stories bring up an issue that fascinates me: the growing acceptance of New Age, gnostic, Hindu, Bhuddist, or pagan ideas among people who think of themselves as good Christians. To me, this is the only real sense in which Christianity is in retreat. Though the reported numbers of church members grew during the 1990s, the numbers don't reflect how many people believe in the Gospel and just the Gospel. The number of revisionist interpretations of the Bible is growing at an incredible pace.
The revival of gnostic ideals and paganism has been so subtle and universal that even I, often, miss it (and its a subject I'm trying to study, so I keep my eyes open for it). A simple example, that I noticed just today, of the spread of "pagan" ideas: a friend gave my girlfriend a print of artwork, below which was the poem from Thunder: Perfect Mind (I didn't recognize it as such till today). This is now sitting on the dresser in her room. It is the well-known (to some) poem which starts "I am the first and the last...". Well, I've never studied gnostic writings before, so I didn't recognize it for what it was till today.
Last night I started reading Elaine Pagels book on the gnostic gospels. It strikes me that we are entering an era that resembles the second century AD, when many groups were attempting strange fusions of Christian and pagan beliefs. What is the New Age movement in America today but a fusion of such beliefs?
I'll be posting some thoughts on Pagels book on my weblog later today.
Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at Sep 2, 2003 1:57:16 PM
Here's another small twist.
I had one of my daughter's friends (young teen) visiting our home one afternoon. She is Jewish and she was surprised to see my Bible just laying on the carpet near the fireplace, which is where I was reading it. She told my daughter if they ever drop their prayer book on the floor they immediately pick it up and kiss it. I have seen the priest at Mass kiss the Holy Scripture after proclaiming the gospel (I am not sure if this is still the practice everywhere).
I still mark up my Bible with a pen and set it on the floor next to my bed, but I also find myself kissing the page after reading from time to time. I learned this respect for Scripture in part from this young teenage girl. What implied message might this same young Jewish teen receive about our New Testament if she encountered this biblemag?
Posted by: Tom Mohan at Sep 2, 2003 2:07:49 PM
Revolve now has a sales rank of 41 on Amazon.com.
(Sigh.)
Posted by: Amanda at Sep 2, 2003 3:12:23 PM
James, the challenge of Catholic media for better or worse is not trying to bring non Catholic sinto the church, though it does help, but the challenge is to convert nominal Catholics to being full fledged Catholics, to get nominal Catholics to accept the teachings of the church. This is where the battle is right now after 35+ years of bad liturgy, and bad teaching in the various CCD and RCIA classes.
So this being the background, this is what the Catholic media ha sto focus on, and there are only so many resources. As for youth, the more traditional leaning parish' I have seen do quite well with Youth, because they give the teachings in a staright and direct manner, it is the suburban parish' with "up to date" liturgy and teachings that deal with no issues of substance other than "peace & justice" issues that have lost youth in droves.
As for now, the members of the church are not on the same page, or even in the same book, and this presents a major challenge in trying to evengelise the entire culture.
Posted by: John B at Sep 2, 2003 4:57:04 PM
John B. writes:
"James, the challenge of Catholic media for better or worse is not trying to bring non Catholic sinto the church, though it does help, but the challenge is to convert nominal Catholics to being full fledged Catholics, to get nominal Catholics to accept the teachings of the church. This is where the battle is right now after 35+ years of bad liturgy, and bad teaching in the various CCD and RCIA classes."
John it's all about the institutional view, isn't it? I could have sworn that Jesus commanded the apostles to go out and make fishers of ALL men.
The Catholic Church doesn't have a catechetical and liturgical problem. The Catholic Church has a sin problem (as do we all). The catechetical and liturgical meltdowns are just symptoms of the core problem.
And, frankly, I think the fact that some Catholics find it necessary to devote *endless* hours of a radio and TV droneathon to teach the basics of the faith to fallen-away Catholics indicates another basic lack of belief . . . in editing.
You know what would make the biggest difference in helping Joe Catholic believe what the Church proposes? If the people who whine the loudest about "the sorry state of unbelieving Catholics" would just shut the hell up, get off their butts and do a few things. For example:
1) Resist the impulse to beat the world's fastest retreat whenever the youth group shows up. Try to find some small way to show the Church's future -- indeed, a big part of the Church's *present* -- that you care they exist, and you care that they develop into the young men and women God intends them to become.
2) Actually take an interest in what your kids are learning -- or not learning -- in religion class or CCD. Many CCD teachers work their butts off only to be met with a class full of kids marking time until confirmation and parented by individuals who just want to get them the damn sacrament so they don't have to make the little buggers go to Mass anymore.
3) Ask Father why he's not as proactive about No. 2 as he is when parish finances slip into the red.
4) Ask your bishop why, exactly, he's not as proactive about No. 3 as he is when the annual campaign falls short of its goal.
5) Ask His Excellency, while you're at it, why, exactly, he tolerates seminaries full of actively gay future priests and never got around to kicking the butts of actively gay *present* priests right out of the priesthood and right into the state pen when they molested adolescent boys. Or were caught with a treasure trove of kiddie porn.
6) Ask His excellency, while you're on a roll, why people giggle when the college under his purview is identified as a "Catholic" institution of higher learning.
7) Be seen more often hanging out with the local "prostitutes and tax collectors."
The deal is, if we have a bunch of Taliban Catholics running around knowing the catechism backward and forward but practicing none of it, we profit not and our "ample" faith is utterly dead.
Think about that before taking blithe swipes at the "peace and justice" parishes. If one knows Catholicism like Fulton Sheen but treats his employees like Simon Legree would have, does he go to hell any slower than someone who ruts like a rabbit and uses the Pill?
Posted by: James Freeman at Sep 2, 2003 7:49:41 PM
I can not disagree with your list, but realise this, the Catholic media, especially EWTN exists in large part because the Bishop and clergy are not doing their jobs in teaching the faith. For them, it all begins and ends with a flawed, hetrodox view of Vatican II, and the result we see is what we have seen in the last 35 years. As fpr the "peace & justice" Catholics, they are a big part of the problem, they have at best a very flawed view of Rerum Novarum, and try to pass off liberal Secular Humanism off as the faith, I know because I saw this first hand.
As long as Bishops and clergy do not do their jobs in teaching the faith properly, the main focus of Catholic media for better or worse will not be evangelisation, but trying to teach Catholics about their faith. I know is is fustrating, but bring the issue up to Fr. VOTF, Sr. CTA and Cardinal Mahony.
Posted by: John B at Sep 2, 2003 8:03:20 PM
What so many of us tend to forget ... and maybe don't realize to begin with ... is that most US Afro-American and Latino Catholic parishes vibrate with enthusiasm and emotionally uplifting liturgy IN SPITE OF being Catholic. I'm sure that most of them violate most if not all of the grim GIRM gremlins, etc. most of the time. But the people who go there meet the Lord in time and place more than most liturgically correct Catholics do. I'd rather be uplifted than bored by "holy relic" liturgy and music. And I'm old enough to have long memories of those wonderful good old Pre V2 days. (Tongue firmly inserted in cheek)
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Sep 2, 2003 9:31:06 PM
The problem with such liturgies is the notion of the real presence in the Eucharist is lost, and the community loses focus' on the sacrafice, and the focus starts to be on eatch other. The Evangelical style liturgies may be flashly, may have more superficial outward participation, but do not better in retaining young Catholics. As for the traditional mass, I see many young familes at the traditional mass, and the "holy relic" has produced a large number of priestly vocations, while Diocese' that have "lively" liturgies like LA are a vocational desert.
If the Ecclesia Dei traditional movment had the resources to accept all qualified men who want to be traditional priests, probably close to 25% of all newely ordained priests in a few years will be traditional priests.
As for the parish' in Mexico itself, the mass is often far more reverent(not to mention a far better translation) and even in some parish' the communion rail is still used. The Charismatic style of worship in the US is often pushed by "well meaning" whites in a attempt to be "multicultural". I know we have had this debate before JimmyMac, but again, feel good does not mean correct, and of course, faith itself is not a feeling.
Posted by: John B at Sep 3, 2003 3:21:18 AM
I agreee with John B's comment. Here's a Flannery O'Connor quote (from "The Habit of Being"):
"We don't believe that grace is something you have to feel. The Catholic always distrusts his emotional reaction to the sacraments...The things that we are obliged to do, such as hear Mass on Sunday, fast and abstain on the days appointed, etc. can become mechanical and merely habit. But it is better to be held to the Church by habit than not to be held at all. The Church is mighty realistic about human nature. Further it is not at all possible to tell what's going on inside the person who appears to be going about his obligations mechnically."
Posted by: TSO at Sep 3, 2003 8:36:52 AM
