This:
 |
| As seen on the Stumbling Toward Heaven blog |
The thing hurting the proclamation of the Gospel most, at least in the dying West, is that up and coming youngsters just don't believe it. Oh, they've heard the story most of their lives. At least in the vaguest sense, filtered through the opinions and research of critics, skeptics and people hostile to the Faith. Shocking no one, they just don't believe it. Our atheist culture has told them the Christian Faith is worth no more than a Grimm's Fairy Tale at best, and the Marxist inspired Liberation Theology tradition can't get enough of pointing out how wretched and evil and racist and phobic sexist those old pages of "Holy" Scripture are. The constant drumbeat among believers and leaders today of repenting for the first 2000 years of the Faith, and willingness to change on a dime when the World snaps its fingers, only plays into this.
Plus, as has been said for years, many youngsters just don't believe anyone believes it anymore. I've quoted many times that youth from ages ago who I first saw mentioned at Catholic and Enjoying It. Why are youth formally rejecting belief in God and the Gospel and Jesus Christ? Because they don't see anyone acting like they believe it's true. Oh, on Sundays you get angels and demons and miracles and God and all. But come Monday, and light can barely shine through the gap between the Christian and the Atheist in how life in this world is approached. As someone quipped in a discussion some time back, the big difference between atheists and Christians today is that atheists can sleep in on Sunday.
So there are few things worse in this hot mess context than admitting our faith and prayers and even God are utterly worthless unless they align with the actual solutions to our problems in the form of our political activism for the real world. That tells these young people all they need to know to conclude that yes, Virginia, religion is dead. Or at least pointless. Politics and the state are all that matter. The here and now counts, since there is nothing else. And obviously material solutions are the only ones of consequence. Why, you have plenty of good churchgoers who admit it. See Mark's bold claims above. When the guy who drags himself out of bed to show up to church on Sunday is willing to admit just how useless all this God and prayer garbage is next to our real world solutions, do you really think what goes on in that church is worth anything to our increasingly secularized youth? I don't think so.
And it's not just Mark and the godless secularists who claim that the efficacy of our prayers to God is contingent upon their adherence to proper political activism. A staggering number of Christians and leaders, not just Catholic, have jumped on this 'God as a bad joke' bandwagon, even if they don't realize it. And not just with gun control. Sadly, nothing appears to help secular evangelism today more than modern Christianity. More's the pity.
Oh, and we won't delve into Mark attributing those turning to prayer's fruitfulness and God's sovereignty to the designs of the devil since it doesn't align with his political opinions. That makes me think of no other passage in Scripture than this:
But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Beel′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beel′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
I realize there is a lot of theology in that passage, but sometimes a superficial reading is enough to jar our senses. Don't attribute appeals to God's providence to Satan. Unless Pope Francis and others are correct when they allude to the possibility that, like almost anything else in the history of the Faith, the whole 'eternal separation from God' is a bunch of bunk, you might want to slow down associating the working of God and his children with the Devil for any reason, much less political ones. Prayers for his soul being in order in this case.
Hard not to look at that cartoon and go, "huh - so I don't need to bother invoking the saints or Mary then either."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he still is approaching it that way, but back in the day when he glommed onto this secular approach, he made sure not to belittle the thoughts and prayers, but simply judged the thoughts and motives of those saying so. Invoking the gift of judging all who question leftwing activism. I didn't see that as much in this post, with that cartoon being what he spoke against back in the day.
DeleteIs there a recommended alternative to “thoughts and prayers” then? I mean, most of us can’t do much about things far away from us but think of those involved and pray.
ReplyDeleteI fear the problem with those who follow such secular activism is that they get painted into corners. The whole 'mock those stupid thoughts and prayers to that loser fairy tale God' was driven initially by openly secular and atheist activists and commentators. Naturally for them it's a waste. But as believers jump on board, you begin getting into the problems you mention. Though for them, failure to conform to the obvious solutions are a form of 'what I have failed to do' level of sin.
DeleteThe Devil: "True virtue is to become defenseless against your enemies by laying down your weapons". Mark agrees with the Devil.
ReplyDeleteHe is one who openly mocks those dunderheads who speak of bearing arms against a future day when our government could turn pure Nazi evil. Which always makes me wonder. It 's as if people like Mark are saying flat out that if the worst happens, you can count on them to do nothing to stop it. It makes me think of yet another quotable from my sons: Sometimes what passes for Christian virtue is merely cowardice with a Jesus mask.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteDave, I don't think it's real cowardice, just blind stupidity. Guys like Shea are like the suburban "pacifists" of 1930s England who annoyed trench-veteran CS Lewis, or perhaps more like middle-school kids who giggle during disaster drills: they don't really believe such a horror would come to pass; . Of course, some of the "dunderheads" he criticizes proved real dunderheads in the past, jumping at false alarms like "Red Scares" or civil protests against racism in the 1960s, but he should know the difference. In my experience, ideologues scream loudest and most outrageously when then need to drown out the sound of a hated opponent saying what the ideologue knows or fears is true.
I used to think it might be reasons like that. Sort of knee jerk loyalties to the cause. And it could be an unwillingness to admit they were wrong. I notice a lot of 'post conservatives' who have joined the Left get a ton of mileage off the old narrative that righties are always the mean nasty bad guys, while lefties are always the peace loving kindly types. In light of the Left's increasing embrace of violence and hateful rhetoric aimed at any non-conformists, it does put that reasoning in jeopardy. But I also believe my sons are up to something. Why so easily accept anything that makes any part of our inheritance as Christians of the West look bad? Because if you lack the courage, conviction and character to actually defend what you inherited and stand up to true evil, you'll buy any excuse to justify it. All of this could merely be a generation that ended up in over its head where standing for the right against the wrong is concerned, and hence will follow anyone who will excuse their actions, no matter what they do and say.
DeleteIt's not really the point of the post, but I have never liked the "thoughts and prayers" thing at least as it is usually articulated. First, when I was a younger person, you might hear someone say something about "prayers" in response to some tragedy. But then it became "thoughts and prayers" or sometimes just "thoughts" because we need to virtue signal and be inclusive of those who do not believe in prayer.
ReplyDeleteSecond, and my main point, invariably someone will say or write "(my) thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the deceased" or some such. But what does that even mean? My prayers do NOT go out to the family, or they should not, unless I am praying to family! My prayers go out to God or perhaps to saints to intercede on my behalf to God. My prayers may go out *for* the family, or "on behalf of the family", but not *to* the family.
And "thoughts" makes perhaps even less sense. What does it mean to say that my thoughts go to the family? Am I sending some sort of vibes? Am I trying to influence the cosmic energy with my thoughts? Is this some sort of New Age thing? What is really meant, I suppose, is that my thought are *with* the family. Which is nice, but then so what? THAT simply boils down to: "there was a tragedy and I am thinking about this family." Big deal.
So I guess, coming back to the post: the very formulation in nearly every case is indeed intrinsically secular (at worst) or new age (at best).
I used to think along those lines, so I get your point. Though, as Bob points out below, I think the phrase 'thoughts and prayers are with you' emerged as a sort of 'cover all bases' response to tragedy or other situations where affirming our concerns and sympathies for those involved. A way of making sure both the religious and non religious were covered, without defaulting to only one or the other or not saying anything.
DeleteBut the more we go along, I'm beginning to question my concerns about such trite sayings. Even ones that seem to water down theology. Trite sayings happen. Today we say 'Mental Health' as some phrase that is supposed to solve everything. Because that happens. That seems to happen no matter what with people. But I think I would rather the trite sayings be at least alluding to a religious concept than a secular one.
That is, I'd rather a 'thoughts and prayers' which at least acknowledges belief in God, rather than today when we seldom hear that, but only hear thoughts, as if to say 'forget God, only our material solutions matter.' If we are going to do what people typically do, and say things, sometimes flippantly, I would rather them assume the need for something related to God, than purposefully ignore or eliminate any mention of God. If that makes sense.
I agree! My point is that the watered down phrase (with equally nebulous underlying theology) itself betrays the deep-rooted secularization you call attention to. But I agree that a watered down gesture to prayer and by extension to belief in God is better than nothing. I just wish someone once in a while would say "My thoughts are with the victims and I am praying for them" rather than "my thoughts and prayers are go out to the victims."
DeleteYeah, it became a pithy response to be sure. And I don't think one that is above criticism. My problem with the attack is that it was purely from the secular activists more or less mocking the phrase since there's nothing to pray to anyway, and the only hope we ever have is this or that political solution. That believers have jumped on the bandwagon just shows how deeply secular many of our faithful have become.
DeleteI would think that "thoughts" was included by some so as not to offend those who did not believe in prayers. If I say my thoughts are with a family or someone, well to me that means I think enough about them that I will pray for them. Just thoughts to me means nothing really unless there is a follow through: prayer
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. I don't know when it started, but I think it was one of those things that was supposed to cover all bases and make sure everyone was happy. Which seems to be how this works. We say 'you're right, no more beseeching Almighty God since non-religious and non-Christians won't feel welcome', we shift it around as a society and modify it to a sort of watered down, generic version, and soon we find God in general being kicked out the window. That seems to be a trend as I look back with the Church and the World over the last few generations.
DeleteNot offending is a one way street. Some people have a problem with hearing others saying Merry Christmas and are offended so they change things around and say Happy Holidays, not caring one whit whether or not it offends a Christian. I will say Merry Christmas when one says Happy Holidays to me. If that raises their hackles and they respond "I don't believe in Christmas" I've said "Well I do and desire all the good things Christmas gives us to you and yours." Then I just walk away. I don't kowtow anymore. If it offends it was not my intention.
ReplyDeleteBy now we should know that is true, but it was true back then. In fact, looking back, I see now how we missed the obvious. That was when we were told the only hope for our enlightened nation was for everyone to be able to express themselves openly, and that meant willing to watch virtues and traditions and values to be mocked and belittled and flat out insulted. Price for freedom of speech. Yet it was in that very context we began hearing 'say holidays, it's less offensive' or 'say police person, not police man.' We should have asked then 'Hey, I thought we should be able to say anything we want? Doesn't that include the N-Word? Or policeman? Or Merry Christmas? Or anything we want? That's what George Carlin would say ... wouldn't he? Much of what we've seen happen was the result of naked mendacity and a defense unable (or perhaps unwilling) to notice the obvious until it was too late.
DeleteMy own view is that political activism is optional for Christians. One is free to try to make the world a better place if he wants to, but there is no mandate from Christ to attempt it. There are thousands of saints who spent their lives loving God and their neighbors, without ever lifting a finger to try to eliminate sin from the world through political action. Think St. Vincent De Paul, from whom I took my confirmation name. I will never raise my voice against such saints. ---- G. Poulin
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree. I got into a knock down with Steven Greydanus over that very topic. He posted a quote from someone about how we're all basically guilty of things that go wrong on the vast, global scale. I said perhaps in some cases, but our virtue can sometimes - for most people at least - be based on that cup of cold water we can give, rather than standing on the right thinking about vast issues we might have little impact on. It was a long, long, long debate that I don't think made any headway one way or another. So yes, I think you're more than correct.
DeleteWell i was glancing at his bluesky and Mark apparently has as an explanation of his rhetoric:
ReplyDelete"There is something deeply hypocritical about praying for a problem you are unwilling to resolve."
Is the quote from Miroslav Volf he posts.
To which I'll only quote Thomas Sowell - Life doesn't have solutions, it has trade offs.
And in that he is more or less confirming that prayer can't solve any problem apparently. Which is the point. The best way to inspire people to consider our faith is to act like it's real in the first place, and not just a way to kill an hour on a Sunday in an otherwise atheistic universe.
DeleteMark sez: "...a problem you are unwilling to resolve."
DeleteOh, I'm willing to resolve the problem of school shootings and other unjustified violence. The problem here is that Mark is unwilling to adopt my solution (or tradeoff - hat tip to Thomas Sowell) and I am of the opinion that his solution will make the problem worse.
My policy? Every legally eligible adult who wants to be armed should be armed. At work. At school. On the bus. On the train. On the airplane. At church. Anywhere they are allowed to go. This would go very far in reducing the instances of unjustified violence. Stop it all? No. See Thomas Sowell on solutions versus tradeoffs.
Mark, otoh, wants the minions of the state to be the only people authorized to be armed. He either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the armed state killed something over one hundred million people (100,000,000) in the late and unlamented 20th century. Shouldn't we first disarm the state?
So, Mark, if you read this, can you suspend your cowardly refusal to debate your opponents and tell us why you like the KGB and Gestapos of the world?
That's a completely different, but valid point, that people like Mark/the Left in general put 100% of all effort onto gun control, when the problems they are designed to prevent make up a microscopic percentage of the overall deaths by guns that such legislation won't touch. But then they count on people like Mark to scream and yell and attack and call names and shout down what might actually help. But sadly, to be honest, when I see the Church's response, it's usually not too far from 'guns seem to be the only problem here.'
Delete