It’s stunning to me that in a world where radical jihadists “inspired by God” can send planes hurtling into skyscrapers killing thousands of innocent civilians and setting off a deadly so-called global war against terrorism, where intractable inter-religious conflicts have raged in recent years (and continue to be fought in many cases) in Bosnia, Chechnya, Côte d’Ivoire, East Timor, Kosovo, Indonesia, Palestine, Sri Lanka, and numerous other places around the globe, that anyone could regard religion as anything but “dangerous nonsense” as Richard Dawkins has so rightly labeled it.
And yet, we non-believers are steadfastly assured by people of faith that our concerns about religion are needlessly strident, hysterical, and completely without foundation, and at the very least, they most certainly shouldn’t be applied in any way to Christianity which, we’re repeatedly told, is a loving and beneficent faith.
Well, we’ll see about that. Meet Todd Bentley, a 32-year-old, prodigiously tattooed, body-pierced, shaved-head Canadian preacher who’s been leading a continuous “supernatural healing revival” in Lakeland, Florida, a city of half a million located smack-dab in the middle of the panhandle, that its 19th century founder Abraham Munn had originally thought of naming “Red Bug” for some curious reason.
Bentley himself has temporarily stepped down from his position with the Abbotsford, B.C. based Freshfire Ministries and his role as main attraction at the “Lakeland Outpouring” as it’s called due to the fact that he “entered into an unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff,” as ministry officials put it in a recent press release. What’s of far more concern than another hypocritical charlatan like Bentley claiming to be a prophet (there never seems to be any shortage of those in the world), or the laughable fraudulence of his faith-healing shakedown, is the truly disturbing ideological movement behind it, as outlined in this eye-opening article by Casey Sanchez of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
According to Bentley and a handful of other “hyper-charismatic” preachers advancing the same agenda, Joel’s Army is prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian “dominion” on non-believers.
“An end-time army has one common purpose — to aggressively take ground for the kingdom of God under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Dread Champion,” Bentley declares on the website for his ministry school in British Columbia, Canada. “The trumpet is sounding, calling on-fire, revolutionary believers to enlist in Joel’s Army. … Many are now ready to be mobilized to establish and advance God’s kingdom on earth.”
Joel’s Army followers, many of them teenagers and young adults who believe they’re members of the final generation to come of age before the end of the world, are breaking away in droves from mainline Pentecostal churches. Numbering in the tens of thousands, they base their beliefs on an esoteric reading of the second chapter of the Old Testament Book of Joel, in which an avenging swarm of locusts attacks Israel. In their view, the locusts are a metaphor for Joel’s Army.
Nothing to worry about when it comes to Christians, huh? But wait, it gets much, much better.
Joel’s Army believers are hard-core Christian dominionists, meaning they believe that America, along with the rest of the world, should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in their doctrine for democracy or pluralism.
Dominionism’s original branch is Christian Reconstructionism, a grim, Calvinist call to theocracy that, as Reconstructionist writer Gary North describes, wants to “get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
[snip]
Rick Joyner, a pastor whose books, The Harvest and The Call, helped popularize Joel’s Army theology by selling more than a million copies each, goes the furthest on Elijah’s List in pushing the hardliner approach. In 2006, he posted a sermon called “The Warrior Nation — The New Sound of the Church,” in which he claimed that a last-day army is now gathering and called believers “freedom fighters.”
“As the church begins to take on this resolve, they [Joel’s Army churches] will start to be thought of more as military bases, and they will begin to take on the characteristics of military bases for training, equipping, and deploying effective spiritual forces,” Joyner wrote. “In time, the church will actually be organized more as a military force with an army, navy, air force, etc.”
In a sort of disclaimer, Joyner writes at one point that God’s army “will bring love, peace and stability wherever they go.” But several of his books narrate with glee what he describes as “a coming civil war within the church.” In his 1997 book The Harvest he writes: “Some pastors and leaders who continue to resist this tide of unity will be removed from their place. Some will become so hardened they will become opposers and resist God to the end.”
Two years later, in his book The Final Quest, Joyner described a vision (taken as prophecy in the Joel’s Army world, where Joyner is considered an “apostle”) of the coming Christian Civil War in which demon-possessed Christian soldiers enslave other, weaker Christians who resist them. He also describes how the hero of the novel — himself — ascends a “Holy Mountain” in order to learn new truths and to acquire new, magic weapons.
If, as Dawkins asserts that religion is a “virus of the mind,” then it has to be said that the Joel’s Army theology is an intensely noxious strain of it.
31 Comments
August 30, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Bad as all that is, it seems McCain’s pick for VP, Sarah Palin, is connected to this group.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213
August 30, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Yeah, that’s my next stop. Someone on the previous thread told me about it, but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, I got kind of preoccupied with this nutcase and the scary ideology he’s associated with. Looking forward to seeing what’s up with the Palin connection.
August 31, 2008 at 7:05 am
RT:
The more I read into this, the scarier it becomes. Check out the youtube videos when you get a chance.
philosoraptor
(…previously Dave; I figured you probably ‘know’ around a dozen online Daves, so I decided to distinguish myself with an appropriately silly monicker)
August 31, 2008 at 7:07 am
Sorry I wasn’t specific…I was referring specifically to the videos of the Lakeland revival.
August 31, 2008 at 7:28 am
Great nic.
Yeah, I was watching some last night and they’re very disturbing and scary indeed. Hard to sit through, actually. The one where he’s talking about kicking some woman in the stomach (with his “big biker boot”) because God told him to… It’s sick. All of these “God warrior” types are mentally deranged, if you ask me.
August 31, 2008 at 11:30 am
And yet, we non-believers are steadfastly assured by people of faith that our concerns about religion are needlessly strident, hysterical, and completely without foundation, and at the very least, they most certainly shouldn’t be applied in any way to Christianity which, we’re repeatedly told, is a loving and beneficent faith.
Nothing to worry about when it comes to Christians, huh? But wait, it gets much, much better.
The three largest Protestant denominations in Canada are the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church (ELCIC). At least 10% of the county is affiliated with one of these groups. Mainline to Liberal Christian groups make up 30 million Christians in the U.S. These groups agree with you on most social issues. The United Church was at the forefront on gay marriage, pro choice, peace, culture, economic and separation of church and state issues. The Anglican church’s clergy and laity voted overwhelmingly for gay marriage at their last synod. The U.S. Democratic and Canadian Liberal and NDP parties are full of committed mainline Christians who support the party’s platforms because we believe our faith compels us to.
What about us? We’re religious Christians too and there are many more of us than these nutcase end-of-the-world groups and Pentecostals. Do you really think we’re brainwashed or closet fanatics as they are? Do I have a virus too?
August 31, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Obviously my comments don’t apply in the same way to the 10% of Christians that aren’t demented nutcases.
August 31, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Then please make that distinction. The comments were about “religion being dangerous nonsense” as opposed to certain expressions of it being dangerous and [all] “Christians” being a danger specifically.
Arguably, any fundamentalist expression of religion or even a secular ideology is a danger in a diverse society. Even if one can rid the world of religion, human beings will use a belief system to commit violence or abuse against others (communism, Maoism and free market fundamentalism being just a few examples).
It’s fine to disagree on theology. I agree that one cannot prove Christian claims or even the existence of a higher power using the logical or rational method (though I don’t believe those are the only ways to arrive at truths), but it’s hard not to be offended when people like me are painted with the same brush as people who are dangerous.
August 31, 2008 at 1:16 pm
What about us? We’re religious Christians too and there are many more of us than these nutcase end-of-the-world groups and Pentecostals. Do you really think we’re brainwashed or closet fanatics as they are?
I don’t, but what is problematic is that liberal Protestantism is unable to speak with much of a unified voice to challenge what are some disturbing developments on the fringes of Protestantism, which, it seems to me, after decades of fracture and increased sectarianism, seem to be coming together again and coalescing around a theology that is ahistorical and barely recognisable as Christian, at least to modern people.
Seriously, some of this stuff reminds more of Scientology or New Age faiths, than anything else. Mormonism is looking sane these days, in comparison.
August 31, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I think you have a very distorted view of what “Christian” is if you think that mainline to liberal Protestantism isn’t recognizable as Christian or is ahistorical. It sounds to me like you have bought into the right-wing characterature of liberal Protestantism than paid attention the vast majority people in the pulpit and the pew believe.
Sometimes I think we can’t win. If all liberal Protestants all march in theological lockstep together then we are accused of being brainwashed and sectarian, but if we allow different voices to come forth with different points of view on theological and social views. then the minority and radical view is perceived to speak for everyone instead of being merely one voice in the entire conversation.
Secondly, the trend has been away from increased sectarianism for many years: the Anglicans, United Church and Lutherans have had full communion agreements, where clergy and laity serve in each other’s churches. That cooperation has even risen to churches holding their conferences together and issuing statements together. The problem is that we aren’t radical or strange enough to get media attention. The media hangs on McVety or the Focus on the Family’s words rather than the United Church or Anglican Church, not because the UCC or ACC isn’t trying to get media attention, but we don’t see over the top things and cause controversy so it doesn’t see ad time or newspapers.
August 31, 2008 at 1:37 pm
see = sell
August 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Sorry, scratch my first paragraph. I misread your response. Apologies again.
August 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I think you have a very distorted view of what “Christian” is if you think that mainline to liberal Protestantism isn’t recognizable as Christian or is ahistorical.
You misunderstood me. What I don’t recognise as Christian and what is ahistorical (in that it rejects Christianity’s evolution into modern times) are these fringe sects, coming together around this bizarre Dominionist and end-times theology.
I’m not talking about the Anglican, Lutheran or United Churches here (I’m not really familiar with the Pentecostals or the Baptists).
August 31, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Yup. You are right. Sorry again.
August 31, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It’s hard to make that distinction clear when there are so many different competing creeds, sects and sub-sects, all claiming to be representative of “mainstream” Christianity in one way or another. When I say that I think Dawkins is right in his assertion that religion is “dangerous nonsense” and that applies to Christianity also, should those who choose to ignore certain aspects of Christian doctrine for whatever reason be exempt from the implications of that remark? How, for example, do so-called “moderate Christians” resolve themselves to the purported words of Jesus in Luke 12:10 and Mark 3:29 (which are quite plainspoken and not easily subject to different interpretations) whereby denial of the Holy Spirit is considered an “eternal sin” and as such hellfire and torment await the transgressor after death? This, after all, is an infallible rule and THE unforgiveable sin for which the offender will be forever damned. I think that inculcating impressionable children with that sort of terrifying belief is “dangerous” and psychologically harmful. If on the other hand, one elects to simply ignore that or gloss over it, then I’d respectfully suggest that what they’re practicing isn’t really “Christianity” at all, but simply some pleasing spiritual confection (which based on a lot of the teachings of the United Church these days could be described as such — it’s more like some airy fairy, feel-good, new age mysticism to my ear).
August 31, 2008 at 4:14 pm
You seem to be falling into the same trap fundamentalists do when they pluck one or two passages out of [an English language translation of the] Bible and (perhaps unknowingly) assign a certain interpretation to that text and then judge Christians by whether they interpret the passage in the same context and apply it the same way. Any other interpretation is instantly labelled as “glossing over” or ignoring the text when perhaps it isn’t. Because we don’t take the most literalistic, “dangerous” and harmful interpretation, we aren’t really really “Christian”. It’s interesting how close anti-theists and right-wing fundamentalists are in their assumptions and why I always thought it was two sides of the same coin. Here, the Bible is turned into a western style historical/factual textbook or legal document that people should be judged against. There is no room for non-literal or context driven approaches nor even room for that fact that one language doesn’t translate cleanly into another. It seems to come out of the Enlightenment era assumption that the plain meaning of a text is always the most true. Ancient people didn’t always make that assumption.
Most mainstream Christians believe the Bible full of narrative, legal code, mythology, poetry, parable and and other genres of literature. It’s a sacred text, not a legal book or a textbook. It isn’t historic Christianity to take the most literalistic approach to the Bible or to pluck passages out and turn them into literalistic legal code. In fact, the Church Fathers called this heresy. Saint Augustine of Hippo, Clement and Jerome all warned against this approach.
No Christian is even able to follow every command in the Bible; but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t Christian. Given that the Bible was written in 3 different languages, over thousands of years by hundreds of authors with dozens of agandae, it would be impossible to do so. The Jews have the commands in the Mosaic law and others in the Talmud but not even the most rigid Orthodox follow every single command, yet they are all Jews.
As for that passage, Jesus was addressing a specific instance where the teachers of the law were calling Him demonic and the text you cite is clearly labelled as part of a parable, which aren’t meant to be taken literally necessarily. In context, the passage was:
20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”
30He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”
As you can see, the passage even says that Jesus was speaking to them in a parable, yet you assign a literal interpretation of the passage. The takeaway from the passage is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is denying that God can work in yourself, others or the world. If is unforgivable as long as you commit it as you are essentially shutting God out.
You can’t take one passage out of context and then condemn all Christians who don’t approach it the same way you have chosen to. Christ also says that all who follow Christ inherit eternal (or abundant – the word is the same in Greek) life, so again, the larger context has to be addressed. One of the most annoying debate tactics is when someone pulls a sentence out of your posts and attacks it while ignoring the rest of what you are saying – you are doing that here.
Finally, as long as Christianity has been around, there have been all kinds of views about hell, and what it is. There isn’t much in scripture and tradition that discusses it, and most of our images of it come from “Dante’s” Inferno. In most passages Christ refers to Sheol (the Jewish place of the dead) or Gehenna which is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. Both are meant at similes rather than to be taken literally.
The Eastern Orthodox believe that the saved and the damned are actually both with God but experience God differently depending on whether they love him or not. For some it is like being in the arms of a long lost love and for others it is like the discomfort of a hug from someone you really didn’t want to see. Others, like C. S. Lewis believe that someone could walk out of hell any time they chose to. Early Christians like Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the 3rd century, St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, and St. Isaac the Syrian in the 7th century, believed in “apocatastasis” or eventual universal reconciliation. Hell was perceived to be eternal, but eventually would become empty as people freely chose reconciliation with God and left it. St Julian or Norwich in the 13th Century expressed the same view when she wrote “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well”. So sadly, while the last millennium has been full of horrible threats of punishment, the Christian witness has been much more varied that this. And what you find expressed in the United Church isn’t airy fairy feel-good new age mysticism but part of the 2 millennia Christian witness. You can find echoes of it throughout Church history.
August 31, 2008 at 4:51 pm
It’s hard to make that distinction clear when there are so many different competing creeds, sects and sub-sects, all claiming to be representative of “mainstream” Christianity in one way or another.
This is a gross overstatement of the reality.
Perhaps a dozen, out of the thousand or so Christian denominations claim to be the one true church. Most others seem to have coalesced around progressive and conservative interpretations of Christianity and their creeds vary mostly in minor elements of the faith: clerical orders, structure and nature of the sacraments type stuff. My Anglican Church has full communion agreements with the Lutherans and nearly merged with the United Church.
In the US the Episcopal Church has a full communion with the Evangelical Lutherans which has similar agreements with the Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Reformed Church, Moravian Church and a couple others I can’t think of off the top of my head. They even share seminaries.
Most conservative churches are also in pulpit sharing agreements with each other. I went to a conservative Christian university in Los Angeles that was supported by the Nazarenes, Salvation Army, Wesleyan Church Free Methodists and Church of God (Anderson IN) but most students were Southern Baptists and Pentecostals. The distinctions didn’t matter to them either.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Eastern Orthodox and some fundamentalist sects will still make the claim to be a one true church, but even their laity have lost faith in the leadership and make a distinction between what they believe God wants and what their bishop/pope says. The founders of modern Canada – Trudeau, Chrétien, Martin, etc. were all practising Roman Catholics but were instrumental in making Canada a multicultural country where even a gay man like me is equal.
August 31, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I think you’ve illustrated one of the key problems I have with religion and that’s the maddening ability of believers to make the Bible say whatever it is they want it to say. Any interpretation they happen to find the most pleasing (or perversely, displeasing if they’re emotionally disposed that way) and they will torture the language, vicariously impute things, creatively assign intent, arbitrarily decide when something means what is says or is simply metaphorical, allegorical and so on in order to rationalize their particular interpretation. Doubtless this is one of the key reasons there’s a myriad of different sects all bickering, quibbling and splitting hairs over whose interpretation is “correct.” Seems like a lot of effort to invest in the unintelligible gibberish of a bunch of desert dwellers who thought the Earth was flat.
August 31, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Perhaps a dozen, out of the thousand or so Christian denominations claim to be the one true church.
Sorry, maybe I didn’t make myself clear there. I wasn’t suggesting they all claim to be the “one true church” (although it’s funny there’s more than a few of those), but that the whole bewildering array of different sects, creeds, etc. would probably think of themselves as being “mainstream” in one way or another. I’m sure the evangelicals regard themselves as “mainstream” but to me they seem quite flaky. If someone aspiring to be president seeks your endorsement, does that make you “mainstream”? I would tend to think so. But if that’s the case, there’s some pretty crazy strains of Christianity (Christian Zionists, for example) that fall into that category.
August 31, 2008 at 6:49 pm
RT: Thought you might find this entertaining.
August 31, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I think you’ve illustrated one of the key problems I have with religion and that’s the maddening ability of believers to make the Bible say whatever it is they want it to say. Any interpretation they happen to find the most pleasing (or perversely, displeasing if they’re emotionally disposed that way) and they will torture the language, vicariously impute things, creatively assign intent, arbitrarily decide when something means what is says or is simply metaphorical, allegorical and so on in order to rationalize their particular interpretation. Doubtless this is one of the key reasons there’s a myriad of different sects all bickering, quibbling and splitting hairs over whose interpretation is “correct.” Seems like a lot of effort to invest in the unintelligible gibberish of a bunch of desert dwellers who thought the Earth was flat.
I couldn’t disagree more.
I don’t think you can assign any interpretation you want to the Bible. The Bible needs to be read through the lens of Christ. In Christ, God made a supreme effort to reconcile us to Himself. Mainline Christians believe that by becoming human in Jesus and experiencing our joy, pain, hunger, thirst, isolation and death, God took that into himself. It provides an intimacy that goes beyond mere observation. Whether one believes this historically/factually, or as mythology as I do (truths conveyed in non-literal ways), it is a pretty powerful message for the spiritually inclined.
The overwhelming message through Scripture is the God created us, loves us and will go to any length to reconcile us to God. So every passage in the Bible must be read with this in ultimate goal in mind. This means there cannot be a divine “gotcha” or traps laid to send honest but mistaken people to eternal hellfire. Christianity is supposed to be the good news that God is one with us. That God understands us and our flaws and shortcomings, our good and darkest sides better than we understand ourselves and loves us in spite of that. So again, any passage, including this one, must be read with God’s ultimate goal of reconciliation, rather than damnation, in mind.
Loving neighbour as ourself demands a supreme sacrifice of laying our egos aside and experiencing others’ worldview, pain and suffering as Christians believe God experienced ours. It’s something few of us can live up to all the time. It is a hard demand. And I think that United Church members are every bit Christian when they lay themselves on the line to support the vulnerable, excluded and weak. It’s our human nature to hate and exclude and believe we are better than others because we have the most enlightened worldview or are the most moral. Everyone does it – fundamentalist, atheist and mainstream Christian. Christianity isn’t about getting doctrine or the rules right anyway, it’s about loving each other and creation more sacrificially.
We may have to agree to disagree. I still don’t understand why a literal passage-by-passage intepretation should always be the most correct approach, when from the dawn of Christianity it was condemned or why I shouldn’t believe it is you who is torturing the overall intent of the Gospel by insisting on the literalism of one passage in order to just dismiss the whole thing altogether? I guess I won’t ever understand why 19th Century Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, which you condemn, is a really more legitimate expression of Christianity, than the 21st Century moderate to progressive vision, which is on your side on most issues. I suppose that if one has to distort all forms of religion and paint them all with the same brush in order to dismiss them all, that is your prerogative, but it’s intellectually lazy IMHO. It is much more nuanced than this and I know you are capable of nuanced thinking.
In any case we don’t have to agree on theology to work together on economic or social policy. We can respect our differences and work together on social an economic policy, right? Isn’t this the kind of diverse society we are trying to build as progressives?
August 31, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Mainstream = has some of the longest pedigree and greatest number of members.
In Canada, that would include the RCC, Anglicans, bodies that formed the UCC, ELCIC and moderate/liberal Baptists. The bodies that predated confederation and form the top 5 or so bodies in the country in membership.
That is how I have used it, mostly.
August 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
RA — I’m not sure what to call it, but “entertaining” isn’t a word that comes to mind.
August 31, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I would have thought something as stupid as “Christianophobia” would have you rolling in the aisles. I guess I don’t know your humour as well as I thought.
August 31, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Any interpretation they happen to find the most pleasing (or perversely, displeasing if they’re emotionally disposed that way) and they will torture the language, vicariously impute things, creatively assign intent, arbitrarily decide when something means what is says or is simply metaphorical, allegorical and so on in order to rationalize their particular interpretation.
And we also do this with our constitutions, charters and legal statutes. It’s human nature to parce with both good and not-so-good intentions. It won’t go away if religious texts did. That’s the danger of having a written language I suppose.
August 31, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Dan — I don’t really want to belabour the point, but you say the Bible “needs to be read through the lens of Christ” but if you can’t bring yourself to belief in Jesus as the messiah, the Son of God, the Great Redeemer, etc. then according to your logic, none of the Bible can be made any sense of, right? Jesus is no more real to me than Ahura Mazda or Thor and “God” if there is such an entity I’m fairly certain isn’t the horrid, psychopathic creature depicted in the Bible.
Let me ask you, if you don’t mind, but why do you need all the arcane symbolic scaffolding of the Bible to provide context for your spiritual yearnings?
August 31, 2008 at 8:00 pm
If you don’t believe in Christ then I would agree that the Bible is going to have much meaning for you. But you can’t ask me to buy into an interpretation apart from the faith that brought me to it.
Let me ask you, if you don’t mind, but why do you need all the arcane symbolic scaffolding of the Bible to provide context for your spiritual yearnings?
I was raised Anglican, found it boring and left when I finished Grade 12. I went to a conservative Christian university an a music scholarship (I play the Oboe and English horn), thought they were nuts and avoided the religious aspect of it as much as possible.
It was my in depth study of J.S. Bach’s cantatas in grad school, the musical imagery and numerology inset in the music, that piqued my interest in the Biblical texts he used and their affect on him. From there, I set foot into nearest Anglican church which was similar to Bach’s Lutheran Mass, smelled the incense, heard the organ, prayed the prayers I remembered as a kid, experienced the community and found what I believe is God.
As an Anglican, the Bible isn’t a dry book or symbolic scaffolding, it is a living book set to prayer, Gregorian chant, music, ritual, archtecture and the tradition that is found in the Anglo-Catholic mass. Whether you believe I am delusional or not, I believe I experience a higher power in a mystical way in the Anglican mass. And as an Anglican I like that doctrine and morality isn’t shoved down my throat and I can doubt and disagree as my conscience dictates.
Then I was exposed to passages like this, which pull me out of myself:
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be compassionate, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
and…
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
…and I was hooked. Yes, the Bible is old and has a Bronze age view of the world, including God, but like in all aboriginal cultures, there is a lot of wisdom there as well.
Where else would I hear this in an orderly and disciplined way and where else would I live in a community, like St John the Evangelist Ottawa, that put themselves on the line to live this out?
August 31, 2008 at 8:24 pm
It was my in depth study of J.S. Bach’s cantatas in grad school, the musical imagery and numerology inset in the music, that piqued my interest in the Biblical texts he used and their affect on him. From there, I set foot into nearest Anglican church which was similar to Bach’s Lutheran Mass, smelled the incense, heard the organ, prayed the prayers I remembered as a kid, experienced the community and found what I believe is God.
As an Anglican, the Bible isn’t a dry book or symbolic scaffolding, it is a living book set to prayer, Gregorian chant, music, ritual, archtecture and the tradition that is found in the Anglo-Catholic mass
But you don’t need god to appreciate Bach, Jacob Clemens non Papa or the music of Carlo Gesualdo…
As for numerology in Bach’s music, you’ll have to be more precise…
August 31, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I invite all Republicans, McCain supporters & conservatives to visit the post below. Please, I encourage comments after you read this post:
http://ajnone.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/debating-politics-on-the-way-to-espns-ncaa-football-game-of-the-week/
August 31, 2008 at 8:50 pm
But you don’t need god to appreciate Bach, Jacob Clemens non Papa or the music of Carlo Gesualdo…
You are correct. I don’t need God to appreciate Bach but through Bach, I found God. That is what I am trying to convey.
As for numerology in Bach’s music, you’ll have to be more precise…
You’ll find that Bach will often repeat musical lines in 3s to musically invoke the Trinity, 12s for the number of disciples, 7s for the days of creation, etc. He even wrote pieces with 144 measures long (12×12). It wasn’t uncommon to insert hidden signs into baroque pieces – Handel did it too – but Bach raised it to an artform.
An example: in the Crucifixus in the Mass in B Minor he begins the piece with strings, flute, strings, strings, flute, strings strings, flute, strings, strings, flute. The flute here emphasizes the 2nd person of the Trinity – Jesus – who is being crucified. The pulsating of the strings and flute represent the nails as they are hammered into the cross.
That is the kind of numerology I became interested in at university.
I posted the Crucifixus clip on my blog last Good Friday if you want to listen to it.
Culture choc: Good Friday
Bach would also often sign his name in music B-A-C-H is found in several pieces. (H being the German B-flat) . You’ll find a lot of numerology and musical symbolism in the St Matthew and St John Passions as well.
August 31, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Dan — Thanks for sharing. I know that it’s not always easy to talk about such things.
I can’t deny that those are lovely sentiments and I have to admit that my snarkiness aside, I still find the aesthetics of the church (Anglican too, CofE) quite appealing. Years ago, when I lived in town, I’d frequently go to Christ Church Cathedral to meditate, read a bit from the BCP and just take in the atmosphere. The resident organist would often practice in the afternoons, so it was a pleasant respite from the mundane. Apart from that sensation and being a nostalgic kind of throwback to childhood, the spirit never moved me however.