Now that science “has eroded the plausibility of the Judeo-Christian myths,” we need a replacement if our culture is to remain intact, says Loyal D. Rue, a professor of religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. “Facts have gotten into our heads and consciousness in such a way that the traditional myths can’t be swallowed.”
What does he mean by myths? Well, you know–archaic views of the universe, a presumption that human beings are at the center of existence, the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection and of Moses’ bringing the Ten Commandments down from a mountain.
If we get rid of these myths and don’t have a replacement at the ready, we’ll end up with nihilism, says Rue, and nihilism “is ultimately destructive.” We might even end up with the “totalitarian option.”
Speaking at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, Rue suggested we start all over and create a new myth which squares with what is known scientifically, something convincing even if not factual.
“It remains for the artists, the poets, the novelists, the musicians, the film makers, the tricksters, and the masters of illusion to winch us toward our salvation by seducing us into an embrace with a noble lie. . . . We need a kind of myth, a story, a vision of universality, that will get us pulling together, not just as Americans, but that will make us one and give us solidarity of purpose. It must be a lie that inspires us to give up selfish interests in the service of noble ideals.” (Such as truth?)
A subtle form of anti-Catholicism permeates many local Christian papers. One example, from the Southern California Christian Times: In an article titled MEXICO STAGES SILENT WAR ON PROTESTANTS, the reader is told that “Maria Nieves, 35, was strangled in her sleep by her Catholic husband to ‘warn’ the evangelical community in La Florida, Hidalgo. Nieves’ ‘crime’ was her refusal to cooperate with Catholic festivals and community projects.”
That’s the extent of the Nieves case, as reported in this paper. What is the writer suggesting? It’s clear: Maria was killed because she was a Protestant unwilling to participate in demonstrably Catholic “festivals and community projects.” Now what could that mean?
Did she refuse to eat salsa in public? Did she decline to hang a rosary from her rearview mirror? Did she sit back while others took part in the town’s anti-litter campaign? And even if she did all these things, is it likely that her husband strangled her on such grounds?
How likely is it, really, that a man will kill his wife (and end up in Mexico’s quite unpleasant prisons) because she didn’t engage in some quasi-religious or even totally secular public activity? Would anyone familiar with police fiction or detective stories think this a probable motive? Wouldn’t it be more likely that the story has been “adjusted” in its telling?
Perhaps Mr. Nieves was a drunk and a philanderer. Perhaps he and his wife got into a knock-down, drag-out argument about his drunken revelry. Perhaps the argument culminated in her death. That would make sense as a story line. But can we really believe that a man would kill his own wife just to give a warning to Protestants?
The writer for the Southern California Christian Times thinks so. He doesn’t investigate the story; he just repeats it. It confirms his own anti-Catholic prejudices. He doesn’t even see the illogicality of what he’s writing.
(If a Protestant man kills his Catholic wife, do we immediately assume he did it as a warning to Catholics who are unwilling to engage in, say, Protestant Bible studies?)
Probably the writer has no notion that he harbors anti-Catholic prejudices. An event is reported to him, and the connections seem clear: The husband was a Catholic, the wife a Protestant. Protestants and Catholics in the town had exchanged harsh words. She didn’t like to participate in anything with a Catholic overtone. He didn’t like Protestants or Protestantism. He killed her. Conclusion? He killed her merely because she was Protestant.
Jessica Fletcher would never buy this thinking.
We hear of lots of individual converts. Sometimes folks convert as couples, husbands and wives together, or as small groups–say, friends who have been in a study group. But every once in a while there’s a report of a large group “poping” all at once.
Nearly all the members of St. Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church in Arlington, Texas have voted to join the Catholic Church. In a surprising move, the Episcopal bishop is even allowing them to take the parish property with them as they separate from the Episcopal Church.
Fr. Allan Hawkins, rector of the 150-member parish, said his congregation has been concerned about trends within the Episcopal Church for several years. He and his parishioners have seen a drift from traditional Christianity, especially in areas of morality and ordination. The vote count for joining the Catholic Church was 87 in favor, one opposed, and three abstaining. (Children and occasional church-goers were not allowed to vote.)
Fr. Hawkins hopes Catholic Bishop Joseph P. Delaney of Forth Worth will incorporate St. Mary’s into the diocese as an “Anglican- use parish,” one in which the English of the Mass follows that of the Book of Common Prayer. Such parishes have been established elsewhere when groups of Episcopalians have converted en masse, but this may be the first time a whole parish has come over.
Half the 350,000 homes in the San Fernando Valley have been visited by members of the Church on the Way, located in Van Nuys, California. The missionaries offer a complimentary copy of the King James Bible in English or Spanish. One in ten of those visited accepts a Bible. (Some already have one, and others aren’t interested.) What if Catholics went door to door distributing literature at no charge?
Good ol’ Dave Hunt. You’ll find him mentioned in a few of the letters in this issue. You’ll find his books in most Christian book stores. If you’re especially interested in his ministry, the Christian Information Bureau, you can obtain its newsletter and learn some Amazing Facts.
A recent issue was devoted entirely to the proposition that the Catholic Church is the world’s largest cult. “I challenge any [Evangelical] church leader to a public debate who declares that this assertion is false,” wrote Hunt. “If proven wrong, I will publicly repent. But if this accusation is true, then a major shake-up of the evangelical church is required, including repentance by many of its most highly-regarded leaders,” because Evangelicals have been in cahoots with Catholics on social and political issues.
“To deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the Reformation and mock the more than 1 million martyrs who died at Rome’s hands as though they gave their lives for no good reason!”
A million martyrs? Hunt fails to identify them. He can’t be speaking of the medieval inquisition, nor even of most of the Spanish inquisition; the first came before there were any Protestants, and the second took little interest in Protestants because there weren’t many Protestants living in Spain.
So how and when were these one million Protestant martyrs done in–and by whom? Hunt doesn’t say.
Nor does he say where he got the notion that “Catholicism explicitly denies Biblical inerrancy!” In fact, the Church upholds inerrancy. But then Hunt complains also about Catholic Christology–you know, the usual Christ-as-sole-mediator gambit. Catholics don’t think Christ could pull off redemption on his own, blah, blah, blah. “The ‘Christ’ of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its ‘Mary’–as much ‘another Jesus’ as that of Mormonism or any other cult. Let’s admit it!”
And let’s also admit, demands Hunt, that, “though not sold as blatantly now, indulgences are still an important part of Catholicism’s salvation. . . . Roman Catholicism rejects salvation by faith and preaches a false gospel of works that cannot save.”
(Hunt has never read–or at least never understood–the decrees on justification issued by the Council of Trent; the Council specifically taught that justification comes through faith, not through works.)
Dave Hunt lashes out at his one-time colleagues: “Many evangelical leaders and cult experts have themselves been deceived by Rome and need to be confronted and informed. How tragic to assume that Catholics are Christians who merely have some peripheral beliefs and practices . . . . A false gospel is a false gospel, and it damns those who believe it, whether preached by Mormonism or Catholicism. A cult is a cult.”
So there!
Another topic raised in this issue’s letters department: Atheists United, headquartered in Sherman Oaks, California and dedicated to the proposition that religion is still the opiate of the masses.
The group’s purpose is given in an introductory brochure which explains that atheists make up a quarter of America’s population, “including those who describe themselves as Humanists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Rationalists, Secularists, Materialists, or just not religious.
“Atheists have no blind ‘faith’ or unchallengeable ‘beliefs’; to us, all ideas are only as certain as evidence allows and must remain subject to challenge. We do not accept superstitions of any kind, and it is clear to us that religions are the most pervasive and abusive of all superstitions.”
The brochure features pictures of five freethinkers: Einstein, Jefferson, Paine, Twain, Russell, and with each picture goes a quotation. Sample from Thomas Paine: “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
Several reasons are given for joining Atheists United: “You’re demanding your freedom and backing it up with meaningful, concerted action.” “You’re tired of subsidizing tax-free superstitions.” “You don’t want your children or grandchildren to continue to be indoctrinated with fairytale mythologies.” “You want to be part of the fight against ignorance.” “You’re ready to have some effect on the real world.”
On the real world? One of Frank Sheed’s greatest books is Theology and Sanity, which notes, among other things, that we can’t call a man truly sane if he ignores a vast sector of reality. Would we call sane an astronomer who disbelieves in outer space or a physician who disbelieves in bacteria? Then why do we call sane people who disbelieve in the supernatural–in God, in angels, in life after death? If these things are real, then the atheist is, well, unreal–not really all there.
The brochure concludes with a call to action: “As President Kennedy reminded us, the greatest evil is for good men to do nothing. [Actually, the credit for this line goes to Edmund Burke, not Kennedy.] Join the fight against religionists who want to force you to live by their medieval rules. [Quiz: Which Church is associated with “medieval” anything?] It’s moral, it’s timely, and it’s essential. We need you to join with us today. Tomorrow may be too late!”
Too late for Atheists United, that is. In the last two years the members have seen governments based on atheism crumble, and they may fear something analogous could happen to their movement as a whole.
We don’t have to travel out of town to hear a lecture by the latest “incarnation of God.” He’s known as Lord Gourasana, and he lives in San Diego. Lucky us!
An advertisement in local newspapers explains “he has come for the express purpose of taking those that want to leave this place of illusion back to the True Realm of Existence. He is bringing in a power greater than has ever been brought in before as there are an unusually large number of people ready for this state of their evolution–breaking free from the cycle of birth and death. He is here to personally help you. We invite you to come and meet him, hear his message, and ask your questions.”
Admission to nirvana is ten dollars at the door.
Reasoning from Revelation is a Fundamentalist newsletter. The August issue said Clement of Alexandria “was guilty of a serious transgression. He allowed his opinions to become rules.” (Clement nixed frequent bathing as morally inadvisable.) His rule making amounted to “adding to the Word of God.” Hmmm. If that’s true of all rule making, does that mean the vehicle code has been added to the Word of God?