Take the Long Way Home

Okay, I think it’s fairly obvious from my posts that I tend to be a pretty cynical, sarcastic and maybe even an angry person by nature.  I also tend to be quite selfish.  I recognize these traits as negatives that I need to work on, but changing your inner nature is no overnight job. 

As a Protestant my main concern was what God was doing with me.  What was God teaching me.  Was my church teaching correctly (according to my interpretation), so my children would learn proper doctrine. How was I following Him, etc.  All good things, but very *me* centered (please understand, this was a *me* problem, not a Protestant problem per se).  When I began to look into the Catholic Church I realized that they are very *other* centered.  Although proper doctrine is important, what is more important to them is that you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and concern yourself with more than just your own community or family.  I had always seen the neccessity of these things (although I would have put proper doctrine first.  My own opinion was, who cares if someone is starving if they don’t know Jesus.  The most important thing was teaching, THEN came mercy.  Do you know that I actually believed that Mother Theresa was in hell!!!!!  Poor woman, I thought, she has spent so many years doing good, trying to work her way into heaven.  But I’m willing to bet when Jesus’ parable came true, when he looked at Mother Theresa, he said, “When I was hungry you gave me food, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was naked you gave me clothes”, because she did it for the least of these!  She didn’t do it to earn her way to heaven, she did it to be Jesus for the people who wouldn’t have seen him otherwise.  She didn’t care if they assented to her beliefs or not, she loved equally, and she cared for people equally.)  Even the Catholic prayers that I had dismissed as being  “vain repitition” are other centered.  Their purpose is not just for the person praying, they are for the world at large.  The Rosary is said for peace in the world, the Divine Mercy for duh, mercy for the world.  Funny how I dissed those prayers and those praying them as being like the man that Jesus rebuked in the gospels (Jesus says that that man prayed with vain repititions, thinking that his many words will get him heard).  Those prayers are said for the world!  Of course the person praying has certain personal intentions, but *I*  had never prayed a prayer that was focused, not on me and my needs, but on the world!

So what does any of this have to do with anything?  Well, the weirdest thing happened to me the other day, and I’ve decided to blog about it because in a few days I will start to justify it, downplay it, etc.  In other words, my cynical side will win, so I’m putting this down for posterity, so that I will have to deal with it.

My parish has perpetual adoration (if you don’t know what that is it’s when the host is exposed in a monstrance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a chapel where people can go and pray and meditate, etc before Jesus, who is present in the sacrament).  I have been wanting to go there and pray for months, but it was never “convienient”.  So, I finally went on Monday.  I had downloaded the Divine Mercy chaplet onto my ipod so I could pray it when I went.  I have prayed the Divine Mercy before, it’s my favorite prayer currently.  I started the chaplet and sang along (in my head, there were other people in there!).  I was suddenly overwhelmed with emotion.  I began to cry ( I DO NOT CRY!!!).  My mind was flooded with images of the poor and suffering in the world.  Tears were streaming down my face as I also saw images of Christ on the cross.  With every repitition of “For the sake of his sorrowful passion… have mercy on us, and on the whole world”, a new image of someone or some group of people came into my mind (I’m talking about vivid images, not just a thought about someone’s name.  and these were not people I knew.  I saw Muslim women, ragged and dirty children, I saw Mother Theresa surrounded by the poor and dying, etc).  And with the “Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity, of your dearly beloved son, our Lord Jesus Christ. In atonement for our sins, and those of the whole world”, I was flooded with love and sadness at the same time.  This is when images of Christ filled my mind, him, bleeding on the cross, in agony and yet in ecstasy because this act would bring all these other images peace.  This act made possible the reconciliation of the world!  The world!  The knowledge that He would have mercy on me!  But not just me, the whole world!  I was completely shamed because *I* had nothing for these people.  But I realized that praying this prayer would do something for them, that my asking God for mercy for them would bring them mercy! 

This probably doesn’t sound all that weird to some people, but if you knew me….  I went back to the chapel two more times this week, prayed the same prayer, and nothing.  No emotion, no images, no tears.  It was just as before.  Although I’m sure that Jesus accepts my prayer with or without the emotion.  I’m already beginning to doubt the importance of this event, but with this writing I can’t deny that it happened.  I don’t know why it happened, I don’t really know what it means, but I’ve never experienced anything like it before. 

My brother and I had a conversation about the sacraments.  He expressed his reluctance to believe in “magic water”.  I had to laugh.  That’s how I used to view the sacraments also.  Those silly Catholics, they believe if they just get wet then they’ll go to heaven.  And if they don’t?  Well, it’s straight to hell for the lot of them!  As I studied Catholicism I had to let go of many of my previous understandings.  The truth is that the Bible is pretty clear about the mandate of baptism (for one).  Why???  What is so important about getting wet?  Well, there are plenty of websites that will tell you all about the history and the importance of baptism.  (here’s just a few to get you started)

http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

http://catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

http://catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

What I’m concerned about here is why is there such a reaction against the physical nature of the sacraments?  Why the ”magic” water comment?  The automatic reaction (from Protestants, of most flavors, and of critics of Christianity) is, “how silly of you to assume that God communicates to people by physical means”.  “God is spirit, and we worship him in spirit and truth”, is what you hear from the Prots, and that’s what I’m going to focus on here (the general critics are not my main concern - they would argue against the miraculous in general).  God IS spirit, and Jesus did say that one day we would worship Him in spririt and truth; I have no argument with that.  But does that really mean that he echews the physical?  How has God communicated with man through the ages?  More specifically how has God manifested his presence with his people.  How did people on earth know that God was there. 

The first record of God that we have is in Genesis.  He creates a sinless man and walks with him in the Garden of Eden.  He walks with him!  How does Adam know his God?  His God walks with him - that’s pretty much the definition of physical presence.  God was physically present with Adam.  But then Adam screws up, and what happens as a result?  He is kicked out of the garden and doesn’t get to walk with God anymore.  No more daily physical presence.  BIG punishment! 

Later we see one of Adam’s descendents, Jacob wrestling, physically wrestling, with someone.  We know this is not a dream, or a metaphor because Jacob comes out of the wrestling match with a limp.  Jacob is forever changed by this encounter (his name is even changed here to Isreal), and he named the place where it happened Peniel “it is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”  So Jacob saw God, and it was a physical encounter. 

When Moses leads the Isrealites out of Egypt they have no road map.  They have no idea where to go, and no real assurance that God is with them.  They are not too fond of Moses since he brought all the plagues down on them (not all, but some).  But God provides a way for his presence to be obvious and the way to be known.  He himself leads them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.  God is physically with the Isrealites! 

Moses comes closer to anyone since Adam to “walking with God” (in the physical sense).  God allows him to look at his backside as he passes by Moses.  Moses gets a physical glimpse of God and it changes him physically so even the Isrealites know that Moses has been with God.  His face shines so dramatically that the people request that Moses wear a veil. 

God gives Moses intructions on building a portable tabernacle, for worshipping him.  So that the people will know when God is present in the tabernacle the pillar of cloud rests over the tabernacle.  The people know, physically, where God is. 

Although sacrifice to God has been a part of his worship all through the book of Genesis, we see it codified with the Law given to Moses in Exodus.  God requires a physical act of worship.  Sin can only be expiated with a physical sacrifice, his chosen people can only be identified with him if they go through the physical rite of circumcision.  The Isrealites can now be identified as belonging to God by their physical bodies.

Of course the ultimate example of God communicating his presence to his people is with the advent of Jesus.  God taking on human flesh.  Becoming physically like us.  Living a physical life.  Physically being with God’s people.  Physically healing, talking to, walking with, living among, eating and drinking with God’s people.  One only had to physically touch the hem of his cloak to be healed! 

The apostles also communicated the presence of God by physical means.  They healed the sick, cast out demons - physical actions all.  People were even healed by being passed over by Peter’s shadow! 

Allright, enough already, the Bible is full of examples of God communicating with his people through physical means.  Why is this now thrown out?  Why do we doubt that God communicates his presence to us through physical means now?  Why would God change his modus operandi?  Has something changed since the first century?  Do we say, “stupid Isrealites, believing in ‘magic animals’ and ‘magic clouds’; stupid Christians, believing in ‘magic people’”.  Most of the folks I know who don’t believe in the efficacy of baptism (ie - that the waters of baptism confer the grace of God upon us; that the physical act makes us identifiable as God’s people; that God communicates his presence in us through the act of baptism) DON’T have any problem with the physicalness of God’s presence in Scripture. Why would God change the way he deals with us and not record that change in the Bible? 

Goddess worship is the hip new thing, and Astarte is a popular pick.  Wiccans invoke her, MySpace has several pages of people who claim to be her, the full figure fashion industry uses her name to promote their wares.  But the way I first heard about her was from anti Catholic literature.  It claimed that the Catholic Church had “borrowed” the Easter festival from her.   Who was she?  I decided to do a little research…

According to the internet Astarte had many names, Astoreth, Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, etc, etc.  She also had many faces, some called her “mother of the universe” (Phoneicians) and said she was the giver of all life on earth, some the “lady of the sea”, “queen of heaven”, “lady of the mountain” (all from the Ras Shamra texts).  She was the goddess of fertility, motherhood and war.  Sometimes she is pictured with a battle ax and spear, wading through the blood of her human victims (who were the enemies of her son Baal, whose father, El, is her husband and brother).   Sometimes she is pictured as the demon of lust.  Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle (indicating the planet Venus).    She often has cows horns and occasionally a cows tail as well.  Her temples often employed prostitutes.  She is even mentioned in the Bible where her worship is condemned by the prophets. 

But what does this have to do with Easter?  Alexander Hislop wrote a book back in the 1800’s called The Two Babylons, in which he sets out to explain how paganism slipped into the Catholic Church (this has become such a commonplace assumption that most people don’t know that it actually is a very modern accusation, mostly based on this book and Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner - neither of whom find it necessary to use sources for their information which makes figuring out where they got their ideas difficult, to say the least!).  Hislop says that “Easter is just another word for Astarte” - the queen of heaven who caused Jeremiah so much trouble.  Hislop claims that worship of this goddess was introduced to Britain (although he fails to offer any direct evidence of how this might have happened) in the first centuries. 

      What is interesting about this argument is the fact that the word “Easter” does not appear in any official Catholic Church documents (only in a translation), because it is an Anglo Saxon word and that is not the language of the Church.  Most cultures do not have the word Easter in their vocabulary, the “official” and most commonly used term globally would be a form of “Pascha”.  Which comes from the Hebrew and Aramaic for passover.  (Christ is called the “Paschal Lamb”)  Most languages use a similar word for the celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection, not one that sounds anything like our English “Easter”.  So the similarity of the two words means absolutely nothing! 

Hislop accedes this when he notes that in the early Church  the festival was called “Pasch”.  (he either doesn’t realize or conveniently ignores the fact that this is *still* the terminology used) He admits that it was celebrated by the earliest Christians, but says that “it was not of apostolic institution” (He quotes Socrates Scholastica for this, who was known for mistakes in his history when they related to chronology or to the Western Church in general - at least according to my hasty internet research.)  Hislop maintains that the festivals originally coincided with the Jewish Passover, but became corrupt with the addition of the Lenten fast.  His “proof” for this is that many pagan cultures have 40 day fasts…  I wonder which one of these pagan gods Jesus was worshiping when he went into the desert and fasted for forty days?   (please hear the sarcasm) 

Then, claims Hislop, it was further corrupted when Dionysus the Little adjusted the calendar and moved the date of Easter!!!  Dionysus was the first to reckon dates from the birth of Christ instead of by the Roman emperors.   Hislop doesn’t explain why this dating system is so nefarious, except for noting that modern scholarship has led us to believe that Dionysus was off a few years.  Let me quote from Hislop here:

     “To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing it’s usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated and by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity - now far sunk in idolatry - in this as in so many other things, to shake hands.” 

So according to him moving the dates of the calendar to focus on the birth of Jesus instead of the reigns of Roman emperors was to amalgamate pagan religions?

He parallels cultural observances of “easter”, such as easter eggs and hot cross buns (he doesn’t explain why if these are all associated with the goddess Astarte why every culture has different secular observances) with pagan rituals of the past.  He goes on and on describing pagan rituals and beliefs that tie back to a universal flood (in which one culture describes Astarte, or some other equivelent figure, as surviving the flood by riding in a hollowed out eggshell) and to the eating of fruit in the quest of knowledge (apparently in some culture eating oranges is associated with easter).

He claims that this is proof of pagan influence on Easter, but I would argue (and many modern critics of Christianity have) that finding parallels between Scriptural events and ancient pagan customs make a compelling case for the pagan influence on Judaism.  Pagan arks, and pagan fruits that when you eat them you gain wisdom make it sound like Moses ripped off his ideas from the surrounding cultures!

And since we have seen that Astarte’s symbols included the lion and the dove, it seems only fair (given this line of reasoning) that we accuse the gospel writers of pagan influence as well.  Was it Astarte that descended upon Jesus at his baptism?  Suddenly Jesus being called “the lion of Judah” takes on a whole new meaning.  And lets not forget his 40 day fast!  It seems pretty clear that if the Church’s celebration of Jesus’ death and resurrection is based on the worship of Astarte, then so is the New Testament.

Are you willing to go there?  I’m not.

I find it very frustrating refuting these kind of claims.  Hislop offers no proof texts for his accusations.  No historical, ecclesiastical, or archaeological evidence to back up his assertions.  The closest he can come is making huge leaps from an ancient Near East pagan practice of offering bread to a goddess to the English eating hot cross buns (even though this is a purely cultural phenomenon, there is no Church teaching on “hot cross buns”. 

It’s like the easter bunny.  How often do you find the easter bunny preached about on Easter Sunday?  How many Church doctrines are based on cultural practices?  NONE!  There is no “Christian affiliation” between hot cross buns and the resurrection of Jesus..  Common sense alone would tell you that a people that enjoys eating bread is not going to stop just because they have converted to Christianity.  And again, cultural practices are just that, cultural practices, they have no part in Church teaching.) 

How do you argue something that is only found in someone’s mind?  I find all kinds of evidence of the early church fighting against paganism, of making it’s members swear off all allegiances to their old way of life.  There is plenty of evidence that paganism was NOT allowed to be amalgamated with Christianity, but on the word of some nobody 100+ years ago the opposite seems to be the prominent belief.