Written for the Magazine of St Peter and St Paul's Church, Swanscombe at the request of a friend.
Do you get the feeling that Dan Brown has it in for the Church? First there was the Da Vinci Code with a lot of untruths about Jesus having a family and the Holy Grail being his descendants. Then came the story Angels and Demons with a group of Scientists trying to blow up the Vatican!
It does seem that there are many people in the world who have it in for the Church as a whole. There are a whole host of reasons. Professor Richard Dawkins believes that the God of the Bible is cruel, jealous and arbitrary. Christopher Hitchens believes that God doesn’t exist because Christians are so bad. Karl Marx sees religious belief as something that drugs people from seeing the truth about their own poverty. What do you think about this? What arguments have you heard that God doesn’t exist? Is the Church living a lie?
It’s very easy not to care with our comfortable lives or our economic worries and it isn’t surprising that people fall away from the Faith because it fails to address their concerns. But then didn’t Jesus say something about the word of God falling among nettles and thorns? Our modern society believes that the only things that exists are the things we can lay our hands on or measure in some way. Our society doesn’t believe in God for the simple reason that He cannot be observed in action, put into a test-tube or seen through a telescope. If God doesn’t exist, then neither does life after death, so eat drink and be merry et c. How can anyone answer back at this?
It’s understandable that we feel daunted at going against this Materialism in our society, especially when it means that we come up against our friends and even family, or even ourselves! How tempting it is to put down our daily Bible reading in favour of watching Emmerdalenders or Coronation Farm! In the light of so much against us, it’s easy for us to feel weak and helpless.
And what would the Lord say? Easy: “Be not afraid!” Listen to the two Patron Saints of the Church in Swanscombe. St Peter says, “be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist strong in the faith.” [1 Peter 5.8]. St Paul bids us be strong and disciplined and “put on the whole armour of God. that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” [Ephesians 6.11] What are these Patron Saints saying?
First, as sure as God exists, so does the Devil. It’s very tempting to write off both Angels and Demons as fairy stories and not really existing – that’s actually something that the Devil wants so he can hide from us. If, however, we believe in God and in His Son Jesus Christ, then we don’t really have a choice about believing in Angels or Demons, because the Lord Jesus himself casts out devils and talks about Satan and Beelzebub and the like. The Lord Himself tells us that we will one day judge the Angels, and remember the angels present at His birth! If Jesus says that Angels and Demons exist, and we believe Him, then Angels and Demons exist.
Second, St Peter and St Paul tell us what demons are. If you think about it, you already know the answer. Who is it who tempts you into losing your temper, or avoiding the train fare, or filling in the wrong numbers on a tax return? Who is it that puts the ideas in people’s heads to riot? Remember that poor girl who had just graduated and was trying to become a lawyer, and yet still looted a television during the riots despite the fact she knew it was wrong. We are all susceptible to temptation, but just as we are led to God by angels, so are we led away by demons. They may not have pitchforks, horns and pointy tales, but they’re there! They are those powers which tempt perfectly sane and moral people to act insanely and immorally. That includes me, and that includes you.
Third, St Peter and St Paul tell us what to do - be Faithful. We may not be able to answer back to those who shout that God does not exist, but we can refuse to allow their words to rattle us. The first way of showing faith is prayer. To pray to God shows already that you believe He exists. Pray for strength. Second, receive the Holy Sacrament every Sunday, because you are receiving Our Lord. Third, keep up the Bible reading, because then you can hear God speak. Fourth, don’t be afraid. It is written He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. (Psalm 91)
On September 29th we remember St Michael, the warrior angel who defeats Satan. We also remember all angels who are sent by God to help us. If we play our part and open ourselves to God then we find some assistance in the angels. We also must remember that the Devil is only an angel, he is not equal to God. If we are faithful, then we can resist him. It takes a lot of work and prayer, but there are more on our side than we think there are!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Do you get the feeling that Dan Brown has it in for the Church?"
Well, he's certainly got it in for people who like reading well-plotted novels with interesting characters.
"First there was the Da Vinci Code with a lot of untruths"
Well, first of all there was The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, which actually claimed all that stuff about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a family whose line has survived to the present day. I read it about twenty years ago, and found it interesting but ultimately unconvincing. (I'm generally sceptical about conspiracy theories.) Dan Brown just wrote a trashy but unaccountably popular, fictional novel based on the same premise (and for which he was unsuccessfully sued for copyright infringement by Baigent and Leigh). Of course it was full of untruths - that's the point of fiction.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm more than happy for you to bash Dan Brown to your heart's content, and I'll even help if you like, but I think you're far better off focusing on the quality of his writing rather than the fact that he's written a story whose events you disapprove of. Save your ire for Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, who claim that this stuff is actually true.
"Then came the story Angels and Demons with a group of Scientists trying to blow up the Vatican!"
I've not read this one (to be honest, I only managed to read a few bits of The Da Vinci Code before I was struck by an incapacitating and overwhelming wave of despair for the future of literature), but to me it sounds far more libellous towards scientists than the Vatican. Checking the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, it seems that it's actually the Bavarian Illuminati (a favourite of conspiracy theorists, and about the only major secret society apart from the Bilderberg Group and David Icke's alien lizards which doesn't get a mention in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) who are trying to blow up the Vatican.
"It does seem that there are many people in the world who have it in for the Church as a whole."
Well, there are a lot of people in the Church who have it in for other groups of people, too. I'm not sure it's sensible to hold Dawkins, Hitchens and Marx up as representative of the rest of the world, or even of atheists, agnostics and secularists in general.
Nick, I can't say everything in a Magazine article where word space is a premium.
The point of this article to to help some decent people in the pew who have only met atheism through the popular novels of Dan Brown and through what they see on the telly. These are not necessarily academic folk and some of them are quite frightened by what theyy perceived to be an attack on their faith through their own media.
I do try to aim this blog at all levels, and try to tell the Truth as far as I can, not by scrimping on the truth but by keeping to common experiences of the truth.
My homilies are most often aimed at my students, my sermons at the person in the pew (though I haven't preached for a few years now), my magazine articles go also to the homebound elderly, and I do try to keep myself on my toes by doing as high level work as I can.
Can I ask that you re-read this article and see that it is not all that appropriate to quibble about my use of Dan Brown, et al? I'm not dealing with them specifically here but making a synecdoche.
I think that it's important to remember the Dan Brown, et al, are first and foremost "story tellers", sometimes brilliant... sometimes not. A good story is a good read, not gospel any more than Orwell's or Jules Verne's stories were gospel. They hopefully provoke thought but are just that... stories.
Michaelmas, for me, is the church's clear reminder that we've forgotten some of those lessons from the early days of Christendom back before in our ancient Jewish heritage.
Angels are not pretty; they are not sweet cherubic babies from Greek Mythology not are they the image of Thor the mighty. The early descriptions of the classes of angels are enough to freeze your blood. They are fierce, alien warriors protecting the kingdom of God and, by extension, man. They are often messengers and bringers of tidings or divine retribution.
It is evil and temptation that are couched in sensuous beauty.
"First, as sure as God exists, so does the Devil."
I'm not sure this is always a helpful way of looking at things: that evil has an external personification. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But all too often we see examples of some hypocrite (often a charismatic US evangelical type) who claims to adhere to a Christian moral code, tearfully making some public confession and asserting "I was weak, I was tempted, the Devil made me do it", effectively shifting the responsibility onto some nebulously-defined (and possibly metaphorical) external figure.
I think this viewpoint makes it too easy to weasel out of one's responsibilities. A more mature and appropriate response would be "I did it. I did it because at the time I wanted to, I prioritised my wishes ahead of the wider consequences, and I thought I could get away with it. I'm sorry and I'll try not to do it again."
(This approach has been recently adopted by the Independent journalist Johann Hari, who was found to have slightly plagiarised fragments of some of his interviews. I don't always agree with what he writes, and I've no idea what he's like as a person, but I respected his acceptance of responsibility and his concrete efforts at atonement: he's returned a major award he got a few years ago, and is taking a sabbatical to study a journalism ethics course.)
Maybe it helps some people to regard their temptations (which we are all subject to, to one degree or another) as external to themselves. If it works for them and helps them be better people, then good - I wish them every success. And for some people, maybe accepting that their transgressions come from within is too much of a burden to bear. I understand that addicts attending group therapy (such as Alcoholics Anonymous) are often encouraged to place their trust in some sort of higher power (which needn't be a formalised idea of a god) precisely for this reason.
"The point of this article to to help some decent people in the pew who have only met atheism through the popular novels of Dan Brown and through what they see on the telly. These are not necessarily academic folk and some of them are quite frightened by what theyy perceived to be an attack on their faith through their own media."
Indeed, and I applaud your sentiments and efforts. The vast majority of atheists and agnostics really just want to get on with their lives without being judged or unduly harangued by other people. It's a tremendous shame that the only atheists we regularly hear from are the more extreme and outspoken ones like Dawkins and Hitchens. There are plenty of more reasonable examples, such as Sir David Attenborough (who has done more than almost anyone else to educate people about the wonder of the natural world) and the late Carl Sagan (whose essay Pale Blue Dot should be required reading for everyone).
Unfortunately, those of us who favour dialogue and common ground are often drowned out by the people shouting on either end of the spectrum, as well as those who intentionally misrepresent the truth for their own sordid purposes. The Daily Mail, for example, has for many years been waging a campaign of fear and lies, trying to convince the general public that everything good and decent is constantly under threat from various fictional groups. Others have written more informatively about this than I ever could.
I'm not sure what we can do to resolve this, and I think there are people in both camps who behave in an ultimately counterproductive manner. I don't think the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens have really helped boost public support for atheism amongst anyone who wasn't already that way inclined anyway. And I'm not convinced that the current Pope's rigid conservatism really helps convert anyone who hadn't already made up their minds either.
I think what's needed is for those of us interested in finding common ground and understanding others' points of view (and I consider myself to be in this category, my regrettable and flippant lapse into criticism of Dan Brown notwithstanding) to stand up more often and promote the cause of tolerance and understanding.
(I worry that sometimes I might come across as critical of some of your beliefs. I really am just trying to question them in a spirit of understanding, and to see how they fit together with the beliefs of my other Christian friends.)
"First, as sure as God exists, so does the Devil."
I'm not sure this is always a helpful way of looking at things: that evil has an external personification. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But all too often we see examples of some hypocrite (often a charismatic US evangelical type) who claims to adhere to a Christian moral code, tearfully making some public confession and asserting "I was weak, I was tempted, the Devil made me do it", effectively shifting the responsibility onto some nebulously-defined (and possibly metaphorical) external figure.
I think this viewpoint makes it too easy to weasel out of one's responsibilities. A more mature and appropriate response would be "I did it. I did it because at the time I wanted to, I prioritised my wishes ahead of the wider consequences, and I thought I could get away with it. I'm sorry and I'll try not to do it again."
Well here you've hit upon the central doctrine of Christianity. First, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is God. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to support this, and there is sufficient evidence that the Gospels are reliable. However, I do not believe Him because of evidence. It seems strange to say, but I’ve found that I believe Him because “I was always meant to”. For me, God is just there and I can never really put my finger on Him – I’m not meant to. For a rational man, this is a difficult thing for me to describe. However as St Thomas Aquinas says, “For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without, no explanation is possible.” As Louis Armstrong says, “if you gotta ask, you’ll never know.”
Contingent on that belief is that I must necessarily trust in what He says. I can't say "yes, Jesus I believe that you are God, that You had a hand in Creating us (by whatever means You did) and saving us from our sins, but I don’t believe you when you say XYZ.” Jesus himself speaks of Satan and the Devil as an entity and He casts out devils from people. Now, I’m sure that there are lots of ideas of what this may mean, but given a choice between what God says and what Science says, I’ll go for God every time over Science – if I truly believe in God then I necessarily have no choice.
The central doctrine of Christianity is that evil exists objectively and has corrupted us from being perfect human beings, yet God Himself in Christ has provided a redemption from that evil whether it be within or without. The allegory of the Garden of Eden shows us that it is the serpent – Satan himself – who has corrupted a humanity which has been weak and succumbed to temptation. That doesn’t negate our choice to succumb to temptation, nor does it expiate our guilt of doing so any more than “I was just following orders” is an excuse from a War Criminal of any stripe. However, Christianity preaches repentance, i.e. an honest recognition of personal sin and active return to the moral code given by God, and forgiveness, i.e. the wholesale throwing aside of wrongs done and the concomitant atonement. Even the hypocrite should be forgiven as far as possible – this is most possible when he is honest. However, for the sin itself, it should be utterly abhorred. If we believe in God and that sin is that which actively separates us from Him, then sin and evil become so utterly loathsome that we should hate both with a fire and a passion. Again, the Christian has no choice.
Satan is not nebulously defined but is an archangel. Again, the materialist has big problems with the existence of angels and the idea of beings of pure spirit. I cannot help that, but then seeing that I cannot prove that anyone other than me has a soul or is even conscious I’m not going to convince anyone. To the agnostic/atheist I’m merely talking about more non-material beings whose existence is proved in sources that they won’t accept. To the Christian, this is a different matter. If you accept the premises, the conclusion is quite reasonable.
I'm not sure what we can do to resolve this, and I think there are people in both camps who behave in an ultimately counterproductive manner. I don't think the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens have really helped boost public support for atheism amongst anyone who wasn't already that way inclined anyway. And I'm not convinced that the current Pope's rigid conservatism really helps convert anyone who hadn't already made up their minds either.
I disagree. Dawkins et al have certainly had an impact among schoolchildren and the impressionable, and it is their clumsy and unpleasant rhetoric that I face from my own students (who get the other side of the coin quite vociferously) and from the shouting of the Boeotian feral children that seem to live rather close to me.
As another rigid conservative, I seek not to convert a single soul. I let God to the conversion - I only bear witness to what I believe. The Pope does the same and he and I (wretch that I am) are very largely in agreement on almost everything. One point where we differ is the validity of Anglican Orders, but then His Holiness has inherited that from Pope Leo who was given the wrong premises from which he made a logically correct but factually incorrect conclusion.
Post a Comment