The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

Bob Dylan wrote this for his The Times They Are A Changin album. I owned it for years and don't remember hearing this song too often. It's on his fairly new 1975 live CD, and it made me interested again. It's a reminder of why the Church gets involved in issues of justice. This is a true story of a rich plantation owner who killed a black servant in 1963 because she brought him his drink too slowly.

----
William Zanzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll
With a cane that he twirled around his diamond ring finger
At a Baltimore hotel society gath'rin'.
And the cops were called in and his weapon took from him
As they rode him in custody down to the station
And booked William Zanzinger for first-degree murder.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.


William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of Maryland,
Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
& swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling,
In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.


Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.
She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten children
Who carried the dishes and took out the garbage
And never sat once at the head of the table
And didn't even talk to the people at the table
Who just cleaned up all the food from the table
And emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,
Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a cane
That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.
And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.


In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal & that the courts are on the level
& that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak,
most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.

Copyright © 1964; renewed 1992 Special Rider Music

"Renewing Worship" the Modernist Way
the Article (this is a .PDF)

Every time a new hymnal or prayer book comes out, it is bound to offend a few  people. The choices can be hard for a committee, and no matter what hymns they choose, someone will be offended. There will be errors of omission and commission. While I sympathize with the Lutherans who put together the new "Renewing Worship Songbook," I also am extremely
suspicious of their methodology. They have obviously bought into the theories of radical inclusive language, which I will illustrate below. This is one reason why I am glad to be released from the grip of the mainlines: my weariness of constant liturgical revisions dictated by academic trends. Please don't think I am some kind of hidebound. Being connected to Academia, I know that liturgical revision is often undertaken simply because academic trends dictate them, rather than a demand from laypeople, or on account of any good catholic theological rationale. Liturgical revision is often an exercise in modernist "superiority," whereby any text written before the 1960s must be "corrected" based on modern secular ideals. The cultural egotism and arrogance involved are staggering, that somehow we are so enlightened simply on account of our birth dates that we have the privilege... er ...mandate to fix writings that came before us. Thus a prayer like "Praise the Lord," a basic praise of God going back at least 2500 years, must be changed because of so-called enlightenment of the last 30 years. The Trinitarian formula "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," ancient and the standard for over 1900 years, is changed to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" because a vast minority of 20th and 21st century ears get offended by masculine language. And often what is apropos changes quickly. Soon "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" will be deemed inappropriate because they too are masculine. Perhaps something like this will emerge: Creatress, Redemptress, and (I don't know the feminine equivalent of sanctifier). Either way there are serious theological issues with ridding our texts of masculine words, and words like "Lord" and "King," and then replacing them with impersonal words like "creator" and "redeemer."

I will let you read the article for yourselves, but I will highlight a few changes. "Praise to the Lord" becomes "Sing praise to God," because "Lord" is supposedly oppressive (despite God's Lordship being one of servanthood...this is what happens when even liturgical committees are affected by poor catechesis). "All Creatures of Our God and King," a favorite of mine, becomes "All Creatures of Our God Most High." Even St. Francis is not safe from being revised I guess. Besides being culturally elitist and theologically innovative, inclusive language creates some very awkward poetry. For instance "give Him praise" becomes "give praise." Theologically and poetically these two phrases are very different. The former is standard English, the latter is a
little iffy. For instance, let's compare the two sentences "the teacher gave praise to her" and "the teacher gave praise." The latter seems incomplete and seems to demand an object. Another example is in a fully inclusive Bible version, to be used for liturgy (the name esacpes me), which speaks of Christ giving self, not giving "himself" but simply "self." Even with my education in classics and literature, I still ask, "what the hell does that even mean?" I guess it strikes me as strange that in order to "include" more people, we change liturgies to such awkward and non-standard English that most people can't even understand them.

I guess this blog entry is to express my "hands thrown up in the air," exhausted, and wearied attitude I have toward the mainlines. When confronted with all of these trends I am left with one ancient phrase, "Lord have mercy!" Or should that be "God have mercy...?" Hmmm.

Which 20th Century Pope Are You Most Like?

Have Fun! My results are below:


You are Pope John Paul II. You are a force to be
reckoned with.


Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

I have recently broken up with a long-term girlfriend, after nearly 3 years of being together. I also am soon to be "broken up" with the Anglican Church, going my separate way, after nearly 5 years of being together. Neither has been easy, but both are undeniably necessary.

Break-ups are hard, but there often comes a point when two people, or a person and an organization, are going in two completely different directions. They no longer have a point of common unity, and the result is bitterness. Rather than stay and remain in constant battle, it is better for both parties just to part in an amicable way, not harboring unreasonable anger, and go where each must. This is what has happened in both of my "break-ups."

As far as my break-up with my girlfriend, I have learned a few very important things. While relationships cannot always be exciting, or even ever-stimulating, there has to exist a common vision for unity. When a man and a woman wed, both (I hope) see the sacrament of marriage as a point of unity, the sacramental rite being the glue of the relationship so to speak. When they continue in the life of the Church, the Eucharist is not only is a sign of communion among them, Jesus, and the Church, but is in a way, a continual sign of the married couple's unity in Christ. Even though dating or courting couples are not bound by the sacrament of marriage, the Eucharist can still be a very strong point of unity, even if both are partaking Eucharist in separate congregations (because of the universality of all Eucharists...Nominalists be damned!). I was in a relationship with a girl, who while a good person, did not accept this premise, and in fact at times seemed to be downright opposed to this understanding of Church and Communion. It is no surprise; she came from a congregationalist background. The lesson? Only start romantic relationships with those who value those things you value deeply. I can take or leave car color, or little things like that. If my girlfriend and I disagree over that, who cares? But when we cannot agree on the things that are most important to both of us, we will never last. This type of thing can usually be seen in the beginnings of relationships, we just often ignore them because "any relationship is better than none" I guess. I ignored these signs quite clearly, pretending that nothing was the matter, or that eventually (even though the evidence was strongly against this) she would come to my understanding of it all.

My break-up with Anglicanism has been, believe it or not, somewhat more difficult than my relationship break-up. I think because I have been Anglican longer, and have spent some of my best years defending the church against its detractors, not to mention pursuing ordination at one point. I realized that, like in my former personal relationship, I was somewhat blind to my surroundings. I used to think that someday the laypeople in the pews would arise against the liberal hierarchy, and that the consecration of Gene Robinson would be just the spark needed. And now three years later, we find that instead of the Episcopal church just seeming to be another declining mainline Protestant denomination, it actually is just another declining mainline Protestant denomination. I used to think that England would hold us together and could be looked to for guidance amidst all of ECUSA's nuttiness. Recent actions by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury have proved to me otherwise. Then I had hopes of a new Anglican Church in America, but now that the orthodox in ECUSA can't even agree on the path to pursue, I think its just time to part now.

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, who is now Orthodox attending a Roman Catholic Church, and he brought up how reactionary he became when he was in the Episcopal Church. It was really quite contrary to his nature. I noted the same phenomenon within me. Naturally I am quite calm and reasoned, but after being bombarded by a constant barrage of non-Christian activity by my own church, every little issue became a battle. Once he broke off the relationship he had with ECUSA he could see much more clearly and faithfully. This shows that break-ups are not necessarily bad, and in fact, can actually be better for both parties. Neil Sedaka sang that breaking up is hard to do, and he is right to a degree, but I am kind of excited about the possibilities. I am confident that I will soon be entering a good relationship with the Catholic Church, and maybe later (or sooner, who knows?) I will find a woman who shares my love of the ancient faith. By the way, happy Independence Day for my US readers.

Catholic Bishops Need to Step It Up Against Pedophile Priests

http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/catholicism/index.html

Let me say as I write this, I am probably soon joining the Catholic Church, and would be classified as a traditional Catholic who accepts Vatican II, so I am not a raving liberal (nor a member of the SSPX). It seems the Catholic sex abuse scandal has now become international, and we have more cases of bishops shifting abusive priests and even hiding them from the law. This is, of course, intolerable behavior, that needs to be effectively tackled and ended, with a comprehensive program designed and enforced by the Vatican. The American Bishops have taken great steps and now have a "zero-tolerance" policy, however, worldwide, I do not believe we have such safeguards.

There are of course many reasons why we need a strong and comprehensive policy to deal with this issue. First we must think of the poor victims. Such behavior is not only physically and sexually abusive, but it is also spiritually abusive. Bishops and priests are representatives of Christ and His Church, and as such bear his name. When a father molests a child, the person molested often has a negative view of fatherhood, or the family in general, because the abuse by the father has shaped the psyche so effectively. When the a priest is involved in molestation, or a bishop covers it up, we cause children to stumble, something that Jesus warned us against so harshly. The Church and Christ become associated with the heinous acts of molestation.

Also, we must think of the Church. In the United States we have a history of bigoted anti-Catholicism. Some of it subtle, some not so subtle. The Church's behavior needs to be above reproach, for this reason, and because the Church is in the line of the Apostles. I am worried that we will have to apologize later for not acting now. Now we have the chance. This has also been a chance for many to change the issue, and use this as a springboard to advocate for pet causes like women's ordination. Really the issue is not about women's ordination or even married priests (which is a discipline issue anyway, not doctrinal, and many Catholics worldwide, the Eastern Catholics, have married priests), but about errant priests who have not been properly handled.

To deal with the issues, I think we must be vigilant and offer programs to prevent this sort of thing. We must also not convince ourselves that it's really "no big deal." It IS a big deal. So, why not take every chance we get to educate the laity and clergy on this issue? Why not offer programs in Sunday School classes and have mandatory yearly classes at Catholic schools explaining and showing ways to spot sexual abuse, whether happening to yourself or others? And why not make this mandatory worldwide? If we train children and adults to recognize when this deviant behavior occurs, how to respond, and offer a way to report this abuse, we can reduce the number of deviant acts and restore faith in the priesthood and hierarchy to those who have lost it. Of course, this should not simply be a prescription for the Catholic Church, but for ALL Churches, seeing as how sexual abuse is a problem in every church, much of it still hidden. To blame the Catholic Church alone is to miss the point, and to fall back on the mindless anti-Catholicism that still permeates American society. And these interventions would also spill over and hopefully reduce the sexual abuse rate in the home (which is where it actually occurs most commonly).

I am probably going to be Roman Catholic in the Fall, for a variety of reasons. However, that does not mean I feel as if this issue has been handled adequately, despite my growing acceptance and admiration of Roman Catholic doctrinal and social teaching. I hope that the Vatican initiates a strong program to deal with this issue, realizing that ignoring it, or mishandling it, is causing many "little ones" to stumble and is hurting the image of the Church. Boston's Archdiocese recently closed 65 Churches mainly because of this very issue. The gospel and mission of Christ are hindered when priests molest children, and when bishops cover for their behavior. The only response is a strong one. As a side note, we must continue to be Christian in our handling of this issue. We must still recognize that child-molesters may be forgiven, but that proper penance for such behavior is to make civil and ecclesial restitution for the behavior, which includes jail civilly and defrocking ecclesially. As for the bishops who cover these things up, if they remain bishops, they should spend the rest of their lives making right the wrong situations they helped cause. I pray for the Catholic Church as she deals with this issue. She WILL emerge intact, it is just a question of how quickly and adequately it will be handled.

New Stab at Bible Translation a Hack Job

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623.shtml

There has been a slurry of Bible translations released recently, mostly from conservative Evangelical quarters. Most differ very little, except stylistically. However now the mainline liberals are getting in on the act, and we have a new "relevant" and "earthy" translation released by One For Christian Renewal, a group that employs plenty of buzz-words, and even invites the reader into the land of sap to make "Origami Peace Cranes." They also have illusions (delusions) that there will be "another Nicaea" called by the World Council of Churches, because "we need a new creed without myth" which has been the battle-cry of the now-60-something mainline liberals for some time. What they fail to realize is that the Nicene Creed will be around long after they will be, and that there is no crisis of belief for most Christians, mostly just upper-class, older, mainliners. Of course, since they have undertaken to replace the creed, why not replace the Bible? This seems to be what the "One" translation does based on the excerpts provided by a sympathetic webpage (linked to above). For instance, Paul's admonitions against extra-marital sex are removed and readers are told to do the exact opposite. It is kind of like changing Socrates' popular adage "the life unexamined is a life not worth living" to "an unexamined life is simply way cool dude!"

We've heard the story before. We need to "demythologize" the Bible, get rid of all of the hard stuff it contains, that way it will be more accessible. This includes any masculine language or high ethical ideals that conflict with secular culture. This line of reasoning is not new, and was advocated by Thomas Jefferson, Rudolph Bultmann, and "bishops" Robinson (J.A.T., not Gene) and Spong. Jefferson probably took the most honest approach: just simply delete the offending passages. It is only the late-modern person who sees the need to rewrite or mistranslate the text. This may be because the late-modern person is so "enlightened" that he or she has the right...no...the obligation to correct and emend the writings of those "unenlightened" souls who had the misfortune of being born before 1920. How this mistranslating or correcting is any different from medieval scribes "correcting" scripture in the transmission of the texts is beyond me.

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury supports this new translation and offers praise for it. I wonder if he would support "inclusivizing" other classical works, like the Socrates example above? Maybe we should draw more women on the walls of the Sistine chapel? Davinci's "Last Supper" doesn't have enough minorities and is not "earthy" enough, let's repaint it. Why? Because, like the Bible, according to Archbishop Williams, it is too "specialized" for the average person to appreciate. Plus, we have the right, don't we? We are modern people after all!

There used to be a time when converts to Christianity were "brought up" to the level of Christian truth, and invited to participate in the timeless mystery that is Christian Truth and Ethics. The Bible (along with Tradition) was the guidebook to this Truth, difficult passages and all. Now it seems every chance is being taken to create a Christianity that is palatable only to the blandest and most secular of Academics. The Anglican Communion has succumbed to this type of thinking at the highest and lowest of levels. The only consolation is that this translation will probably be viewed as just another novelty. Most believers worldwide are too traditional, and most academics are too scholarly to use it as a serious translation. I guess that leaves mainline clergy, who continue to convince themselves of their relevance while the mainlines die right before their eyes. The situation is like the Captain of the Titanic, practically swimming in the approaching waters, continuing to proclaim the unsinkability of his ship. I suppose if the philosophy behind this Bible translation were a commodity it would be "New Coke." And the Coca-cola company would be faring about as well as the mainlines had it stuck with "New Coke" this long.

Running Outside and the Catholic Faith
Wanna Hear This? Click Here to hear it in MP3 format
Size: 1.09 MB; Length: 4:46; Background: "My Marie" by Gene Clark

I like to run. Usually I end up running 3-4 times a week, if not more. I don't just go out and perform the physical act of running though. Running, while (obviously) the central reason why I get out to "run," is not the entire picture. Let me explain.

I almost always run outside when the weather cooperates. I try to run on the trails at the local State Park, at the local floodwall that runs past the Scioto River, or over the hills behind the rural High School 2 miles from my home. As I run, I take in the changes of the seasons, the scenery, the animals that wander by, and the flowers that blossom. I observe the purple flowers of spring, and the painted rows of white stinging nettles as summer comes to a close. I smell the blooming Dogwoods in the spring, the green grasses in the summer, and the rotting apples in the fall. Even winter in its sparseness has a distinct smell. I even try to get a tan when its sunny. I usually carefully pick out a CD to listen to on the way over, as I roll the windows down and enjoy a slower-than-usual drive to the running destination. I often pray when I run, or think about theological issues, like how after the Incarnation all the world was redeemed and sanctified. I have picked up snow many times and commented on how it is "redeemed snow." Other times I just think of past relationships, good and bad. When I run with my brother, we usually talk about these same things. So as you can see, when I go out to "run" it is something far more than just moving my legs above 3 miles-per-hour. It is a whole experience and something rich and meaningful that would be missed if "running" simply meant just the physical act itself.

My point? Well, the Christian faith is like this. There are sparse options and there are full options, just like there is "just running" and there is "my running." We can just have "me and Jesus," as many Protestant churches embrace. We can have white walls, and God confined between Genesis and Revelation. We can have a faith divorced from sacrament and symbol, divorced from the people and places of history. We can have it sparse I guess. I cannot judge the salvation of those who keep it sparse, seeing as the Church is a mystery. However, this little personal illustration explains why I am drawn to the Catholic Faith (and I include the Orthodox, and much of classical Anglicanism in this too, although I am heading Romeward). I want the fullness of Christianity. I want candles, sacraments, stained-glass, icons, statues, incense, holy-water, liturgy, history, mystery, and more. I don't want them because I want to somehow replace Christ, rather I want them because I want to know and experience Christ in all His fullness. Granted, these externals possibly could distract me from Christ (as the scenery could potentially distract me from running), but they have never yet done that. Rather they have enhanced my relationship with Christ, because they are not only fully in accord with Christ, but have been given by the Holy Spirit through the Church to help us experience Christ more deeply and profoundly. Because of the deep meaning, I crave the liturgy. I crave the Eucharist, just like (in a different way) I crave getting out and "running." I suppose I could get by without the fullness of the Faith, or by running inside (which I do during the deep winter), but who wants to "just get by" when you can have the full package??