Truth, continued

Yesterday and today, the Mass readings present Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, from the Gospel of John, and the well-known statement of Jesus that “‘unless one is born from above [or “born again”], he cannot see the Kingdom of God.'” Jn 3:3. Catholics understand this exchange, in which Jesus also says that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5 (NRSVCE)), to refer to Baptism. (For explanatory notes and citations about this passage’s linkage to Baptism, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible — New Testament (Ignatius Press 2010) is a good resource.)

It is an understatement to say that “Fundamentalist” Christians do not agree. To be “born again” in Fundamentalist/Evangelical parlance is to have had an experience of a conversion to Christ. Baptism merely confirms that experience; if Baptism is important, it is because Jesus commanded it (see Mt 28:19, for example), making it an “ordinance,” but of itself it effects no change in the one baptized. (Even some “mainline” churches view Baptism as merely symbolic, even if they call it a “sacrament.”) Ex opere operato is definitely not the Fundamentalist way. [https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-does-the-expression-ex-opere-operato-mean. For an interesting discussion of the view of the Reformed tradition’s rejection of the doctrine, see https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2019/01/sacramentism-ex-opere-operato-vs-calvin-37.html]

It just so happens (or, does it? Are there really “coincidences” of this kind?) that as the issue of being “born again” appears in the readings, I have been re-reading David Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic (Ignatius Press 2009). Currie’s Fundamentalist/Evangelical pedigree is impeccable: his father was a preacher and both parents taught at various times at Moody Bible Institute. The elder Curries were married by famed Protestant preacher and author A.W. Tozer. Currie was “born again” as a young teen when he publicly professed his faith in Christ and was baptized (as confirmation of his profession). As an adult, he received a degree in philosophy and entered full-time ministry in Chicago (only later to leave ministry for the business world); then he attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (“TEDS”). At that time, he began to call himself an “Evangelical,” though there was no discernible change in his theology. Significantly, while at TEDS he studied Greek with a professor who “could be ruthless in his pursuit of what the [Bible] text actually said. God help the student in his class who was sloppy in exegesis. That approach reinforced the direction of my earlier upbringing. The truth mattered.”

The truth was so important to Currie that he found himself compelled to join the Catholic Church at age forty, if not against his will, then certainly against his desires. He admits he was very satisfied with his Evangelical church experience, even giving the one he left before becoming Catholic an “A.” He knew he would lose both friends and support from within his extended family. He wasn’t sure his wife was on board. He had never been to Mass. Why resolve to make the change?

He had long been troubled by aspects of Evangelical theology that didn’t provide adequate answers to his questions or account for troublesome verses of scripture. The Catholic Church had answers and a coherent theology. His pursuit of truth compelled him:

As an Evangelical, I was convinced that truth was objective and knowable. If something was true for one person, then it was absolutely true for all. Truth had an objective character, not merely a subjective one. . . . Now I found the truth breaking into my thinking with such effectiveness that I would never be the same. At the time, I did not want to be a Catholic, but eventually I felt I had to in order to keep my intellectual integrity.

(Emphasis his.) That is tremendously powerful testimony.

As to how he was “born again” in the Church, Currie writes,

I find it more true the longer I am here: I was “born again” as a child to worship with this Church. I would have vehemently denied it at the time, but I was “born again” a Catholic. Since that childhood experience with God, I had been on the hunt for truth. Now I had found it in a totally unexpected place: the Catholic Church.

Currie writes with both clarity and charity. If conversion stories, or the tensions between Protestant and Catholic theology, are of interest to you, I highly recommend this book. (It is available to download via the FORMED platform.)

“What is truth?”

As promised, and in preparation for Good Friday, the text that follows is excerpted from Pope St. John Paul II’s Good Friday 2000 meditation on the First Station of the Cross – Jesus Is Condemned to Death, wherein Pontius Pilate asks the revealing question, “What is truth?”:

“Are you the King of the Jews?” (Jn 18:33).
“My Kingdom is not of this world; if my Kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my Kingdom is not from the world” (Jn 18:36).

Pilate said to him:
– “So you are a king?”
Jesus answered:
– “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”
Pilate said in answer:
“What is truth?”.
At this point, the Roman Procurator saw no need for further questions. He went to the Jews and told them: “I find no crime in him” (cf. Jn 18:37-38).
The tragedy of Pilate is hidden in the question: What is truth?

This was no philosophical question about the nature of truth, but an existential question about his own relationship with truth. It was an attempt to escape from the voice of conscience, which was pressing him to acknowledge the truth and follow it. When someone refuses to be guided by truth he is ultimately ready even to condemn an innocent person to death.
The accusers sense this weakness in Pilate and so do not yield. They relentlessly call for death by crucifixion. Pilate’s attempts at half measures are of no avail. The cruel punishment of scourging inflicted upon the Accused is not enough. When the Procurator brings Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, before the crowd, he seems to be looking for words which he thinks might soften the intransigence of the mob.

Pointing to Jesus he says: Ecce homo! Behold the man!
But the answer comes back: “Crucify him, crucify him!”
Pilate then tries to buy time: “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him” (Jn 19:5-7).
He is increasingly convinced that the Accused is innocent, but this is not enough for him to decide in his favour.
The accusers use their final argument: “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar” (Jn 19:12).

This is clearly a threat. Recognizing the danger, Pilate finally gives in and pronounces the sentence. But not without the contemptuous gesture of washing his hands: “I am innocent of this … blood; see to it yourselves!” (Mt 27:24).

Thus was Jesus, the Son of the living God, the Redeemer of the world, condemned to death by crucifixion.
Over the centuries the denial of truth has spawned suffering and death.
It is the innocent who pay the price of human hypocrisy.
Half measures are never enough. Nor is it enough to wash one’s hands.
Responsibility for the blood of the just remains.
This is why Christ prayed so fervently for his disciples in every age:
Father, “sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn 17:17).

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/apr-jun/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000421_via-crucis.html

More on Truth — Cautionary Tales, Both Ancient and New

All week, the theme of “truth” has leapt from the pages of the Mass readings. In Monday’s reading from Chapter 13 of Daniel, two vile “elders of the people” try to force Susanna, “a very beautiful and God-fearing woman,” to have sex with them. When she refuses they falsely accuse her of adultery and try to have her stoned to death. Daniel interrogates them separately, and he proves their lies because their stories don’t match. (Fun fact: This “Rule of Witness Exclusion” is still used in courts today. For example, in US Federal Courts, Evidence Rule 615 provides that “At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own.” State courts have their own versions of the rule.)

In Wednesday’s Gospel, Jesus states, “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (Jn. 8:31-32.) In the case of Susanna, the truth set her free quite literally. But we know that damage from lies can also be spiritual. Serious lies, distortions, and manipulations not only damage the soul of the deceiver, but they also keep the recipients from living in the truth, and can plunge them into despair, consign them to ignorance, or even cause them to sin, all great evils. He Who is Truth is our spiritual guardrail, if we would only take Him seriously and follow Him.

Catch and Kill

Which brings me to a very contemporary version of Susanna-and-the-elders, which has been playing out in New York City and Los Angeles. It has much to tell us about our media and the shaping of “truth.” As most everyone has heard, superstar movie producer Harvey Weinstein is now serving a 23-year prison sentence following his February convictions in New York for “rape” and “criminal sex act” against an aspiring actress and a production assistant, respectively. Though only currently convicted on two counts, he has been accused of mistreating many women over the course of decades. But it’s his manipulation of the media to protect himself and punish or silence his accusers that should give us all pause, because we all consume media, and we all seek the truth.

Journalist Ronan Farrow won a 2018 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service for his The New Yorker magazine articles exposing Weinstein’s predations. He revealed that actresses and assistants, including some well-known film stars, feared retaliation – industry blackballing, lost job opportunities – for opposing Weinstein. In his magazine articles and in his follow-up book Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators (Little, Brown and Company 2019), Farrow revealed Weinstein’s media manipulation techniques: circulate negative rumors and plant disparaging stories in the media, branding a woman who rejected him as “difficult” to work with or otherwise tearing her down; and/or, have a media outlet run by someone friendly to him “catch” a woman’s story by paying for exclusive rights to the account, then “kill” the story by refusing to publish it – the “Catch and Kill” of the title. (Farrow makes clear in his book that Weinstein is neither the inventor of, nor the sole beneficiary of, “catch and kill”.)

Which raises the question: What is in the news, or in media more broadly, and why is it there? And, is it true, or does is just “sound” true? Conversely, what isn’t there that should be?

“Truthiness” Is No Laughing Matter

Back in 2005, late-night comedian Stephen Colbert was looking for a word. The word, he later told The New York Times Magazine, had to be “sublimely idiotic” to fit with the bombastic alter-ego persona he would debut that night on his new show. The term he coined is “truthiness,” and it has had staying power. It even appears in some dictionaries, defined as “the quality of seeming to be true according to one’s intuition, opinion, or perception, without regard to logic, factual evidence, or the like[.]” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/truthiness But “truthiness” isn’t new. In fact, one alternative term for it might be “propaganda.”

Of course, propaganda is as old as mankind itself (viz. the Garden of Eden). And we err if we think ourselves too smart or too well-informed to fall for it. Pondering the topic of “truth” and its manipulations has prompted me to re-read Sue Ellen Browder’s powerful memoir Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women’s Movement (Ignatius Press 2015), wherein she writes about the lies — the propaganda – she told as a women’s magazine writer in the late 1960s:

The 1960s’ women’s movement . . . grew out of a genuine cry for justice. . . . The 1960s’ sexual revolution was an altogether different matter. . . . [T]he sex revolution was based largely on “half truth, limited truth, and truth out of context.” (fn) That is to say, the sex revolution was fabricated largely from propaganda. I know because I was one of the propagandists who helped sell single women on the notion that sex outside of marriage would set them free.

Effective propaganda is subtle and emotionally appealing, and she notes that “[a]s a form of withheld truth, propaganda can be 90 percent true. It’s the deceptive 10 percent that gets you.”

One of the most devastating things Browder reveals is how the tireless, truth-twisting efforts of one largely unknown man, Larry Lader, a “master propagandist,” changed the course of U.S. history. Lader’s singular focus was the legalization of abortion, and Browder describes his 1966 book of the same name as “a convoluted blend of fact and fiction so intricately interlaced only an extremely well-educated and diligent historian could pry the two apart”; furthermore, much of the legal “history” of abortion in the book was flat-out invented. Nevertheless, Lader not only “grafted abortion onto the women’s movement but five years later [his work] became a legal pillar for the Roe v. Wade decision.”

“Truthiness” is no joke.

I encourage you to read the book. I guarantee it will shock you.

Some Thoughts on Truth

It’s really striking how themes suggest themselves, then pop up everywhere I look. Since at least the turn of this new year, the theme I can’t shake is that of truth.

Of course, grounding the entire concept of truth is Jesus’ statement, “I am . . . the truth[.]” Jn. 14:6. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an extensive section on the topic of truth — ¶ 2464 and following, “Living In the Truth”. To find and to know the truth is not optional. A disciple of Christ “consents to live in the truth,” and must “abid[e] in his truth.” ¶ 2470.

The modern assault on truth has been well-rehearsed elsewhere. In this and posts to follow, I would like to highlight some books and other materials that have shed a fresh light on reality for me, that upend some of our culturally received “wisdom,” and that have expanded my understanding.

One book that did that for me, in spades, is Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, by Sarah Ruden (Image Books 2010). Ruden is a classicist who comes out of the Quaker tradition. In Paul Among the People, she has translated ancient texts, and she juxtaposes their descriptions of the society in which St. Paul lived and wrote against his epistles. She thus sheds new light on — and explodes myths about — his writings.

Here’s just one example: In 1 Cor. 11 Paul says women should pray with their heads veiled and men with theirs uncovered. This sounds horrible and sexist to the modern ear. BUT, Ruden points out that this might just be Paul exhorting the Corinthians to radical equality. How can that be? Here’s the answer she offers:

"Acts and the epistles strongly suggest that unattached women were among the early churches' most active and respected members; and would Paul or his deputies have thrown out a known prostitute from a gathering, as long as she was not there on business? . . . At the very least, there must have been among the Christians women with pasts. . . . It was against custom and perhaps even against the law for them to be veiled. . . . [But] all Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, [or] respectability[.]" 

And so, contrary to common misconception (“Paul hated women” — haven’t we all heard it?), we have Paul treating all Christian women as one, “without distinction” as to social status. “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free [and many prostitutes were slaves], there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28 (NRSV).

How about them apples?