Its a really pretty song to listen to and is a sweet song of a man's love for a girl, however, the song only works (at least in terms of lyrics) through its agnostic tone. I mean the song is a love song, but it isn't exactly a song you dedicate to your girlfriend. It revolves around death and the nothingness that ensues. The whole point is that while life after death is dismal and unknown, the love of the narrator will remain constant and will "follow her into the dark"
I can just picture the horrified face of my girlfriend if I were to dedicate the song to her as it opens with "someday you will die"... how sweet? The song is no doubt complicated. Which I admit I like. However, I can't help notice the narrator's (assumedly Ben Gibbard, but being an English major I can't assume this is the case) dissatisfaction with his formal ties to the "light" of the afterlife-that being Catholicism.
This is a really common occurrence, but I can sort of see why. Today's society is progressive and tends to throw away the traditional. Catholicism is archaic in many ways. It takes a long time to shift with the common culture, yet isn't this the way it should be? Modern culture is full of fads and trends. It isn't culture that should shape religion, but religion that should shape culture. Religion is counter-culture by nature so its no wonder that the modern culture tends to reject a religion that is trying to remain true to the 2000+ years of theology and tradition while staying pertinent and relevant to today. It is no doubt a tricky balance.
While I am Catholic and passionate about the Catholic church, I will not use this blog to proclaim the truth of the Catholic church. I have my reasons for converting to the church. Instead, I just want to reflect on the problem that is happening within faith systems everywhere-that is, society's ease in turning from their beliefs. I bump in the road isn't turning into an obstacle to get over but a place to U turn. I suppose I see this happening a lot in Catholicism because of all the "rules" that people are unreceptive to AND a mistake to place their opinion of Catholicism solely on one poor example or experience. Just as in the song, the nun tells the narrator that "fear is the heart of love... so I never went back." People are hyper-sensitive to the hypocrite factor and the "fire and brimstone" side of religion. Belief and respect aren't garnered by scarring people or by poor examples. One of my room mates was raised Catholic and turned his back on it when he discovered some kids doing drugs on the back of a bus en route to a retreat. Undoubtedly, these instances are discouraging, but such cases really shouldn't dictate our own beliefs. I feel like people's beliefs have lost its backbone to individualism. Society tells us to do what is good for us. It is a selfish attitude. Religion (most every one that I can think of) teaches self sacrifice. It is about community, love, connectedness. If our spiritual beliefs are challenged, shouldn't we say "no, that is wrong... or I don't agree with that"? When someone says Catholicism is all about gross repetition and hypocritical machines, should I run away to hide from the allegations? Its easy to run from what seems to be if you aren't sure of what really is. Yes, I absolutely agree that Catholicism has many guidelines, and cradle Catholics who don't have a faith outside their rehearsed prayers on Sundays, but this isn't the substance of the faith. A faith is the people, both good examples and bad examples of it. A faith will naturally have guidelines by which our lives should seek accordance. Is this all there is though? Of course not. The heart of the matter is in the heart of the believer. The wheat must be taken with the chaff. You must step back and look at not just the bad examples, but also the good examples and ask yourself, what are all these people getting at? Everybody is coming from a different place. Belief and faith aren't always constant, but will flux throughout a person's life. But everybody is gathered in that place for a reason. That is when you look into the fundamentals of the church, not just the make up of the outside. You can't just say I don't like this particular teaching and say I've had enough. What value is there in dismissing something because it isn't in your immediate understanding or liking? Since when was God easily understood or his ways the most favorable? It is a harder route. I think the key question one must ask themselves when struggling with a spiritual or church teaching is why? Don't make a hasty or uninformed decision. Ask why? Active doubt and disbelief are the two driving forces to a more fruitful spiritual understanding. The problem isn't doubt, the problem is laziness-complacency. I think that faith really comes down to taking a microscope to one's own heart and then turning it around to get a view of the church in its larger scope and mission. The procedure today is rather opposite it seems: scrutinize the church for faults without ever reflecting inward. Logic and passion must have equal footings.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." - GK Chesterton
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - GK Chesterton
No comments:
Post a Comment