A Spot of Fiction: Church-Going

Blogger’s Note: I started this story some time ago, then forgot about it. Just found it again tonight. I’ve loved Jodi’s home state since the first summer I spent in Wall, but whether this story could be worth something, I dunno. Jinglebob? Anyone? I don’t know where it’s headed for sure, but is it worth pursuing?

We hadn’t been married more than a few months when the old man died. I don’t say “the old man” disparagingly — the whole family called him that, with a note of respect, while he was alive. Jenny’s grandfather had been a small, quietly pious man, the son of German Catholic immigrants — not the sort of man you picture taming the broad expanses of the western Great Plains, but, more often than not, exactly the sort you find.

Arnold Schraeder was no cowboy — he herded his cattle with a grain bucket and a stick, not a horse and a rope. The boy Arnold caught bullheads in the crick that snaked through the east pasture, and snared jackrabbits in the swale north of the little three-room house his father had built from the only construction material in abundance east of the Missouri River breaks — sod. As a young man, he cut and turned that same thick sod with steel single-bottom plow behind two massive, plodding oxen, shirtless and shoeless, in his father’s old breaches too long for his short legs and too wide for his slight frame. A set of narrow suspenders kept them up, and his mother laughed and called him “a strapping young fellow.” She conversed like a native speaker in both English and German, and could sing in Latin. His father spoke English like an Indian, and knew nearly as many words in Lakota. Herman Schraeder was reticent, gruff and loving in his way — which was to give presents whenever he could. Hard candy, a harmonica, a tortoise-shell comb, dark chocolates — he was clever with what little money they had, and had a knack for getting things even in those remote surroundings.

Herman and Susanna missed church only in the very worst winter weather — when the snow blew in too deep for the cart, they walked the two miles. St. Joseph the Worker stood atop a windy hill to the west of the Schraeder place: eight short pews beneath a tiny whitewashed steeple, with a small cast iron cross above the altar and hard wooden kneelers. The family had its regular pew and its kneelers bore the marks of Herman’s faith — two shallow impressions worn smooth and polished white by prayerful knees. The wood, like the church, provided the old farmer with what he expected — humility, grace and some small measure of forgiveness. He believed he deserved nothing more.

Herman was buried four years when the local population jumped to ten families, then a dozen. The diocese authorized the construction of a new church, and Arnold (who, between morning and evening chores, swung his hammer with the rest of the men in the parish) brought the well-worn kneeler home and affixed it to the foot of his bed. The next winter, when he knelt in his skivvies to offer thank to God for his young bride, she knelt beside him, took his hand and smiled.

“It’s as Tobia and Sarah did,” she said. “‘They said together, ‘Amen, amen,” and went to bed for the night.’”

He squeezed her hand without looking away from the crucifix above the bed. She took the squeeze as affirmation, and said her own prayer of thanks for a man who knew even the lesser books of the Bible, chapter and verse. She said the Lord’s Prayer, watching him from the corner of her eye. He prayed with such urgency!

In the coming weeks Lillian Schraeder learned two things about her new husband’s faith: that although he was church-going man, he was no scholar of scripture — and that she had been his first, too.

* * * * *

Lilly was twelve years gone when Arnold passed. That second church was gone, too, or rather, converted to secular use as the favored watering hole of the younger generation of farmhands. The Mission Bar served as sanctuary and confessional for young men and women too broke to leave town and too bored to stay home. That it was somewhat seedier than the other local dives is perhaps not that surprising — considering that the owner had no qualms about converting a house of worship into a bar …

Fear of Falling Funny, Too!

Blogger’s Note: A friend recently wrote a blog post on the humor he finds in people falling down. It was not a mean-spirited piece, and inspired a lengthy comment from me. I enjoyed writing the comment enough that I decided to post it here. You can find his post at Future Priests of the Third Millenium.

I say without any ego that I rarely fall down. It is not due to natural grace in any typical sense of the notion, but rather a steadfast determination (born of years as a lesser wrestler) not to go down.

As a result, with me you see:

The Slip-Stop, in which every second or third step results in loss of footing with one foot and quick regaining with the other, like a dance with no rhythm.

The Windmill-Stomp, in which I miss a step, catch a toe, or otherwise find myself falling rapidly forward and windmilling both arms while throwing my size 13s out in front of me in grim determination to stay vertical.

The Finger-Tipper, in which my gyrations bring me close enough to falling that the fingertips of one hand are all that stands between me and utter sprawl.

The Corkscrew, in which I wind up vertical but off-center, facing some other direction that the one from which I started, and with various parts strewn about me.*

All of these can be immensely entertaining to watch, as well, judging from the response of frequent audience members such as my wife and children. And they are increasingly painful — the Windmill Stomp and Corkscrew, in particular, tend to result in pulled muscles in my neck, back and hamstrings.

I do actually hit the ground every so often. Generally it’s a Slip-Stop transformed into a reverse Windmill Stomp — much more difficult to execute backwards, especially with a Slip-Stop already underway.

When this happens, I generally pretend to make snow angels while I search the sky for my lost wind …
—–
*Like a NASCAR crash, shedding parts dissipates much of the energy your body might otherwise absorb on impact …

The Master’s Tools

By coincidence, or the act of a smiling God, I opened my journal today to the following quote from the Tao Te Ching:

Trying to control the future
is like trying to take the master carpenter’s place.
When you handle the master carpenter’s tools,
chances are that you’ll cut your hand.

This seems to speak to so many things today, including:

– my persistent worries
– my questions concerning God and faith
– my personal need to cultivate patience and obedience

Strange how the world spins sometimes …

The Problem of Certainty

Blogger’s Note: I posted a link to this blog from another blog I’m a part of – it’s generating a bit of discussion there, too. Click here to view those comments.

As a both church-going Christian and a student of evolutionary theory, one of the things that bugs me is a tendency among the non-religious to hold science up as Truth (with a capital T) – as though the prevailing theories in any field hold the weight of undisputed fact. Science is a way of attempting to understand the world around us based on what we can see and measure. It gives us possible explanations (often extremely well-founded) for why things work the way they do – think gravity – as well as tantalizing glimpses of what may be humanly possible.

But while science can give us a reasonable – and often likely and compelling – explanation of what is happening in the world, it can’t tell us what should be happening. And often, scientists are the very people who crack the unbreakable nuts and show how limited our understanding really is.

So while science often appears to bring us close to the truth, I’d argue it can’t give us Truth in terms of moral guidance. That comes from elsewhere – from a faith tradition, perhaps, or a family tradition, or our own discernment. (The faithful often argue that all three of these sources, if they succeed in leading us to Truth, flow from God – but that notion finds little traction with the atheists of the world.)

I’ve talked to a number of religious folks who feel this way – that the certainty and truth of science is overstated and “over-weighted” in public discourse and public policy. I wouldn’t disagree – in fact, the news story this week that scientists have succeeded in reconstructing an organism’s genetic material essentially from scratch and are now a step closer to engineering entirely new life forms is a prime example of science getting way ahead of the greater good.

But the problem of certainty runs both directions – and it’s here that I really struggle. My more devout friends speak with similar certainty about the teachings of the church and the path to salvation – a level of certainty my inner skeptic regarding both scientific and religious understanding just can’t muster.

The frustration deepens when I’m told (alternately, and sometimes collectively) that the answer is constant prayer and continued study, that I’m at a particular point in my “faith journey” that requires me to press on through my misunderstanding or confusion, or that I need to give up the notion that I can achieve grace on my own. And the problem is emphatically not that I’ve “hardened my heart” to accepting these ideas – rather, it’s that all of these responses ring true to me, but fail to address my fundamental question: How can all of these people be so sure that they’re right?

Let be clear: I don’t think they (or I) can be sure. I think that’s what faith is for – to enable us to believe that which isn’t certain or obvious from our limited human perspective. But increasingly, I encounter fellow Catholics who speak with enviable certainty about what is right and just and True – and the foundation for their certainty appears to be the Catholic Church itself.

The Catholic Church has a deep intellectual tradition that appeals to me on many levels – it’s one of several reasons I’m here today. (And believe me, I’m no Catholic scholar at this point.) But the Church is also, I believe, an institution shepherded imperfectly by regular people like you and me, and it offers one of several compelling ways to see the world. I’ve explored some of the other ways, and they appeal to me as well; in fact, their amazing similarities to our faith tradition have led me to a deeper Catholic faith as well as a broader understanding and acceptance of people who believe differently.

I do believe that certain things are black and white, right and wrong, but most (if not all) of these issues transcend any one specific religion. The questions I’m asking today are, how is Catholic certainty different than so-called scientific certainty? How is citing scripture or doctrine or the Pope anything more than a better-footnoted version of a cradle Catholic’s response, “That’s what I was taught”? And why, in the face of the Church’s long history, thorough teachings, and deep faith, are there still many arguments about what it all means?

I guess I’m struggling with the balance between discernment of Truth and acceptance of Truth. I feel – possibly incorrectly – that many of my faithful friends skew toward acceptance of Truth as revealed through the Church. This strikes me, frankly, as dangerous – not because the Church has any overarching ill intent, but because someone needs to “watch the watchers.” Even Christ warned against devotion to misled leaders and misapplied rules at the expense of doing real good in the world. We have to discern what is right – and maybe it won’t jive with what our leaders tell us. He came not just to unite, but to divide, as I recall. And I guess I’m just prideful enough to think that maybe a layperson could be fortunate and discerning enough to catch a glimpse of Truth that the Church has yet to see (or, at least, to widely share).

I get the feeling, though, that discernment makes some people nervous, because it could potentially lead a soul away from the Church’s teachings, and thus, the Church itself. In my case, however, over time it has nearly always led me deeper into the Church and its teachings. (And on the occasions it hasn’t, I’m still praying and discussing the issues with those who are willing.)

Nearly all of my comments (and my only previous posting) on the blog A View From the Catholic Trenches have centered around this idea from a past priest of mine: that God gave me the head on my shoulders, and as long I used it in an honest and continuous attempt to seek the Truth, I’d be alright. I believe he was right (not because it’s comforting or easy; the self-examination this requires is often neither) and I believe that, whether we’re seeking forgiveness of our sins or revelation in Medjugorje, we need to be open to Truth but also constantly aware of the limits of our own understanding and that of the lovably imperfect people around us. None of us should assume that we (as individuals or as a Church) have cornered the market on Truth. Even if you believe your path is best path, ask yourself, is it the only path? (And then ask, if it’s not the only path, how can I be sure it’s the best?)*

For me, there is great wisdom and honesty in the prayerful uncertainty expressed in the passage from … Mark, is it? “Lord, I believe; help me with my unbelief.” As I said in a comment yesterday, keep your eyes open and your God-given wits about you. Always.

—–

*For even more fun, think about this notion of paths from the standpoint of different Catholics within the Catholic Church, not just between faith traditions!

What Makes a Poem a Poem?

As a serious contribution to the long-running “What is a poem?” discussion between me and my good friend Jinglebob, let me tell y’all my thinking in writing the haikuish thing I posted earlier this week – keeping in mind I tossed it off in less than an hour and I never claimed to be a poet, only that I dabble in poetry, so what I intended may not have come through.

I’m driving home the other night – long commute – and come off the freeway to see this big full moon as bright white as can be in our clear, black, sub-zero atmosphere. And I’m thinking about friends I have scattered around the country, and then remembering when I was back East and trying not to miss my future wife in South Dakota – and how I used to find strange comfort in the notion that we could both look at the same moon – even talk about it from essentially the same perspective – and it made us seem closer.

Then I thought about the last week or so – I’ve been writing a ton and have spent a lot of time in the same house with Jodi, but not at all with her – like, I’m barely seeing her even though we spend most of our time in close proximity.

It’s strange how distance and togetherness are two different things, don’t you think?

So the great fun (to me) of haiku is to attempt to convey that in 5-7-5 syllables, with solid descriptive details, usually of a natural scene.

I played around with all of the words I used, plus words to convey the coldness of the night, the vast expanse of distance, etc. – but syllables come at a premium. This is like espresso poetry – concentrated!

“Distance” is kind of a math and science word – not very poetic to me. So I went with “together” – which is actually a good set-up for the romantic aspect of the haiku. I thought of the inspiration – the shared view of the moon – and thought “the moon between us” – then I thought, “nothing but the moon between us” – but that conjured a funny image in my head, of two people with a big orb keeping them apart.

But the phrase “nothing between us” after “together” conjures thoughts of lovers. That’s nice!

So “together: nothing/between us except the moon” – that’s pretty good: moonlight and lovers, and you haven’t given away the deeper thing you’re trying to convey yet.

But the imagery is a little hazy – what was the overwhelming detail of the moon I saw? It was more or less full, and it was so dark outside. Full is a good descriptor, but picture a full moon. Got it? Now picture a white moon – got it? When I pictured a full moon, the overwhelming detail was roundness. When I pictured a white moon, the overwhelming detail was brightness (which by nature calls attention to darkness) – a white moon, to me, calls to mind a darker night.

But I’m spending syllables too fast, and “except” is an ugly word. I can save a syllable with “save,” which is also a more romantic word. So “together: nothing/between us save the white moon” – better.

Now for the kicker – the truth that these lovers are not together at all, except in their thoughts.

“together: nothing/between us save the white moon” and what? “the frozen miles” came to mind, because its so damn cold here – but that has no bearing and doesn’t convey a sense of enormity. It could just be two frozen miles, in which case, jump in your car and go …

How about “and the long dark miles”? Nah – we already established “dark” with the white moon, and “long miles” is unnecessarily redundant – it doesn’t add much. “Lonely,” though – now that adds a sense of enormity – you’re all alone, miles from the one you love – and is a nice contrast to “together.”

So:

together: nothing
between us save the white moon
and the lonely miles

Hmm. “The” is another ugly (and abrupt) word, but necessary sometimes. Something else bugs me, though – “the white moon” makes it sound like it’s just some moon – any ol’ moon, any ol’ night – that happens to be white, and it isn’t. This is about a shared experience – a moon that both lovers see – a specific moon. It’s about “this moon.” The lonely miles – well, they’re countless – but tonight, there is only this one white moon.

Thus,

together: nothing
between us save this white moon
and the lonely miles

And then I thought, “together: nothing” looks odd, like I was trying to say something about those two words. It looks like a ratio (X:Y) – when this is supposed to be a definition of sorts. So I capped the initial “t” and called it good.

Together: nothing
between us save this white moon
and the lonely miles

A fair amount of thought went into it. If, when you read it, you saw a white moon in a big dark sky, and got the idea that someone was thinking fond thoughts of someone else far away, you “got” the idea. If you thought about it a moment longer, and it felt a little bittersweet (nothing between your skin and mine but more miles than we can count), you got the poem.

If you didn’t, you’re probably perfectly sane, and I think too much and write too poorly! Thoughts?