david and dora
While rereading David Copperfield, I was once again struck by David's fascination and love for Dora when his obvious match mentally and emotionally is Agnes. Not there there is anything wrong with Dora--she is loving and kind and certainly endeavors to become something better than she is--yet, it is very apparent that David cannot connect with or converse with Dora on level at which he can with Agnes. In fact, reading it as a more mature person than I was the previous time, it is obvious to me that his truly deep and founded love is not for Dora at all, but is from a very early time for Agnes. So what is it that draws David to Dora? Certainly her beauty has much to do with it, and combined with her lightness of person and the fact that his early meetings with her are all under lovely conditions rather than real world circumstance, I suppose that makes for powerful persuasion. Of course, not being a guy, I'm sure I don't have a total grasp of it all, but still. I suppose it strikes me at this point more than ever because of a situation I see unfolding before me. This one hits close to home for me as the young man concerned is one of my students. I have seen him learn to exercise his reason, to think through the facts presented and make applications, to ponder, to search out truth. I have heard him answer very reasonably why Dante, while breilliant, was in doctrinal error (perhaps you see one of the directions this is going already). Yet now, I see him making two unreasoned decisions and passionately persuing them. The first is, to me, the most important, exp. since I believe the second stems from this first: a desire to join the Catholic Church. Now, before I offend anyone, my wariness comes not so much from the desire itself (though I, personally, believe the RC deviates from scripture in some important areas)--his life is his own to direct. I understand that. My problem with this desire, and my disappointment with his choice, comes from the motivations. These motivations, though he lists them out as several points, boil down to this: an emotional response to several experiences that made him feel part of a group, and a belief that an encounter with Christ had everything to do with Liturgy rather than personal humility of spirit. I have neither seen nor heard any evidence pointing to him examining the doctrine and teachings of the RC and finding himself in agreement with them. In fact, he seems to have very little knowledge of what the Church teaches. That bothers me. The majority of his encounters with the RC have come from a charismatic youth retreat centered around experience and emotion rather than factual teaching. He even argued with my sister about the existence of more than one type of Catholic service (ie: traditional, charasmatic, orthodox Latin, etc.). His response to her query as to what type of congregation he was considering joining was, "There's only one Catholic Church." True on the surface, but charismatic Catholics are very different from the conservative Catholics who still prefer the high service in Latin. If he were making a reasoned, informed choice, I would be less anxious...but I believe I've already mentioned that.
The other decision more factually mirrors the David/Dora dilemna, but flows directly out of the above issue. He's met a girl. In fact, he met her at this year's retreat, a week ago. Suffice it to say he barely knows her. He's already asked her out. The reason he likes her is that she's "amazing." When asked what he likes about her, "She's amazing." You get the picture. I have a strong suspicion that one of the "amazing" things about her is her Catholicism. In fact, lately I have noticed a trend that the only girls he mentions as being really godly and loving God are Catholic girls. Granted, "amazing" girl may be great--but how can he know from a handful of conversations, mostly, apparently, about catholicism. It seems rather like he's latching on to her because she's there and catholic, and he is now rather obsessed with the ideal of the RC. Perhaps I'm overly worried. I don't know. I just hate to see one of my kids jumping out of the boat with no life-jacket and no real understanding of why. I sense a disillusioned end looming on the horizon. I could be wrong; but, I'm always nervous when reasoned thought is excluded from the decision making process. Especially in the realm of such important decisions.
Comments
renee....what's your denom background? any crusade in there?
Posted by: shawn | June 30, 2006 07:19 AM
Not Catholic. Although my Dad's side of the family is Catholic, including a nun. I don't agree with several key aspects of Catholic teaching. The thing is, I have yet to hear anything from this young man that indicates he knows there is a difference between Protestant teaching and Catholic teaching. I hate to go into too much detail out of respect for his privacy, but suffice it to say that when I asked him why he wanted to join the Catholic Church, the answer was severely lacking in actual reasons and amounted to an experience in which he felt God wanted him to just accept all the teaching of the RC, don't worry about it. I'd be bothered by that even if he were just switching from Baptist to Presbyterian. I just don't think he really knows what he's getting into.
Posted by: renee | June 30, 2006 09:19 AM
well...i only ask because, for the longest time, i subscribed to the "fact, faith, feeling" thing, but then a seminary professor of mine (Richard Pratt at RTS Orlando)completely debunked that idea, stating that at least as often in scripture as otherwise, feelings are the motivator, so you have that train with each car at the beginnin, the end and the middle, depending on where you're reading.
so, i felt that your primary objection to the kid's motives were that they weren't cognitively driven *coughsoundspresbyteriantomecough*, and so were therefore invalid--or at LEAST highly suspect. of course, i'd agree that having a more well-founded motive is *good*, but we as reformed types who only (hyperbole) read paul's letters(and, i'm assuming here that you're in that vein; i may be wrong) have put an excessively heavy emphasis on cognitional assent, and have an underdeveloped theology of experience and religious ecstasy (even though paul's letters have a lot of feeling-stuff in them). therefore, you and i would look at this kid's experience and say "so what?", while a more charasmatic christian would say "what else do you need?", but a more intelligently ecumenical christian would say "good...let's embrace that and add to it."
maybe a big question is: do you believe that catholocism is valid, real, christianity? for me: i'd say that there are some things that i certainly disagree with, but i see them as more ancillary points than foundational.
of course, if you can't say that, then you'd have a big problem with his catholic leanings.
Posted by: shawn | June 30, 2006 10:02 AM
Those are some great points. I've been around and back again on the roles of intellect and emotion in faith. I think I'm coming to a place of balance at this point. I have no problem with emotional experience, and I do believe that emotion can lead a Christian to the right place, although I used to be very distrustful of emotional experience. But, I do think it's very necessary to examine the facts sometime, especially when you're contemplating a move from a basically baptistic point to joining the Catholic Church. As far as Catholicism being valid Christianity, I don't even know anymore. The basic truth is there, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of grace being received specifically through the Sacraments. It certainly seems to lay a heavy weight on what is done in relation to salvation. I don't think excludes Catholics from being Christians, though. Hmm. You have given me something to think about, that's for sure.
Posted by: renee | June 30, 2006 01:13 PM
didja mull it over at all over the long weekend?
ready to excommunicate the kid? :)
i hung out with some high school kids this weekend, and some college age ones. (i volunteered with a high school ministry for a few years, and really love high school kids). one thing i remembered was just how naturally fickle/flighty they are when it comes to relationships, and i'm not so sure that that's a bad thing (i don't buy the 'dating is bad' stuff). my thought: yeah, he might not have a great *reason* why he likes dora, but he just does. my wife and i are not perfect complements in every area, but that's why we've got a community of friends around us--sometimes she wants to be all chatty and giggly, and that's not really my deal, so she can hang out with her friends for the afternoon...sometimes i want to fish, and that's not her deal. so...this chickadee's catholic, and your boy likes her: let 'em hang out, and see how it goes.
i'm so laissez faire....*shrug*.
Posted by: shawn | July 5, 2006 07:26 AM
ah, laissez faire.
Well, frankly he won't let anyone question him about either issue at this point, so I'm forced to just let it be. The thing with this girl is that she's about number six in about a month and a half. He's never done this kind of thing before. I don't know. At any rate, at this point anyone who questions his actions/beliefs/whatever is now being judgmental, so I'm just going to let it drop for awhile and see what happens. I can be try to be a little laissez faire myself. :)
Posted by: renee | July 5, 2006 09:49 AM