America the Literal

Last updated on: December 26, 2014 at 11:04 am by Fr. Dwight Longenecker

America the Literal 2014-12-26T11:04:44-05:00 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In 1979 I left America to study and live in England. I stayed there for twenty five years. When people asked why I did such a thing I used to joke that I saw a bumper sticker that said, “America: Love It or Leave It”. So I did. Then in 2006 the Lord called me back to serve as a priest in the USA.

I do love my home country and I’m glad to be back. However, there is a certain aspect to America that I still find difficult. It is a vague and uncertain quality; something I have never heard defined before, but I think I can give it a name: literal-ness. America the Literal. The other day I posted a quote that “The English use language as a poem even when they’re being practical and the Americans use language as a tool even when they’re being poetical.” This is what I mean about the literal-ness of Americans.

What I mean is that Americans are a practical people. They’re down to earth. They’re utilitarian. They’re bottom line. They want lots of stuff. They want it cheap and they want it fast. They don’t like fol-de-rol and fancy stuff that’s hifalutin. They want results. They like targets and deadline and competition and coming out on top. They’re often suspicious of the arts. They might shoot the piano player, or if they don’t shoot him they just won’t pay him.

I have discovered from my blog that Americans have trouble with subtlety and satire. They don’t get it. They’re often discombooberated by beauty and flummoxed by paradox. They might appreciate beauty, but they don’t want to pay for it. “The money should be spent on something practical–like more computers.”

If I am correct, where did this literal-ness come from? If you want to understand the present, look at the past, because that is where the present came from. America was founded by all types of Protestants–a literally minded and practical people–a down to earth people who associated all forms of fol de rol and fancy stuff with Catholicism–decadence and corruption. America was also made great by waves of immigrants–mostly working class people who knew how to work hard, save and valued the bottom line, efficiency and simplicity. All these different ethnic groups came together and learned a common language, but that language they shared was a second language, and whenever you use a second language you have to use it simply and practically and literally. It takes a long time to develop nuance and subtlety and sub text within a second language. It takes forever to understand allusions and cultural references and inside jokes and historical references that make a first language rich and symbolical and multi textured. Finally, those who peopled America were those who had get up and go, so they got up and went–to America. These types of Alpha achievers are often more absorbed in the external world of physical phenomena and achievement in the external world where language needs to be practical and hard working, and where poetry and subtlety and sub text is a waste of time and money.

Furthermore, this Protestant practicality was woven into the political soul of America. The government was to be composed of ordinary people. The common man was ennobled. If you want to be president portray yourself as an ordinary rancher from Texas–not a Yale boy from a top end East coast family. The aristocrat and everything hifalutin was suspected. Government was to be practical, efficient and most of all to be “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

So, for all these reasons (and probably more I haven’t thought of), America is a literal country. What does this mean for liturgy and theology in the Catholic Church? It means that American Catholics have a practical approach to their religion. They want it to be relevant. They want it to be practical and hard working. They want it to be down to earth and ordinary and they want it to be “of the people, by the people and for the people” So, when the windows were opened to the modern world after the second Vatican Council the true Americanized version of the Catholic faith, which was waiting in the wings, suddenly sprang into life. Almost instantly a new verson of Catholicism burst on to the scene.

It was a version of Catholicism which is literal. It is bottom line. It is practical. So modern American churches are not beautifully transcendent temples where God himself dwells in the Holy of Holies. They are utilitarian auditoria with padded seats, a good sound system, a cry room, a bride’s room and toilets that are clean and comfortable. In an attempt to make the liturgy understood and relevant everything had to be explained. Liturgists and homilists now talk and explain everything. Before Mass–a long explanation of what is going to happen. Before the readings a little summary. During the Prayers of the Faithful another explanation of what they are about. After Mass more announcements and explanations. The music became people centered–lots of songs that were ‘accessible’ about God comforting us, and how we are going to gather together to change the world. Homilies became homely fireside chats about social relevance, self esteem and political action. The way priests celebrated the liturgy focussed on the people gathered around the table.

The literal people were suspicious of ‘mystery’ and ‘transcendence’ and ‘hierarchy’ and ‘beauty’. These things were somehow hifalutin, irrelevant, impractical and most of all–expensive. The money should be spent on other more practical things like schools and hospitals and soup kitchens. Ideas about ‘sacrifice’ were quietly dropped as ‘difficult’ or ‘unnecessarily archaic’ or ‘primitive’. Concepts like ‘the precious blood’ or ‘Jesus dying to save your from your sins’ were deemed ‘inaccessible’ or ‘impossible for modern people to understand’. The sacrifice of the Mass was replaced with the ‘sacrifice of our time, treasure and talents.’ I could go on.

My words will be read as a condemnation of all this. In fact, I am not condemning it. I’m simply recognizing it and analyzing it for what it is. I actually think that what transpired in America in the wake of the second Vatican Council was, in many ways, a good thing. It really was an attempt to help many Catholics relate to their faith and understand their faith more. It really did accomplish this goal in many ways.

However, it was imbalanced. Too much that was good in the sacred tradition was thrown out. Too much of the effort to modernize was iconoclastic and revolutionary. This is why I am in favor of what is called ‘the reform of the reform’. I am not a traditionalist–if a traditionalist is one who wants to turn back the clock. I don’t think the pre-Vatican II church is what we want to return to. I do, however, feel that we must re-learn our traditions, re-discover the transcendent, the symbolical, the sacrificial and the sacramental. We must do this because religion is more than relevance, and liturgy is more than the literal.

Whether American Catholics can learn how to re-enchant their church is another question. I think it may be going against the grain. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of surprises, and progress is pendular. When things have swung all the way to one extreme…

…They must eventually swing back in the other direction.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 14, 2011

Priestly Personality and Unity

Next Post

April 17, 2011 The Vicar on Girl Scouts

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Matters Apologetics Architecture Blobble Study Book Reviews Brideshead Caitlin O'Rourke Catholic Art Catholic Culture Church Politics Chust for Nice Contemporary Culture Duane Mandible Ed Blanch Film Reviews Fr Harvey Nicolaitan Frank Viola Mantilla the Hon More Christianity Mrs Brady Catholic Old Lady Mystery of the Magi Norman Anderson Queen Hillary Saints and Supernatural Spirituality The Inklings The Vicar Theology Todd Unctuous Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz