Author: Chris Bodenner

by Chris Bodenner

To complement our post on deconsecrated churches now used for non-religious purposes, a reader sends the above photo and writes:

I was interested by McClay’s response because it was so different than my own.  When I was a student, I studied for a semester in London.  I lived with a British family in Muswell Hill, a northern part of the city probably most famous outside of London for being home to the Kinks. But one of the things I found there more memorable than anything else was a pub that had once been a church.

I am not a big drinker, but when the daughter of the family I was living with invited me to come with her mates to watch a football match (soccer), I couldn’t say no.  Where the alter had been, a massive bar stood. Where pews of congregants had once played, now a roiling sea of football fans cheered and whooped and sobbed.  And I found it to be a strangely fitting change, because what is a church for if not to take people’s minds from their worries, or to bring some measure of togetherness and joy to a life that can sometimes seem so cruel and so uncaring?  I, an atheist, was brought together in this amazing bond that I have never once felt in a church before.  The loud music might not be coming from the old organ, but it united everyone nevertheless.  There is no other word I can use to describe this experience other than religious.

After I left England, I tried to watch soccer more, hoping for the same experience.  It was never the same. Something about being in that place, with so many like-minded people, had somehow taken hold over me. The church in Muswell Hill might have lost its faith, but it had lost none of its potency.

Another points to a former church in Pittsburgh:

No discussion of re-purposing deconsecrated churches should ignore The Church Brew Works. It’s a place we go on every Pittsburgh trip, which are frequent because of family and other ties in the city. The renovation was done with the utmost respect for the history of both the structure and the neighborhood.  Check out the History tab at the website.  Along the back wall is a collection of photographs of prior clergy and sisters, and of events in the history of the parish. The pub operators know that their customers are the same people who were christened there, or whose parents were married there, or who remember that a grandparent’s funeral Mass was held there.  If you’re ever in Pittsburgh, I recommend a visit, and try the Pipe Organ Pale Ale.

Another shifts away from beer and spirits:

The Voorhees Computer Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York is inside of an old church (follow the link for pictures). It kind of freaked out my older brother when we did the campus tour but I thought it was perfect – an old way of seeing the world being replaced by the new. When I did the tour, there were still punch-card machines in some of the alcoves, but times continue to change. Actually the inside shots do not show the original columns and windows from the inside along with the vaulted ceilings.  It is certainly a wonderful building from an architectural point of view.

Personally I would love to find an old church turned into a film house, where I always have the most transcendent experiences indoors.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader bristles over this post:

I disagree with the focus on relics, no matter who is doing the venerating or how much the apologetics try to explain that they are not idols. When I look at what people do aside from what they say, the physical objects are serving as idols if only for a small fraction of the orthodox followers. On top of that, to imply that if I do not idolize the relic then I am less worthy of approaching G0d is taking this even further in the wrong direction.

There is a strong human tendency to slip from veneration into idol worship. The Bible goes out of its way again and again to urge us to steer away from idolatry and to focus on one true G0d that does not manifest a physical presence. That the one G0d chose to be unseen and non-physical is the most sublime and wise decision in the history of humanity. Similarly that Moses was taken up without a physical trace, and that Jesus was taken up without a physical trace, goes a long way to preventing the focus on the physical remnants and to keep the focus were it is better set – on the one, unseen G0d. It keeps people focused on living better lives, now bowing to physical objects. (I once watched pilgrims bow to objects at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.) If we had a grave of Moses or Jesus, there would be a constant stream of millions of people and an almost irresistible tendency to turn them into idols. Similarly the Jews have to keep in mind the Kotel is not the focus and the Torah scroll is just a book, not something to be worshipped.

Another sends the above photo and writes:

From my travels, we recently saw two very different churches where bones were on display. The first was Sedlec Ossuary, in the small town of Kutna Hora, Czech Republic, east of Prague. We had gone on a day tour and this small church is close to the railway station, from where we walked. We saw a construction on the wall that claimed to have used all the bones in a human body, and another one where a chandelier is made of bones.

And more recently, our travels took us to Goa in western India. In the Basilica of Bom Jesus is the remains St. Francis Xavier.

Seen above. Another reader:

Reading the post on the relics of saints, I was reminded of the Bible referencing others who rose from the dead along with Jesus.

Matthew 27:50-53
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (NIV)

I wonder what happened to those dudes.

by Chris Bodenner

Some pushback on the thread:

Your reader’s story about the flight to Adelaide was completely underwhelming. Who hasn’t seen oldish folks, of many nationalities, out of their element on airplanes and at airports? How would your reader like it if their first experience with air travel occurred when they were 50, and was conducted in a language they had no understanding of? A bus load of camera clicking tourists is a pain no matter where they’re from. Yes, the Chinese, being new to travel, may be a little worse, but it’s no different than the standards of behavior they follow in their own country. They’ll get better as they gain experience of the wider world. But all this bashing is unseemly and a tad bit offensive. Get a grip people, and try to be a little understanding. Chinese standards of personal space are different from Americans’. If you’ve ever been to Beijing rail station, you know this.

See above. Coincidentally, I had set aside that video a few months ago because it was so striking, not knowing if we could ever use it for a post … but wait long enough and a Dish reader will bring up any obscure, interesting point. Another writes:

The story about the Adelaide trip left a really bad taste in my mouth, because it exhibits exactly the sort of empathetic closure that often underscores unconsciously racist attitudes.  First off, full disclosure – I’m ethnically Chinese, but I’m not from the PRC, and as you might have surmised by now, I’m a native writer/speaker of English. And I do agree with many of the comments about Chinese tourists, especially if they are in tour groups. I ought to know; my native country is a favourite tourist and immigration destination for Chinese nationals. In London, if I see a cluster of Chinese tourists coming down the road, I head for the pedestrian crossings.

In the Lake District, I would immediately take another path. In fact I am often angrier at them even than my white friends, because I am caught in a double bind – just as I would avoid those tourists, I am myself faced with suspicion when I go around Britain, despite being perfectly conversant in English. The flip side of “Chinese tourists having a bad reputation”, it turns out, is that a tourist can be guilty of nothing more than being or looking Chinese.

But I digress. That supposedly amusing story sent in by your reader, about the parents visiting their child in Adelaide and getting things all mixed up, is a very different situation from those group tourists who have not learned, or do not care, to respect the culture they happen to have travelled to. The reader himself indicates that when he says at the end that this was probably the first time that couple has been outside China; yet he does not consider the implications of that.

In a country where vast swathes of the population are still quite poor, and where simultaneously the rich generally have no compunction about showing off their wealth by jetting about, it is very clear to me which group the clueless couple belong to. If they have not been overseas before, and yet have a son who is studying in Adelaide, consider the efforts they must have made for their child to make it there. The skill of knowing airports, air travel and customs work, or to know how to navigate unfamiliar terrain, is not a skill these two hapless people chose not to learn despite having disposable income to fling on overseas trips; it was a sacrifice they made so they could now visit their kid who made good in Adelaide. Your reader, who claims to know a lot about East Asian cultures, curiously seems to have completely missed this point about filial piety and parental love.

Do we really expect, in the context of the previous post about the lack of a guidebook culture, or the general lack of cross-cultural knowledge, that a middle-aged Chinese couple – a middle aged couple from anywhere – would have known perfectly how to get about and handle themselves in a foreign country, after a long flight, when they know no one (and their son had yet to arrive) and do not speak the language? That is in no way amusing. Comedy works best when it kicks upwards – against rude, privileged Chinese tourists who defecate in heritage sites and talk at full volume all the time. I’m completely fine with mocking those people. But to kick downwards as your reader does, from their privileged position (since they “get around” and have ample opportunity to be irritated by Chinese travellers), is not amusing at all.

For some reason I suspect that if that Chinese couple spoke the same language as your reader, or were visibly from the same culture, then they might have been better disposed to them, or to consider them for what they are, ie. clueless and uninformed from inexperienced, as one might be expected to be – rather than judging them simply by what they do or look like, ie. ridiculous and worthy of mockery. Clearly, if the reader has seen fit to post this “amusing incident” even after knowing the facts about the Chinese couple’s situation, I’m not sure such empathy is much in evidence.

On a semi-related point, given the long-standing awareness of how the Chinese tourist market is large and continuously growing, I have to wonder why it seems abnormal that the Chinese tourists could not speak English, but very normal that none of the flight crew know how to speak Chinese. In the ’80s and ’90s, certainly, there was no shortage of enthusiasm about putting up signs in Japanese for the benefit of similarly English-challenged tourists. Admittedly, Japanese tourists are generally better behaved than the Chinese; but I don’t remember that snobbery is a key tenet of capitalism (or democracy, or indeed any universal conception of social forms or rights). Once again, I know the complaints, and I agree with them; but just as English speakers mock the French for their arrogance and refusal to budge on their Frenchness, how is it not sheer arrogance to mock the Chinese without making any effort to come closer to their culture and language, if only to tell them to speak a little more softly?

Thank you for your attention, and I do apologise for this rant.

by Chris Bodenner

A knowledgeable reader of the Bible counters the conservative Christian trying to argue away the existence of trans people:

Moore’s deflection about epistemology vs. ontology is disingenuous; the trans question is inherently epidemiological. This isn’t about whether “man” and “woman” exist, but how you categorize someone as man or woman. Do you use genitals, genetics, brain structure (which science is finding is also sexed)? And what do you do with ambiguous characteristics? And people with both male and female characteristics?

What science is finding is that brain structure is the strongest, most resilient marker of sex. That makes sense, when you think about it. A man who loses his penis and testes doesn’t become a woman. A woman who has a mastectomy and hysterectomy doesn’t become a man. And people with ambiguous bodily characteristics still have brain structures that correlate with other men and women, and identify as such. The conclusion is that the strongest way to categorize a person’s sex is through neural analysis. Or, conversely, simply ask them what their sex is. That’s what trans activism is about. Medical transition, anti-discrimination laws – all that is aimed at correcting cases where sex was wrongly categorized. This isn’t “changing” someone’s sex, it’s confirming it.

None of this contradicts Mathew, Mark, Genesis, or Genesis. The Bible argues that the sexes exist, and are created by God, but gives no indication of how to categorize them.

In fact, in Genesis 2.19, God tells Adam “whatever [he] called each living creature, that was its name”. (Tantalizingly, the next verse is the Bible’s first reference to ‘Adam’, implying that he also ‘named’ himself.) And, as Jonathan Merritt pointed out, the brain is just as natural and God given as the rest of the body. Other than that, its condemned by neither Leviticus or Lot, and in Isaiah 56, God promises ‘eunuchs’ who keep the Sabbath and the covenant:

to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.

Incidentally, Isaiah 56 is called “Salvation for Others”. There is simply no Biblical case to be made against trans rights. Both Orthodox and Conservative Jewish leaders, who also follow Genesis regard homosexuality as a “transgression”, have ruled in favor of medical transition, and changing sex designation. For the trans question, while foreign to many, the theology is cut and dry about its status as sin.

The shame is that trans issues do raise a lot of interesting theological questions. (For example, what does this say about the relationship between brain, mind, and soul?) But that’s by comparing trans people to Legion, or by saying that trans people inherently disrupt the categories of male and female.

Ironically, Russell Moore is right; someone’s sex “can’t be eradicated by a change of clothes or chemical tinkering or a surgeon’s knife.” He’s just wrong about what side of the issue that puts him on.

Update from a reader on another version of the Bible:

Your knowledgeable reader writes “In fact, in Genesis 2.19, God tells Adam “whatever [he] called each living creature, that was its name”. (Tantalizingly, the next verse is the Bible’s first reference to ‘Adam’, implying that he also ‘named’ himself.)” Not true. Adam is named earlier; or rather, he is never named. In the Hebrew text he is always referred to simply as “the man” (Ha-adam). For some reason (perhaps the reason suggested by your reader) the King James Version starts calling him Adam at this point. What is interesting is that it is right after he runs out and names all the animals that he realises he needs a wife – and the first thing he does is to give her a name. (And, pace the KJ version, he doesn’t name her after himself.)

Another reader:

On the discussion of gendering and Christianity, I wonder if the following might not be a helpful tool for (or against) the conservative. In his essay “For You May Touch Them Not: Misogyny, Homosexuality, and the Ethics of Passivity in First World War Poetry,” James S. Campbell uses a quote by Emmanuel Levinas as an epigraph:

Perhaps … all these allusions to the ontological differences between the masculine and the feminine would appear less archaic if, instead of dividing humanity into two species (or into two genders), they would signify that the participation in the masculine and the feminine were the attribute of every human being. Could this be the meaning of the enigmatic verse of Genesis 1:27: “male and female created He them”?