About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
“Do statements like Ed’s challenge your faith?”
No, I’m afraid they don’t challenge my faith. People come to faith and lose their faith for the darndest reasons. The reasons we offer to explain our new faith or to explain our lost faith so often have nothing to do with the reality.
Most of us struggle day to day. Most of us cannot answer all of the intellectual difficulties that can be and are posed to our faith. But as Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”
The human heart has its own reasons, both to believe and to disbelieve.
May God have mercy upon us.
“Honest searching and earnest questioning will be honored by God…”
Which is just another way of saying that those who don’t come to the same answer you did are dishonest and not earnest.
“I am Howard’s brother-in-law, and I’m an Evangelical.”
“Hi, Howard’s brother-in-law”
Wow, it looks like I’m missing out on some very exciting topics here. It’s good to be out of my cage on this third Sunday of Lent…
Catholicism explains everything VERY, VERY, VVVEEEERRRRRYYYY thoroughly, but it is all built on faith, not on reason. Faith is a fertile substrate upon which reason can grow. That is a fundamental difference I see between Catholic and Evangelical apologetics. Catholics realize (as did Paul) that the message of the cross is foolishness to the Greeks (the erudite, the rationalist, the modern, the pagan, the manicheist) and a stumbling block to the Jews (the earthy, the animistic, the fecund, the tribal Joe Bloes of the world).
The weakness of Evangelical apologetics is that it actually seeks to convert, a la, I’ll convince you of the rational truth of my religion. Any faith that you can actually wrap your head around is probably not a faith worth having. Catholicism seems (to me at least) to say: put on the glasses of faith, then you’ll see the rationality, apprehended all at once as one glorious tapestry. Believing is seeing. Not the other way around.
Who comes to the Lord thru apologetics? Who? It dragged Theo away, for God’s sake! For the Christian, believing is seeing. We **choose**, WE CHOOSE, WE CHOOOOOOOOOSE what to believe. People believe what they want to believe. We may think we believe what we’re convinced of but that’s only because we’ve convinced ourselves so thoroughly to believe what we want to believe. They may not realize it, but in the endgame what you believe is the way you wanted to believe, and the way you wanted to believe was governed almost entirely by the way you wanted to live your life. Free will is not (I repeat not) an illusion…
This has been my great lenten discovery: People believe what they WANT to believe. I cannot say: “I cannot believe in the Assumption of Mary.” I can only say: “I will not believe in the Assumption of Mary.” Or as I’m beginning to say: “Lord, I believe (or want to believe) in the Assumption of Mary. Help my unbelief.”
For all my being an “apologist” for Christianity here and around the internet from time to time, I’d rather be the anti-apologist. The guy who says: Yep, that’s what I believe… and if that’s what you want to believe, that act as though you believe it and eventually you will. If you have to understand it all first, you’ll never believe, because you’ll never be able to wrap your head around the truth. Actions speak louder than words, and words speak louder than mere sentiments. Practice charity… and eventually you will believe.
Cheers!
. . . after some hemming and hawing, these guys do have a point. But there always followed some long-winded and convoluted b.s. about how everything could still be okay, even though the whole thing was a historical and philosophical shambles. So I jumped ship.
Actually, that would mean your theology would’ve started in the year 2033, whereas you’re granting that the Catholic theology started at the time of Christ. Not that that’s what you meant, though.
As a protestant, I wouldn’t mind if our theology lagged 2000 years behind:)
C.S. Lewis said “where there is a difficulty, we can expect to find a discovery”. Honest searching and earnest questioning will be honored by God (it is one of the joys of our salvation that THE MAKER OF EVERYTHING chooses to reveal tidbits of His creativity to us personally thru Holy Spirit). In fact, I feel like it is better to leave the church for a time if you are not going for the right reasons, if you are not fellowshiping and involving yourself in service, etc, than simply to show uip and warm a pew. At least you are then being honest with yourself and your God. I do admire Ed for his honesty (I am assuming this is what he is being, anyway I have no reason to doubt that he is). Holy Spirit can do anything, but our hearts are much more sensetive when we are not trying to sell them something.
Christian:
God has a plan for Ed. He will lead him thru whatever dark valleys will bring him to a closer understanding of Himself. You will find many things in Christianity as a religeon; some true, some doubtless instigated by men and held as tradition (God doesn’t mind tradition). People become discouraged trying to decipher systems when there is not deep relationship with Jesus. I’m not saying that Ed does/did not have this relationship, but if it were there, how could you persist in doubt? If it was/is not there, He is undoubtedly longing for it to be. Ultimately, though, everyone will stand before their Maker and all truth will be revealed. The fact that many people have reservations and even have very good reasons for these reservations does not mean that my relationship with Jesus is all in my imagination. It informs aeverything I read and leads me to whatever meagre understanding I posess. He also lets me know it is okay that I will not understand everything. My realtionship with Jesus is based not just on reason, but faith and experience. It is as real as I can know anything to be.
I find, coming from the evangelical/semi-fundamental background that I do, that too many Christians from my neck of the theological woods tend to try to explain every little thing — which is where some of the more reasonable skeptics get their best excuses to dismiss Christianity.
My bro-in-law was saying the other day that one of the things he admires about Catholic theology (in contrast to Protestant theology) is that it still embraces the mystery of certain teachings (using the actual word “mystery” even), whereas certain other sects of Christianity try too hard to make their faith sound totally logical.
Maybe that’s a little of what repels folks like Ed. I think the apologist slant of many of my Christian brethren can come off as little more than insecurity — and many people won’t buy what you’re selling if they don’t think you’re all that sold on it yourself.
In honor of my absent bro-in-law, that’s my two cents…
Just a note on howard’s brother-in-law. I had always gotten exactly the opposite impression — namely, that Catholicism explains everything very thoroughly. Honestly, I’d always been under the impression that a well-read Catholic could typically win most any religious debate, simply because there’s such a huge corpus of Catholic theology to draw from, whereas Protestant theology lags 1500 years behind, and the Orthodox theology is all about “it’s-a-mystery-don’t-ask-questions”. I think the reason Catholic theology manages to preserve the mystery so well is that the topics on which theological debate go on are simply mysterious to begin with; whereas Protestant theology, throwing out most of the sacraments, really has a semi-Gnostic divide between what is earthly and what is heavenly, Catholic theology weaves the two together into a beautiful tapestry. Things like the Catholic notions of Imago Dei, the Eucharist, Orders, and other things literally create a more direct connection with God than Protestant theology allows for. For instance, Catholics believe that the ministerial priesthood actually includes a potestas sacra; basically, that the priest’s blessing carries something with it, that the priest can confect sacraments, that the priest is God’s instrument in a very direct way. Protestants reject this. Catholics believe that Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in the Eucharist, whereas Protestants don’t. . . well, kinda don’t (excepting orthodox Lutherans and Anglicans). Catholics have a rather high conception of the Imago Dei, whereas Luther and Calvin, with Total Depravity (amongst other things) managed to reduce humans to just below the scum on the bottom of one’s shoe.
Anyway, to cut the ramble short, Catholic theology, though highly defined, very codified, and extremely well-thought out in light of other views, weaves Earth and heaven together in a way that Protestant theology just doesn’t, thereby preserving mystery.
Pontificator, I’m glad you stopped by and contributed. 🙂 How has your faith life been lately? I read with great interest your appraisals of the sad shape the Anglican Church is in.
Theo,
I apologize if i came off sounding condescending. That was not my intention at all. I really believe that our merciful God does extend mercy to us even when we are wrong. As often as not I am sure that I am the one who is wrong.
My point within the context of the statement was that God does not just zap us when we are looking in the wrong places for the truth. He corrects and draws and guides us back. At some point obviousely time cuts the search for truth short, but I believe that if you are looking, He will help you find.
I’m sorry if what I said wasn’t clear.
Yup. Been there, done that. I too had the experience of defending Christianity vigorously and rigorously for several years–so much so that I alienated a few friends in the process–only to feel less honest the more intense my defense became.
An extended metaphor I used a few years ago while explaining this to a friend is that Christianity is like a huge machine. It’s been built and rebuilt and modified and fixed up and bubble-gummed re-painted and expanded and remodeled for thousands of years now. All the builders and rebuilders and modifiers and fixer-uppers and bubble-gummers and painters and expanders and remodelers are, of course, quite proud of their work and the way they have kept this machine running. After all, it is no small task to maintain a particular worldview for thousands of years as the world changes rapidly around it. But all too often I found that the job of the ordinary Christian is merely to circle the wagons around the machine, so to speak, to stand with their backs to this gigantic monstrosity, listening to it shake, rattle, and hum while constantly affirming its stability, uniqueness, unity of design, etc. People on the outside, though, can easily look over their heads and see something that looks absolutely ridiculous, like some kind of hopeless, fantastical Dr. Seussian contraption. Meanwhile, every now and then, ordinary Christians turn around, so to speak, and get an eyeful. Suddenly they’re terrified. (Find a minister and ask how many people have shown up in private with desperate concerns about the viability of the scriptures, church history, and the faith itself, precipitated by, say, actually reading the Bible and finding something terrifying in its pages.)
After a while, I got tired of passively defending the machine, so I decided to get in on the action of maintenance, the dirty work of theology–smoothing over the lumps, making sure things work right with a changing world and problems or contingencies that were never explicitly anticipated by the scriptures, things like that. Off to the Christian university for me, with seminary on the horizon. But then I realized that all the people who were doing that work were just like me, and that the whole thing was made up by people, some of whom had good intentions, some of whom did not.
Furthermore, amongst the theologians, thinkers, and ministers I encountered, there was a surprising–no, astonishing–number of them who, while they toed the party line in public, were not shy about admitting their doubts in private. Though, as we all know, woe be to that Christian scholar who says these things in public, e.g., John Robinson, John Spong, Robert Funk, John Crossan, Hans Kung, et al. I would go down to the library and, like a good, honest Christian, read these guys’ books, feel shaken to the core, and then go knocking on the doors of thinkers and theologians, and even my own pastor, to have them debunked. Well, no, I was was told, after some hemm