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.
“I absolutely agree that ‘our’ attitudes (i.e., modern attitudes) are shaped much more by ‘Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world.’ This is a notion that must be taken captive and brought into obedience to Christ. Thus, part of our ‘apologetic’ mission in modern times is to counter and reject the modern apologetics that has been poisoned by such ideals.”
That’s pretty ironic, isn’t it? As Christian as one tries to be, it’s hard to get yourself to not play the Rationalist.
… or if you use British variations… “Unknown reasons” my arse, Funky!
To be sure, though, having a mind straying from time to time to the various bodily functions is probably a healthy tonic to the oppressive Puritan heritage under which we suffer.
Anyways, last I checked Sibert, the various English renderings of skubalon didn’t quite rise to the level of an Official Curse. We plebes must leave that sort of stuff to the folks in pointy hats of one sort or another.
Cheers!
“By seeing the presentation of truth as the endpoint and not conversion, we also avoid an insidious trap. Seeds that are planted often take years to grow. If conversion is an endpoint, and we do not get to see that endpoint in what we consider to be a reasonable time, we may become frustrated and give up!”
However remote the result, the goal is nevertheless conversion.
“While I see that conversion may be the ideal end of apologetics, it seems that today one of its more common, and equally important goals is to provide understanding to people whose beliefs are different than yours. Even if you’re not going to convert someone, it is beneficial to the Church and to society that they understand your faith better, and appreciate that yours is no more or less reasonable than theirs.”
I would argue that this goal is merely a comprimise, i.e. if we can’t convince so-and-so to share our faith, we can at least help him understand and appreciate it. I should note that I do not mean “comprimise” to be taken in an entirely negative way. Still, we are called to “make disciples of all nations”.
“Um, well, I’d consider abortion a severe violation of the child’s right to happiness…I’m not sure how that predicates abortion, except within a certain modern mindset that denies personhood to humans when it is convenient.”
I think there are a lot of folks who wouldn’t deny that abortion violates a child’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but would say that a fully-formed human’s rights to the same take priority.
And I guess my argument is that in the end, apologetics is at least implicitly meant for conversion. Like I said, anything less is just a comprimise.
As “apologia” is “defense of”, not “conversion to”, I thought that the goal would be to defend the Gospel, you know?
I don’t know very many apologists who ever dream that it is their arguments which would bring conversion. Like an earlier commenter said, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
So, that was why I was wondering – why would anyone ever think the apologetic is what results in conversion? It is merely a defense. Putting the responsibility for conversion on believers is asking a bit much. On evangelism? That is everyone’s responsibility – but the conversion itself is never our job, our result, or our doing.
That was why I was scratching my head there. What makes you think it is anything we do?
As i stated in my post – no apologetic is even effective for a defense, in and of itself. It is only when used with other apologetics, in accord with the Scripture, and the Holy Spirit, that it is even effective in it’s stated purpose. I don’t think apologetics is a conversion apparatus. it is, as Ravi Zacharias says, “clearing the brush away in front of the path” to Jesus. It removes intellectual obstacles, but that is all.
Conversion cannot be an endpoint for evangelism and apologetics. While we may present wonderful explications of Christianity, we cannot change anyone. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. No sane Christian would claim to be God, yet many try to take over His job.
Our job is to present the truth and to not be a stumbling block. What someone does with that truth is not our responsibility. Believing that it is has resulted in unfortunate forceful attempts at conversion that Christianity is still trying to live down.
By seeing the presentation of truth as the endpoint and not conversion, we also avoid an insidious trap. Seeds that are planted often take years to grow. If conversion is an endpoint, and we do not get to see that endpoint in what we consider to be a reasonable time, we may become frustrated and give up!
Our job is to give an answer for the hope that is within us.
For unknown reasons, sometimes when I hear “my 2 cents” I think of a rhyme about pay toilets.
Here I sit broken hearted
I paid a quarter and only farted
The other day I took a chance
I saved a dime but shat my pants
Good points Tom! I agree that most of Catholic apologetics (that I’ve read–even the scholastics by and large) isn’t built upon a fatally flawed foundation that is found in that of modern evangelical thought, viz., rationalistic reduction. It is instead built up out of adherence to the Word of God, which in Catholic parlance refers to Holy Writ and Holy Tradition. One must accept this foundation to perceive much rationality within Catholic thought. This is the way it ought to be: believe, then see.
I absolutely agree that “our” attitudes (i.e., modern attitudes) are shaped much more by “Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world.” This is a notion that must be taken captive and brought into obedience to Christ. Thus, part of our “apologetic” mission in modern times is to counter and reject the modern apologetics that has been poisoned by such ideals.
Cheers!
I can cuss in the comments if I use past tense!?! AWESOME!! 😉
I think you misunderstood him — he doesn’t understand why you (ostensibly) make conversion *the* end of apologetics, rather than simply *an* end, as he would.
If you wouldn’t say it in front of your priest or your mother, it’s a cuss word. Until the verdict comes back from the pointy hats blast away. I know I’ve perpetrated my share!
It seems to me, Steve, that actually the better part of modern apologetics concerns itself with (what I’ll term) “deep” Biblical scholarship; that is, going back to original languages, considering sources, translation issues, target audience, rather than reason or anything else.
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I tend to read specifically Catholic apologetics most. It seems to me that the vast majority of such materials tend to overlook the fact that Catholicism does not have to hang everything on Scripture. For instance, just try to find a defense of the Papacy from the Fathers. One of our richest resources is unused. Or try and find a philosophical exposition of transubstantiation. The dogma was formed philosophically, and is most deeply understood in such a way. Defend it that way.
Perhaps the difference between our two experiences has to do with the fact that new apologetic forms have been adopted recently. Maybe Catholic apologetics readers have become tired of Augustine-and-Aquinas-induced headaches, wanting simple look-it’s-in-the-Bible answers, and readers of generalized Christian apologetics (aka Protestants) have become tired of look-it’s-right-here Bible-only apologetics. That’s not really the fault of any of the latter group, however; wanting to know why something is the case, rather than simply that it is so, seems natural. Deep down, our attitudes are products of Enlightenment sensibilities, rather than truly Christian notions of the world.
Regarding the modern mind and belief, I highly recommend “An Introduction to Christianity” by Josef Ratzinger, now BXVI.
It’s an introduction insofar that one may take classical mechanics as an undergraduate physicist, and then again as a graduate. If C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” is the undergrad text, this is a upperclassman’s or grad student’s book on the basics of the faith. (This is not a hack on Lewis, of course; teaching the introductory courses *well* is often much harder than teaching advanced students!).
I have not finished the book; in fact, I think I only recently cleared the halfway point, but the insights he’s had to the nature of belief and God’s unity and trinity are fascinating, and I will be pondering them for some time. A wonderful, challenging read.
Rob, I agree completely with your statement. Very clear!
Sibert:
It is probably expressed best (or at least most succinctly) in the words of our own Declaration of Independence:
[We] are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The last was originally “property” in Locke, but “happiness” works just as well. It isn’t as though Christians should be in favor of death, slavery, and the pursuit of misery. It’s just that this enlightenment ideal is taken to be the highest (the only rationally recognizable) good in society–that nothing can interfere with what someone wants to make them happy. So on the left, we have folks clamoring for the state to keep laws off “our bodies” and out of “our bedrooms”, and on the supposed right, we have folks clamoring for the state to to keep their laws off “their trade” and out of “their pocketbooks”. It’s all the same enlightenment liberalism, rationalist tripe: there are no transcendant human goods.
My $0.02 anyway…
Someone lay out for me exactly what “Enlightenment sensibilities” are poisoning modern apologetics, please.
Steve,
Thanks, that certainly clears it up little more. I agree that we should be on constant guard against assuming the spirit of the age. I think apologetics serve another function in the pursuit of Godliness in addition to “clearing the brush”. Tearing down those walls of misguided reason helps to strengthen our own faith as well, following the axiom that obedience (to the word in I Peter 3:15) strengthens faith. I think it is a part of “working out our salvation” that Paul mentions in his missive to the Phillipians. We are ministered to by Holy Spirit as we seek to minister to others with a right heart. Apologetics should not take the place of evangelism (related but not synonomous), nor should it’s discipline be neglected out of deference or false humility, but it is part of the full life in Him.
Steve, with inflation the way it is, maybe you should give us your 5 or 10 cents. 😉
The apologetic idea and the impulse come from Peter’s (I Pet 3:15) being prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope that is in us. It is one thing to have reasons… it is quite another to provide empirical proof.
Reason (inference, logic, ethics, deduction, symbols, abstract language, etc.) only works when it sits upon a basis of axioms, whether these be assumptions, aesthetic judgements, or faith. Such axioms are, by definition, unproven and unprovable. If you start from a position of logical positivism, i.e., only things that can be proved may be believed, then you’ll never so much as get to theism, much less the Christian version thereof. (In fact, humorously, you never even get to Logical Positivism… but that is a differerent story.)
Much of modern apologetics seems to forget this, and instead presents itself like we can really get to Christianity by purely intellectual means. So of course, people who fail to see the “obvious truth” of Christianity are mentally deficient. But this isn’t the case at all. Faith (just like hope and love) is an exercise of the will. People will believe what they want to believe. So the question is never: why can you not follow the logic of my proof, or which points of the argument need be stated more convincingly or with more “evidence”. Instead the real question is: why do you want to believe or not believe. For there is always something underneath, rooted firmly in the will. That is the thing that must be “fixed” (variously either broken or repaired) for a person to be willing to believe or disbelieve.
Once the catechumen accepts, by sheer force of will acting in cooperation with God’s grace, the “axiomatic” basis of Christianity, then and only then will the faith that they are approaching seem “reasonable.” Til then it is, as another commenter reminds us, either a stumbling block or foolishness… or both.
My $0.02
Um, well, I’d consider abortion a severe violation of the child’s right to happiness…I’m not sure how that predicates abortion, except within a certain modern mindset that denies personhood to humans when it is convenient.
Steve is correct in pointing out that such political language in the Declaration, which is good and necessary in its place, does become a sort of religion and seeks to run everything, something that the Founding Father did try to avoid with a highly divided federal government that we use today (or even the more diffuse Articles of Confederation, which were quite a disaster). Alas, we’ve lost much of the mindset of the early Americans, so their rhetoric has been used in ways that’d make them spin in their graves!
The end result, perhaps, would be to turn one into a sort of modern-day Gnostic, which seems to be our version of the Deism that was so common in the Enlightenment.
While I see that conversion may be the ideal end of apologetics, it seems that today one of its more common, and equally important goals is to provide understanding to people whose beliefs are different than yours. Even if you’re not going to convert someone, it is beneficial to the Church and to society that they understand your faith better, and appreciate that yours is no more or less reasonable than theirs.