More on the Shemitah

For the first installment click here.

I understand why the more mainstream Catholic outlets, whether they be left, right or center, hesitate to bring up the Shemitah. As I wrote previously, we live in a very rationalistic age, even inside the Church, so no one wants to be thought of as being "out there." We ignore things like the Shemitah, because the main proponent is Jonathan Cahn, "Jew for Jesus" (not because he happens to be a Jew, but because he's Evangelical, and if there's one thing traditionalists and progressives agree on is that those guys can't be right, though not for the same reasons). We also ignore the steadily approaching 100th anniversary of the apparitions in Fatima, which many in the prophetic "underground" Catholic press see as being a pivotal moment in the near future (2017, the centenary of the Fatima apparitions is also the quincentennial of the Protestant Reformation). Again, I get it. It's hard to deny that the Fatima devotion has a substantial fringe element coopted by sedevacantists and conspiracy theorists. I also understand that chasing after apparitions and religious phenomenon while reading the newspaper in one hand, with the Book of Revelation in the other hoping to figure out the day and hour of the Second Coming is futile and foolish. It is fair to ask, "How many storefront preachers must come and go predicting the end of the world and getting it wrong before we stop listening to them?" 

But I think there is something happening right now, and as I've said, one doesn't need to be clairvoyant to see it. Some, including Time Magazine, have questioned if 2015 is the new 1968; a milestone year of cultural change, political discord and social unrest. Only time will tell. It's in hindsight that we can see '68 as being a crescendo to the tensions building in the society over the previous years. Who knows, could '15 be just the build up to even greater upheaval in the future?

It's hard to look at the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign and not see a real upending of the political order taking place right now. On one side there's celebrity real estate mogul Donald Trump outpolling career politicians on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders, a self described socialist, making gains on the previously presumed Democratic nominee and Washington insider, the now very beleaguered Hillary Clinton. There are conspiracy theories, which I'm not ready to dismiss so easily, that the Trump candidacy is a Clinton plot to divide the Republican vote, similar to what happened with Ross Perot in 1992. The other is that Hillary's e-mail scandal only has legs because President Obama wants it to. The FBI and other governmental agencies don't investigate such things, so the reasoning goes, unless the president gives at least tacit approval. He wants to choose his own successor, and she's not it.

No matter what the truth is to such speculations, the public would not be responding the either "dark horse" candidate the way they are unless there was a deep unrest and frustration with the status quo. There are many people who don't believe that they are being listened to by the people they've elected. Whether they are progressives who believe Wall Street, major banks and big business run the country, or conservatives who believe the government is overly intrusive and coercive in the lives of the people, they don't believe the people they've elected to solve these problems are really doing anything about it. This has led to the almost chaotic situation we find ourselves in at this point of the election cycle. A year on the political calendar is like a century in real time, so much can change in the year before the conventions. But I won't be surprised if the respective party nominees aren't any of the current front runners, and might just be candidates who haven't even declared yet.

So where does this leave us with the Shemitah? 

I think there is a middle ground between a rationalistic approach to religion and one that sees heavenly signs in every thunderbolt streaking through the summer sky and burp in the stock market. As Christians Scripture supplies the foundation for how we should form our mind and conscience. It gives us an insight into how God relates to us which is not culturally conditioned, but eternal and universal. God speaks to us: through nature, through the events of our lives, both personally and corporately. He speaks to us through the rhythms of the seasons, and the ups and downs of the economy. If society is disordered, if it has rejected God's way, He doesn't have to send down fire and brimstone: the social structure will simply disintegrate under it's own weight. 

If the economy does go into a catastrophic free fall over the next weeks and months it will be because we set the process in motion by own greed and selfishness. The fall will come because we put money before people, convenience before respect of human life, political power before public service, our willfulness before the will of God. God won't be the cause of the reckoning, if anything He's been trying to help us avoid it. He speaks, and if we don't hear it's because some do not want to listen, and others simply haven't been trained how, much like when the child Samuel first heard the voice of God in the night, but didn't know what it was. 

I pray that the Shemitah ends up being like Y2K: something we'll look back on and wonder why we got so exited. I believe, though, that it would be unwise to look at the current world situation and act like everything is business as usual. We shouldn't be fearful: just alert, and ready with lamps lit.

Shemitah Rising

There are three broadly defined camps in the world of Catholic journalism and blogging. One is a mainstream, nonpartisan, Catholic chicken soup for the soul variety represented by publications like Our Sunday Visitor. They are certainly not progressive, but not really traditionalist either. They are faithful to Church teaching, offering Church related news and human interest stories to inspire the faithful, but generally speaking stay away from controversial topics. Then we have the more conservative branch, exemplified by the National Catholic Register. They are going to be more outspoken on moral issues: the more partisan outlets will be critical of bishops, priests and theologians who propose a progressive vision, and can be very crudely described as the Republican Party at prayer. The other is the progressive wing of Catholic media represented by the National Catholic Reporter. They advocate for change on priestly celibacy and the all male priesthood. They focus on social justice issues, and look for a general relaxing of Church teaching on sexual morality. They can be described, again very crudely, as the Democratic Party at prayer. John Allen's new site, Crux, is a marvelous example of someone trying to bring all three camps together under one cyber roof. 

Along with these three prominent streams of Catholic media  and websites there is a fourth branch that operates quietly under the radar. I don't know hoe to categorize or name it, but concerns itself with what might be considered the more fringe topics of apparitions, super and preternatural phenomenon and prophesy. While just about all the writers in this category I've read can be safely described as conservative or traditional, they are either unknown to or ignored by most of the mainstream of all three stripes. They are best exemplified by Michael Brown who operates a site called Spirit Daily; a kind of Catholic Drudge Report. Like his secular inspiration (the layout of the main page is almost identical to Drudge's), Brown's page serves as a clearinghouse for articles from other sites. Not all, or even most of the stories he links to have to do with the extraordinary, but a good number either have direct or inferred connection with how what is seen and unseen interconnect. 

For the last year or so this "underground" prophetic Catholic blogosphere has been caught up with the possibility of a coming Shemitah (I've seen it spelled a couple of different ways). What is a Shemitah? It's a sabbath year occurring roughly once every seven when the economic deck is supposed to be reshuffled. The idea is that debts are forgiven, any ancestral lands that had to be sold revert to the original owner, and everybody starts from zero again. Ancient Israel was called to it, but never really did it. It's believed that if we don't do it, God will reshuffle the deck for us.

Jonathan Cahn, a messianic Jew, has been pushing the idea of a coming Shemitah for a few years now. His book, The Harbinger, is popular among both Catholics and Evangelicals who are interested in Biblical prophesy and how they might be playing out right now (I haven't read it myself). He predicts that this fall, September to be precise, is when it could hit. He is careful to say that it could because, as he explains, this is a cycle which God controls. It's foolish to try and tie the Shemitah to specific dates because God may decide to hold off, lighten its effects or cancel it all together if the people repent and return to him. He proposes that since 1967, when Jerusalem became the capital of Israel once again, we have been experiencing these Shemitah years. 1973, 1980, 1987, (1994 was a good year economically as far as I could tell), 2001, 2008: all these years saw great turmoil in the markets, and obviously 2001 also saw the 9/11 attacks, which directly led to the economic distress that fall. 

Roy Schoeman, a Catholic of Jewish heritage (he prefers being called a Fulfilled Jew rather than a "convert," but won't make a big deal about it) has also talked about the Shemitah, fleshing out that September is the month when Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement for Jews, happens, so that a reshuffling of the economic deck during that particular month makes sense. This is especially true if we consider the Shemitah a chastisement for sins, both personal and social, as both men do. Adding a Catholic twist, he also finds it interesting that September is the month we celebrate the Exaltation of the Cross: Jesus' death on the Cross being the great act of atonement for humanity. Atoning for our personal, economic and social sins during the month of Yom Kippur and the Feast of the Holy Cross is no coincidence to Schoeman. 

I started writing this post before Thursday's and Friday's 888 point cumulative drop in the Dow Jones, but the events of this week convinced me to follow through. I don't think one needs to be a mystic, though, to figure out that the economic situation internationally is a mess. The Eurozone crisis remains unresolved, China's currency is in flux, and the U.S. economy has been a house of cards for sometime. The West is increasingly secular and materialistic, rejecting Biblical morality with increasing speed. The Church exists in the culture, so as a result has absorbed a spirit of rationalism: many, including believers, have stopped seeing God as working with us through history. We don't believe that God chastises because it seems to go against the rational, gentile, if slightly detached, God of the contemporary theologian. 

But in Scripture God doesn't chastise to be cruel, but to correct and bring back. In the parable of the Lost Son, the father, who represents God, does lovingly embrace his wayward child upon his return. But he also allowed him to experience the humiliation of going hungry while feeding swine. He let his son wander, fall, thus permitting him to suffer the natural consequences of his folly. Once he comes to his senses the father welcomes him back home. One could argue the lost son, thinking more of his empty stomach than the wrong he had done, experienced "imperfect contrition." God accepts even imperfect repentance, though, as long as we come home. 

I won't go too far out on a limb here. I agree with Jonathan Cahn that making specific predictions is foolhardy. And I do have a natural aversion to reading too much into current events. The constant drum beat of wars, famines, earthquakes and recessions are not unique to our time. But if we see the signs of the times, and they do seem turbulent, more so than usual, we shouldn't be afraid to ask where God is in all this, and is he trying to say something to us. I'll have further thoughts on this soon. 

Bishop-Elect Robert Barron on Spiritual Food: A Look at John Chapter 6

Marshall McLuhan: My Latest Obsession. Does This Mean I'm Stuck Looking in the Rear View Mirror?

Marshall McLuhan in the mid-1960's

I've become fascinated lately with media analyst Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) since reading an article about his mysticism, and possible mystical encounters with the Blessed Mother. A fuller examination of his faith can be read here. I always knew that he was a convert to Catholicism (his brother, incidentally, was a Presbyterian minister), but never understood how faith impacted his work, if at all. And for good reason: he never explicitly spoke or wrote of his faith in public, or the influence theologians like Teilhard de Chardin had on his work. Author Tom Wolfe, a friend and supporter, thought this omission had to do with the fact that Teilhard was somewhat persona non grata inside the Catholic Church in the '50's and '60's for his writings on Darwinian evolution, but was still considered a strange Catholic mystic by the secular intellectual elite. McLuhan could't win either way, and so kept the connection hush hush. By all accounts though, he was a man of deep faith; a daily communicant who would sometimes "trick" others into going to Mass with him where he taught, at the St. Michael's College chapel. According to his son and frequent collaborator Eric, his father would suggest to guests a midday walk on campus just as the bells tolled, calling the faithful to Mass. Of course while we're here, he'd say, why not go in to spend some time with the Lord.

Marshall McLuhan, who was born in Canada and spent most of his professional life teaching at the aforementioned University of St. Michael's College in of the University of Toronto, burst onto the pop culture scene internationally in the 1960's: a literature professor turned media analyst, whose pithy, enigmatic statements are still in use today. The odds are you've heard our contemporary mass media dominated, computer driven, social media connected world described as a "global village," even if you don't know that the "medium is the message" or can't tell the difference between a "cool" and "hot" medium. All these catch phrases were McLuhan's. He analyzed how media like movies, television and print transmitted their messages, changing us both individually and collectively. He didn't believe that the message being communicated was the important thing, but rather how it was being communicated that made all the difference.

Roughly 1964 to 1968 were his hay day as a public intellectual, when he was a best selling author, a much sought after guest on panel shows and did consulting work for ad agencies and major corporations. While his star had dimmed somewhat as the 70's wore on he was still seen as relevant enough to be called upon by the Today Show to give an analysis of the 1976 U.S presidential debates, from a purely media craft perspective (he found it wanting), as well as making a clever cameo as himself in Woody Allen's Annie Hall the following year. McLuhan was silenced the last 15 months of his life by a series of debilitating strokes that left him unable to speak or write. He died at the age of 69 in 1980.

He was, and still is frustrating to read or listen to because he wasn't a linear thinker. He liked to say that he worked in the intuitive right hemisphere of the brain, as opposed to the concrete sequential left brain. He left gaps in his thought, forcing the listener or reader fill in these gaps by using their "wits." He also didn't give opinions, he rather made observations, which led some to think he was enthusiastic about the emergence of mass media and instantaneous communication. This couldn't be father from then truth. His form of resistance was to understand the processes at work, the mechanism, if you will, so he could figure out where the turn off switch was.

He posited that the print dominated media of the preceding 500 years had led to the development of private identity as we understand it. Previously the oral tradition prevailed and information was passed on in a communal fashion, which resulted in a strong corporate identity among the people, but little or no sense of a private self. With the advent of the book each individual became the mediator of the information being passed on. Information wasn't so much memorized as take in, mulled over and understood one person at a time. With the coming of radio and television we were now regressing to that oral transmission, but with a difference. I could be wrong here, but he seemed to be saying that information now comes so quickly, from so many different sources and so primally that there isn't a chance to truly integrate what's being communicated. He used the language of computer programers of his day by saying, like a computer, when there is information overload our brains move into pattern recognition. We no longer truly comprehend but simply try to pick up on general structures and patterns of thought and hold on as best we can.  There is no private self any longer, since things are moving so fast that there's no time to process it all, to really come to understanding of what "I" believe, but nor is there a truly corporate identity either since the media are fragmented. Imagine, all he was dealing with was movies, TV and the radio. Telephones were still tied down by wires in the home or office, and besides, all they could do was make phone calls. Computers were still more or less tools for business and government usage, and the Internet revolution hadn't happened yet. If he thought we were heading toward a post literate world then, what would he think of the situation now?

If I can borrow from his method a bit, McLuhan works better on the "cool" medium of TV then the "hot" medium of books. His whole theory of hot and cold media is confusing at first because he's not using the words literally, especially in the case of cool. A so called "hot" medium is one that presents it's information at a high intensity level, in a straight forward presentation, leaving few gaps for the viewer to have to fill in. A "cool" medium, using the argot of Jazz, is low intensity, forcing the viewer to engage in a more intense way. TV was cool because it is a right brain intuitive way communicating, necessitating us to "fill in the gaps" more then movies or radio. Thus the Vietnam conflict was a hot war being played out on a cool medium. It being the first "televised war," people were repulsed by the images of carnage flooding into the intimacy of their homes and psyches. On radio or even the movies their "hot" nature forces the participant stands aloof, not needing to become too involved in the media itself, just as one stands apart from a fire rather than experiencing it from amidst the flames. So watching an interview with McLuhan is more profitable than reading him, at least in the case of the his 1967 classic The Medium is the Massage ("Massage" was a printer's error he eagerly embraced because it fit what was trying to say). Here he has text in his typical, almost beside the point, style mixed with images, some that make sense, others not obviously so. It can be a bit jarring to read if you're use to a straight ahead narrative or discourse. It's almost as if he's using a cool method in a hot medium. In the cool atmosphere of the talk show, where the interviewer can get him to try and clarify his thought (no easy task) he's a bit more easy to comprehend.

I wasn't intending this to be a summary of Marshall McLuhan's thought (at that this was very incomplete). But I am fascinated by an aspect of his educational theory. He believed that even those who are considered on the cutting edge are still looking at things through "the rear view mirror" of progress. If the latest gadget is in the hands of the public, or even the elites, right now it is a technology that is already obsolete, waiting to be replaced by the truly latest thing still haunting the test labs. With education, both in the '60's and now, we still more or less use a 19th century industrial model of education. The charter school we rent to has gone to a more module based, free form classroom set up where the students are free to move from one station to the next to work on tasks as they please. While the school director (good man that he is) probably thinks this is the latest in pedagogy, in reality they were doing this stuff at least as far back in the 1970's. So congratulations, they've moved from the 19th into the 20th century.

So where I go from here is asking: at this moment of history, where we are still debating the merits of capitalism versus socialism or communism, where our collective consciousness is still shaped by Darwin, Freud, Marx and Nietzsche, are we 21st century people stuck looking into the rearview mirror intellectually at the 18th and 19th centuries thinking this is all new? When will the paradigm shift (and it will, eventually) and what will that shift represent? Will it be in our own time, or centuries from now? Obviously we can't answer these questions with certainty, but I would like to dig a little into these ideas next time, if not sooner.

Woody Allen (c.) Marshall McLuhan (r.) and some other guy (l.). From Annie Hall (1977)