Words: "Conversion"

Well, it's happened. Someone has made me think! ;) Blogging around this afternoon--something I have neglected this week--I discovered this post by Entropy on the subject of being a "Cradle Catholic" vs. a Convert. Now, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, so I couldn't help adding my $0.02. I think it becomes a particularly relevant question to Catholic converts, or should, whether converting is "better," somehow, than being raised in the Faith, since practicing Catholicism involves choosing Catholicism for one's children, which is not something that can be said of most Christian churches, and which is in contrast to the experience of some (many?) coverts to Catholicism. In particular, the churches I was exposed to as a child required a personal conversion experience, and in fact, many tried ("revival"-style) to induce a conversion experience (in the manner of Langston Hughes' "Salvation," which has always been a favorite short story of mine). So I was "touched by Jesus" several times when visiting weird youth-groups with friends, only to realize when I returned home that what I mistook for "repentance" was actually guilt for some minor or imagined teenage transgression, and that I had been duped into feeling something that was not, in fact, genuine. Over the years, one of my issues with the churches I had attended (the more mainstream ones, that is) was this emphasis on the Ultimate Conversion Experience--that is, the moment of Being Saved. It struck me as being so intangible as to be unreliable, first of all (child of reason that I was), and second, so wrapped up in emotion as to be, to my mind, distasteful. (I've said before that I've had to gradually "grow into" spirituality, in part because I had been warm & fuzzied to death over the years. . .) I wondered how one recognized the One Moment, what happened if one lapsed (this from observing the "Saved" around me, or the hairdresser who declared her son to be "Saved" anew every time he came back home needing money), and any number of other things. I believe I understand things a bit better now, but suffice it to say that I was skeptical, and rejected the whole concept out of hand. I came to wonder if not everyone was capable of the Ultimate Conversion Experience, so when I was looking for a conversion experience, I looked to reason rather than the lightening bolts I was told to expect. (Is it any wonder I liked the Hughes story?)

Now, this is not to say that my conversion experience, when it came, was not recognizable as something unique and momentous, and suffused with emotion, but that's not where I'm going with this. Rather, I want to think about the difference in the way "conversion" is represented within Catholicism. Certainly, "conversion" is the act of becoming Catholic--or Christian, if one is not Catholic. It involves Baptism if one is not Baptized already, and in Catholicism, it involves the acts of receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation--First Communion, First Reconciliation (if one is already Baptized) and Confirmation. But I was surprised to find, within Catholicism, a discourse of conversion that went beyond initiation into the membership of the Faith--something beyond that first acceptance--of the individual by the Church and of the Church by the individual. During Lent in particular, there was a discourse of "turning away," of "converting"--turning one's mind and actions away from sin and toward God. Those Catholics who had turned away from the Church, but returned were described as having "conversion experiences" (though they were not called "converts"), and even those who had never left the Church were sometimes referred to as having a conversion of mind, heart, spirit, etc., sometimes to a new acceptance or a closer understanding of Church doctrine. In addition, the Eucharist is a means toward our continual conversion. I found comfort in this expanded definition of "conversion" which placed emphasis on a continual affirmation of faith rather than a one-time faith event that was supposed to sustain the love of God and the will to remain relatively sinless. It placed more responsibility on the individual and acknowledged the individual's weakness simultaneously. It also somewhat modified my understanding of what "conversion" means.

Thinking about Entropy's post, then, my initial response addressed the question of what I gained from being a convert, and what I thought my children stood to gain from being raised Catholic rather than being allowed to convert later, in the manner of many Protestant denominations, which teach that Baptism should follow the individual conversion experience rather than being chosen by the parents. I did value my choice, but this was from the perspective of rejecting organized religion (int he form of all Christian churches). However, I do think that even had I been raised Catholic (as I "should" have been, given that my parents were Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church), I would have rebelled at some point. But perhaps I would have had a better vantage point for converting, that is, for turning back. I still would have had the ability to "claim" my faith, and perhaps (ideally) I would have had a better idea of what I stood to gain or lose. Who knows? But this is my point: that what we really mean by "converting" when we talk about the Ultimate Conversion Experience (or even Being Saved) is the act of Claiming one's faith. And though Catholics are Baptized at birth, all Catholics have various opportunities to claim our Faith. Inevitably, it is (or should be) an act of will to convert--to claim one's faith; however, everyone should at some point exercise their own will in choosing their faith, even to choose the faith that they were given from birth by their parents.

Veggie Proto-Eucharistic Tales

That title didn't get you, did it? ;)

So recently, the baby daughter has been interested in television--too interested in television, perhaps, except that her interest is really limited to music. She loves Sesame Street's musical skits--we don't actually watch the shows, as I have serious problems with the "new, improved" Sesame Street for the young generations. Instead, I have classic Sesame Street dvds (of the first few seasons) with "classic cuts"--that is, just the cool musical parts everyone loves. We also have Sesame Street videos from when my son was younger, before every dvd & video had to be Elmo-themed. Now we have the tyranny of Elmo!!

But I'm talking about Veggie Tales. When my son was younger, we collected the Veggie Tales videos. We first got hooked on the "Silly Songs," and expanded from there. We stopped about the time of "King George and the Ducky." For any who aren't familiar with Veggie Tales, they are animated vegetables who perform various moral tales, some biblical stories, all Bible-based. They are nondenominational Christian vegetables (though the creators chose to include only Old Testament stories, presumably to leave them open for all Judeo-Christian vieweres, though the Bible verse at the end is usually New Testament). The production value is good--rare for Christian children's productions--and the music is particularly stimulating. The silly songs are really the best--they provide a brief intermission in the tape, which usually included 2 episodes (I suspect the dvds are structured differently, but as the creators no longer have control, I refuse to upgrade to the dvds.)

There have always been some problems with the Veggie Tales versions of Bible stories--a misinterpretation of the stories, or the show's "fun" element rather took away from the story or promoted well, gluttony in the case I'm thinking of. In another case, there was a watering down of "mature themes" that wasn't appropriate for children's tapes, even in their watered-down form. In the case of 'King George and the Ducky," King George (read David) covets the *ahem* rubber ducky of one of his soldiers, and sends the soldier--a child vegetable character--to the front lines to be disposed of. The soldier does not die, but instead contracts a pie-induced version of shell-shock. To me, this was pretty much the last straw. They clearly went off the deep end in too many ways. Perhaps this was the beginning of their legal troubles. The earlier tales are much better.

Even among the "good" ones, though, I had some problems. Case in point (and the real subject of this post) is "Josh and the Big Wall." I remember singing songs in Protestant Sunday School about Joshua and the battle of Jericho. (I always liked the songs.) Even before becoming Catholic--in fact, dating back to my earliest introduction to Veggie Tales (through an Evangelical Protestant friend of my mom's), I had issues with this one. . . You see, the Veggies are reenacting the Isrealites' flight from Egypt. Moses has just died, and they are able to enter the Promised Land. The creators (of the show) took the phrase "a land flowing with milk & honey" and ran with it. The Isrealite Veggies are singing about all of the decadent things they will eat in the Promised Land--tacos, pintos 'n cheese, waffles; when they get to the city, slushies abound, and are the means of attack on the Isrealites by the people of Jericho.

When we reached a temporary Jim Henson saturation point the other day, I brought out the Silly Song sing-alongs, one of which includes the "Promised Land" song from "Josh and the Big Wall." We haven't really watched Veggie Tales since I became Catholic & we all started attending Mass regularly--except during my son's First Reconciliation "retreat" (or whatever), which featured "God Wants Me to Forgive Them?", slightly modified for church consumption. (It didn't really fit.) So my husband and I were groaning over the "Promised Land" song over the weekend, and it occurred to me that from a Catholic perspective, the following line is particularly grievous:

For years, we've eaten nothing but manna,
A dish that is filling, but bland...

So they put all that behind them in order to pig out in the Promised Land.

Well, the first thing I noticed as a convert, or as one who desired the Eucharist and was moving toward a conversion, were the Eucharistic and Proto-Eucharistic references throughout the Bible--Old Testament and New Testament--which go way beyond the account of the Last Supper. Manna, as God-given bread, is a striking example, and prepared for the Bread of Life: Christ's gift of Himself in the Eucharist. So beyond the fact that the video portrays a serious lack of gratitude for the fact that God has sustained the Isrealites through 40 years in the desert, there is the further disparagement of the heavenly bread that is a promise of the Gift of Christ (in) and the Eucharist.

Now, I am not going to go so far as to say that this was intentional (though if you look closely, the manna does look a bit like hosts). But it is a grave oversight on a couple of levels. Even non-Catholics should have a problem with the fact that the source of the humor is lack of gratitude and greed. Not exactly the values we want to promote. Some might take offense because of the caricature of the Isrealites. I think this is mostly innocent. And it will certainly not stop me from watching Veggie Tales--at least the good ones. But it is a caution to realize that non-denominational, even in the best possible sense, does not necessarily mean Catholic-sensitive. I mean, really--the Eucharist? Bland??