The few, the faithful, the saved

Nowadays, outside of some Protestant fundamentalist holdouts, I'm not sure our faith in Christ has any real bearing on our eternal destinies.  In fact, I'm not sure how much our eternal destinies play in our religious thinking in this old twenty first century.  

For those who think about it, an implicit universalism seems to be common.  Sometimes it's an explicit universalism.  This isn't something new or 21st Century.  There have always been some who failed to square a loving God with some eternal separation from that same loving God.  But in recent generations, visions of hellfire and damnation have clearly diminished as more and more Christians, consciously or otherwise, accept a somewhat secular understanding of religion and a worldly understanding of creation. 

In this setting it appears quite common to assume, without much thought, that most everyone is guaranteed to pass through the light after we shuffle off our mortal coils.  Much discussion, when it comes up, is around how many are saved - everyone or just mostly everyone?  I've seen that discussion on Catholics sties and outlets many times, and it's almost always around the assumption that it's a matter of how few, if any, will fail to be joined with God in the New Jerusalem.  

Here's what I've noticed, for what it's worth.  Last year for Holy Week I did a quick series on the seven churches of Revelation.  No particular reason, it just came to my mind.  One thing that hit me was that out of the seven churches, only two were given high praise and a pass.  The other five were given warnings.  Get with the program or else.  Yes, we all know the churches at Sardis and Laodicea were the pits and got stern warnings to shape up or pay the piper.  

The fact is, however, three of the others got the same.  Even if they had elements that were praiseworthy, including suffering for the Faith, they still ended getting the same stern warnings.  No amount of praiseworthy works in those churches made them immune from the same warnings that everyone's favorite loser churches got.  

In other words, our walk with God and God's appraisal of us is not based on trade and barter.  We don't get to stand in front of God and say, "Sure, I didn't do this or that, but I was awesome over here."  We're expected to follow God and do what we're supposed to do.  If we don't, see the warnings. Even if we go so far as being willing to suffer for the Faith, that doesn't balance out ignoring the teachings of Christ over here or over there.  It's sort of an all or nothing package. 

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  I reflect on the modern obsession with 'does everyone but Hitler get saved or is it everyone saved?'  Much of the scriptural basis for this comes from two key passages in the New Testament, beyond some philosophical wrangling over love and punishment and eternal fates.  The main verses appealed to are 2 Peter 3.9 and 1 Timothy 2.4.  Some have also appealed to Ezekiel 18.23.   The gist is that God wants everyone to be saved and come to repentance. 

If God wants it, how can it not happen, correct?  I mean, if God wants the universe, God gets the universe.  Why not everyone being saved?  At best we can imagine everyone but Hitler is saved.  Or maybe everyone, since that's what God wants. 

Here's something I noticed when I reflect on my former colleagues who tended to cleave unto the liberal side of theology, who often embraced this implicit/explicit universalism. I noticed that in most cases with most modern topics, the Bible, even the New Testament, is usually confined to Jesus and His teachings (in recent years, mostly Matthew 25).  That's where we learn God is our good buddy, it's all about love, no condemning of sinners, no condemning of the world, because Jesus says so. Be a swell person and that's all we need for righteousness. 

And yet when it comes to scriptural references to buttress universalism, it's almost always the above passages in the New Testament.  Almost never is it Jesus, unless you want to parse something like Matthew 23.37.  Why is that?  Why do they almost always appeal to Jesus as the great lover of love and forgiveness and mercy and nothing else where our sex lives or other religions are concerned?  It's all tolerance and inclusion when you read Jesus.  But when it comes to universalism, we rush over to the rest of the New Testament as our go to reference? 

I can't help but guess it's for one simple reason.  If you look at the Gospels, you'll notice when Jesus does talk about things like paths to life or final judgments, if numbers or amounts are mentioned, those not cast into the outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth, or those not going along the path leading to destruction, tend to be described as 'few.'  You want bad results of standing before our eternal judge?  That's where you get terms like 'many', 'most' and similar 

In fact, one of the sometimes glossed over parts of Jesus' appearance at the synagogue in Luke 4 is  how he invokes instances in the lives of Elisha and Elijah when discussing His return to His own home.  He notes that out of everyone, those OT prophets reached out to only two individuals, the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian, during times of great famine and suffering.  Which, if you think on it, is often the proportions given in the entire Old Testament.

Like it or not, my Old Testament professor in seminary had it right.  The Bible, for want of a better phrase, is usually a minority witness.  That is, those who cling to God and stay faithful are almost always portrayed as the minority.  Sometimes, as in Noah, it's literally one family in the whole world who stays faithful and escapes destruction.

Or in the Wilderness, it's only two spies who keep the faith.  Or there may have been seven thousand who did not bow to Baal, but there were only seven thousand, not the majority.  And on it goes.  You get the point.  The 'story' of the Bible is often of the majority falling away and bowing before the Golden Calf when only a 'few' remain faithful and escape God's judgment and, yes, punishment. 

Jesus invokes this proportion when He chastises the synagogue in Nazareth.  It also underpins His continual teaching that many may be called, but few are chosen.  That the path to destruction is where many go, versus the few who find and traverse the narrow path that leads to life.  In fact, I might say if you're looking for evidence that everyone gets to heaven, the last place you want to go is Jesus.  Which might be why those who make that argument, in this case at least, prefer the rest of the NT to what Jesus has to say on the matter.

None of this is to say hellfire awaits almost everyone but 140,000.  I'm not even haggling over what Jesus means by path to destruction or weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Does it mean some middle ground where people get purged ala purgatory before being saved for eternity? Does it mean burning in Hell for eternity?  Is it oblivion and eternal destruction, but no real eternal suffering?  Is it the least versus most in the Kingdom of Heaven, where the unhappy 'many' who take the wide path end up with a room next to a noisy ice machine for all eternity? 

That's not what I'm focused on.  In fact, I think when we approach it that way - just how are we really all saved despite how we live or what we have to say about God - we're already missing the point.  Sort of like my dad asking me to do chores and then wondering what will happen if I don't.  The point isn't wondering if I'll be grounded, spanked or just have the car keys taken away for the weekend.  The point is to do the chores because my dad told me to.  Since I love and respect my dad, that should be my response, not 'how little might I be punished if I ignore him?'. 

The point isn't to really parse what is meant by destruction or outer darkness, as much as it should be something we don't want no matter what they mean.  Not because it might be really bad, but because it means we've fallen from what God wanted in the first place.  

But such warnings are omnipresent enough to warrant our attention.  The tendency of Jesus to describe those taking the path to life as the minority, when added to the Scriptural story of most people rebelling or falling away to their punishment and regret, suggests asking how many are saved might mean an answer we don't want.  It also might mean we need to rethink how we've packaged the Faith in recent generations.  

The tendency of  modern churches to quickly modify, adapt, change and even surrender before the world is at least partially grounded in a diminished belief that there are any real consequences to getting it wrong.  A focus on just how everyone will get a blue ribbon when we die has made it easy to shrug off any concern about missing the mark. 

Yet that is something the churches in Revelation learned.  It's important not to get it wrong, because warnings of dire consequences are given us all, no matter how much we get right.  And if Jesus is to be believed, it won't be the majority who end up in the path to life, skipping along no matter what since everyone gets the prize at the end. 

In fact, it might be some sad self fulfilling prophecy that our efforts to accommodate and adjust and modify the historical revelation might just end up leading to that very vision set out in the scriptures.  That is, no matter what God does, the majority will find ways to ignore Him and walk the other way.  Instead of repenting, the majority will instead curse God when the time comes.  Which would then suggest a reading of the Bible as minority witness might be the most accurate way to read the numerical witness in the many mansions of the Kingdom. 

Again, I'm not saying the majority are going to burn in hell!  Or heaven is an exclusive club reserved for everyone name Dave only (and those he loves).  Nor am I quibbling over what many or few means.  After all, 51% of the human race could technically be many or most, and still let 49% of humanity be saved.  I think all of that is going the wrong direction with the topic. 

I think both the history of Christian doctrine and the scriptural revelations themselves show that whatever the case, when God says X, the majority of the world will nonetheless reject X.  And of those who God entrusts to deliver the message of X, the majority will choose to abandon X when the going gets tough.  And sometimes that doesn't mean failing to suffer for the faith, as several churches in Revelation were willing to do.  Rather it can just be giving in to the old temptations and sins of immorality and false teachings.  Which, if we try to twist it all to say nothing matters since everyone ends up on the path to life in the first place, might be the worst teaching of all to allow.  

Before the Judgment Seat of God

So yesterday we had a visiting priest from the Pontifical College Josephinum.  He's been there before.  A jovial fellow, he came into the priesthood later in life.  Therefore, he had quite a record of real world living, if you get my drift.  He's not afraid to point that out.

But he always points it out as a reminder that real world living is not what we were made for.  We were made to love God with all we are, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.  Not love in the Kinsey and Dr. Spock sort of way.  That is, love for the sake of getting what we want out of someone, or love meaning we let them play in the traffic because we don't want to hurt their feelings by telling them no. 

Actual agape love is what we're for.  That's the unconditional divine love, often translated charity in older biblical translations, that one years in St. Paul's famous 'discourse on love' in his letter to the Corinthians.  Real love, pure love, divine love.  Not the junk we have today in our society.

Of course, there is a catch.  For all of God's love, there comes a day of reckoning.  A day in which we account for the gifts God has freely given.  And that's what yesterday's homily was about.  In a manner that wouldn't shame a fundamentalist tent revival, the priest reminded us that some day we will die, and then the judgment.

And he emphasized it does no good to appeal to the Supreme Court for what we can do.  The World is frequently wrong.  We're called to do God's will based on what is clearly taught by way of God's own revelation.  And if we choose not to, we will stand before God on the Day of Judgment and have to account for our choice. 

Yes, we have the Sacraments.  We have Confession and Last Rights (he emphasized this, and the need for regular confession).  But at the end, Christ will come like a thief.  We ourselves may die slowly and with time to spare and prepare, or not.  The point is, to ask every day if I am prepared to meet my Maker.  And to live every day to make sure the answer is yes.  Because on that day, there is no blame, there is no finger pointing, there is no corporate guilt of others, there is us before the Throne of God. 

Wow.  The actual Gospel preached.  Yes, he said this with a smile, and managed to make it sound almost disarming.  But the words had power.  It reminded me how far we sometimes are from our faith nowadays.  More politics than anything.  Sometimes social issues and agendas.  Often personal opinions.  All of which have their place of course.  But sometimes I think even if we believe we're fighting the World, we're only doing it on the World's terms, not the Faith's.

I contrasted that homily to what I hear so often from so many Church leaders, including our pope.  I think that priest, too, was aware of the recent debacle with President Biden and Pope Francis.  I think he made it more than clear we're not given the right to declare ourselves good Catholics while rejecting the revelation of God, and we do so at eternal risk.  For that is what it is.  And we either believe that, or there's no sense wasting time waking up on a Sunday morning when we could roll over and get some extra sleep. 

Confusions of a seeker sensitive pope

So a label is born.  Mark Shea is the king of Catholic labelers.  From Gun Cult to Christianist, he's never at a loss for inventing a term that, in the long run, seems to mean nothing more than 'people who don't think like me.'  It's a passive aggressive way of attacking people without accountability.  He can declare a group the 'yadahoohoos', and launch endless attacks and accusations at them, accusing them of anything and everything under the sun.  When you object, or insist it's incorrect, he can scurry behind the helpful shield of obfuscation and insist if the shoe fits, or if it doesn't apply then don't worry, or your objections prove you're guilty, and on and on.

Well, he's now coined a new term: Qatholics.  It would seem to be another variation on 'people (in this case Catholics) who don't think like he thinks'.  Take that for what it's worth.  We'll call that nothing new under the sun.  But he says something in this that was brought to my attention, and I thought it's worth pointing out.  He talks of the 'Qatholics' when it comes to Pope Francis.  And what is one thing this new breed of 'labeled groups' does?  He says this:

"Which brings us to the Qatholic phenomenon again. Because Qatholic, as distinct from Catholic, faith is all about exclusion and elitism. That’s why it hates this pope. That’s why it wants so desperately to turn the Church from a sacrament of salvation for all into an exclusive club for some.

As I have said repeatedly, Francis is incredibly easy to understand. The Qatholics who denounce him as “confusing” aren’t confused by him. They just don’t want to hear what he says. The entirety of Francis’ mission can be summarized in these words: “He has preached good news to the poor.”  

That’s it. That’s all you need to know. He is about evangelism and, in particular, evangelism to the Least of These."

First, appealing to confusion where Pope Francis is concerned is charity on the part of many.  Catholics I know who say they are confused about Pope Francis do so because they don't want to take what he says at face value.  Not because they hate evangelism or the poor, but because they listen to the words he uses. 

At face value, if you set aside confusion as an excuse, then what Pope Francis says appears quite different than what the first 2000 years of popes said.  At face value, it turns out the Church was wrong about eternity like it has been about a  growing list of other topics.  It turns out one religion is as good as another, and your relationship to Christ is irrelevant where salvation is concerned.  It appears as if the problems of the world have little to do with the Spirit, and much to do with socioeconomic issues and injustices, typically as defined by decidedly Marxist inspired liberal socialist theories and policies.  It looks a lot like any sin embraced by progressives, while technically sin, have little to do with one's sanctification or salvation.  In fact, it looks a lot like a Catholic version of those old liberal Protestant theologians who realized it was time to admit the Christian Faith was pretty much just an old myth that  modernity insists is in need of serious re-imagining.

That would be taking him at face value.  And there are those who do.  Liberal Catholics, who have jettisoned this old Body and Blood and Purgatory and Demons and Devils rubbish, seem to take Pope Francis at his word.  Most embrace modern liberal values, and see Pope Francis - taken at face value - as a great validator of those views.  Likewise those progressives and liberals outside of the Catholic Faith also take him at his word, and see a pope struggling to tear down the stupid, bigoted religion of Catholicism and rebuild it in the superior image of modernity.  They take him at face value.

So those who wave the flag of 'confusion' are being charitable.  They're saying what they hear is so egregiously opposed to anything historical Catholicism ever taught, that they're praying it's lost somewhere in the translation of the messaging.  They lack the credulity to take Pope Francis at face value and insist there is nothing new and it's all good old Catholicism the way grandma used to make.  That is why, in my experience, those Catholics appeal to confusion.

But to the bigger point. I've seen Mark use his statement about Pope Francis and evangelism's primacy several times.  Here's my concern.  As a former Evangelical, I saw the problems that arose from that same 'evangelism is all that matters' attitude.  It's greatest expression was found in the movement known as 'Seeker Sensitive Churches'.  I won't go into the history of that, and the myriad problems that arose.

Suffice it to say, that's why we have churches in Protestantism that look like concerts in a movie theater.  Seeker Sensitive Churches merely said that evangelism is all that matters, everything else is on the chopping block to make it happen.  The results speak for themselves.

That, to me, is not what Catholicism is all about.  Catholicism is both/and, not either/or.  Evangelism doesn't get to trump what it is we are evangelizing them to.  That's where Seeker Sensitive Churches went wrong.  So desperate were they to grow their churches, they ended up throwing their churches out the window to grow them.  What was left was a hollow shell of a church that often looked more like a musical festival at an Oprah Winfrey convention than anything found in the history of Christianity.

It could be that Mark is right, and the economic and political focus of Pope Francis is merely his way to reach out to the world.  Perhaps he sees the Marxism, the liberalism, the secularism, the anti-Christian bigotry, and has decided the best way to reach out is to modify or reform the Church and get rid of all those bells and whistles that our sophisticated moderns find repulsive.  It might  be that he feels the need to bend over backwards and mitigate or downplay all those parts of Catholicism which moderns reject or despise.  Maybe he feels the need to present a Catholicism that is acceptable to the powers that be who reside in the halls of influence in the modern world.

Perhaps.  If he does, then he'll learn what those strands of Evangelicalism are only now beginning to realize, that if you throw out anything the world rejects in order to reach the world, you'll end up with nothing to reach it for.

So perhaps that's it.  Pope Francis is the seeker sensitive pope, following the strategies of old Boomer era Evangelicals, whereby evangelism is all that matters, is priority one, and all other priorities are rescinded.  If so, then no confusion needed.  Just concern, since we have already seen where that strategy will lead, and it's not a net victory for the Gospel in general, and won't be for Catholicism in particular.

UPDATE NOTE: It was brought to my attention that there is no link to Mark's article.  No there isn't.   Mark and Mark's article really isn't the point as much as the point he makes.  At this point I don't go to any of Mark's sites.  There were too many cases of near heretical teachings, not to mention the sinful bilge and blasphemies that came to define too many of his comments sections.  As a result, when someone sends me something I think warrants an answer, I have no intention of linking to a site I find a near occasion of sin. So it wasn't an accident.  It was intentional.

Who were those Magi?

Fr. Longenecker goes through the details about this mysterious gang of travelers.  A great way to be secure in the Faith is to remember the overwhelming witness.

It's about time Dr. Moore.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Main Library

I couldn't help notice this story.  The source is RawStory, a hard left propaganda news magazine, but I checked to make sure it was accurate, and it appears it is.  Dr. Russell Moore is disavowing the label "Evangelical".  He is doing so because of Trump and those Evangelical leaders willing to throw all pretense of consistent standards under the bus in order to support Trump at all costs.

This amazes me, and I'll tell you why.  Believe it or not, Dr. Moore was a classmate of mine back in seminary in the 90s. We sat next to one another more than once.  He was part of the Mohler Revolution, when Dr. R. Albert Mohler turned Southern Seminary around from a moderately conservative Baptist seminary to a hard right, almost quasi-fundamentalist, Calvinist institution.  Dr. Moore, along with the awesome Dr. Greg Thornbury, were two of the main students who supported Dr. Mohler and, by extension, were supported by Dr. Mohler and the new establishment.

There were some of the students - like me - who were opposed to politicizing the term Evangelical.  As many flagrantly sided against Bill Clinton, but turned a blind eye toward politicians like Newt Gingrich, or used Evangelical as a term in other ways to divide the sheep and the goats, all while strutting under the label 'Evangelical', we became increasingly bothered by its use as a political wedge, rather than a sincere theological term.

That went over as well as you can imagine.  In fact, attempting to do anything in the seminary - including something as pure as gathering to witness and evangelize - without embracing the proper use of the term became nearly impossible.  If you weren't properly incorporating the term "Evangelical", then you weren't going anywhere.  And it was the likes of Dr. Moore (then just Russ Moore) who were staunch defenders of that approach.  Those who refused to play ball eventually found themselves standing outside the windows where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth, or at least compromised opportunities to minister.

So it's nice to see, after 20 years, some have finally come around to where many of us were all along.  But then, that was a problem with Evangelical Christianity in the day.  So politicized had it become, that nothing but grabbing the latest trend became the norm, then trying to twist and turn traditional orthodox Christianity to make it fit.  In fact, to be honest, all Dr. Moore is doing today is just riding the latest wave.  This is really, in the end, nothing more than what was done in the 90s.  When it was vogue to be Evangelical, then it was Evangelical Ho! Now it isn't.  And now it's not. 

One of the endearing traits I find in pre-Reformation Christianity is a happy tendency for the deep roots of the faith to avoid being pulled up by the storms of the latest, hippest.  Oh sure, you'll have people try.  You'll have bishops, priests, laypeople, yourself, and dare I say popes, who will grab the latest whirlwind.  But the roots of the faith are too deep, and too resistant.  If you're paying attention, you stop and realize just how futile it is to imagine that everything the Faith has always stood for somehow, miraculously, conforms to the latest that I happen to prefer in my own comfortable slot of history.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.   Colossians 2.8

Yep

Don't let enemies of the Faith dictate the terms.  We are to love our enemies, pray for our enemies, and forgive our enemies.  But in doing so, at no point does that mean they will cease to be our enemies.  They might eventually.  But while they are enemies, don't let them call the shots.  Let us stand up and proclaim what we are and what we believe.  Let us define our terms.  And, quite frankly, let us be prepared to call out our enemies for what they are and for what they believe so that the unsuspecting won't be caught unawares. 

An interesting question

Is Pope Francis actually converting anyone to Catholicism?  The post is from November, 2014. But it's a good question.  I mean, he's all about the outreach.  Is it working?  Are people coming back into the Church?  Are they coming in for the first time? I'm not saying they aren't.  I'm just curious to see some numbers.    If so, then that would be a good thing, or a great first step at least.  It's not as easy as it looks to find out, BTW.  For every story I find saying "Catholic conversions on the rise!", I can find as many saying "Catholics leaving the Church", or "Catholics converting to Islam".  So I'm curious if anyone has any ideas or figures to toss around. 

Consigned to the Catholic Blogosphere

The Catholic blogosphere, like any part of that segment of modern reality, should not be the only place where people go to grow in their faith.  Mostly fueled by amateur apologists, it is a hotbed for all the things that make the Internet generation flawed at best.  So why have I spent so much of my time there?

Well, you have to understand Catholicism.  Even Catholics - yes, even those apologists defending the Church - admit that fellowship and outreach are not the strong suits of Catholic living.  Koinonia is the Greek word for fellowship.  Some Protestant churches used to suffer from what we coined Koinonitis.  That is, we have all the people we want, we want no more.

Catholics seem to have this in spades.  Because many parishes are, in fact, monstrous churches with thousands of families, you imagine it won't be that way.  Most Protestant churches that suffered from this were usually smaller congregations.  So you imagine that in Catholic parishes with thousands, there would be no problem finding groups to fit in.  And you'd be wrong.

After ten years, we have yet to fit in.  Hired by a Catholic lay ministry, involved in RCIA and other educational endeavors, kids in youth groups, public speaking, you'd think we'd have found that magic group to rub shoulders with.  And again, you'd be wrong.

Not that nobody has been open to us.  We've met very friendly people.  Helpful people.  People who would stop and chat for a few.  Even invited to a couple houses.  But it's been like being friends at work.  You know how if you're working with someone you can get to be friends over time?  But then if you transfer to another position or task, and aren't around that person, it sort of fades.  And if you see them six months later, you have to start from scratch.

That's been this.  Priests have so many people to shepherd, they don't have time for constant discipleship and instruction.  And attempts to fit into other groups have often resulted in us sitting by ourselves listening to those who know each other chitchat.  No matter how many times over ten years we've tried to fit in, at the end of the day, we still feel like outsiders.

Some of it is our parish.  A parish with no small set of issues. Mostly liberal, it's fought the recent influx of some fairly conservative Protestant converts.  But beyond that, it's been the way in most cases we've encountered. Those who have made us feel the most welcome are grey haired well past the point of retirement.  In many cases, because they still see value in a Protestant clergy convert.  Younger Catholics, however, don't seem to.  And those in our age group, as well as that of our kids, have felt no compunction in letting us know we'd best get used to sitting by ourselves at the annual picnic.

Even joining the Knights of Columbus didn't help.  And I typically found myself trying to get into the conversations, but ending up standing along the wall, listening to those who know each other carry the conservation.

Hence, in order to find some fellowship, some avenue of interaction, I've been consigned to the dreaded Blogosphere.  A place not for the weak hearted.  At best you can get some who are willing to engage in questions or disagreements on a mature level before being called a hater of the Church or Jesus.  At worst, it comes right out of the gate with accusations of being stupid, evil, not caring about dead kids, Jesus, God, or whatever.  And then it goes down from there.  That not including the obvious blindness to sin, evil, wrong, and other things that a new convert shouldn't be able to recognize as easily as they make it able to be recognized.

Now I would gladly have gone anywhere else for my formation.  But Catholics are, even now, notoriously sketchy with adult education.  Some parishes have done better.  Others still struggle.  But even then, formation is only so effective without the added lair of fellowship.  And that is where a major lack has created a major void.  Leaving Catholics who would seek to grow to turn to the modern equivalent of an English boarding school, where cold and heartless brutality and stunning self righteousness substitutes for actual Christian guidance.  That can only cause problems, unless the new believer is wanting some group that he or she can join in which we thank God for not making us like those loser Catholics over there.

Just thought I'd throw that out.  For all that Protestants might lack, they seem to have what the Church could use.  They understand the importance of instruction and fellowship, not as two different issues worth tackling, but as a single whole needed to help new believers grow from milk to meat in their faith diets.

I often wonder

If we are evangelizing the world, or if the world is evangelizing the Church.  Fr. Longenecker gives a shout out to a 'Catholic' approach to evangelizing, which is sort of the old 'don't be exclusive but live our lives out in order that all come to the fullness of Christ through the Church.'  In short, I have no clue.  Do we think that isn't exclusive?  Do we tell people that's what we want?  And what do we mean by living?  Holy living?  Chaste?  Pure?  Party animal who's saved?  This is, and no disrespect intended, what I mean when I say Catholic unspeak.  It sounds wonderful, but try to put it into some coherent practice.

But most of all, it reminds me of just how radically the world has changed and thrown the gauntlet down before the Church.  And how, so often, the Church can only respond by bowing and vowing to change.  I'm sure we imagine that mass conversion - if we should even want that - is on the verge of happening.  And yet I still can't help but think for every perceived step forward, the world is compelling us to take three or four very real steps back.

Soteriology for an atheist generation

Many moderns are implicit atheists if not explicitly atheistic in their cosmology.  It's true.  The illusions of industry, technology and science have made more than one person focus on the here and today, what's two inches in front of me (or in recent years, on the screen on my mobile device).  The hereafter means little.  People don't even think about it.  It's assumed either all the good folks end up in some ethereal afterlife, or there isn't, or it doesn't matter.

Which is why I sometimes think our obsession with space travel is so strong.  Paint me a party-pooper, but I'm not overly impressed by our space race.  The fact that we ever landed on the moon has not, as far as I can tell, helped the human condition.  The hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars that could have fed the hungry and clothed the naked, instead went behind collecting some rocks and having a few photo shoots.  

Sure, it's neat.  It's awesome at first, sort of like getting up at Christmas when you're a kid and you see that biggest box in the corner.  Huge box.  It has to be great!  And then once you open it, even if it's a toy, you realize it's only ho-hum.  That's how I feel about space travel.  We don't even know if real intergalactic travel is possible.  It might not be.

Proponents of space travel point to old explorers and bold racist imperialists who didn't let stupid tales of falling off the edge of the world or getting eaten by monsters stop them.  Of course we know that their actual concern was lack of supplies and the ability to sustain a long voyage.  Plus, they knew you could sail in a boat.  They knew you could cross mountains.  It had been done for eons.  The only question was did they have the materials to make it longer than before?  We have no clue if humans - or any living creatures - can sustain what would be needed to make space travel, much less non-earth self sustained living, practical.

And the returns and costs?  For hundreds of billions of dollars we've only had a few things confirmed that we seem capable of learning from our snug labs in China.  What else could we spend so much on for so little return and call it a success? 

So why do we do it?  Why are we obsessed - beyond the simple coolness of it - with someday getting moon colonies, or Mars colonies, or slipping the surely bonds of the Milky Way and touching the face of Andromeda?  I say because in many ways, space flight and the promise of keeping the human race alive beyond the earth is the soteriological hope of the secular man.

Soteriology is, of course, a fancy scholar term for the study of salvation.  In the old days, that was the hope that we would die and dwell in the house of the Lord forever.  In recent years, that seems to be an assumption on the part of a growing number of believers.  Hell is, well, diminishing in importance and acceptance.  For the secularly dominated, however, there is nothing.

If the Cosmos is all that was and will be, and we live forever in our memories and the lives of those who come after, then once the world ends, everything becomes pointless.  Right?  I mean, the atheist says eternal life is in the memories of those who go beyond, who see a world that we shall never know.  Some say it continues in our genes.  A circle of life thing.  Even if our great-great grandkids forget about us, we are still 'alive' in their genes (poor things). 

Problem with that is, once the world blows up, then it's all for naught.  Eventually, everything is rendered pointless.  It didn't matter.  It didn't matter that Mozart lived, or that Confucius lived, or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a better man than Hitler.  The world blew up.  It's over.  There is nothing left to carry on a gene or a memory.  The entire story of every living thing has just become pointless.  The smallest molecule in the universe has every bit as much meaning as the entire narrative of human history. 

And if you think about it, that's not much on which to hang a positive outlook.  It does better if you don't think about it.  Which is why if you say this to many atheists they get mad.   If you tell me I look for the hope of eternity in paradise, I don't get mad.  Even if you say I believe in Hell, I don't get mad.  But tell an atheist about the logical ramifications of atheism, and expect an ear full. 

So for the secularist, the atheist, or the lazy post-modern who gives it little thought, could it be that the only real hope for keeping 'eternity' alive and making the human species worth anything more than an electron, is that some humans, somehow, someday get to escape before the world blows up and are then able to keep the memories and the stories alive?  That's eternity?  And it only works if we can get off this rock, this rock that both the Faithful and the Atheist agree is not long for the world.   Just a thought.

Proof that God exists

Jimmy Akin kicks around the idea of proving God's existence.  It's a popular Atheist shot nowadays.  Religion has to prove God.  Religion has made the claim.  Religion now must prove the claim.  Of course when they say prove, they often mean prove it scientifically.  They may say they want logic or reason, but usually they mean subject God to scientific study using the scientific method, and if that approach doesn't work, then God doesn't exist.  It dawned on me some time ago that assuming God can be, or should be, proven using the scientific methods appears to be every bit the faith claim.  Nonetheless, Mr. Akin walks through a bird's eye view of who really has to provide the proof, and why such discussions go so wrong when the burden of proof is so obvious.

Here's my thing with Catholics and lying

Across the Catholic blogosphere, the issue of lying has become one in which stars have been taken and removed from various bellies and placed on others.  The whole thing has its genesis back when the group Live Action made national news for exposing some pretty heinous practices in the already heinous Planned Parenthood.

Immediately, pro-life and Catholic bloggers were outraged, seeing that such clearly illegal and immoral services  were proof that it was time to stop prancing around PP and get serious.  Then Dawn Eden, fresh from obtaining a Masters degree in religious studies, co-wrote an article that promptly took the attention away from the abortion heavy Planned Parenthood and any wrongdoing thereof, and placed it firmly at the feet of - wait for it - Live Action, and those passionate young people devoting their lives for the sake of life, and the sake of the Gospel.

Now, before I continue, let me say this.  There seems to be a strong case that Live Action needs to find other ways to fish out the moral problems with Planned Parenthood.  Any time we purposefully use methods out of line with the Truth and the Gospel, we do undermine the witness, and that is important.  There are many ways to undermine a witness of course.  And it would do well for all us Catholic bloggers to remember that.  But there is a strong case that Live Action would be better off finding better ways to pursue its wonderful mission.

But, alas, this is not how it unfolded.  The Catholic blogosphere, being the blogosphere and often managed by amateurs with little to no actual ministerial training, became a three ring circus.  Things were said about Live Action, Lila Rose, and Corrie ten Boom (you had to be there) that make Bill Maher seem kind and compassionate by comparison.  If some advocating the use of lying used bad arguments, I dare say some arguing against all lying used horrible arguments, sometimes violating a host of commandments in the 'don't judge and don't call raca and fool' departments to show just how horrible LA was.

Recently, Mark Shea made amends, posting several long apologetic pieces, mostly aimed at his treatment of LA and Lila Rose.  That was good to see.   I don't know if others who joined the fray have followed suit.  But the issue is still out there, and it's still heavily debated.  Usually on the grounds of never, ever lying ever, no matter what.

So two interesting blog articles popped up over the last few weeks.  One I commented on here.  The idea that I would proudly let a baby die rather than lie to save it would go down smoother if I'm willing to sell all my possessions, give them to the poor, and then follow Jesus.

The other from Kevin O'Brien.  I don't know Mr. O'Brien except through Mark Shea's blog.  I might have met him once.  I can't remember.  Mr. O'Brien, whatever he does to pay bills, is known as Mr. Theater, heavily involved in Chesterton and acting.  Beyond that, I have no clue what his theological or philosophical credentials are.  So he posts an article about the utter unacceptability of lying.

My first dig was pointing out the fact that Mr. O'Brien once called Ferris Bueller's Day Off one of the most Christian movies of all time.  Anyone from my generation who knows that movie can take a few to finish laughing. A two hour long celebration of the narcissism, hedonism, laziness and self focus that is torpedoing our society.  And to top it off, he accomplishes all of this by...lying!  A two hour long cinematic mega-lie reinforced by constant additions through smaller lies, and that's one of the most Christian movies?  When we then turn around and proudly proclaim that it's far better that millions of babies be slaughtered than a single lie told to save them??  Anyone catching some lack of credibility here?

This got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  Here's the thing with lying.  Don't.  The Devil is called the Father of Lies.  In Revelation, all lairs are cast into the nasty place with the rest of the horrible murderers and sorcerers.  Jesus proclaims himself the Truth, as well as the Way and the Life, and informs Pilate that he had come to bear witness to the Truth.   That's enough to suggest: Lying bad, Truth good.

But - and here's where experience in actual pastoral ministry helps - life isn't a big theology test, ethics quiz, or philosophy exam, or argument to be won on the blogosphere.  One of the constant negative stereotypes leveled at the Catholic Church is that it strips away the heart and soul of the Gospel, and leaves only salvation through logically superior adherence to philosophical algorithms. Life is more than a single, isolated issue to be debated by amateurs on the blogosphere.  Even amateurs with religion degrees.

With this idea of religion as life lived, let's look at an oft referenced sub-topic in the lying debate: the dreaded 'would you lie to save Jews from the Nazis'.  This is frequently referenced because anyone who took an ethics class in college knows about the case of Corrie ten Boom and her sister.  Corrie spoke and wrote often about her sister's insistence that she would not lie, even to the Nazis, in order to save the Jews they were hiding.  Lots of debate here.  Lots to unpack.

And yet in the Religion as Living world, I must ask myself if I would lie to save Jews from the Nazis?  Really?  That's what we, on the blogosphere, are pinning the debate on?  That's what we're staking our ground on?  That's what it's boiling down to?  Here's a tip about Christian living.  Before I wonder if I would lie to save Jews from Nazis or not, let's look at all the things that could happen in my little religious pilgrimage long before that moment:

1.  Would I enthusiastically join the Nazis because they assure me it's the economy stupid, besides, people like me are really the superior people and the only reason I'm not running the world is because those stupid and evil people are part of a vast conspiracy against me.  So hate them now!  And join the latest, hippest solution!!  Would I?

2. Would I, in being only slightly bothered by the Nazis, still support them since it's the economy stupid, and they have fixed the economy after all.  Besides, they merely hate 'those people' over there, and make some good arguments.  Oh, I'm not a 'show up at the latest Nuremberg rally, card carrier', but I belong since it's the latest, hippest. 

3.  Would I not belong, since I see serious problems with the Nazis, and don't share their hate or their saber rattling, with clear designs on country and empire... but I'll go along since my situation is improving?! 

4.  Would I not belong, since I see serious problems with the Nazis, don't share their thoughts of empire and conquest, and refuse to support them in anyway...I just won't rock the boat since, after all, things could be worse?! 

5.  Would I not belong, refuse to support, and even fuss and complain...quietly so nobody hears, since I don't want to get into trouble or anything?! 

6.  Would I not belong, refuse to support and even fuss and complain, and maybe even support those who are trying to do something about it, but maybe find reasons why I can't, or don't want to, take part in doing anything about it beyond fussing and complaining and doing something about it by proxy, because secretly I'm scared, lazy, or whatever? 

7.  Would I not belong, refuse to support, and join in the resistance...but only if the resistance was up to my standards, wrestling with the question: am I maintaining high standards, or perhaps just using such things as an excuse not to get involved and jeopardize my life or my family's life by doing anything about it, while proudly wearing the badge of 'official Nazi opponent', but not getting the hands really too dirty? 

8.  Would I be so much a part of the resistance, that I would actually put my family in harm's way by hiding Jewish and other refugees from the Nazis, trying my best and focused on helping innocent Jews live against all odds?

9.  And then, we can get to the whole 'what would be values be while hiding Jewish and other refugees from the Nazis...'

See what I mean?  And that was just off the top of my head.  Hell, I would probably be stuck around 4. or 5., much less getting all the way to the bottom of the list.  And yet how many blog posts came out boldly and courageously declaring that they would stand, shotgun to face, and gladly refuse to lie in order to save the Jews!  Really?

The fact is, Live Action is right around Number 8.  They're in the trenches.  Maybe not always right.  Maybe they should do better.  But they're there.  That's what it's.  Doing.  As we used to say in Protestant lands, 'Belief is a verb, and should be accompanied by action."  I understand consequentialism, of doing wrong or doing bad or evil for a good cause, and that's a worthy discussion.  It's certainly something to bear in mind.  And it's something that should inform our efforts when we do leave the tortured wastes of the blogosphere and actually strike out to make disciples of the nations, going where more than just a bad case of carpal tunnel can be the price.

We must remember that Catholicism, like Christianity in general, is not about winning arguments on the blogopshere.  It's not about insulting others who aren't as righteous as we are because we win arguments on the blogosphere.  It's not about theology exams and ethics quizzes.  The intellectual depth and breadth of the Catholic tradition is one of its treasures.  This sometimes, however, gives people the impression that just quoting Aquinas here or Augustine there is all that matters in declaring what's right and wrong.  It's about life, and the living of it thereof.

Sure, there's room for debate.  There's room for discussion.  Proclaiming truth and the Church's teaching is important.  But really?  I would say the first thing anyone who has problems with Live Action needs to do is contact Live Action.  I said that way back when this first hit the fan.  Then, you know what?  The next thing for me to do would be to get involved at least to the level that Live Action is involved, and show them how it needs to be done.  With love.  With patience.  With firm correctness.  And then, when everything has settled, we don't have to argue about whether lying is right or wrong, we get to show people how it cane be done the right way.

That just hit me this week as I was kicking this issue around.  I realized how far I really was from even being part of the battle.  And that's worth remembering before I point my fingers at others with scorn and derision for the great sin of lying in the midst of that which I haven't come close to doing.

The greatest pitfall of ministry

Is not sex, or money or even power.  Yes, those make the headlines.  But the real pitfall is confusing your own biases, prejudices, or just plain opinions with the Gospel.  It's a constant problem in Protestant life, where individual inspiration and interpretation of the Bible are assumed.  Why can't it be that the Holy Spirit just happened to tell me we should root for Michigan this year, huh?

But oddly enough, I've learned it's no different in Catholic circles.  Again, especially across the Catholic blogosphere.  See my posts about the amateur nature of so many Catholic bloggers/apologists.  Hey, it's not an easy pitfall to avoid when you've had training and education and professional experience.  Without those things, it can almost become the norm.

So over at Simcha Fisher's, she's laid out exactly what she will and won't tolerate when it comes to fashion.  What she will wear, what she won't wear.  What clothes she finds appealing, what clothes she finds unacceptable.  No problem at all.  And she's right about many things.

But here's the thing.  What she, and some weeks ago Marc Barnes, is railing at is this old notion that women should be pretty and dainty and pure and whatever.  That idea of girls were girls and men were men.  Girls in their pretty lace and dainties, rugged men in their shirts and hauberks.  Yes, I'm aware that, with some scrutiny, we can find problems with those ideals.  With concentrated scholarly appraisals, we can unpack bad, un-Christian, even dark ideals behind all those.

But guess what.  We can do the same with any idea, practice, fad or whatever. In the end, those were simply ideals formed by people of a particular culture in a particular point in history.  They were simply formulated opinions that people thought worked.  Just like ideals and preferences held by Marc Barnes, or Simcha Fisher, or me, or anyone.  Have your opinions all you want.  Yes, based on that all-important Catechism, which seems more important at some times than others, modesty is probably the best way to err.  But for heaven's sake, don't try to make your own generationally and culturally and socially and personally informed opinions and preferences about fashion choices to be a clash betwixt heaven and hell.  Don't make it about the powers of God (your opinions) vs. the powers of Satan (people whose preferences differ).  It's a very, very, very and let me repeat - very - dangerous temptation in any ministry.  Which is why applying the label 'evil' to things, or hinting at things like misogyny, bigotry, prejudice, or heresy ought to be done rarely.  And almost never when discussing slacks as opposed to skirts.

I should mention that in the piece, Ms. Fisher is more restrained than are many who come by to comment.  Alas.

If you want to explain why lying is wrong

You don't start by saying 'cuz the Church says so you lousy sinner.'  You start from the beginning.  Years ago, my Dad had a heart attack.  A work horse all his life, he was healthy and that's what saved him.  But the biggest shock wasn't that he had a heart attack (though people who knew him actually wept when they heard, thinking if C.C. Griffey could have a heart attack, anyone can!).  The biggest shock was that he had diabetes.  Pow!  Pow!  One-two punch.

Now, when things settled down and everything got back to normal, we talked about things.  We realized we should have seen it all along.  Out of the blue he began getting tired when he never was tired his entire life.  He was starting to take forever to heal.  He was always thirsty.  I mean that.  We took to keeping milk jugs filled with water in the fridge.  It never dawned on us to look deeper.  We just thought, "Gee, he's awfully thirsty, let's get him some more water."

But all the water and band-aides and naps couldn't help, because the problem wasn't that he was thirsty, not sleeping enough, or just accident prone.  It was that he had a disease.  We were dealing with the symptoms. We were missing the disease.

As I sit back and gradually lose my interest in the Catholic blogosphere, I think one reason is that it is peopled by amateurs.  Amateurs, of which I am one.  I wasn't an amateur in my Protestant days.  With graduate and post-graduate schooling, years of pastoral and counseling experience, leadership and administration, I knew my way around our own tradition.  I knew enough to know that one thing you had to deal with in churches was amateurs.  And you needed to be careful that someone didn't misrepresent the faith, or present a bad witness to the unbeliever in the name of the Faith.

Well, I feel that is a problem with the blogosphere. Too many amateurs.  Oh, they may be brilliant, they may be eloquent, they may be dedicated and devoted.  And some of them may just be blowhards.  But whatever, most of them don't have the formal training mixed with the trenches of applied ministry to filter through what they say.  Often, they simply write subject by subject.  They deal with 'how should you vote?' (like me, duh); or 'should you ever lie to save a dying baby'; or 'we must do whatever it takes to defeat consequentialism'; or, well, you get the point.

But if a Catholic, non-Catholic, or even an American, thinks things like lying for a greater good, or doing wrong that good may come of it, are morally permissible, chances are it isn't because they've grasped the deepest and most foundational basis for Catholic teaching and belief and reached their conclusions accordingly.  It's probably because there are other factors at work.  I've said that if you accept homosexuality, it's because you already accept many things at odds with traditional Christian morality.  If you accept might makes right, survival of the richest, what's wrong with abortion rights, it's because you already have bought into many ideals and beliefs that would have been foreign to a Christian thinker only a few centuries ago.

That's not everyone's fault.  We are of our time, despite what Chesterton seemed to believe.  And so are many Catholic bloggers, who can be just as prone to being children of their age as anyone.  In fact, it's because of this amateur status that they can miss this fact, and end up doing or saying things that seem smack out of the park loony when set against other things they say.

In the end, when you are trained and you have the hands on experience, you begin to look at people and their flaws, errors, and failings, and realize that they are doing what they are doing for the same reason I have my flaws, errors and failings.  Because we are children made in the image of God living in a fallen world.  And our particular era of fallenness encompasses some differing views of the world from that which has been held by the Christian faith, or is held by the Catholic faith today.  And at that point, you begin to realize that just yelling and calling people names, insulting them and smacking them down because they can't see why it's better for a baby to die than tell a lie to save it is about as effective as handing a diabetic more water when they just can't quench their thirst.  If people think it's better to lie to save a baby, it's possibly because they have been weaned on a set of beliefs and values that differ from those of the Catholic tradition, and there's the disease.

Starting with those values, those key and foundational beliefs, that define the Catholic world view would be a much better approach.  It helps because, one, like my Dad's diabetes, it acknowledges the disease rather than the symptoms.  Two, it keeps me humble because suddenly I realize I might be stone dead wrong about things and not realize it, since I'm every bit the child of my age.  Three, it prevents the growth of my own inner fundamentalist who just can't imagine why everyone else isn't as humble as I am.  And finally, it is far more likely to produce results as people may begin to realize that God chose foolishness, rather than great wisdom.  It will do a better job at getting people to stop thinking as men think, and start thinking as God thinks.  From there will come changes in more than the symptoms, but ultimately changes that lead to curing the disease.

With that said, here is the type of person Catholics everywhere should be listening to.  He's a pro.  He has the training and the experience.  And he knows how to go beyond the symptoms, and get straight to the disease.  Watch.  Listen.  Learn why Catholic is Catholic, and not just a variation of modern alternatives.

Keven O'Brien sums up the Lying Debate

From the point of view that lying is always wrong, period.  But then, Keven O'Brien also called Ferris Bueller's Day Off "one of the most Christian movies ever made."  Really. That celebration of 80s hedonism and narcissism, laziness and selfishness, mockery of education and families, is really quite Christian.  How does he conclude that a movie made for my generation, that my generation knew full well was a celebration of the Great ME, is actually the Paschal Mystery unpacked?  Well:

"It's about how a father should love his son more than his car; it's about how the small minded indoctrination of compulsory education is a prison; it's about freedom of spirit; it's about overcoming jealousy; it's about loving your brother; it's about loving life."

In other words, it's about the problems everyone else but Bueller had.  It's not about Bueller wanting a day of selfishness, narcissism, lying, cheating, stealing, exploiting the kindness of a city, mockingly using his parents' love, using his friends, treating people like objects for his own gratification.  Nope.  His parents, his friends' parents, his principal, his school, his town, his society, you see, they were all the problems.  The real solution was freedom of spirit!  It's about loving life!  It's about focusing on all the problems of everyone else but that main character who is giving us a blank check to focus on the Great ME.

Think on that for a while.  And think on the great lying scandal of our time as unpacked across the Catholic blogosphere.  After all, isn't this whole lying debate really that?  I mean, there could be some folk arguing against all lying who never, ever lie.  But I can't help but think some, if not most, have lied at one point or another, and for reasons far less noble than Live Action's.  Not to say Live Action is right.  I think there is something to be said about using lies and deception to promote the Gospel truth.

But you know what?  Given how little I actually get out there, get my hands dirty, and sacrifice it all for the Pro-Life cause, I'm going to stop a minute before I spend hours and hours of my energies pointing out just how badly others are doing what I spend so little of my own sweat and blood doing myself.  If nothing else, I'll have the balls to get on the horn and find a way to contact Lila Rose or someone and speak to them face to face.  I may mention I disagree with their methods, and heck, may even say that lying isn't right, and we should strive for the truth in all things.

But it takes a special generation of believers to think that our energies are best spent writing endless reams of condemnations of other believers for how they work their ministries and pilgrimages.  It might actually take a generation that looks at one of Hollywood's greatest celebrations of hedonism and narcissism ever put to film, and concludes that's really what the Gospel is all about.   See it that way, and the entire lying debate begins to make more sense.

Sometimes a fair point

Part of being religious is striking that balance.  Go too far in either direction, and you get abuses at best, heresy at worst.  So in Christianity, we have a Just and Merciful God.  A Loving and Powerful God.  We are to rely on God' grace and mercy, but we are to be sanctified and  strive for holiness.  Begin going in one way to the exclusion of others, and you've got problems.

A little note on Catholic Living

I've been thinking on a couple of posts regarding Roger Ebert's death.  I've thought of that, as I remember the Marc Barnes post on Andy Warhol, and much of the praise and adoration given to Christopher Hitchens on his passing.  I remember this post I did when thinking about this rather Catholic phenomenon.

And my little jab I just threw out came back at me, and has given me a moment to reflect.  What does it say if we believe that my righteous standing before God, or my worth as a Catholic, is only summed up in my views on gun control, or the economic budget, or our policies in the Middle East?  Things I have little to no say in, and quite frankly, may or may not directly impact me anyway?

The idea that it's basically our politics that declares our righteousness - for that's the platform through which these issues are being debated - rather than how I get up and live my life on a daily basis has got to be a bad trend.  And it might explain why every single time there is a study or a poll (for what those are worth), Catholics come in dead last where you want them to be first, and vice versa.  Only in giving do Catholics rise head and shoulders above others.  In virtually every other capacity, they lag behind.

If we've convinced ourselves that it's only in our opinions of some lofty geopolitical strategic policy that our holiness is demonstrated, rather than the lives we live, then I could imagine why those polls come out the way they do.  Never mind the lousy witness.  News to Catholics: party-boy Catholic wins few converts. Put that in the New Evangelization pipe and smoke it.

So what is this pure, good religion that should indicate where we our in our earthly pilgrimage?  Is it really what we think about America's foreign policy or which party to reject in the next election?  Is that what separates the sheep and the goats?  Here's a couple clips from the good old Scriptures, still a decent source for guidance and practical teaching when it comes to figuring out what God might actually want from us.  It helped me become Catholic.  Perhaps it can help me become a good Catholic.

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.  James 1.27

“I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable, or well pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12.1-2

Nope, nothing about my views on the Ryan budget or what we should do with Syria.   A lot on what I should do in my day to day living as it relates to God and everyone else.  Sure, right attitudes about war and the economy could easily fit in there.  But just as easily could the way I act on a daily basis.  It would seem to be all or nothing, not some and not the other.  At least that's how I see it.

I don't like bumper sticker theology

And apparently neither does Marc Barnes.  That is, boiling things down to cutesy slogans and meaningless cliches. I was still a pastor when the whole WWJD phenomenon hit.  I wasn't impressed. I said, to be brutally hones, he would dine with the tax collectors and sinners, call his followers to leave everything and follow him, chastise the religious elite, then suffer and die on the cross for humanity, followed by rising from the dead on the third day and ascending into heaven.  That's what Jesus would do.  Still, people continued in my church and everywhere to make a very worthwhile reflective question into a meaningless cliche.  So here is Mr. Barnes, trying to head us off at the pass, before we take another worthwhile insight and hash and slash it down to something that wouldn't even work on the bumper of a car.

Striving for a hopeless cause

One of the things that struck me about this article that quotes Pope Benedict XVI's reaction to the recognition of a Palestinian state is just how, as Christians, we are to strive for the inevitably hopeless.  I mean, read the reaction:

"No more bloodshed! No more fighting! No more terrorism! No more war! Instead let us break the vicious circle of violence. Let there be lasting peace based on justice, let there be genuine reconciliation and healing. Let it be universally recognized that the State of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders. Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland, to live with dignity and to travel freely. Let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream."

No more bloodshed?   No more fighting?  No more terrorism?  No more war?  That would be great.  And since peacemakers are called blessed, and told they will be called sons of God, I think it's something we Christians are supposed to strive for, despite the fact that it's apparently a hopeless cause.  Why hopeless?  Because of sin?  Because of human nature?  No, because Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars,when speaking about what to look for leading up to the last days.  He took the existence of warfare as a given in the same way he took the existence of the poor as a given.  And yet, we are to reach out to the poor, even if we can never help everyone.

There's something in that, I must admit.  Something that makes me wonder if in the tendency we have of adjusting our faith around a yen for comfortable lifestyles we might be missing something.  I mean, I spend my life trying to keep my home, avoid foreclosure, avoid bankruptcy, somehow get my kids through college, save in some way for retirement, and so on.  And that, too, seems to be an assumed set of values, since Jesus often uses the shrewdness or the careful planning of individuals as a good thing in certain parables (I'm thinking of Matthew 25 and Luke 16).

But yet, in the end, there seems to be something in our faith that say just do it, no matter how hopeless   This isn't to be confused with using such an observation as an excuse to avoid responsibility   This isn't to say our response to complex ethical dilemmas should be 'screw it, I'm not going to sin, babies are going to be killed anyway, so I'll stay pure and know I'm doing the right thing.'  Martyrdom, after all, is not how willing I am to let others die for my faith.

But there is something to be said for striving forward, fighting the fight, giving it that old college try, no matter how hopeless.  Even if God himself has said there is no hope that wars will end, we are to strive to end wars.  Even if Jesus spoke of the perpetual existence of the poor, we are to strive to help all who are poor no matter how hopeless.  I don't know.  There's probably a profound insight in there somewhere.  It just hit me when I read that quote.  No more war?  Indeed, there will always be war, just as there will always be crime, poverty, despair.  I suppose as long as it doesn't lead to an ethic that allows the weak and helpless to suffer under the guise of 'it would happen anyway, but at least I'm being pure', it is something to consider when we measure effectiveness versus our calling as Christians to strive to set our minds on God's interests, rather than man's interests.

To all Internet Catholics who are debating what voting is all about

Who we should vote for, how we should vote, or if you think voting is a big fat waste of time or not, I give you the following straight from the Bishops' pens:

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
moral evil. 

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. 

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

You'll notice it really isn't that hard.  It assumes we should vote because apparently the Bishops think voting is worth something beyond my focusing on my own soul.  Apparently, however, how you end up voting is up to you, as long as it's based on careful reflections on Church teaching and allowing your conscience to be guided accordingly, not based on party loyalty, personal loyalty to a candidate, adherence to an intrinsic evil, or, if I may, based on your own personal opinions that no matter what the Church says, you know all voting is evil, stupid, or all parties are evil.  There's more than one way to skin a non-Catholic inspired approach to voting.  Best to look to what the Bishops say in such cases, not what someone on the blogosphere says the Bishops really meant if you were really smart enough to understand their secret meaning.