A reminder

If you sound like this when someone on the other side does something wrong:

But sound like this when someone on your side does the same thing or worse:

Then yeah, you're a big part of the problem.  I thought of that when I saw this:

Pretty rough condemnation.  And not unwarranted.  I know little of the reporter in question who was murdered.  I recall it from back in the day.  But I think that, unless the guy was Himmler redux, he deserves a little more than a shrug and 'things happen'.  Especially from our president.  And I'll stand by that.  But I don't think Trump's response is anywhere near what we have seen regarding some activists' and prominent professionals' reaction to transgender shooters in schools, or women who cross transgender activism, or heck, the Charlie Kirk murder.  Yet regarding such things as the Charlie Kirk murder, the good deacon's response was:

Now, maybe it's me, but I see a definite tonal difference in how the actual murder of Kirk was addressed versus responding to President Trump's statement.  Again, I think, as usual, President Trump's response was lousy.  It goes a long way toward conveying a disregard for human life and suffering at a time when we need just the opposite.

But so did the murder of Charlie Kirk, only a million times more!  And that includes those who defended and celebrated it.   But what did you get from Deacon Greydanus the day Kirk was murdered?  A platitude. Something that would fit on a bumper sticker.  And not even his own.  He had to quote others, saying he was too busy to address Kirk's murder.  I note he wasn't too busy to comment on President Trump's statement.   As for condemning such things as, say, the horrifying attacks on JK Rowling from transgender activists, I've asked for examples from him doing so but as of now have not received any. 

That sort of morals by partisan plot point has no place in the Church, or decent society.  If we want to bemoan President Trump or the society we've built that saw Trump's ascent, by all means.  But that is only worth anything if we look at the broader culture and society we've built, even if the evidence for that declines points sharply back to the side with which we clearly sympathize. 

An odd observation from Pope Francis

So apparently Pope Francis came out and warned against religion that stokes divisions.  Mr. Divisions himself.  But then, he is the postmodern pope.  And with postmodernity, our 'yes' is forever 'maybe', and our 'no' is 'it depends'. 

It's true.  Pope Francis seems to have no problem saying that it's a sin to apply adjectives to people - like those rigid types over there.  He condemns those who are too rigid while being about the most rigid person  I know when it comes to promoting his own views.  So it shouldn't be surprising that a pope who has more than once invoked the 'me vs. them' template is suddenly bothered by religious leaders who cause divisions.  

And as for those who have felt marginalized by Pope Francis and targeted by Pope Francis and villainized by Pope Francis, I have seen the following Bible verse quoted time and time and time again: 

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

Yep.  Because apparently our Faith is all about dividing the sheep from the greatest of all time, all about bringing a sword, all about speaking in parables for the expressed purpose of the inner circle enlightened Catholics who always get it.  Yet now, it turns out religion shouldn't do what his supporters have more than cheered him for doing, which he himself seems to have had no problems doing time and again.  

I fear Pope Francis, while having made some good points over the years, has nurtured two very, very bad developments in modern thinking: 

    1. That Christianity is entirely optional as opposed to the importance of fealty to worldly narratives and     agendas.  Oh it's nice to have and Jesus and all, but one can happily reject the Gospel as long as you are     in line with the proper activism and political advocacy.  And

    2. Words definitely speak louder than actions, which is why 'do as I say and not as I do' is a perfectly         appropriate approach to ministry in the postmodern global spotlight.  Something that almost defines, I      should add, those Catholics who proudly hang on every word of Pope Francis unless he criticizes             something left of center. 

Jimmy Akin unpacks modern Catholicism in a nutshell

From L-R: Western Christianity, the World (and we all know it)    

That is, you just thought you knew what Catholicism teaches. 

I can't think of anything more devastating to the Christian witness ot the modern world than what we're seeing today.  On any given day, we have people - and I mean leaders including some popes I know - act as if what we always thought Catholicism taught was wrong.  Or incomplete. Or mistaken.  Or a bit off the mark.  Or you just never know.  Or it's open to debate. 

In our age, where people in the dying West are perishing from misery, pointlessness, depression, drugs, suicide, mindless violence, and a general malaise of existence, taking this message into the world is like bringing gasoline to a house fire. It's telling people today that what secularism has been saying for years is true: Religions in this objectively valueless world are just made up fables and rules because none of it is true.  Therefore all is whatever, it's all up for grabs, life sucks and then you die. 

This is exacerbated by the modern Church and its leaders constantly changing, modifying, or casting doubts on what the Church seems to have always taught. Or so you thought.  As my son said after one of his college classes that dealt with Christianity, the Church continually acting like Catholics have been getting it wrong all these years plays right into the secular hand.  

And it isn't just this or that petty custom over which we're casting shadows of doubt.  The  things you're hearing people and leaders cast doubt on cut to the base of reality for the Christian: Are the people and events in the Bible true or fiction?  Deacon Greydanus says there are several things in the Bible that can be dismissed as myth.  Others will no doubt add more to that list than Deacon Greydanus would concede, and then you have yet another problem.   When does it end?  Who is right?  Which ones are myth?  Or if this is suddenly myth today, how can we know that those stories over there won't be myth tomorrow? 

Or consider salvation.  Is Catholicism even that important when it comes to being saved?  Is Jesus?  Apparently it's nice to believe in Jesus, but if you don't it's hardly a deal breaker. How about morality?  Sexuality?  Heck, abortion.  I'm seeing quite a few supposedly 'pro-life' Catholics modifying the Church's opposition to abortion by adding such terms as 'elective' or 'convenience', as if other abortions might be fine.   Or Hell?  Hell, can we even know now if there is such a thing or possibility?  Or is it that the Church never technically said anyone would certainly be in Hell, so clearly nobody might be there, and turns out Jesus never even talked about the topic in a clear way. If Catholics before thought otherwise, just chalk it up to one more thing the first 2000 years might have gotten wrong.  You just never know what we should have believed.  

It reduces learning the Divine Truths to nothing other than a polite debate around the water cooler. It makes religious belief into anything but indispensable.  Does the world approach debate about climate change that way?  About racism?  About gender?  About feminism?  About DEI? About European Imperialism?  About the Transatlantic slave trade?  Any polite discussions there?  No fundamentalist tent revival preacher was more assured of the indisputable truth than the modern World is about its proclamations.  If you want something willing to question anything it believes, I'm afraid you'll have to look to the modern Christian Faith. 

It's getting to where I can't rightly say the Church has always taught a growing number of things, at least if I pay attention to the conversations today.  The only ones sure about anything are the non-believers, the secularists, the youth weaned in our atheistic society, and others who know Christianity and flying saucer cults are practically one and the same.  That's why we change the rules.  The rules were always based on no better than the Tooth Fairy all along.  And our constant willingness to change to order does nothing other than reinforce that teaching. Hence my son's point. 

Oh, and before we evoke development of doctrine, or historical debates over theology, or that we always need to instruct the faithful on the true teachings of the Faith, we must admit youthful hipsters are also honest. They know all of these sudden debates about what we only thought the Church taught is a direct result of the Church buckling before the World.  It is not clarifying orthodoxy in the face of heresy.  They see the World push, and the Church retreat.  No St. Bonifaces or St. Patricks here.  We're not about to tell the World it's wrong.  The World changes the rules, and we begin asking if there were ever rules to begin with.  That's not explaining that God is not an angry child wanting to hurt us because people mistake God's justice and mercy.  It's saying we're not sure if God cares what we believe at all since the World has already said there is no God, so it doesn't matter what we believe. 

And not just the youngsters, but the World at large sees it for what it is:  The World compelling the witness of the Apostles to be changed to fit the World's latest demands. And if we think that will reach people for the Gospel, I'm sure we also believe that the Brooklyn Bridge is finally up for sale. 

The lesson

 For Spy Wednesday is don't be Judas.  

When it was evening,

he reclined at table with the Twelve.

And while they were eating, he said,

“Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”

Deeply distressed at this,

they began to say to him one after another,

“Surely it is not I, Lord?”

He said in reply,

“He who has dipped his hand into the dish with me

is the one who will betray me.

The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him,

but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed.

It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

Then Judas, his betrayer, said in reply,

“Surely it is not I, Rabbi?”

He answered, “You have said so.”

                                        Matthew 26.20-25

There are many ways to turn Jesus over to the crowds.  The most obvious being turning Jesus over to the crowds.  Let's not do that.  No matter how loud the crowds scream.  Don't betray Jesus to the crowds, even if we think that kiss we give on Sundays will make it all better. 

The State and God are not the same

 Because obviously God would have some improving to do to equal the State:

The ease with which Christians have shoved God into the Sunday closet and deferred to the efficacy of the State as our only salvation shows the speed with which God can so easily be mocked. 

For the godless Left, of course, the State is substitute God.  And activists are its prophets.  For the believer and the sane and rational individual who made it through kindergarten, we know better. 

Now I have no idea what issue is being referenced here. Mocking thoughts and prayers began with selectively chosen shootings and the idea that guns and guns alone are the only thing worth focusing on.  Since then it has spread to a host of issues where the only acceptable response is to take your loser thoughts and your loser prayers to your loser God and keep them for an hour on Sunday mornings where they belong.  

Again, it is the progressive activist and the dogma of progress that will save the day.  God, prayers, and anything spiritual has bupkis to do with the real problems of the real world.  Let's bet on how many good and faithful Christians approve this message. 

I should say that it goes without saying I believe Christians should be involved in things, including politics.  But since mocking thoughts and prayers unless tied to distinctly leftwing activism has become all the rage among the Left, I'm wagering the shirt is supposed to imply more than a simple statement of intent. 

Pope Francis nails the spirit of modern Christainity

By telling Ukraine to embrace the 'white flag' of negotiations.

Let's face it.  Christians have been charging forth with white flags waving for generations.  Since WW2, Westerners and Americans have joined the call to charge forth and surrender.  That's how we're at the place we are today.  

And it isn't in one area alone.  The world has been having its way with the Church, and by extension the civilization it helped build, for more years than I can remember.  If what Pope Francis said seems bothersome, I'd suggest we take a long, hard, honest look at the last century or so and ask why.  

The Catholic Church and the latest

I'm sure we all have heard the news.  Pope Francis said that clergy can now bless same sex unions under certain circumstances and for certain reasons. 

It's funny.  Protestantism's biggest failing was not preventing the endless splits and divisions that arose after the Reformation.  Protestants would look at an issue, say they disagree with an issue, and it was off to start a new denomination.  

But Catholics are now doing the same thing.  Perhaps they have been for a long time. I don't know.  But there are clearly different Catholic Churches out there.  Just look at how people are reacting to this.  The news media aside, some are saying this latest development is wonderful. It's a major change in the right direction.  Others are saying it is no change at all. Still others are saying it is a change, but in the wrong direction. Some are saying the blessings have always been there, and in no way suggest the union is being blessed.  Others say this has always happened and is nothing new, that the Church has always been able to bless people in same sex unions.  While others are saying it is merely pastoral, which I suppose is meant to cover a multitude of sins. 

The only difference is, they aren't rushing out and starting their own denominations.  But the difference in how the Church is understood today between rival factions within it is no different than the difference between Baptists, Presbyterians and Lutherans within Protestantism.  Sure, there were some core agreements.  But the understanding of how the Faith actually should look and work were radically different.  Just like we see today in the Church. 

In September of 1999, while I was in the PhD program, I decided to take a big chance.  This was during the Mohler Revolution, and one of the developments of that movement was putting the kibosh on all that lovey ecumenical friendliness with Catholics that had happened in previous years.  That's what I reference when I point out Russ Moore's statements of endless adoration for Catholicism.  If he did have such high opinions of the Catholic Church back then, he kept them to himself as far as I know. For obvious reasons.   

It was a rainy September afternoon, and it was during a break between two seminars.  I went to a Catholic church that was just down from where we lived in student housing for families.  By then my two oldest were around (we would soon find out about our third son).  I went into the office and asked to talk to someone about the Catholic Faith. 

No clue just who the individual was.  She had her own office, I suppose something to do with education.  As is not uncommon, the church had a school attached.  I asked her to give me the skinny on just what Catholicism really believes.  What she said set me back for about a half dozen years.  

She said, in the end, Catholics believe all sorts of things.  It isn't something where you have to believe one thing.  The Church looks mighty different, depending on who you talk to. What one believes about Catholicism can be very different than what another believes, but that's just fine.  I was taken by that.  Why become Catholic?  I could stay Protestant and just denominationally window shop if that's the case.

Years later, after I came into the Church, I was working with the Coming Home Network.  We were at EWTN studios for reasons I can't recall.  It was there I met Kevin O'Brien, Mark Shea and several others.  They invited me to an after broadcast soiree.  While sharing wine and chocolates, Mark Shea sort of put me in front of the crowd and asked me to tell my tale.  When I got to the point above, I remember Mark's quip.  He said nobody works harder to keep people from becoming Catholic than Catholics.  And he was right in that regard.

He also would be correct now, if  he was commenting on the latest from Pope Francis.  It isn't that we are seeing people say Pope Francis just declared something and they think he is wrong.  They don't agree on what he declared. And increasingly they don't agree on what the Church has been doing about this topic since forever.  Even though it's right there for us to look at.  And Pope Francis is right here to clarify.  Yet we are seeing more divisions over this than any brawl between Methodists and Baptists from days gone by. That's supposed to be Catholicism's biggest selling point.  Unlike Protestants who endlessly quibble and divide over this and that core teaching, Catholics have a definite Magisterium with definite teachings that you can reject or accept, but which can't be denied.  Well, that isn't the case now, is it.  

I noticed something this year as we head into the Holidays.  At our local grocery store, the Salvation Army kettle has already been taken down.  I notice some stores, even days ago, are already tearing down the Christmas displays.  Halloween had a longer shelf life.  But is it any surprise that I noticed that the Salvation Army bell-ringers have already taken down their stations?  That some stores began days ago to take down their the Christmas sections?  

Either Christmas, and more to the point Christianity as a whole, is true or not, and our yes should be yes and no should be no in that regard.  When we don't just disagree on a statement, but disagree on what a statement says and what the Church is and has always been about, don't expect the result to be a society that is beating a path to the doors of the Church.  Just ask any Episcopalian or United Church of Christ pastor. 

Rather, expect what we are seeing, and that's a society that is tired of the whole Christmas season.  Not because of the noise or the toys, but because they no longer believe it is true.  That's because we in the Church can't agree about what is true that is right in front of us, and increasingly, what has been true for the past two thousand years. In an age of aggressive secularization and converting the faithful against the Faith, that's as good as hanging a 'Closed for Business' sign on the doors. 

When I see the world lead the modern Church around on a leash

 It brings to mind this old Looney Tunes cartoon from back in the day:

I'll leave you to figure which dog reminds me of the world, and which one reminds me of the Christian Church today. 

Was a time when the Church was about converting the world to Christ.  But for too long the world has been converting the Church to secularism, and I'm not sure we realized it.  

The most shocking thing I have read in many months

 A new Gallup Poll (take it for what it's worth) has found that: 

"Seventy-four percent of Americans said they believe in God, while 69 percent said they believe in angels and 67 percent said they believe in heaven, the poll found. Slightly smaller shares — 59 percent and 58 percent — said they believe in hell and the devil."

That stunned me.  Today, 2023, and 58% of Americans believe in the Devil?  They don't say what they believe about the Devil, but at least they believe something about the Devil. 

By now we should look back and realize that we've been a secularized country for generations.  And that secular movement has relentlessly, and at times ruthlessly, proselytized religious believers for decades.  Armed with convenient interpretations of the Bill of Rights and a sympathetic education industry, pop culture and media, their browbeating of historical religious faith has been unrelenting.  And that includes openly mocking people of traditional beliefs with impunity, often through those same media and cultural outlets.  More than one professor I had in college in the 1980s was happy to openly ridicule religion, especially traditional religious beliefs, especially Christianity.

But through it all, 58% still believe in the Devil?  I'm reminded of this:

Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.  1 Kings 19.18

Of course believing in the Devil and acting like you believe in the Devil are two different things.  Other polls have found a lack of traditional Christian beliefs among the faithful, including the majority of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence.  This doesn't count the growing number of Christians (Devil believers apparently) who openly embrace what the Faith has historically believed is 'of the Devil.'  

So it's not all peaches and cream.  The point of the article is that these beliefs, such as belief in the Devil and Hell, are declining.  I'm just shocked they haven't declined far more than they have.  So there is hope.  

Out secular society has been hitting us with everything it can for decades, all while telling us to step aside and let it do so.  On the whole, much of our leadership has been willing to let the World have its way in this regard.  Yet 58% still believe in the Devil.  Someone within the halls of the Faith is doing something right.  Insert 'chef's kiss' here:

Pro-abortion rights Catholic politicians and the Eucharist: A different take

The issue over openly pro-abortion rights politicians who are Catholic and whether they should receive Communion has come down to two basic camps: Yes they should, no they shouldn't.  

For the most part, the 'Yes they should' camp swings left of center, and often advocates for a host of modern, post-modern, post-Christian agendas and values.  On the other hand, the 'No they shouldn't' camp tends toward conservative, traditional, and openly critical of the Church's attempts to fashion the Faith in the likeness of our post-modern society. 

I would never say everyone falls exclusively into those two camps.  Most that I've read and heard, however, can be placed into those categories with little effort.  So I was pleasantly surprised to see John C. Wright step into the fray. 

Mr. Wright takes a different approach.  Ultimately he echoes the 'Yes they should' camp by suggesting it's not our business what goes on between God and a politician who flouts the Church's teachings.  But - and this is the departure from that camp - she absolutely should repent and stop what she or he is doing. The politician in question should be made aware of the grievous sin being committed and the eternal consequences that await those who mock God. . 

Having been informed and pastorally admonished, if the politician continues to flaunt the Gospel yet  ignore biblical warnings about unworthy communion, then so be it.  That is between them and the Almighty and their eternal destiny.  

Our modern world leaders came to my mind

 When I saw this:

Trivializing the Eucharist for all the world to see

 Is what I'm seeing a particular group of Catholics do in light of the news about Nancy Pelosi:

Beyond the very Protestant approach of 'if you don't like this Bishop's version of Catholicism, just drive down the street and find a Bishop's version of Catholicism you do like' approach, it essentially mocks the Eucharist.  

After all, nothing says 'Psssst, we don't really think it's anything other than a wafer and some wine' more than acting like it's nothing other than a wafer and some wine.  Because nothing says to the world that we believe there is nothing real or substantive that goes on at Communion than acting as if it is a commodity to be bargained over by the highest bidders.  

Nope, in the last two years as the world has revealed itself, we've watched in stunned amazement as line in the sand after line in the sand is stepped over by those who would conform to the world.  And now we have Catholics acting as if the Eucharist is everything the world has said it is, and less.  

In fairness, Sam is hardly the only Catholic to react this way.  His was just one of the more flippant. 

How to be a court prophet with one foot in the Temple

My old classmate Russell Moore demonstrates. Here is a long screed that basically threads that needle between old timers from the Faith while keeping those to the left on good terms.  He does this by referencing the problems with abortion, while making sure those in the Ivy league and New York press offices notice his constant drumbeat against White Nationalists, White Supremacist, Racist Evangelicals and similar deplorables.  

Especially entertaining was his acceptance of the racist motivation theory for Evangelicals.  In this case, the accusaiton that the only reason Evangelicals cared about Roe was to get back at Carter for bravely cutting off funds to racist white people and organizations (a spin on the old Southern Strategy narrative for Republicans): 

Randall Balmer argues against the idea that Roe v. Wade mobilized evangelicals into political action, saying that this a myth. Balmer contends that the motivating factor was, in fact, religious conservatives’ backlash against Carter administration initiatives to remove tax exemptions from racist all-white “segregation academies” run by church groups. Balmer is hardly the only one to make this case.

Of course he does this under that intoxicating idea of 'don't be part of tribal loyalties.'  Ah, I remember that one well.  Mark Shea went there over a dozen years ago.  He read someone somewhere who spoke of the evils of tribalism.  Overnight, Mark cast a pox upon all tribal houses, declaring himself - in a less subtle way than Russ - above such tribal partisanship.  

At the time I warned Mark to be careful.  It's not so easy to be purely of the Gospel with no social or cultural loyalties.  We are creatures of our time and place after all, often beholden to others for what we have.  Eventually, if you're not careful, you end up being part of the worst tribe of all: The dreaded  "I'm not part of any Tribe" tribe.  And there are few tribes more incorrigible than that one. I believe it was Sean Dailey who mocked me for my warning. 

But beyond that, this is a case where those trying to keep one foot in Hell and one in Heaven are working right now.  Of course Russ makes many of his points in the vaguest terms, often pointing to nothing or no one in particular for examples of those making others 'invisible' or being scared to address racism for fear it might anger their racist allies.  

Again, this is the part of the church that can no more be trusted than Laval or Quisling.  Arnold was more trustworthy. Unlike the full apostates who have abandoned the Faith verbally and in name, or those who simply align with the Left wherever the Left may go:

Russ represents that middle of the road, two feet in the World's camp but one foot back in that old time religion ... for a time. I fear there will come a time when most in that last camp will finally sever all ties when the pushing becomes outright shoving.  As it is, they do much to muddy all waters, make sure the appropriate groups are spat upon - mainly traditional believers, white skin conservatives, or whatever group the Left has targeted - and keep just enough loyalty to the Faith by suggesting issues like abortion or gay marriage are technically something less than ideal, but only that.  Just in case. 

Deacon Steven Greydanus joins with abortion rights activism by repeating the usual pro-abortion talking points

That is, the same talking points I've heard for over thirty years.  Basically it boils down to this: any legislation that in any way hinders any abortion ever will result in the suffering and death of millions of women.  That goes along with the oft repeated mantra that any non-Democratic policies will always result in the suffering and deaths of millions [insert pertinent demographic group here].

This particular bill comes from Missouri, and apparently - at least as reported by MSM and pro-abortion outlets and advocates - this could lead to problems for women with ectopic pregnancies.  A complex topic to be sure.  I remember ages ago on St. Blogs, this was always a hot button issue.  How this condition does and doesn't fit into the abortion issue, and at what point should it be dealt with as its own medical issue and on and on.

Note there is no real nuance in the reporting or hysteria (which makes sense), and none for Deacon Greydanus or the well known cookbook author he references above.  There is no trying to sift the wheat and the tares, or uphold the best of intentions while bringing up potential problems.

You see, an authentic Christian pro-life response would be 'I do not support any part of a bill that could jeopardize the life of a woman.  It looks like this issue was brought up in a hearing and hopefully those trying to limit the modern scourge of abortion to sustain our sex culture in the AIDS pandemic will listen to the appropriate medical advice.'  Or something like that.  That would say he is about pro-life, opposing the scourge of our abortion culture, and is willing to work with those who share the same concerns when needed, while advancing the parts of the bill that could effectively slow or hinder our modern shame.  A credible and respectable approach.

But it isn't the approach Deacon Greydanus took. He simply jumped on the pro-abortion bandwagon that X will cause women to die if X is in any way aimed at stopping abortion.  No parsing, no trying to keep the good, or even help those trying to stop this generational disgrace. 

Again, we're watching endless numbers of rats jump ship, while other rats join the feeding frenzy because it's giving them a chance to dine on their own pounds of flesh.  If 65 million more babies must be murdered - Pope Francis's words - then so be it.  It's the price worth paying to avoid being too close to those resisting the new world order.  

Those who reject the idea that the last thousand years of Christianity were corrupted by the vile white race, or the whole of the history was corrupted by pre-modern Christians or horrible misogynists and homophobes, will fast be a hated minority within the halls of their own churches. 

Suddenly it's fine to pray for someone's death

In this case, Christianity Today lets us know that praying for Putin to kick the bucket and do so quickly can be a right biblical thing to do.

Here's my thing.  I know from a purely historical, traditional, pre-modern Judeo-Christian understanding of Creation and salvation, such an attitude could be, and was sometimes, advocated.  My problem is, since I've been a Christian, at no time have mainstream Christians condoned such attitudes.  Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Christianity Today. 

In fact, when people cheered for the death of Osama bin Laden, more than a few Christian leaders and pundits and publications bemoaned such attitudes.  We pray for people, we don't cheer when they die.  We certainly don't pray they die.  God loves everyone.  All can be saved.  We end the death penalty because this life and salvation are practically the same.  We no more pray for someone's death than we say it's good to execute them because it forces their hand on reconciling with the Almighty.

And on and on.  But the greatest thing about modernity, especially as incarnate in the political Left, is its 'here today, gone later today' approach to principles, ethics, standards and anything else you want. So you heard it said yesterday that it's entirely unchristian to pray that someone should die? Well by the sacred dogma of progress, today we say that it's perfectly acceptable  to pray for someone to die since it's today, and it's convenient. 

Again, I'm not saying the debate was settled.  I'm not saying there were never arguments from parts of the church advocating for the old ninja warrior approach to our faith, including death penalties and praying that the Hitlers of the world meet with an untimely end.

I'm saying those Christian outlets that tried to stay relevant to our modern sensitivities  - and that was the bulk of most mainstream traditions - tended dispense with those olden ways. Often they outright condemned such thinking.  Even now, I'm trying to recall anyone of credible worth arguing that modern, 20th Century Christians should pray for the death of someone.  

I know, I know.  The article is very agreeable in its tone.  It's careful.  It's cautious.  It's trying to not come out and say it directly and with gusto that we should gleefully petition Heaven for Putin's quick entry into the netherworld.  But its attempt to open up this possibility when I'm at pains to think of anyone mainstream coming close since I've been a Christian, shows just how almost anything we took for granted is on the chopping block.  Even if it's topics Christians were forced by the world to reconsider being reconsidered again because the world says so. 

My private prayer?  That after several generations of Christians trying to modify the Faith to keep up with the Joneses, we'll stop it.  It hasn't worked well, and the world has shown itself to be a rather fickle and unreliable guide. 

I know enough about Eastern European affairs

To know I know little about Eastern European affairs.  And that includes the tangled mess that is Russian History.  One could spend a lifetime studying that monster and you'd still only scratch the surface. 

My chief problem is the divisiveness that tends to dumb down discourse.  You get a million experts running around and calling down hellfire on this or that topic.   Naturally I defer to those who are in Russia, or Ukraine.  But even then, only with caution.  It's not like going east will suddenly make you honest or always right.  Still, I've had the chance to befriend several over the years who call east of the Danube their home, and it's been a revelation to be sure. 

When I was in graduate school, one of our best friends was a fellow named Alexander and his wife, Luba.  He was from Russia, she was from Ukraine.  It was then I learned the most important of all lessons: never say a Ukrainian is Russian.  Their perspectives on life in the USSR, even in its waning days, was an education to be sure. 

Likewise, in my years with the Orthodox Church I had the chance to meet and talk to many from those regions: Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.  Again, it was an eye opener.  My favorite was a Romanian professor who often spoke about his life in the Soviet and post-Soviet system.  He eventually immigrated to the US in the late 1990s.  He also had perspectives about the increase of Muslim immigration and the designs of the Russian government in these post-Cold War years. 

In any event, like those from the Middle East we became friends with during those years, I learned the stories we are told in America are seriously deficient when it comes to what people in other parts of the world see.  That may always be the case.  It's likely they don't get being American.  But it's enough to know most of the punditry and talking points is likely missing big pieces of the puzzle. 

Hence this:

Well, if you have any knowledge at all of the Russian Orthodox Church, you wouldn't be shocked in the least.  Much less disappointed.  It would make perfect sense, as many Orthodox Christians outside the dominant circle of Russian Orthodoxy often lament. Even those Russian Orthodox struggle with the church's allegiance with the State in light of the need to protect the Church against those modernist forces that would happily see the Church put back in the chains  it wore during the Soviet era.  It isn't simple, and likely shouldn't be commented on as quickly as I believe the stories were wanting us to. 

In fact, I can't help but think part of what Deacon Greydanus sees is based on that modern progressive narrative that assumes the very best in anyone except those in my own circle of neighbors.  That is, 'the East' isn't us, therefore he sees it through those modern, progressive rose color lenses.  Which is why it's shocking that things may be as complex anywhere else in the world as we should admit they really are here.  But that's for another post.  For now, I'm shocked that he's so disappointed if he knows enough about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church to think he should be disappointed.

Therefore, during this time I'll keep trying to focus on the prayers for peace, and those who are clearly trying to find ways to mitigate the suffering and seek paths toward realistic ends to the conflict.  I will ignore those who talk like experts when their talking makes it clear they're anything but experts.

Peace, Urkaine and America

I'm no expert when it comes to Eastern European political and historical wrangling.  In those years I sojourned with the Orthodox Christians - many from Eastern and Southeastern Europe - I realized just how deficient our modern American understanding of the world has become. I get the impression Americans in the 1910s had a better grasp of the world than we do today.  

The divisions in our country are a big reason.  Among many pundits, this is all about attacking each other.  To he honest, I don't even know what different pundits want to happen.  All I know is that they're attacking the other ones because of course they are.

As best I can tell, non-leftists and conservatives are split into two groups.  One says we must stand up to Putin, and the other says we have no business getting involved in yet another foreign conflict. The left seems content with attacking group number two as traitors and Tokyo Roses for Putin and Satan and Hitler and everything else.  Whether the Left recognizes group number one is unknown to me. 

Meanwhile, I have watched the Biden administration fail repeatedly to stop Putin from doing what Putin clearly intended to do. Those on the Left seem more focused on defending Biden by ignoring the obvious than they are actually helping anything.  In fact, most who blast those conservatives for not wanting to get involved in Ukraine appear to  offer no clear examples of what we should do while making sure blame falls anywhere but with Biden (or Mr. 'Cold War is Calling' Obama). 

So zealous have they been in attacking those who don't want to get involved, in fact, they come off as fanatical warmongers of the type they've long accused conservatives of being.  To hear some of them scream traitor at those who don't want to get involved in a potential land war in Europe, they come across as jockeys for war in a way that would shame the Marx Brothers:

True, they're not committing to any particular course of action, and seem more concerned about scoring points against conservatives than articulating any clear solutions to the crisis.  Therefore they could always insist they don't mean war while meaning nothing else at all.  That's what comes from a divided and dying nation like ours I suppose.

True across the board

Rod Dreher has been following these developments.  His extensive interactions with those east of the Danube have likely given him insights that seem to help frame things realistically.   Based on what I experienced in my few paltry years with Orthodox Christianity listening to immigrants from Eastern Europe, it's also closer to what I heard than the fictional narrative hoisted on us by many of our warring pundits.  He's also honest about the hot mess the West and America is in - something those on the Left wouldn't understand since they fully support the things that are killing the West.

I abhor what Russia has done today. But this did not come from nowhere. Now Europe faces the prospect of a wider war — unlikely, but not at all unthinkable, which explains the anxiety so many Hungarians I meet have — and the opening of a new Cold War with Russia … and China. The historical period that ended last night, when Russian troops crossed the border, began with the US hoping to integrate China and Russia into a liberal democratic world order. It ended with wealthy China the world’s ascendant power; Russia — an historically Christian nation — having abandoned liberal democracy after the shambles that corrupt Russians and US advisors made of the 1990s, pivoting away from the West, and now firmly in the orbit of China; and the United States, a declining empire weakened and humiliated by twenty years of failed Mideast and Asian war, and sharply divided at home by the culture war American elites have waged on half of their own people, left to figure out what the hell to do with itself and its inheritance.

In all of this, one wonders where China, and even India, will fall.  Also the Middle East.  So far in news reports I've seen, those condemning Putin are either European or African reps to the UN.  I've seen very few allusions to ambassadors from the Middle East or China.  Perhaps I just missed it.  But I can't help but think it's where those cultures and nations fall, rather than the dying West, that will make a difference.  For good or ill. 

Nonetheless, I don't see the rulers of the world beating a path to my door and seeking my insights into the problem.  For now, I can do the one thing I can do, and that's pray for peace.  What happens in the weeks and months to come is the guess of others with more insight than I have. So on behalf of my sons, and the wider world, I'll offer prayers that things can be stopped before death and suffering become the norm. 

Top EU cardinal says it's time to change Catholicism

Because if we change the Church's teachings on our core natures as human beings, you can just open the lid and flush.  That's what liberal Protestant denominations have continually refused to discover. 

It's very simple.  If the Church continues to insist the first 2000 years were no doubt wrong, but now science is showing how right we can be, it plays right into the hands of the World.  Young people today, already evangelized by secularism in our cultures, schools, and media, have learned that religion was just made up by ancient humans anyway.  It's just institutions with rules made up by people as they go.

Every time we try to change our teachings to keep up with the latest, it goes nowhere but down.  It reinforces what people my age have been taught our whole lives - that when push comes to shove, religion is no different than a club or a sports franchise.  You adapt, you change, you make it up as you go.  That's because you know it was never real to begin with. 

Obviously the World is setting up for the other part of the trap: To deny the 90 ft. idol of the Left is to be Nazi in need of eradication.  To stand up against the World will mean persecution and oppression and torture and death.  It's not there yet.  Heck, it doesn't have to be.  By just threatening bad jokes from late night pundits and not getting invited to the best parties at Harvard, we're seeing boat loads of religious leaders jump ship.  Already vast numbers of people in the pews have likely done so as well.

After all, we've all been evangelized by the secular for generations now.  It has to be taking its toll.  But the cardinal's solution is simply suicide for the Church, if that matters at all.  It accomplishes nothing to continue to act as if they Church could be wrong about anything.  On the other hand, if it wasn't wrong, and the pre-modern Faith was true, such naked accommodation of sin and evil will not just result in nog temporal benefits. It will also result in terrible eternal consequences. 

I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.

Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

A warning for the modern Church. 

What the heck?

 I mean, this:

Wait.  So a Muslim British national comes to America in December, according to press reports.  He promptly goes within a couple weeks to a local synagogue.  He holds several members of the synagogue hostage.  He does so in order to free another Islamic extremist.  

And this shows anything about anti-Semitism in America how?   I swear if three Mongolians gang raped a Nigerian girl in Argentina, the leftwing press would make it about the history of racism in America.  

It is rage inducing to the extreme.  It doesn't help that the ADL seems to be the one floating this.  There are times when I appreciate the Orthodox for some things I learned while sojourning with them.  One is that owing to the complex history of Christianity in the Middle East, they don't suffer from "Holocaust Guilt" the way we do in the West.   

Believe it or not, there were times when Jewish leaders of various communities conspired to give as good as they got to the Christian population.  Sure, the Christians did the same, and both sadly have blood on their hands.  But through the long centuries, it wasn't always as lopsided as it was in the history of Jewish communities in Western Europe.  

Therefore, if they feel Israel, or Jewish individuals in general, have crossed the line they'll say so.  Yes, they mourn the anti-Semitism in their own past, but because Orthodox Christianity's history is not the same as Western Christianity's (most of it was as second class citizens under Islamic rule), it's different.  They don't forget that more than a few Christian slaves sold to Muslims came by way of Jewish traders.  Something we learned in college, but my sons have never heard about except from the textbooks I possess. 

Here in the West, we may rage against the press.  We may rage against the Left.  But no matter what, we'll shrink and cower and look the other way when anyone Jewish plays the same games.  Guilt can be a cleansing thing.  It can also be an emasculating one. 

May the Lord protect faithful Catholics from the pope

By now many have heard the news that Pope Francis has fired yet another salvo at the Latin Mass.  I went to find defenders of Pope Francis trying to spin this, but haven't found any.  In fact, among those I often went to in order to hear 'the other side' regarding support for Pope Francis, I've seen little in recent weeks.  Most defenders seem to have dropped off after President Biden announced to the world that Pope Francis sees a rabid pro-abortion politician as a model of Catholic fealty. I guess that is hard to defend unless you're a post-Catholic modernist. 

Sometimes it's worth remembering that in the days surrounding that first Christmas, the religious leadership was likely no more inspiring than many see in Christian leadership today.  A very unpopular 'king' ruled over the land, but in clear obedience to the power of Rome.  Rome itself had recently seized control of the region and the people.  Things looked dour.  

Like today.  Many are abandoning the Faith because I fear the faithful sparred with the rising modern secularism from a point of naiveté.  They believed there was common ground, and assumed good will and the search for objective truth from anyone but the faithful.  That was clearly wrong.  While we spent generations trying to find ways to evangelize the World, including changing and modifying anything we could to keep up with the World, it was successfully evangelizing us. 

For those who have weathered the storm and strive to remain faithful to the historical, orthodox Catholic faith, future years will prove quite lonely.  As lonely as those disciples who followed Jesus between so many splinter groups who went this way and that in reaction to the spirit of the time in those days.  

Just as thought as I muse on the days surrounding that first Christmas, and the troubling times in which we find ourselves today. 

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, who was with child.  Luke 2. 4-5