Christianity tells us two things about who we are. It tells us we are very good ontologically speaking. We are created by God. That means our life has a purpose and a dignity beyond what we can realize. Not just our life but every human life. Made in God's image. Children of God. Jesus being willing to give up His life for us. These are very deep truths that would revolutionize our lives if we understood them.
But then there is the bad news. That we are very bad morally speaking. That sin has effected us so much that even what we feel is good is filthy rags in the eyes of God. Again we have trouble digesting it. We know we are not perfect but we don't really get how bad our sins are and how many of them we commit. We make so many excuses. We compare ourselves to others rather than comparing ourselves to God.
Modern man has things exactly backwards. They look at evolution and arrive at a very low view of man. Because we can explain to some degree where man's physical nature comes from we assume that must be the whole story. It isn't. It is just the part of the story science can investigate. But the thinking leads to a view of man as an animal that has learned a few tricks. That the desire for love, goodness, beauty, truth and meaning are just artifacts of evolution and not pointers to our greater purpose. So modern man believes we are ontologically bad. That our inherent worth is merely in our own minds.
When it comes to morals the story changes. Then modern man declares himself to be good. Why not? We have gotten very good at affirming and encouraging. We want people to believe in themselves. Believe what? Not that you are just an animal that has acquired delusions of dignity through an evolutionary accident. You need to believe you are good. Suppress that conscience of yours that convicts you of so many moral crimes.
But people are not fools. If everyone is affirmed in their goodness then the questions get asked. Good in relation to what? Who says what is good and what is bad? If survival of the fittest is the central principle of existence then how do I know I am one of the fittest? What if I am defective in some way? Why should I believe in myself then?
The religion of assumed moral goodness crashes because humans cannot believe things just because they are beneficial. They need to honestly think it is really true. To just tell people they are good, beautiful, valuable, etc. without any justification behind it simply does not fly. People know they are broken. They see their sin. Not fully and honestly but they see it. They also see their human weaknesses. They see they don't measure up when compared to other people. Affirmation that simple ignores this data won't last. People will feel good until their next failure.
This is where the gospel is so beautiful. It takes sin, suffering, and failure very seriously. By affirming only what can be affirmed truthfully that puts their self esteem on solid ground. It also calls them to meet the challenge of improving themselves and improving the world. You are good but you can be better and this is how. That is a much more positive message than you are good even if you spend all you time on porn and video games.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Mad Hatter
Lately I have been really feeling called to pray for Cardinal Ouellet. Recently he has been appointed by Pope Benedict to head the Congregation of Bishops. That means he takes the lead in deciding which priests get elevated to the office of bishop and which bishops get the most important diocese. Bishops get to wear high hats at liturgy (I hate to explain jokes but I thought some people might be confused about the title).
Cardinal Ouellet is Canadian, in fact before this appointment he was the primate of Canada. So I have been following him for a while. He is one of the real solid bishops. A few years ago he seemed like one of the few we had in Canada but the last few years have seen many good appointments. Now he gets to bless the whole church.
From an interview before he left:
This guy just gets it. What is more he is willing to say it out loud. Catholic theology and philosophy is so amazing. Yet most people whop have degrees in Catholic theology and philosophy are pathetic. The "mentality of dissent" is a good way to describe it. It embraces the liberal elements of protestantism but lacks the honesty of protestants to say they don't respect the church or the pope.
The good news is such thinking is unable to grow because it lacks real discipleship. The bad news is once it dies it will be a huge challenge to replace such widespread error with a new intellectual dynamism. But saintly bishops help a lot. Not just in exercising spiritual discipline but in being holy. Catholicism is more about following a set of leaders than it is a set of teachings. Sure the leaders teach. But the blessing of apostolic succession is going to be easier to see if we have strong men doing the job well.
From an interview before he left:
So the message to any bishop with ambition is clear. If you want to impress Rome you need to not only state dogma but you need to teach it in a creative and compelling way. You need to be confident that the truth will attract even if human wisdom tells you nobody will listen. In other words you need to teach like Pope Benedict teaches.We are in a world where the Christian heritage being strongly contested, so we have to recognize that and propose it better, though not through an attempt to restore the past, he said.“We have to tell people about the Crucified and Risen Lord, who is shaping the Church today, with people faithful to His Word, to His Divine Presence and to the community he wants to see living of His Spirit.”A bishop must always take a personal approach, he said. Bishops not only must state dogmatic positions, they must believe in them deeply, “then you have the power of conviction.”“If you state it only formally and in the end you do not really want to see it applied because you don’t believe that it is possible that people accept it, you are in trouble for the transmission of the message,” he said.
The Cardinal also called for a new intellectual dynamism, especially a reform of education to “recapture the spirit of Christianity and “create a new Christian culture.”“We need intellectuals for that, theologians, philosophers, Christians who really believe in the Gospel and share the doctrine of the Church on moral questions,” he said.“We have suffered from this mentality of dissent” that is “still dominating the intelligentsia.”“There is no real discipleship there, real discipleship,” he said. “The discipleship that is emerging is from those who believe and who really love the Church.”
This guy just gets it. What is more he is willing to say it out loud. Catholic theology and philosophy is so amazing. Yet most people whop have degrees in Catholic theology and philosophy are pathetic. The "mentality of dissent" is a good way to describe it. It embraces the liberal elements of protestantism but lacks the honesty of protestants to say they don't respect the church or the pope.
The good news is such thinking is unable to grow because it lacks real discipleship. The bad news is once it dies it will be a huge challenge to replace such widespread error with a new intellectual dynamism. But saintly bishops help a lot. Not just in exercising spiritual discipline but in being holy. Catholicism is more about following a set of leaders than it is a set of teachings. Sure the leaders teach. But the blessing of apostolic succession is going to be easier to see if we have strong men doing the job well.
Moral Erosion
We all want to be moral. But things go wrong. You cut little corners. You make some compromises. Before too long you are shocked at how far you have fallen. You see it in language. A few bad words here and there. Just when you are really upset. Before you know it you shock yourself with what comes out of your mouth.
The same happens with sexual morality. People want to have a high view of sex but they don;t want to be a prude either. So then try and pick a middle ground and they end up cheapening sex way more than they ever intended. We are so good at rationalizing. When we give ground bit by bit we don't see the long term effects.
Alcohol consumption is another good example. Nobody decides to become a drunk. They just want to enjoy a drink or two. Then it becomes more than that. Then it becomes a matter of whether I overdo it occasionally or regularly. Life provides many excuses to push it just a bit further than before.
The solution that Alcoholics Anonymous provides is instructive. There is a lot to it but one of the key pieces is declaring that you will not consume any alcohol ever. No exception. This is the solution to moral erosion. It is called dogma. AA would never use that term because modern man reacts badly to it but that is what it is. It is a teaching you don't control. You must accept it and follow it. It might not make sense to you but you need to trust the source. In this case AA. They know what they are doing so you do what they say. Religiously.
Dogma is generally the only solution to moral erosion. There needs to be a line you won't cross. It needs to be clear and absolute. It can't come from yourself. Anything you define you can change. It needs to depend on something you trust more than your own mind. There can be some principles you develop yourself as a way of living out the central principles. Like not going to certain parties because you might be tempted to drink. But they need to rest on central principles that you can't rationalize away.
But where do we get dogma? Catholics have a good answer to that. Protestants are typically confused. They will deny infallibility but treat some of their doctrines as infallible anyway. But they will pick and choose different positions on different doctrinal questions to treat as infallible without actually saying they are infallible.
Beyond that, each group is going through it's own institutional moral and doctrinal erosion.Some churches do a better job at holding on to standards than others. Often they split into a faithful remnant and a more liberal majority. In landscaping we know that nothing will stop erosion if it keeps splitting.
The same happens with sexual morality. People want to have a high view of sex but they don;t want to be a prude either. So then try and pick a middle ground and they end up cheapening sex way more than they ever intended. We are so good at rationalizing. When we give ground bit by bit we don't see the long term effects.
Alcohol consumption is another good example. Nobody decides to become a drunk. They just want to enjoy a drink or two. Then it becomes more than that. Then it becomes a matter of whether I overdo it occasionally or regularly. Life provides many excuses to push it just a bit further than before.
The solution that Alcoholics Anonymous provides is instructive. There is a lot to it but one of the key pieces is declaring that you will not consume any alcohol ever. No exception. This is the solution to moral erosion. It is called dogma. AA would never use that term because modern man reacts badly to it but that is what it is. It is a teaching you don't control. You must accept it and follow it. It might not make sense to you but you need to trust the source. In this case AA. They know what they are doing so you do what they say. Religiously.
Dogma is generally the only solution to moral erosion. There needs to be a line you won't cross. It needs to be clear and absolute. It can't come from yourself. Anything you define you can change. It needs to depend on something you trust more than your own mind. There can be some principles you develop yourself as a way of living out the central principles. Like not going to certain parties because you might be tempted to drink. But they need to rest on central principles that you can't rationalize away.
But where do we get dogma? Catholics have a good answer to that. Protestants are typically confused. They will deny infallibility but treat some of their doctrines as infallible anyway. But they will pick and choose different positions on different doctrinal questions to treat as infallible without actually saying they are infallible.
Beyond that, each group is going through it's own institutional moral and doctrinal erosion.Some churches do a better job at holding on to standards than others. Often they split into a faithful remnant and a more liberal majority. In landscaping we know that nothing will stop erosion if it keeps splitting.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Liberals and Conservatives
Fr Z points out this post about liberals and conservatives that I found interesting.
What I find interesting about this post is that it admits something that I have long suspected is true. That the change from liberal to conservative has more to do with getting richer and less to do with getting smarter. That having capital stimulates thought about capital and its preservation. That means people care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. until they figure out that such care is costing them a lot. Then they become more focused on themselves. That is when they become conservatives.
Conservatives always claim their politics does not flow from a lack of concern for their fellow man. It is just a coincidence that the policies they favor lower taxes for themselves and less help for the needy in society. Those policies are based on logic and not on greed. The fact that they match up exactly with what a greedy person would do is no reason to question someone's motivation. It is like those people who bought Playboy just for the articles. They would get upset when you suggested their motives might not be pure.
But now we have a conservative predicting that these purely logical arguments will not work on people unless they have enough money. Money stimulates thought. Really? Money certainly stimulates greed and patterns of thinking that go with it. Greed is sin and sin makes you stupid. But does money stimulate noble and rational thinking? I don't see it.
I do think the premise is wrong. There are much deeper reasons why younger people are not working as hard on developing their careers and acquiring wealth. Social spending is a minor factor. I would say the lack of faith and the accompanying lack of motivation to serve God is a bigger factor. Related to that, promiscuity and pornography has made marriage less desirable for men. Women are not looking for men who can be long term providers. So fewer step up to that challenge. That is another topic but it does show how quickly one can connect dots based on conservative assumptions and ignore a bunch of other possibilities.
Most people surely have heard the aphorism, "If you aren't a liberal by the time you are 20, you don't have a heart....but if you aren't a conservative by the time you are 40, you don't have a brain."I have of course heard the quote about liberals not having a brain. It proves conservatives think they are smart and liberals are stupid. Public debate today is more about declaring yourself to be smart than about actually making good arguments. That is why we get so little charity and so little truth.
My father stated that aphorism to me when I spearheaded the local McGovern campaign effort in 1972, much to my father's chagrin.
The Motley Monk is beginning to wonder if this aphorism will continue to describe the state of nature. With the federal government increasingly extending its reach into the lives of most Americans since the 1960s, dependency upon government "largesse"---Medicare, Medicaid, and other social spending programs---will likely create a larger class of citizens 30+ years of age who won't possess the capital that normally would stimulate thought about capital and its preservation.
What I find interesting about this post is that it admits something that I have long suspected is true. That the change from liberal to conservative has more to do with getting richer and less to do with getting smarter. That having capital stimulates thought about capital and its preservation. That means people care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc. until they figure out that such care is costing them a lot. Then they become more focused on themselves. That is when they become conservatives.
Conservatives always claim their politics does not flow from a lack of concern for their fellow man. It is just a coincidence that the policies they favor lower taxes for themselves and less help for the needy in society. Those policies are based on logic and not on greed. The fact that they match up exactly with what a greedy person would do is no reason to question someone's motivation. It is like those people who bought Playboy just for the articles. They would get upset when you suggested their motives might not be pure.
But now we have a conservative predicting that these purely logical arguments will not work on people unless they have enough money. Money stimulates thought. Really? Money certainly stimulates greed and patterns of thinking that go with it. Greed is sin and sin makes you stupid. But does money stimulate noble and rational thinking? I don't see it.
I do think the premise is wrong. There are much deeper reasons why younger people are not working as hard on developing their careers and acquiring wealth. Social spending is a minor factor. I would say the lack of faith and the accompanying lack of motivation to serve God is a bigger factor. Related to that, promiscuity and pornography has made marriage less desirable for men. Women are not looking for men who can be long term providers. So fewer step up to that challenge. That is another topic but it does show how quickly one can connect dots based on conservative assumptions and ignore a bunch of other possibilities.
Wide Gates and Narrow Gates
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'
26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'
27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'
28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."
The gospel this Sunday, from Luke 14, was about striving to enter through the narrow gate. The wide gate leads to destruction. The narrow one leads to eternal life. Why is that? Why is it that the majority of people seem to be on the road to hell? It seems like being counter-cultural is essential to the faith. That the holiness that flows from the culture does not really impress God. It is too easy. If you love those who love you then what benefit is that. Even the pagans do that. What we need to do is something beyond what the culture does. You cannot get to heaven by going with the flow. You need to paddle against the current.
But does it follow then that the majority in any given culture are not going to be saved? I am not positive about that. There might be an illusion that you are in a minority. That seems hard but it might be possible. Saints can look very different. But evil needs to feel strong. There is a temptation to play it halfway. Do a little to make God happy and then please yourself on the matters closest to your heart. Be just good enough to tell yourself God should be pleased. Jesus is telling us that is exactly what does not please God. He wants us to surrender everything.
But what about grace? Jesus says, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." God is going to tell many people, "I don't know you or where you come from". It seems a little unclear. I understand that we need to start with faith. That trying to enter without faith is futile. Works without faith is dead. We first need a relationship with God so He knows who we are and where we come from. After that we need to strive. God will insure we succeed because we are saved by grace from first to last.
But Jesus does not seem as to care that this is unclear. The contrast he makes is between those who try and those who "make every effort". Not trying to live a moral life but trying to enter heaven. The solution is not to let go and let God but rather to make sure your effort is serious. He soon gives us the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. So He does give us images of salvation protestants like better. But Catholics can embrace all these sayings.
Friday, August 20, 2010
JesusBlogspot on Mary
A guy at JesusBlogspot.com has a post on Mary. Since he was kind enough to visit my blog I thought I would respond. Hopefully more charitably than his first commenter did.
Secondly, there is a distinction that needs to be drawn between praying to Mary and worshiping Mary. Catholics venerate Mary and the saints. They don't worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The lating words are Latria and Dulia. The distinction is explained more fully here. In order to comment on a Catholic you need to understand it. It seems that you don't or you would at least argue that this distinction Catholics make is not valid.
So we agree that worship is only due God and not Mary. We don't agree on what that looks like. Is praying to Mary the kind of worship these verses talk about. Remember we don't REALLY pray TO Mary although we talk that way. We really pray THROUGH Mary. That is important to understand as a protestant. That no Catholic sees Mary as an alternative to God. She is an instrument of God. Her greatness glorifies God because He has made her great. She is not seen as the source of grace but the mediator of grace. God is the source.
Then you quote Ex 20:4-5. The NIV says:
Now I am not qualified to argue the Hebrew with you but I do believe the word "idol" is a better translation than "carved image". Then the reply becomes easy. A statue of St Mary is not an idol. It is an icon. An idol is something we worship instead of God. An icon is something we venerate as pointing to God.
You should also know there are a bunch or examples of people bowing down to other people in the Old Testament. David bows down to Saul. Obadiah bows down to Elijah. So this cannot be a ban on the act of bowing down. So it again points to the word "idol" being key.
Lastly you go to 1 Time 2:5:
Mary can do that as well. She physically brought Jesus to the world once. Spiritually she keeps doing that. Jesus chooses to honor her in that role. Jesus obeys Ex 20:12 and honors His mother. He does it extravagantly. We benefit from that. So, yes, we should pray to her. If Jesus wants to bless us through her we should eagerly desire that blessing.
Mary seems to be very much loved in the Catholic religion which is great. There is an issue however, that always struck me as odd..Mary played a very big role in the bible, she carried the trinity in her own womb and raised the Son of God after all! But is it right to pray to and worship Mary?First of all, Mary did not carry the trinity in her womb. She carried Jesus who is the second person of the trinity. I assume this is just an oversight.
Secondly, there is a distinction that needs to be drawn between praying to Mary and worshiping Mary. Catholics venerate Mary and the saints. They don't worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone. The lating words are Latria and Dulia. The distinction is explained more fully here. In order to comment on a Catholic you need to understand it. It seems that you don't or you would at least argue that this distinction Catholics make is not valid.
So we agree that worship is only due God and not Mary. We don't agree on what that looks like. Is praying to Mary the kind of worship these verses talk about. Remember we don't REALLY pray TO Mary although we talk that way. We really pray THROUGH Mary. That is important to understand as a protestant. That no Catholic sees Mary as an alternative to God. She is an instrument of God. Her greatness glorifies God because He has made her great. She is not seen as the source of grace but the mediator of grace. God is the source.
Then you quote Ex 20:4-5. The NIV says:
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;The New American Standard says:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. "You shall not worship them or serve them;Somewhere you found a version that says:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them
Now I am not qualified to argue the Hebrew with you but I do believe the word "idol" is a better translation than "carved image". Then the reply becomes easy. A statue of St Mary is not an idol. It is an icon. An idol is something we worship instead of God. An icon is something we venerate as pointing to God.
You should also know there are a bunch or examples of people bowing down to other people in the Old Testament. David bows down to Saul. Obadiah bows down to Elijah. So this cannot be a ban on the act of bowing down. So it again points to the word "idol" being key.
Lastly you go to 1 Time 2:5:
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ JesusOf course this is true in the context Paul is speaking. Paul is talking about praying for the salvation of all men. He is making clear that we should pray they come to know Jesus. Jesus alone bridges the gap between God and man. But what about the gap between man and Jesus? Who can fill that? We can. That is what we do when we evangelize or when we pray for another person or when we show love for a person. That does not replace the bridge Jesus has built to God but it shows people the way to it.
Mary can do that as well. She physically brought Jesus to the world once. Spiritually she keeps doing that. Jesus chooses to honor her in that role. Jesus obeys Ex 20:12 and honors His mother. He does it extravagantly. We benefit from that. So, yes, we should pray to her. If Jesus wants to bless us through her we should eagerly desire that blessing.
Historical Jesus
Eric Sammons has a few posts on the gap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. It is a very important point. Most Christian theological scholarship today is caught up in this heresy. That means it commonly preached from pulpits, taught in classrooms, and reflected on in books. It is the idea that the story of Christianity is not really true but developed over time. That the religion of Christianity didn't grow out of the person of Christ but the other way around. Christ, although real, was largely an invention of Christianity. That is the resurrection and most of His miracles were inserted into the story later.
These ideas don't stand up to rational scrutiny. They can't tell a plausible story that does not have many people doing things that just make no sense at all. In fact, these scholars are big on the idea that faith and reason are incompatible. But they don't really have faith. They have a desperate attempt to put secular thinking and Christian thinking together. Mostly it is based on doubt. So they should say doubt and reason are incompatible. Or more broadly that sin and reason are incompatible. Faith and reason are compatible. They both pursue truth.
This flows from the reformation in many ways. First of all, there is a sense that if you can question the faith then why can't you question the scriptures? They were passed down to us just like the teaching about popes and bishops and sacraments. If Christianity can be wrong about one thing then why can't it be wrong about another?
Then there is the disconnection with the early church. Protestants ignore the early church because it does not fit into their belief system. Sure there are a few quotes they pick out but they don't really understand the mind of the early church. That mind very much understood Jesus and the apostles as real people. The connections were strong because of apostolic succession and the fact that they were just so much closer in time to the apostles. When you lose that then suggestions that these stories might be myths are easier to accept.
One thing a protestant would be quick to point out is that many of the scholars in question are Catholic and continue to teach at Catholic Universities and many are priests in good standing in a Catholic diocese or a Catholic religious order. There are a lot of protestant ones as well but they are not tolerated in the conservative evangelical denominations. So they would see the presence of liberal scholarship as a major reason to reject the more liberal mainline churches including the Catholic church.
The first thing to note is that just because ideas have found there way into catholic institutions does not mean they do not have their roots in protestant thinking. Should they have excommunicated more people? Probably. But the wholesale excommunications they did with the reformers did not have great results either. There are no good choices when faced with a widespread heresy.
So what do we do? Teach the truth. Only the Catholic church has a good answer to why the scriptures are trustworthy. How the gospel of Christ has been preserved by Christ and does not need some scholar to recover it for us. How beautiful and life-transforming it is that Jesus is really true God and true man. That he really died and rose again. That miracles do happen. That it all makes sense historically, scientifically, philosophically, in every possible way.
These ideas don't stand up to rational scrutiny. They can't tell a plausible story that does not have many people doing things that just make no sense at all. In fact, these scholars are big on the idea that faith and reason are incompatible. But they don't really have faith. They have a desperate attempt to put secular thinking and Christian thinking together. Mostly it is based on doubt. So they should say doubt and reason are incompatible. Or more broadly that sin and reason are incompatible. Faith and reason are compatible. They both pursue truth.
This flows from the reformation in many ways. First of all, there is a sense that if you can question the faith then why can't you question the scriptures? They were passed down to us just like the teaching about popes and bishops and sacraments. If Christianity can be wrong about one thing then why can't it be wrong about another?
Then there is the disconnection with the early church. Protestants ignore the early church because it does not fit into their belief system. Sure there are a few quotes they pick out but they don't really understand the mind of the early church. That mind very much understood Jesus and the apostles as real people. The connections were strong because of apostolic succession and the fact that they were just so much closer in time to the apostles. When you lose that then suggestions that these stories might be myths are easier to accept.
One thing a protestant would be quick to point out is that many of the scholars in question are Catholic and continue to teach at Catholic Universities and many are priests in good standing in a Catholic diocese or a Catholic religious order. There are a lot of protestant ones as well but they are not tolerated in the conservative evangelical denominations. So they would see the presence of liberal scholarship as a major reason to reject the more liberal mainline churches including the Catholic church.
The first thing to note is that just because ideas have found there way into catholic institutions does not mean they do not have their roots in protestant thinking. Should they have excommunicated more people? Probably. But the wholesale excommunications they did with the reformers did not have great results either. There are no good choices when faced with a widespread heresy.
So what do we do? Teach the truth. Only the Catholic church has a good answer to why the scriptures are trustworthy. How the gospel of Christ has been preserved by Christ and does not need some scholar to recover it for us. How beautiful and life-transforming it is that Jesus is really true God and true man. That he really died and rose again. That miracles do happen. That it all makes sense historically, scientifically, philosophically, in every possible way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)