Christian Insults

Today I was pointed to a discussion about Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show.

I won't relate to you the story on that, since you can just click on the link above. What I'm more interested in at the moment is part of the discussion in the comments below the story.

One person called Obama a "stumblebum." Another person chastised her, and said she was being "unChristian." This immediately brought to mind a chapter of the Bible. I commented (with a few more typos) as follows:

I have to laugh at the idea that calling a man who supports evils like abortion a “stumblebum” is a terribly unChristian thing to do.

Let me quote someone who once addressed leaders who were not fulfilling their duties:

“You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” [Matthew 23:27]

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” [Matt 23:33]

Ah Jesus, worst Christian ever…

(Not that I’m saying we should be be eager to be insulting, but we also might not want to react too harshly when someone is insulting in an appropriate context.)

I was afterwards rebuked and told there is no appropriate context for insults, unless you are Jesus, and thus the judge of men. This is certainly a strong point, but I'm not sure I fully agree with it.

In this blog's comments I list some quotes from Saints calling people things like, "beasts,", "fools," and, "mad women." I think that examples like these are fairly uncommon, but they still show that there may indeed be an appropriate context. It seems to me that such insulting language is reserved for those who are clearly and objectively transgressing the moral law and leading others to do the same.

March 21 edit: I think I've found a missing piece of the puzzle. These insults are mostly intended to instruct the listener, to impress upon them the gravity of the crimes of the insulted party, so that the listeners do not follow their example.

St. Patrick's Day

I forgot that today was St. Patrick's day until one of my co-workers mentioned it.

This is strange, since St. Patrick is one of my favorite Saints, my co-worker isn't Catholic, I'm at least a quarter Irish, and I even spent some time last night thinking about buying a St. Patrick statue. But I guess there's a difference between loving someone and remembering days associated with that person, as many forgetful men can probably attest.

I realized, this morning (after my co-worker reminded me what day it was), how much I owe to St. Patrick, and how glad I am that God's grace motivated him to do such great things. His immense accomplishment, converting all of Ireland to a zealous Catholic faith, is amazing, and has had a great impact on my life.

My faith comes from two paths. I first learned to be a Christian through my father. He is a good Protestant pastor. As I received my faith from him, he received it from his father. His father was born an Irish Catholic, but he left the Church to marry my grandmother. Still, his faith in Christ was first given to him by the Irish, who owe their faith to St. Patrick.

But it took a second Irish family, my wife's family, to lead me fully into the Church. Without the influence of my wife and her sister I'm not sure that there would have been much chance for me, the pastor's son, to become Catholic. So, to St. Patrick and the faithful of Ireland, I am doubly indebted.

I delight in knowing that Christ's work on Earth did not end when he ascended into heaven, that his story is not just the one in the Bible. Christ's life story continues, and it can be seen in the good that is done by his Saints. How thankful I am that Christ, through St. Patrick, evangelized Ireland.

Pope vs. Condoms in Africa

As happens every time I can remember, the media has once again sided against the Catholic Church. Now, as the Pope visits Africa, they are attacking his stance on condom use in the fight against AIDS/HIV.

Here's a portion of the story I saw on PBS:

Pope Claims Condoms Worsen AIDS Crisis

The interviewer's slant isn't that strong in this particular segment. The part this page doesn't show is that much more time was spent hearing from some restaurant that distributes condoms in another African country.

The first comment on the story read in part:

"As leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope has a moral duty and obligation to ensure followers are educated and lives are saved from HIV infections and AIDS deaths! Around the world, condoms are seen as a necessary requirement for engaging in sexual activity. Promoting condom use has not and does not promote promiscuity... The Catholic Church is promoting practices of abstinence and fidelity, which are widely known to have a high failure rate and allow more HIV infections!"
-Bradford McIntyre

My response follows:

The Pope has a moral duty to do what he is doing. He is teaching the consistent teaching of the Church. It has taught this for nearly 2000 years.

It is certainly a hard teaching to understand, and a hard one to follow, but that does not make it a false teaching.

People should not be so quick to judge the very institution that has passed on the fundamental idea, taught by Jesus Christ, that every human life has value. Without this idea, which has been implanted in the heart of Western society by its Christian past, we would not care at all about the fate of the Africans.

But, sadly, we have rejected so many other teachings of Jesus, and only the Pope continues to teach them clearly.

The Pope certainly would not deny that condoms can prevent AIDS infections. The problem is that they often fail, and they also contribute to a general promiscuous culture which really only makes the problem worse in the long term.

They are certainly not the only factor, and may not even be the primary factor, which is why abstinence education can not stand on its own. It needs to be a part of a far more comprehensive solution.

The other commenter was right, to an extent, that condoms themselves don't cause promiscuity, but he is wrong in thinking that they do not contribute to promiscuity. They are just one of many contributing factors, and we need to address them all to see real success, but success can not be found by abandoning our morals.

Mormon Visitors

My friend recently invited some Mormon missionaries (who probably ambushed him) over to give us "lessons." This was something I'd been kind of waiting for since I moved to this Mormon filled region of the world, wanting to get some real life practice in apologetics.

Sadly, it's really hard to discuss matters rationally with them since they always go back to their testimony: "Well, if you read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it sincerely, the Holy Spirit will let you know it is true. I have done this, and I know it to be true."

So, we're stuck in a land of subjectivity. But perhaps there is some hope for seeds of rational faith to be planted. I don't know.

I already have better-than-average knowledge of Mormonism, but I want to know even more, so I'm researching the subject. I'm reading a book called Inside Mormonism, and I found an interesting website: www.utlm.org

If you look long enough on the site (or just go to No More Penalties on this page) you can even find evidence on this site showing the connection between the original secret Mormon temple ceremonies and Masonic rites. I'll note some briefly:

Morgan revealed the oath that Masons took in the "First Degree" of their ritual: "...I will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasony... binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots..."

Now compare that to:

In Temple Mormonism, published in 1931, p. 18, we find this information concerning the Mormon ritual:

"The left arm is here placed at the square, palm to the front the right hand and arm raised to the neck, holding the palm downwards and thumb under the right ear.

'Adam—" We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic prieshood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.'...

"Sign—In executing the sign of the penalty, the right hand palm down, is drawn sharply across the throat, then dropped from the square to the side."

Of course, this is has been cut from the current temple ceremonies, so it won't do you much good in an argument. Besides, making accusations like, "Your ceremonies are based on Masonic rituals," isn't a very charitable way to argue in a debate, and will just harden the Mormon against your position.

It may, however, be relevant if a Mormon brings up the pagan influence on certain Christian celebrations. Then you could respond, "Yes, the Church may have adapted existing celebrations to fit the Christian religion when it was converting pagan nations, but the LDS church originally adapted Masonic rites for use in its most sacred ceremonies, so what is your complaint?"

This makes the broaching the subject less of an offensive attack and more of a riposte. But a clever Mormon will counter that the Mason ritual and the Mormon temple ritual both date back to Solomon's temple.

On Using Words

Today I came across a website that claimed the popular quote, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary,” made St. Francis sound like a wimp. I've lost that original site, but the site he links to showing that this is not an actual quotation of St. Francis can be seen here.

Still, I think that calling the quote "wimpy" is based on a misunderstanding. Sadly, I think this misunderstanding is common, and I think that many Catholics use it to justify an attitude of, "I can just go peacefully about my Catholic life, not bothering anyone about religion, and people will be converted by my good example."

The simple fact is that the average "good person" does not glow so radiantly with goodness that they preach their faith just by existing. If they did, we would certainly have many more people converting to the Catholic faith.

So then, how should we view the quote?

First, I think the quote may have come from people in a Catholic country, where leading by example might be more important than preaching.

Second, I think that it could be looked at more clearly if we invert it: Preaching the gospel with your words will have little effect if you are not living the gospel yourself. This is akin to Jesus saying to remove the beam from your own eye before going after the speck in the eye of another.

But I think it is best understood by looking at the lives of some of the saints.

Let's look at (the not-quite-canonized) Mother Teresa. She preached the gospel constantly in her care of the sick. She certainly used many words to preach it as well. But her words gained much more power by her actions.

So, I think the wrong way to apply the quote is, "Don't talk about religion unless forced to."

And the proper way is, "Live the gospel in every moment, and whenever the time is right, preach it."

The Relationship

The Shack claims that Jesus doesn't want religion, he just wants a personal relationship with us. This view is fairly common among Protestants.

Now, he's right to an extent. If we just try to "follow the rules" of our religion, but we somehow do so in a way that does not recognize Jesus as the purpose of everything we do, then we are just engaging in vain works.

But there is a danger going the other direction as well. Jesus does not just want to be our buddy. As the Bible teaches, the relationship we are intended to have with him is far more like marriage than it is like a casual let's-hang-out-at-the-mall-on-Saturday friendship.

Let us compare marriage to our relationship with Christ:

1) Introduction: Before anything can happen, a bride must be introduced to the groom. We are introduced to Christ when we hear the Gospel.

2) Falling in Love: There is a difference between hearing the Gospel, and accepting it. When we really start to know Christ, we will fall in love. He will make sure we are introduced to his father, because if we are to love Jesus, we must get to know and love his father, The Father. We will spend more time with him in prayer, and we will want to make ourselves more attractive to him.

3) Proposal: After we fall in love, we will realize that we are betrothed to Christ, he proposed to us before we were ever born. We have only to say, "Yes," and we will enter into the engagement.

4) Wedding Plans: During our engagement, we plan the wedding, and continue to learn more about our beloved. In the Church we do this by attending RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) classes, among other things. If we haven't already, we should start meeting more of Christ's family: being introduced to his brothers on earth (our fellow parishioners), his brothers in heaven (the Saints), and his mother (Mary).

4b) Confession: You want your marriage to be a clean start, and you want to be completely honest with your spouse, so before you are married, you share with Jesus your past failings, and ask his forgiveness.

5) Wedding: The wedding is a major point in the relationship. At this point our love is formalized. This corresponds more-or-less to Baptism and Confirmation. At this point we enter into the family of God. Jesus becomes our spouse, his Father becomes our Father, his brothers and sisters become our brothers and sisters, and his mother becomes our mother. This is a momentous change, and may be marked by taking a new name, in recognition of the new life that has begun.

6) Consummation: Only after the wedding do we consummate our relationship (Christ is without sin, after all). In the Church, Christ gives us his body in the Eucharist (communion). Unlike the wedding, this step is normally repeated many times over the course of a marriage.

These are the major steps in the relationship. After this, we will continue to grow closer to our spouse, and only love him more with time. But as sinners, there is still a problem that is likely to come up:

Infidelity: Christ will never be guilty of infidelity, but sadly, it can almost be guaranteed that we will not always be faithful to him. When this happens there are two paths we can take.

1) Divorce: While Christ will never desire divorce from us, no matter how we betray him, we can choose to run off, chasing after our sins.

2) Reconciliation: Even though we have betrayed him, he will always forgive us if we ask. Here's where confession shows up again. To have a lasting marriage, we must learn to say we're sorry.

Now, if we look back through these, we can see how the Catholic religion is not a contradiction to the relationship with Jesus, but is rather what you would expect from a deep relationship that is so much like marriage.

We can also see that removing the "Falling in Love" step makes the rest of the events lose all their meaning, but that still doesn't answer why many Protestant groups seem to think that the relationship shouldn't have any more steps after the acceptance of the proposal (though for them, acceptance of the proposal also counts as making wedding vows).

But what about all the things that leaves out? Under normal circumstances, who would say, "It's only our personal relationship that matters," and get married quietly without any witnesses? Who would say, "I don't need anyone interfering with my personal relationship," and refuse to speak with their spouse's family? Who would say, "It's only how we feel about each other that matters," and abstain from a physical relationship and consummation?

The truth is that relationships are both simple and complicated, and our relationship with Christ is no exception. The relationship is rooted in faith, hope and love, but living that relationship, and experiencing it in its fullness, through all the intricacies of our daily lives can get more complicated. That's why we have the Church, through which we come to a fuller knowledge of our beloved, and experience our relationship with him in all the ways he intended.

The Shack

I am currently reading William P. Young's The Shack.

While the book doesn't have the world's greatest writing, I am still mostly enjoying it, and can recommend it for the way it shows God as extraordinarily loving, showing the Trinity as a perfectly loving family, and the way it deals with the difficult question about why God allows evil.

But it also has its shortcomings, some of which I will address in greater detail in the future. The writer has God say that he does not like such man made things as "institutions," "authority," "hierarchies," or "religion." I found this very strange, since the writer appears to be using the Bible as one of his primary sources, and the Bible clearly shows the origin of all these being found not in fallen man, but in God himself.

The book would have been quite a bit better if the author had (for example), instead of blasting authority outright, shown how authority was supposed to function. He could have explained that authority was not given so that those with authority could use their power for their own benefit, it was given so that they could lead with the sole intention of serving those in their care.

But I guess that might point out another value of the book: It's a good introduction to the kind of anti-institutional theology taught by certain Protestant groups.

Our Incompetent Press

Here's another example of the media's horrible ability to interpret anything that anyone in the Catholic Church says: View Rips Catholicism Again

First, some background from the Catholic League:

"A news story in today’s New York Post claims there is “a new study approved by the Vatican” on sin that concludes that “Men and women sin in different ways.” Men are more given to lust; women to pride."

And now part of The View's absurd response to this "study":

Whoopi Goldberg: "Realize the Vatican is the last word in all things that are god. For some folks. But explain how you suddenly can write new sins. You can't do that."

Yeah... apparently being famous requires utterly incoherent thinking. To see the full extent of the craziness, be sure to read the whole story, and it's follow up.

Philosophy Lectures

I just found out that you can download lectures on Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft at his website. I highly recommend visiting:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

If you don't know, "Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King's College (Empire State Building), in New York City. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of over 45 books."

Quoting a Rabbi

Today, I'll just give you an interesting quote by Israel Zolli, once the Chief Rabbi of Rome. He converted to the Catholic faith in 1945, after the end of World War II. When asked by a reporter, "But why didn't you join one of the Protestant denominations, which are also Christian?" he replied:

"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: 'Why wait 1,500 years to protest?' The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

Read more about his conversion here.