Whelp, it’s that time of year again! Click on the link below to check out the Crawford Christmas Newsletter for 2019! Enjoy!

Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2019

The post Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2019 appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a dogma of the Catholic Faith; a necessary belief for all those who call themselves Catholic. But in my experience I’ve found that it is often one of the most misunderstood dogmas of the faith, not only for non-Catholics, but also for Catholic Christians themselves.

What is the Dogma of the Assumption?

To begin with – What is the Church’s teaching regarding this dogma of the faith which we celebrate on August 15th? The Church teaches that, “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.¹” 

What many people fail to realize is that the vast majority of Christians both worldwide and throughout history have held to this belief. It is not only the Catholic Church which professes this belief in the Assumption of Mary, but also Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians.

Anglican’s regard the Assumption of Mary as adiaphora (a thing indifferent), while historic Protestant Reformers such as Heinrich Bullinger actively proclaimed the assumption of Mary writing in 1539, “For this reason, we believe that the Virgin Mary, Begetter of God, the most pure bed and temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, her most holy body, was carried to heaven by angels.²” Although many churches within Lutheranism do not teach the Assumption of Mary, August 15th remains a lesser feast in celebration of “Mary, Mother of Our Lord,” according to their Calendar of Saints.

Novel Doctrine or Historic Christian Belief?

Another misconception is the notion that this is an entirely novel teaching of the Church, springing up out of thin air in 1950 with the proclamation of Pope Pius XII. Nothing could be further from the truth. Belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a deeply historic Christian belief. As Saint John Paul II explained, “The first trace of belief in the Virgin’s Assumption can be found in the apocryphal accounts entitled Transitus Mariae [Latin, “The Crossing Over of Mary”], whose origin dates to the second and third centuries.³” 

Not only that, but there have been Churches named after the Assumption for the past millennium and a half!

While it is true that the Assumption was only formerly defined by the Church in 1950, it is a belief shared by Christians everywhere and dating back to apostolic times. Perhaps one of the biggest arguments in favor of the Assumption is that there is a complete (and curious) silence about her bodily remains which cries out for an explanation. In the case of the Assumption, the silence is deafening.

“There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither of those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.⁴”

Reflecting on this oddity, T.L. Frazier writes, “A piece of green ribbon which is believed to have been worn by Mary as a belt is claimed today by the cathedral of Prato in Italy. For over a thousand years the cathedral of Chartres, France has owned a piece of fine material which is said to be a piece of Mary’s veil. The cathedral of Aachen in Germany even claims to possess the shroud that Mary was buried in. Both the ancient cities of Ephesus and Jerusalem claim to have the tomb of Mary, and pilgrimages to both cities have been common. Yet among all the relics there is not to be found a single one said to be a relic of Mary’s actual body.

This is especially significant when it is kept in mind how hard the Church at Smyrna worked to obtain the body of Polycarp. If the ante-Ephesian Church believed that Mary rotted and remained in the grave, as I believed, then we should expect to find some mention of the veneration of her remains somewhere in the Church, as we do of the apostles and other New Testament saints. Yet not even the powerful motivator of greed could elicit so much as one attempt at a claim to a relic of Mary’s bodily remains. It is almost as though no one dared to claim such a relic out of fear of immediately being accused of fraud – quite understandable if the common belief was that she had been assumed into heaven.⁵”

Assumed or Ascended? 

I think another point of confusion tends to revolve around the language of “Assumption” versus “Ascension.”  The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was Assumed body and soul into heaven; but artistic representations throughout the centuries have tended to portray our Blessed Mother as Ascending into heaven in a similar fashion as Christ; perhaps carried on the wings of Angels.

The reality is assumption is a deeply biblical concept, but is brought about by God’s agency. “Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.⁶” “Now when the Lord was about to take Eli′jah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Eli′jah and Eli′sha were on their way from Gilgal… And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli′jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.⁷”

In contrast, an ascension is only recorded once in Sacred Scripture; and it implies that the one who ascends does so by their own power. Thus it is that, “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.⁸”

It is only the God-man Jesus who can ascend and descend from heaven by His own power. 

Scriptural Basis?

When it comes to the Assumption of the Blessed Mother we have a historical consensus which stretches back to apostolic times, an argument from silence in the form of an absence of her remains and relics, and Scriptural precedents. Nevertheless, there remains those who refuse to accept this dogma of the faith without explicit reference found in the biblical texts.

Briefly, I would simply point out that nowhere does the bible state that everything which a Christian believes must be explicitly taught by the bible. 

But that is perhaps a topic for another time. Although Scripture doesn’t explicitly affirm the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we do see several Scriptural precedents along with suggestive allegorical passages that resonate with this belief. As Pope Pius XII points out,

“Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.

Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: ‘Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified’ (Ps. 131:8); and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.”

Interestingly, this typology seems to find support in the book of Revelation, when St. John writes of beholding the lost ark of the covenant, which has apparently been found in heaven within God’s temple. “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.” His readers must have been transfixed! The ark of the covenant has been found?!

In the very next verse St. John explains  this mystery for us writing, “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;⁹” He essentially connects the ark of the covenant with a mysterious woman in heaven – a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, wearing a crown of twelve stars. Who can this woman be? St. John identifies her by her offspring, “…she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations…¹⁰” This women then is the Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Mother of God, the new ark of the covenant, the one who has been taken into heaven and crowned as Queen. 

So Mary was Assumed into Heaven… So What?

Finally, we might ask, what practical good does it serve for a Christian to believe in this doctrine today? Is it simply, as the Anglican’s assert, a “matter of indifference?” Actually, far from it. There are several benefits which we could consider. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI writes,

“By contemplating Mary in heavenly glory, we understand that the earth is not the definitive homeland for us either, and that if we live with our gaze fixed on eternal goods we will one day share in this same glory and the earth will become more beautiful.

Consequently, we must not lose our serenity and peace even amid the thousands of daily difficulties. The luminous sign of Our Lady taken up into Heaven shines out even more brightly when sad shadows of suffering and violence seem to loom on the horizon.”¹¹

As Dr. Robert Stackpole, STD points out, “Most importantly, the Assumption of Mary is a loud and triumphant proclamation of the full truth of Easter. We sometimes say that the Easter faith, in a nutshell, is that “Christ is Risen.” In a certain sense, that is true enough. But the good news that the Apostles proclaimed to the world was not only that Christ is Risen, but that, precisely because He is Risen, He is bringing His whole mystical Body on earth to join Him one day in heavenly glory.

That is why St. Peter joyfully proclaims in I Peter 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you…¹²” 

Truly the Feast of the Assumption is good news for all of us who believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead!

1. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus 44 ↩

2. De origine erroris libri duo – On the Origin of Error, Two Books ↩

3. General Audience July 2, 1997 ↩

4. Catholic Answers Tracts: Immaculate Conception and Assumption ↩

5. Assumptions About Mary, T.L. Frazier, May 1, 1992 ↩

6. Genesis 5:23-24 ↩

7. 2 Kings 2:1, 11 ↩

8. John 3:13 ↩

9. Revelation 11:19 – 12:1 ↩

10. Revelation 12:5a ↩

11. General Audience August 16, 2006 ↩

12. The Case for the Assumption of Mary, Aug 14, 2018 ↩

The post Reflections on the Assumption of Mary appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Here’s our Crawford Christmas Newsletter for 2017. Click the link below to check it out. Enjoy!

Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2017

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2017 appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Definitive Interpretations?

Years ago, when studying various interpretations related to St. John’s Revelation, I came across the following quote on the website of the Orthodox Church in America:

“The Orthodox Church does not accept the notion that everyone can properly interpret the Bible as he or she wants. Some Protestant bodies believe in this, but Orthodoxy does not. We say that the Church has the ability to properly interpret Scripture, and this means that we should study and adopt the interpretations that have been handed down over the 2000 years of the Church’s living history. Given the fact that that which is contained in Scripture is the inspired word of God, revealed to mankind and not to a single individual, no individual has the right or ability to offer ‘the’ definitive interpretation of Scripture.“¹

As a non-denominational Christian pastor at the time, this quote really gave me pause. Just two months earlier, I had written in my journal, “There is a lot of talk about ‘correct’ doctrine or ‘right’ theology (M. for instance believes that it is essential to teach right doctrine). On the one hand I understand and agree completely.  On the other hand…. how in the world can we presume to know the truth or the rightness of a particular theology as opposed to another when we are admittedly trying to explain the very nature of God?” 

And then to encounter this quote, “No single individual has the right or ability to offer ‘the’ definitive interpretation of Scripture.” – And instantly I knew it to be true. 

For years I had personally wrestled with the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Not only could I not find a Scriptural basis for it, but the practical effects of the doctrine had played out for me countless times in the endless disagreements over “correct doctrine” and “right theology.”

And so for the first time I began to consider whether or not my own personal understanding of Scripture ought to conform to tradition. I began to ask, “Who has the authoritative claim? Christian orthodoxy or personal opinion?” [Tweet This]

Reading Within Tradition

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church there is an ancient saying of the Church Fathers which instructs us to read the Scripture within, “the living Tradition of the whole Church.”² Some Christians might object to this idea of reading Scripture “within” the living tradition of the Church, but it is a practice which actually finds surprising resonance with a significant number of Protestants communities as well.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral³ , for instance, is a methodology which bases its teaching on four corresponding sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are scripture, tradition, reason, and Christian experience. While John Wesley was an unwavering proponent of sola Scriptura⁴ , he nonetheless recognized that Christian doctrine ought to be in keeping with orthodox Christian tradition, writing, “Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree.”⁵

Wesley saw these four sources of “authority” as not merely prescriptive of how theology should be formed, but also as descriptive of how almost everyone actually forms theology. In other words, Wesley observed that the vast majority of Christian theologians employed these tools as a matter of routine.⁶

And to be honest, this was my experience as well. My theology did not merely rest on my studies of the Scriptures alone. My Ryrie study bible with its pervasive dispensationalist commentary had certainly helped form my theological views, while the NIV translation which I often relied on had undoubtedly shaped my understanding of various passages. I brought my own intellect and reasoning faculties to bear when weighing the individual strengths and weaknesses of various theological arguments presented within Erickson’s Christian Theology, and I observed the pragmatic effects of those various doctrines as they played out in the lives and personal experiences of myself and those I knew. In other words, Wesley’s description was right.

Even if Scripture is the primary means of authority, no one exegetes Scripture in a vacuum. [Tweet This]

Modern Influences

But this only led to further questions. If it was true that I still depended on tradition to help shape my understanding of Scripture – then what tradition(s) did I look to? For me, the influence of tradition had been a largely unrecognized, but nevertheless very real, aspect of my theological development. I used the Ryrie Study bible because it was recommended by other Christians who I respected. Lewis was also recommended to me and I resonated with his description of “mere Christianity” while summarily rejecting his beliefs on purgatory.

Basically I approached my Christian formation as one would approach a buffet table, picking and choosing what enticed me, discarding anything that didn’t. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all of my selections were from authors who had written within the last century or so. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, A.W. Tozer, Richard Foster – don’t get me wrong, there is no doubt in my mind that many of these men have penned modern day classics, but they were also Christians who had been shaped by a particular tradition themselves.

“[Removed] from its context within Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority.” Fr. John Whiteford⁷

On Reading Old Books…

And then I encountered the following in a paper titled, On Reading Old Books, by Anglican author and theologian C.S. Lewis, “There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books… This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are [not] studying St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas… but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself… A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.”⁸

Yep, Lewis himself recognized that his own works must be, “tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages.” He goes on to recommend to his readers, “It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.”⁹ This is, in part, to allow us make the necessary course corrections which will steer us away from the errors of our own age. “Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.”¹⁰

To provide an example from my own life; I had literally no idea that the pre-millienial dispensationalist doctrines of the “rapture” and corresponding (literal) thousand year earthly reign of Christ (confidently proffered as truth by my Ryrie study bible) had been proposed by John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830’s! As it turns out, I had spent most of my life erroneously believing that this was a Christian doctrine handed on by men of good faith from the earliest days of the Church. Imagine my surprise to find that it was a theological doctrine which didn’t exist prior to the 19th century!

Making Room For Tradition

While there is obvious diversity in how various Christian communities will utilize the voice of tradition in their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, its presence is undeniable – even for those who simultaneously deny it’s effect while being shaped by it’s forces. We are all subject to the voices of those who have gone before us; whether we give our attention to the shouts of those who immediately proceed us or cup our ears to hear the whispers of those from ages past, is up to us. But in either case tradition will speak to us, shaping our beliefs – with our consent or without.

More could be said about the differing views of tradition within Christianity. Within Catholicism a distinction is made between “little t” traditions and “Big T” traditions with the catechism noting, “Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.”¹¹

In contrast, when speaking of the living transmission of the Gospel through the ages, the Catechism notes, “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.’¹² ‘The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.’¹³¹⁴

Regardless of how your own individual “tradition” dictates that tradition should be used when interpreting the Scriptures, I would encourage you to make room for it’s wisdom and it’s guidance. As the Church Fathers exhort us, read the Scriptures, “within the living tradition of the Church.” As Lewis encourages us, go directly to the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church; read for yourself Saints Augustine and Aquinas.

Ignore for a moment the shouts of this present age, and incline your ear to the whispers of the past. [Tweet This]

Share us with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, or even by good old fashioned word of mouth!

Email us – [email protected] or leave us a post on our Facebook page!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. The Orthodox Church in America Website: oca.org/questions/scripture/book-of-revelation ↩

2. CCC paragraph 113 ↩

3. Employed by the Methodist Church, and many of the denominations descending from that heritage, such as the Nazarene Churches ↩

4. He referred to himself as, “a man of one book” The Sermons of John Wesley, 1872 Edition ↩

5. Works, X, 75 ↩

6. It should be noted that Wesley himself never used the term “quadrilateral” to describe his methodology, and was always careful to advocate for the centrality, and ultimate authority, of the Scriptures as compared to the other three sources. In truth, Wesley himself was merely building upon the older Anglican theological tradition while adding a fourth emphasis – personal experience. ↩

7. Sola Scriptura, p. 46 ↩

8. underlining for emphasis added ↩

9. C.S. Lewis, On Reading Old Books ↩

10. Ibid ↩

11. CCC paragraph 83b ↩

12. Dei Verbum 8 § 1 ↩

13. Dei Verbum 8 § 3 ↩

14. CCC paragraph 78 ↩

The post Reading Within Tradition appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

What if religion is a relationship? To make the claim, that Christianity is a religion – and not just a relationship with Christ, is very countercultural in today’s world. Subversive even. Everywhere we look we are confronted with slogans which assert that, “Christianity isn’t a religion – it’s a relationship with God.” We are told that, “Religion kills, but Jesus saves.” 

And from the pulpit, no less, we are assured that, “Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion.” that, “Jesus hates religion…but He loves you.” Some will even wonder whether religion isn’t a trick of the devil to lead people away from God.

This topic has been coming up with some frequency in my conversations with others lately, so I thought I’d take a swing at it here.

What is Religion?

Perhaps we should begin by defining our terms. Merriam-Webster defines religion as “The service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” and secondarily, “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” 

At first blush, there seems to be very little in this definition that would unduly trouble Christians. And yet remember that virtually all of the anti-religion statements and memes circulating on the internet today are not from atheists or secularists, but rather from people of faith. People who refuse to call themselves religious, are hesitant to even label themselves as Christians, but nonetheless love Jesus.

Religion as an Institution

If I had to guess, I would presume that most Christians don’t take issue per se with religion as a personal set of beliefs and practices. It’s the “institutionalized system” part that gets them. But allow me to suggest something which you may find rather shocking.

God created religion.

Specifically, the Judeo-Christian faith as an institution, a “religion” as it were, is created by God.

I know, I know, religion is a bad word, a bad thing, something which kills the life of faith rather than sustaining it. It’s a list of rules, and traditions, and various drudgeries, and should be avoided at all costs.

I know. I get it. Religion isn’t cool.

…But don’t change the channel just yet. Let’s review the tape first.

In the Old Testament we find that it is God who calls Aaron to be high priest and the Levites to priestly service, even providing incredibly detailed instructions for priestly vestments.¹ It is God who commands sacrifice and oblation,² God who commands an altar, anointing oil, and incense,³ and God who gives the instructions for the construction of His Temple and it’s implements:

Then David gave his son Solomon the plan of the vestibule of the temple, and of its houses, its treasuries, its upper rooms, and its inner chambers, and of the room for the mercy seat; and the plan of all that he had in mind: for the courts of the house of the Lord, all the surrounding chambers, the treasuries of the house of God, and the treasuries for dedicated gifts; for the divisions of the priests and of the Levites, and all the work of the service in the house of the Lord; for all the vessels for the service in the house of the Lord, the weight of gold for all golden vessels for each service, the weight of silver vessels for each service, the weight of the golden lampstands and their lamps, the weight of gold for each lampstand and its lamps, the weight of silver for a lampstand and its lamps, according to the use of each in the service, the weight of gold for each table for the rows of bread, the silver for the silver tables, and pure gold for the forks, the basins, and the cups; for the golden bowls and the weight of each; for the silver bowls and the weight of each; for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. “All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.”⁴

It is also God who sets forth both the moral law and the ceremonial law for His people, the nation of Israel.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but God created religion. It was His idea. His plan. His way of accomplishing His purpose.

But, many Christians will object saying, “Surely this isn’t the case in the New Testament? Surely Christ condemns religion and only desires a relationship with us?” Well…let’s take a look.

Jesus – Good Friend or God?

In the New Testament, Christ is incredibly clear that He has not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them.⁵  He establishes a Church – a religious institution. It is both visible and hierarchical. It is built upon St. Peter (similar to Aaron’s role),⁶ and secondarily upon the apostles (similar to the role of the Levites).⁷ It is authoritative, given the power to bind and loose on earth AND in heaven.⁸ It has juridical authority in the life of the believer – “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church;” – including the power of excommunication.⁹ It requires our submission as believers, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.”¹⁰ It is the religious institution of the Church which is the “pillar and foundation of truth.”¹¹ In creating a Church, He creates a religion. He authoritatively reinterprets the Old Testament moral law, calling New Testament believers to a higher standard of conduct!¹²

With all this in mind, Christ Himself never speaks out against religion. How could He? It has been established by God, and He is God.

What He does do (frequently) is speak out against religious hypocrisy in the life of individuals – especially (although not exclusively) in the lives of religious leaders.

But, and pay attention here, He does this while simultaneously affirming their God given authority! “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.”¹³

In other words, according to Jesus, (and I’m paraphrasing here): Religion ain’t the problem. Not living according to your faith is. [Tweet This]

Hook-Up Culture Christianity

There’s one final aspect that we should consider when it comes to the utter disdain for “religion” found amongst those who nevertheless live what can only be described as objectively religious lives (service and worship of God, devotion to faith, etc.) and claim to have a “saving faith” and “relationship” with Christ.

When we look to Scripture, how does the bible describe this “relationship” which Christ has with His Church? I put the word relationship in quotes simply because it is a word that is entirely absent from the language of Scripture despite it’s popularity today. Nonetheless when we look for the type of “relationship” which Christ has with His Church we see this: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.¹⁴ In Scripture, the “relationship” that Christ enjoys with His Church is that of a marriage. You want intimacy with Christ? It doesn’t get much more intimate than a one flesh union. I’ve written a bit more on this topic in another article which you can find here: An Intimate Union

All too often we tend to turn the metaphor on it’s head. We think that somehow it is Christ and His Church who are supposed to reflect, or mirror, the intimate union of our marriage relationships. In reality, St. Paul tells us that exactly the opposite is true. Namely that human marriage – even from the very beginning – is but a dim mirror that is to reflect the reality of Christ’s relationship with His Church. Human marriage, when at it’s best, images the intimacy which Christ shares with His Church.

With that in mind, let me ask you something. How do you think my wife would feel if I were to say to her, “Listen honey, I’m not really into all the rules and traditions that go along with marriage. I want a relationship with you, but I don’t want to put a label on it, I’m just not comfortable with that. After all, it’s not about a ceremony, it’s about love. It’s not about vows it’s about freedom. I don’t want a marriage, I just want a hook-up buddy.”

The Ugly Truth

Are you ready for the ugly truth? Often we don’t want to admit to others that we are religious because it obligates us to a certain way of life, to certain practices and beliefs. The type of relationship that reflects Christ’s relationship with His Church is a marriage. It is covenantal. Sacramental. It makes promises and takes vows. We’d rather say, “I’m not religious I just love Jesus.” because it lets us off the hook when we’d rather not go to church on Sunday. Or when we’d rather not set aside actual time for prayer. We can be “spiritual” by just going on a hike and then get in a quick prayer during our morning commute. Saying that we aren’t religious gives us that latitude.

But Jesus said, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done.”¹⁵

And He also said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”¹⁶ 

And again He said,“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”¹⁷

In point of fact, Jesus said a great many things about how to properly live life as one within the kingdom of God,¹⁸ which He came to initiate among us. In point of fact, Jesus wants a commitment from His bride. In point of fact, it is within this commitment, this marriage with Christ, that a one flesh union can take place. And it is through this one flesh union that we can become the very body of Christ.

And that is religion. The practice of our faith with and in and through Christ, as we follow and obey Him. Religion, as created by God, provides the context for our relationship with Him.

Final Thoughts

While it is necessary for us as Christians to speak out forcefully against religious hypocrisy (and guard against it in our own lives as well) I would be hard pressed to assign “religion” to the work of the devil. The devil doesn’t create. Rather, the devil does what he always does, he takes that which is created good and perfect by God and he twists and deforms it until it is almost unrecognizable.

If we are uncomfortable admitting that we are religious, it is likely due to the fact that we aren’t serving and worshipping God correctly.

True religion doesn’t offend, it attracts.

We need to, as St. James exhorts us, return to “pure and undefiled religion”¹⁹ – not simply abandon it to the machinations of the devil. It is far too easy to blame an “institution” while letting ourselves off the hook for our own religious hypocrisy and pretenses.

Finally we should acknowledge that Christianity is meant to be communal – our faith is meant to be lived out together. It was never intended to be just me, my bible, and Jesus. And religion is what binds us together.

Spirituality is whatever I want it to be. Religion is the faith handed on once and for all.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”²⁰

It’s no good pointing our finger at “the church.” WE are the Church. The problem at the institutional level of the Church stems from a problem at the individual level. Namely, we are all sinners.

I am religious and I am a hypocrite. God have mercy on me a sinner.

Share us with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, or even by good old fashioned word of mouth!

Email us – [email protected] or leave us a post on our Facebook page!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Subscribe

1. Exodus 28-29:9 ↩

2. Exodus 29:10-46 ↩

3. Exodus 30 ↩

4. 1 Chronicles 28:11-19 ↩

5. Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. ↩

6. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18 ↩

7. built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Ephesians 2:20 ↩

8. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 ↩

9. Matthew 18:15-17 …If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ↩

10. Hebrews 13:17 ↩

11. 1 Timothy 3:15 ↩

12. Matthew 5:21-38 You have heard it said, but I say to you… ↩

13. Matthew 23:2-3 ↩

14. Ephesians 5:31-32 ↩

15. Matthew 16:24b-27 ↩

16. John 14:15 ↩

17. Matthew 24:13 ↩

18. Matthew 5-7 ↩

19. James 1:27 ↩

20. Ephesians 4:4-6 ↩

The post When Religion IS a Relationship appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Silence is a faith-based film for those (like me) who can’t stand faith-based films. It is not, however, an easy movie to watch. It is a film which was made not to entertain an audience but rather, as all good art should, to provoke an emotional response. Perhaps even to, (and dare I say it of a faith-based film?) cause the audience to think. To reflect deeply on our own beliefs, and to question the nature of both faith and faithfulness. For me, Silence is what faith-based films should be. Based on a book by Shūsaku Endō, and directed by Martine Scorsese, Silence is not your typical hollywood fare. Another reviewer, Matt Zoller Seitz, wrote that, “This is not the sort of film you ‘like’ or ‘don’t like.’ It’s a film that you experience and then live with.” ¹

Having said that, I did like it. A lot.

I was speaking with a friend of mine who is a seminarian, and he remarked that several of his fellow seminarians had seen it, and they left the theater feeling as if they had been on a spiritual retreat. It’s that sort of an experience. It sticks with you.

The film is not concerned with offering Christian platitudes or reassuring it’s audience that they are good Christian people. People whom God loves more than the unsaved, and whose prayers are always promptly and faithfully answered. Perhaps we’re not good Christian people. Perhaps we merely appear to be good Christians because we happen to live in a particularly good time and in a happily fortuitous place.

Kichijiro, a Japanese Christian in the film who has apostatized many times in order to save his life (having even watched his entire family suffer martyrdom in front of him), remarks that he would have been a good Christian had he been born in an earlier time; a time when Christianity wasn’t persecuted. Similarly, perhaps we only appear to be faithful because our faith hasn’t truly been tested. Perhaps it is easy to go to Church on Sunday, but much harder to actually die a martyr’s death. Perhaps we confuse God’s blessing with our own material prosperity. Perhaps if we listened carefully to Christ’s words² about the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven we would begin to wonder if all our wealth is truly a result of God’s blessing at all…

The Japanese Christians in this film labor under no such delusions. They suffer for their faith in abject poverty. They meet for Church in huts under darkness of night, without benefit of priests or sacraments, desperately wondering why God allows them to suffer so. The question of human suffering and God’s thunderous silence in the face of it, anchors the film firmly in it’s characters struggle to remain faithful.

This theme, God’s silence in the face of human suffering, is one which is well documented even within the Scriptures. God allows Job to suffer in order to test his faithfulness, and when Job seeks the face of the Almighty he finds himself alone. “If I go forward, he is not there; or backward, I cannot perceive him; on the left he hides, and I cannot behold him; I turn to the right, but I cannot see him.”³ In the Psalms we read, “O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God!”⁴ and even God’s own Son cries from His cross in the words of the psalmist, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”⁵

This theme of silence is prolific throughout the movie. When Fr. Rodriguez gazes into a pool of water, is it his own face or that of Christ’s which gazes placidly back at him? The voiceover narration in the movie is sparse, but there are a few instances when God’s silence is broken and we hear His voice in Fr. Rodriguez’s head – or is it only what Fr. Rodriguez imagines God to be saying? Is he only hearing what he wants to hear; receiving the only Word of God that he is willing to receive?

Is it God, who has been silent for the entire film, who finally speaks or merely his own rationalizations which clamor to make themselves heard?

This is a movie which allows us our own interpretation of the story being told. It is not a film which tries to promote a particular point of view or to clumsily persuade the audience of the moral viability of the characters decisions. Rather, it leads us to a vantage point where we can watch the events unfold, and then leaves us in silence to make of them what we will. To reflect on what our own actions would be in similar circumstances. To wonder what the voice in our own head would say.

The story follows two priests, Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver, who set out from Portugal to try and find their mentor, Liam Neeson, who has gone missing in Japan and is rumored to have apostatized. They are scandalized by the rumors and are certain that Fr. Ferriera has remained faithful and devout in spite of persecution.

They are led to Japan by a drunk and apostate Christian; a man who has betrayed all he holds dear not once, but many times over. We bear witness to his acts of betrayal and apostasy, failings which are invariably followed by desperate entreaties for confession and forgiveness. Within his ravaged faith, abject despair, and cringing hope we glimpse Peter, Judas, and ultimately ourselves.

In Japan the young priests confront for the first time the frailty of the faith and their own weaknesses and fears. Evil is shown to be both monstrous and reasonable, polite and insidious, as inevitable as the tide which throws itself tirelessly at the Christians tied to crosses in the sea. Is it an unforgivable sin to step on an image of Christ? It is only an image, it is not Christ himself. The act is a mere formality…

And yet…

Wasn’t Christ Himself imago Dei? The very image of the unseen God? Fulfilling perfectly in His incarnation that which all of humanity is called to? In the persecution carried out by the Japanese inquisitors it is not only the Christian images which are made a sacrilege, but humans, divine image bearers, are slaughtered with almost as little regard as the images which are tread under foot (fumi‑e).

Part of the difficulty in viewing this film is that when we are finally brought to the climax, we are left not with a neatly resolved narrative, but rather with the same questions that we have been wrestling with for the entire time.

Confident of our unfailing faithfulness, we want to proclaim with Peter, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.”⁶ But Silence unflinchingly presents us with the Christian faith as lived by men in whom the divine image has been distorted. Men who no longer clearly hear God themselves. Men who no longer properly follow God. Men who are unable to rightly present the proper image of God to others. Silence allows us to see ourselves in these fallen men, to realize that I too am one of the poor, undeserving, faithless sinners for whom Christ died. I too have made brash vows, filled not with faith but with false bravado. And all too predictably, I too have betrayed Him.

Steven Greydanus writes in his review of the film, “It poses a challenge for viewers of any faith or of none, or of any culture or ethnicity, even if the challenge is not the same for everyone. A friend who is an atheist has said that Silence made him want to believe in God. For my part, Silence presses my Christian ethos to the breaking point.”⁷

In the end, Silence reminds me that any hope I place in myself will be disappointed. I will fall. I will betray all that I hold dear. I am weak.

But… then there is this:

“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.”⁸

The saying is sure:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he will also deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.⁹

Ultimately, this is not a film for everyone. It is long, uncomfortable, and demanding. But for those who dare, it is also richly rewarding. An absolute masterpiece and just possibly Scorsese’s finest.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/silence-2016 ↩

2. “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23b-24 ↩

3. Job 23:8-9 ↩

4. Psalm 83:1 ↩

5. Psalm 22:1, Matthew 27:46 ↩

6. Matthew 26:35b ↩

7. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-silence ↩

8. 2 Corinthians 12:9 ↩

9. 2 Timothy 2:11-13 ↩

The post Silence: A Movie Review appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

The Coming Home Network International recently published an abbreviated version of my conversion story in their monthly newsletter and online at their website. I decided to reproduce the article in it’s entirety here along with a PDF of the full newsletter at the bottom of the article. Enjoy!

Delving Deep In History Brought Me Home

We’ve all heard the maxim, “Your starting point always determines your conclusion,” and ordinarily I would wholeheartedly agree. Yet there are exceptions to the rule. In theology and religion, these exceptions are typically referred to as conversions — that is, they involve people whose starting point (like Saul of Tarsus) very much does not determine their conclusion!

Having said that, I also want to say that I was extremely fortunate to be raised in a Christian home by parents who did an outstanding job of acquainting me with the Person of Jesus Christ and the holy Scriptures. Our Christian faith was the center of our life and identity as a family. Over the years, we attended various denominational and non-denominational churches, but they were all characterized by the idea that the Bible alone was our only basis for truth, faith, morals, and authority.

From a young age I was fascinated by the study of theology, and I would often engage in theological discussions with the adults I knew, probing them for answers to thorny questions. Nevertheless, I frequently found myself at odds with the accepted theological beliefs of our Christian friends, many of whom might best be described as Evangelical Fundamentalists. In particular, starting when I was about seventeen, I began to struggle with the idea of “the Bible alone.” I couldn’t seem to get a good answer as to where this idea had come from, or more importantly, where the Bible asserted this doctrine. I found myself at odds with the doctrine of sola Scriptura for primarily logical reasons. If it is “the Bible and the Bible alone,” as every church we attended proclaimed, then where does the Bible make this claim?

When I studied the Bible, it seemed to argue against Scripture alone because it was full of instances when God spoke through direct revelation to His people, or even through intermediaries such as prophets, priests, judges, and kings. In Scripture, I saw that God revealed Himself through His creation, through His incarnate Son who dwelt among us, through His Church, and especially through His Apostles who, “delivered to [us] as of first importance what [they] also received”¹. In other words, with the notable exception of the Ten Commandments, He didn’t choose to simply drop a written user’s manual from heaven in order to communicate with us.

I also noticed that, even when Scripture was interpreted by those who were honestly trying to follow God and submit to Scripture’s authority in their lives, they invariably arrived at very different conclusions from one another. In other words, far from Scripture being the final authority, it really just opened the floodgates for division and a lack of certainty within the Church. This division, especially when it came to our inability to agree on what constituted salvation, has always bothered me tremendously.

Since at that point I didn’t have any frame of reference to categorize this issue and others as fundamentally “Protestant versus Catholic,” I concluded that these were issues I had with Christianity in general — issues that most other Christians didn’t share. I wondered if my faith was in some way lacking, and I was concerned that my views were “unorthodox,” without realizing that they might more accurately be described as “unorthodox Protestant views.” As it turns out, many of those views were entirely orthodox from a Catholic perspective!

I attended a year of Bible College but quit after getting married, and gradually my wife and I gravitated towards “Bible churches,” like Calvary Chapel, and then non-denominational churches that avoided any doctrine that could be considered remotely divisive but fundamentally sought to bring people into a personal relationship with Christ. This could be both good (less divisiveness), and bad (a reduced ability to proclaim truth). These churches taught that a “relationship with Christ” was the ultimate truth — the only truth which really mattered (“no creed but Christ”). Many of the churches we attended might be summed up by the statement, “Just me, my Bible, and Jesus.”

Through the years that followed, I was always involved in some kind of ministry; I really enjoyed studying theology and teaching others. We moved to Boise, Idaho when I was around thirty and became involved with a small non-denominational church in the town of Kuna. Many of the leaders there had ties to Boise Bible College, and one of the founding pastors was a professor there. During our time in that congregation, I had the opportunity to take non-accredited classes through Boise Bible College and was eventually asked to move into a ministerial role, serving as one of the pastors.

Feeling led by God to move towards ministry as a full-time vocation, I applied and was accepted into a Master’s of Divinity program through Fuller Seminary. Due to my previous individual studies and my ministerial experience, they were willing to make a special provision for me in spite of the fact that I hadn’t completed an undergraduate degree. I was definitely moving along in a certain direction, and for me that direction did not include the Catholic Church!

In fact, I had always been somewhat anti-Catholic. I was raised in an environment that was dubious over whether Catholics were saved, and I had contact with an occasional Fundamentalist who was convinced that the Catholic Church was the beast of Revelation and the Pope was the Antichrist! If you had suggested to me a few years ago that I would one day be considering conversion to Catholicism, I would have laughed. I had no inkling that the Catholic Church would ever be even a remote consideration; I would have thought it as likely as my converting to Islam or Hinduism.

There was, however, a gradual softening over the years in my attitude towards Catholicism. In Idaho, I began to read authors like Henri Nouwen, Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas Merton. I began to realize that some of the authors whom I most admired and who had influenced me the most were either Catholic themselves, or strongly Catholic in their theology, as was the case with the Anglican C.S. Lewis. As I read these Catholic authors, theologians, and philosophers, I discovered, to my great surprise, that not only were they Christians, but in many cases profoundly so. They were, in fact, some of the most deeply committed and insightful Christians, apologists, theologians, and philosophers I had encountered! This didn’t change my mind on Catholicism, but it definitely began to soften my previously dismissive attitude.

As I continued to delve into Catholicism with a progressively more open attitude, I was surprised to find that much of what I thought I knew about Catholic belief was either flat out wrong, wasn’t fair to the nuances of their position, or was based on “straw-man” arguments.

I also discovered that many of the authors I had been reading were converts to the Faith. Men like G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, and John Henry Cardinal Newman. The latter once famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” While I am not sure that this maxim could apply to everyone, it was certainly true in my case.

I decided to teach a Church history class at the church where I was pastoring. I wanted to tie each portion of Church history to an influential Christian of that period, someone who had really made a difference in the life of the Church. My goal was to give attendees some familiarity with the heroes of the faith since the time of Christ and to provide positive role models who would inspire our congregation to live lives of heroic virtue themselves. I didn’t think of these heroes as “saints,” nor did I realize that this idea of a “communion of saints” was of Catholic origin.

It was an ambitious undertaking, especially since I had never intensively studied Church history prior to the Reformation. All my studies up to that point had either been broad overviews or thorough studies of one particular facet of Church history, such as the Reformation itself or the early American Revivals.

Like many Protestants, for me, Church history began in the Book of Acts and then in some vague and undefined way “veered off course” around the time of Constantine. Then there were even vaguer interludes of crusades and inquisitions, with Church history thankfully resuming some 1500 years after Christ with the Protestant Reformation! As I spent many hours preparing to teach my class, studying multiple Protestant Church history books, for the first time it came home to me that…

During the first 1,500 years of Christianity — for fully three quarters of all Christian history — to be Christian was almost always to be Catholic!

All of the early Church Fathers, saints, theologians, etc. were Catholic! With the exception of Orthodoxy, there was no other Christian church until the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries! I know that it may seem kind of dumb, but this floored me! I had never before taken the time to consider it from an intellectual perspective.

Even acknowledging the heartbreaking split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in 1054, you still had Churches who were apostolic, sacramental, and unified in their teaching of the Christian Faith. From the time of Christ until some 500 years ago there was no question as to whether Catholic theology, teaching, and practice were an authentic expression of Christianity, because the universal or “catholic” expression of Christianity was the only one that existed! Perhaps I shouldn’t say that “there was no question,” because there have always been heretics and dissenters to the true Faith. But, heresies aside, the Church was one, holy, apostolic — and catholic — until very recently in history.

I will readily admit that reform was needed within the Catholic Church during the time of the Protestant Reformation; but in reality the Church is always and in every age in need of reform because she is composed of sinners such as myself. It is a historical fact that Luther didn’t intend to leave the Catholic Church but to reform it. Furthermore, his excommunication from the Catholic Church was for his heresy, not for his reforming efforts. Consider the following quote from Luther himself:

“That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St. Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”²

And this is precisely where I began to have my own problems, because when I looked at the five solae of the Protestant Reformation — the doctrines of sola Fide (by faith alone), sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), solus Christus (through Christ alone), sola Gratia (by grace alone), and soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone) that divide Protestants from Catholics — I found that I disagreed with most of them.

I’ve spoken to many Protestant friends who have agreed with me on various aspects of my objections to the five solae, but then they say that those aren’t the reasons why they reject Catholicism; they have their own reasons! Maybe they reject Catholicism because of its teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but Luther and Calvin still believed in the Real Presence after their split from the Catholic Church! In fact, this doctrine was the reason for the first of the divisions (the one between Luther and Zwingli) which have so plagued the Protestant movement over the past 500 years. Often my Protestant friends don’t realize how many Catholic beliefs and practices were held by the fathers of the Reformation, even after their break from the Catholic Church. The Reformers believed in the necessity of Baptism, the veneration of Mary and the saints, the value of Confession, and much more — not because these were Catholic beliefs, but rather because they were the historic, orthodox, and scriptural positions of Christians from the time of Christ forward!

The bottom line was that the more I looked at it, the more it seemed as if the objections to Catholicism that the Reformers initially held weren’t objections that my friends or I shared!

This led me to begin to study what the early Church actually believed when it came to Sacred Tradition, Confession, the Eucharist, Baptism of infants, the necessity of Baptism, the Communion of the Saints, and other Catholic positions. To my shock, I found that virtually all Catholic doctrine has its roots in the teachings of the early Church — and almost all of it is attested to within the first two hundred years after Christ! There has obviously been an ongoing process of defining doctrine, along with the refinement and development of that doctrine, but I was shocked at just how many Catholic doctrines were actually early Church doctrines.

This obviously destroyed my previous assumption that somehow, around the time of Constantine or shortly thereafter, the Church was led into error, probably due to Roman influence, and that human reason and the traditions of men had gradually replaced the true authority of the Scriptures. Instead, I was forced to ask the question:

“If the early Church was wrong, was she wrong from the very start? If not, why have we dispensed with so much of what the early Church believed, practiced, and taught based on the say-so of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers? We are still following the ‘traditions of men’ — just men of much more recent descent.”

That was my problem. There were logical inconsistencies with the arguments from the Protestant side that I just couldn’t seem to resolve. You have men arguing against the authority of the Catholic Church and for the authority of Scripture alone. But ultimately, all they are saying is that they, rather than the Church, have the right to interpret Scripture and teach doctrine authoritatively. This requires us to believe that God didn’t work through His Church to teach right doctrine and properly interpret Scripture, but instead to believe that God has worked through Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Reformers to teach right doctrine and properly interpret Scripture.

Aside from the historical difficulties, I was also struggling with the lack of moral and religious certitude that Protestantism was able to offer. This uncertainty had always bothered me intellectually, but it bothered me increasingly in practical ways as well. As a father of three boys, certain things were very clear; for instance, there must be no sex outside of marriage. Other things were much less clear: Is masturbation right or wrong? My father had been taught that masturbation was a sin; however, Dr. James Dobson, an Evangelical Christian psychologist, said that masturbation was natural and not a sin. Who was right?

To me, this issue of truth and certainty seemed to highlight a fundamental difference between Protestants and the Catholics. Within my Protestant upbringing there was no agreement, and therefore no certainty, on what is necessary for salvation: whether salvation can be lost, whether Baptism is necessary, whether works are necessary in addition to faith, or whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still with us. And so on.

This lack of certainty began to bother me even more profoundly when I became a pastor. I found it unacceptable to be unable to answer our congregation with any degree of certainty not only on doctrinal issues, but on questions of morality as well. Is masturbation wrong? Is birth control wrong? Is divorce and remarriage okay? What about homosexuality? For me, the answer could not be, “I don’t know” or, “My opinion is .…” This was unacceptable to me both as a father and as a shepherd of God’s people.

So, do I believe that we can know everything with certainty? No. Do I believe that we should be able to articulate what is necessary both for salvation and to live a life pleasing to God? Yes. Do I believe that we should be able to declare with all Christians everywhere the historic creeds of Christendom, confident that they are true and certain summaries of our faith? Yes.

We had moved to northern California and I had taken a new job, largely to allow me to begin work on my Master’s of Divinity at Fuller’s Sacramento campus. But suddenly I found myself at a crossroad. I had taken a step of faith and relocated my family so that I could get my degree and pursue full-time vocational ministry, and now I was seriously considering not only the claims of the Catholic Church, but also what claim that Church might have on my life.

Coming to the point of actual conversion was difficult. Not because of doubts; for the first time in my life I was receiving answers to my previously unanswerable questions! The difficulty was instead in accepting the words of Christ: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on 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 a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:34–39). The difficulty lay in forsaking friends and family and church for the sake of Christ, of letting go of my plans and dreams and desires and giving them to Jesus. Could I trust Him to lead me even when I didn’t know where my final destination would be or why the journey there had become so difficult?

Throughout this process, our friends and family were incredibly gracious, but they were also concerned for our well-being. As I have remarked on my internet home page, “It is often difficult to describe to others all the individual steps taken along the path which have brought you along the way to where you are today. Many have perhaps misunderstood my decision as that of leaving behind one thing for something else, when in reality the experience has been one of adding to, not of taking away — of entering into the fullness of the Christian Faith.”

Many have asked me why I felt that it was necessary to enter the Catholic Church, and I cannot find a more perfect answer than that of G.K. Chesterton: “The difficulty of explaining ‘why I am a Catholic’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.” I would add that, for me, there was also the indescribable joy of finding my home, of arriving at the place where I belong.

For me, the process was one of intensive study for almost two years before I finally told my wife, Missy, that I needed to begin attending Mass and exploring for myself the claims of the Catholic Church. I promised her that I would continue to go to church with her and the kids, but that I could no longer resist God’s pull towards Catholicism in my life. When I said that, I honestly didn’t know if she would agree to attend Mass with me or not. But she was willing to go for my sake, and for six months we attended a local non-denominational church in the morning and St. Teresa of Avila’s parish in the evening as a family. (My kids really got a lot of church during that time!) Missy and I agreed to enroll in RCIA classes (the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), and nine months later, on Easter Vigil of 2013, we were all received together into the Catholic Church. I can honestly say that that Easter Vigil service was one of the most profound and joyful experiences of my life!

All of this isn’t to say that I no longer have any questions at all or that I am under some delusion that the Catholic Church is perfect. She has obviously had her share of failings and problems over the years and will continue to do so — maybe even more so now that I am a member! There have been priests who were dismal failures, bishops and popes who were motivated by greed, selfishness, and a desire for power rather than love. The Church has done things both amazing and horrific in the name of God.

But … she is Christ’s bride, made holy and without blemish by Christ Himself and by the righteous deeds of His saints³. And like all brides, she has been joined to Him that the two may become one flesh. It is through this incarnational mystery that we, as the bride of Christ, become in that marital union of one flesh, the very Body of Christ, with Himself as our head⁴.

You see, for me, the balance had shifted, and I could no longer in good conscious consider myself Protestant. As I pointed out in an article I wrote, entitled “Sola Scriptura — An Anachronism”:

“There is a theory which I have heard proposed in many different ways by many different groups over the years. It is always vaguely articulated, but generally it loosely follows the same formula, namely, that sometime during the first 1,500 years of Christianity, the Church was led into error and that human reason and meaningless Church tradition gradually replaced the true authority of the Scriptures. At face value, I have a sizable problem with any theory that proposes itself in contradiction to the words of Christ, who said, ‘I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it’⁵. Every Christian denomination which has since split from that Church, has essentially proposed some variation of the theory above. Namely, that Christ was wrong, His Church was not preserved by Him, the gates of Hell did prevail against it, and it has now become necessary to split from the Church which He founded and start an entirely new church in order to return to the original teachings of Christ.”

I have come to the conviction that it was indeed Christ who founded His Church — not Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or the King of England, or John and Charles Wesley, or Joseph Smith, or Chuck Smith, or anyone else since that time.

I have decided to trust in the plain words of Christ preserved in the Scriptures for us. Yes, I have decided that — when He guaranteed His Church that He would be with her always, even to the end of the age; and when He promised her that He would preserve her against the very gates of Hell — He meant what He said. I have decided that if I am to be His disciple, then I should begin with obedience — and in obedience, belong to the Church which He established. And finally, I have decided that Christ is not into polygamy — He only desires one bride, one Church.

I will leave you with the words of G.K. Chesterton: “It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment a man ceases to pull against it he feels a tug towards it. The moment he ceases to shout it down he begins to listen to it with pleasure. The moment he tries to be fair to it he begins to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair.”

And here’s the full newsletter: Coming Home Newsletter September 2016

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. 1 Corinthians 15:3 ↩

2. Martin Luther — An Instruction on Certain Articles: late February 1519 ↩

3. Ephesians 5:25–27, Revelation 19:7–9 ↩

4. Colossians 1:18a, 24; 2:17–19 ↩

5. Matthew 16:18b ↩

The post Delving Deep In History Brought Me Home appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Catholic Canonizations

With Mother Teresa’s recent canonization and elevation to Saint Teresa of Calcutta, I’ve had quite a few friends and family members asking me how exactly the Catholic Church goes about making someone a saint.

In answering that question, there are a couple of important distinctions which must be made. The first distinction that we should make is that the Catholic Church doesn’t make someone a saint, rather they declare them to be a saint. In other words the process of canonization is a process of recognizing an individuals sainthood, not a process of conferring sainthood to an individual.

The other distinction which must be made is that saints are not some special class of super Christians. As Christians we are all called to be saints, sancti, holy ones.

All of us.

Sainthood is the end-goal of the Christian life. Everyone who enters heaven will do so as a saint. [Tweet This]

Venerable, Blessed, or Saint

With those two points in mind, the process by which the Church officially recognizes someone as a saint (one who has lived a holy life on this earth and is with God in heaven) has changed over the centuries. The process of canonization has existed since the 10th century, but considerable changes were made to the process by Saint Pope John Paul II in 1983. Currently, the process begins with the local bishop who will investigate the candidate’s life and writings for heroic virtue (or martyrdom) and orthodoxy of doctrine. Next a panel of theologians at the Vatican evaluates the candidate. After approval by the panel and cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the pope proclaims the candidate “venerable.”

The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle (except in the case of martyrs). Since miracles are considered proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede for us, the miracle must take place after the candidate’s death and as a result of a specific petition to the candidate. When the pope proclaims the candidate beatified or “blessed,” the person can be venerated by a particular region or group of people with whom the person holds special importance.

Only after a second verified miracle will the pope canonize the saint (this includes martyrs as well). The title of saint tells us that the person has lived a holy life, is in heaven, and is to be honored by the universal Church.

Since verified miracles play such an important role in the canonization of a saint, let’s turn our attention to the subject of this article.

What Constitutes a Miracle?

A miracle can be defined as, “A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.” or, “A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.” In either case it would seem that a miracle is typically viewed as being a “welcome” event, although I would argue that this would be entirely dependent on the observer’s point of view. For instance, Pharaoh may not have considered the miraculous plagues a welcome event…

Regardless, many people object to the very possibility of miracles citing either a personal disbelief in the existence of any divine agency, a philosophical view which precludes the miraculous, a claim that miracles are incompatible with the laws of science or nature, or a historical objection which denies the possibility of determining that any historical event can be identified as miraculous in nature.

Take for instance the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”

Bart Ehrman, a popular textual critic of the New Testament, attempts to separate the historical question from the philosophical question stating,“Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability. By their very nature miracles are the least probable occurrence in any given instance.” 

But, at least part of the difficulty lies in how we define a miracle.

Two Definitions

If we refer back to the definitions given for the word miracle above we will see that a miracle can be an event that is inexplicable by scientific means, i.e. violates the laws of nature, or an improbable or rare event. But it’s important at the outset to know these are two different definitions. It would be a “rare or improbable event” if the Cubs won the World Series, and we might very well call it a miracle, but we wouldn’t really mean that any laws of nature were violated or that divine providence was in any way involved.

Conversely, well over a billion Christians believe that a literal miracle happens at communion when the bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood. They believe that this happens by divine agency in a manner inexplicable by scientific means. For Catholics in particular this miracle takes place countless times every day as Mass is celebrated around the world. According to these Christians it is an event which violates the laws of nature, but it’s not exactly rare or improbable.

Often times critics of the miraculous tend to conflate these two very different meanings of the word “miracle” arriving at a sort of nonsensical hybrid. There are two definitions for the word duck. One definition describes a bird that likes water, while the other definition refers to bending over or bowing down to dodge something. If however, we were to say that a duck is a bird that likes water and always bows down to avoid something, we would be conflating the two meanings. I’m looking at you Mr. Ehrman…

For the purposes of this article I don’t really want to go into a detailed defense of miracles, but for those who are interested Dr. William Lane Craig has written a pretty thorough defense on his site Reasonable Faith: The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective. I’ve also found C.S. Lewis’ book Miracles to be well worth reading.

Can Miracles Be (Dis)Proven?

With all of this in mind, many people are surprised to see the lengths to which the Catholic Church will go in an effort to disprove miracles. And yes, you read that last sentence right.

The other day the New York Times published a wonderful little OP-ED piece written in the wake of Mother Teresa’s canonization. It was written by a  hematologist and historian who self-identifies as an atheist – I’ve linked to it here: Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious

In the article Jacalyn Duffin relates how she was contacted to provide a hematology report for a patient diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia. It was a blind reading. She was unaware of who was requesting the report and she was also unaware of who the patient was. All she had to go on was the data that she was presented with. She assumed that her report would be used as evidence in a medical lawsuit. As it turned out, it was the Vatican who had requested the report.

“The tribunal that questioned me was not juridical, but ecclesiastical. I was not asked about my faith. (For the record, I’m an atheist.) I was not asked if it was a miracle. I was asked if I could explain it scientifically.”

And, as it turns out, the Vatican works aggressively to disprove the miraculous. According to Jacalyn, the “miracle” in question had already been overturned once by the Vatican’s medical committee who were unconvinced by the story of a first remission, a relapse, and a much longer second remission! Reflecting on this process she writes,

“If a sick person recovers through prayer and without medicine, that’s nice, but not a miracle. She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care. The church finds no incompatibility between scientific medicine and religious faith; for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth…Perversely then, this ancient religious process, intended to celebrate exemplary lives [declaring a saint through the process of canonization], is hostage to the relativistic wisdom and temporal opinions of modern science. Physicians, as nonpartisan witnesses and unaligned third parties, are necessary to corroborate the claims of hopeful postulants…I never expected such reverse skepticism and emphasis on science within the church.”

Skepticism As A Path To Faith

Being a skeptic at heart and someone who has always struggled with faith, I found myself strangely drawn by this particular practice of the Catholic Church, this “reverse skepticism and emphasis on science” that Jacalyn refers to. I had grown up in a Christian tradition which often placed an inordinate value on “blind faith” and personal experience. Many of the stories I had heard about various miracles growing up ended up being just that…stories. Basically Christian urban legends that were passed from church to church, always with the claim that the pastor personally knew the person (or a friend of a friend of the person) who had experienced this particular miraculous event.

As we moved from church to church and I began to encounter the same stories with differing details, I found that rather than strengthening my faith, these miraculous stories were actually eroding my belief in any form of divine intervention. I began to question whether even the “miracles” recorded in the bible might not have natural explanations, or wondering if perhaps miracles ceased altogether after the apostolic age.

And then I encountered the Catholic Church. The miraculous stories found within the Catholic tradition were some of the most outlandish I’d ever encountered! Take the reported miracle of the sun at Fatima on October 13, 1917 as an example:

People had gathered to witness the event because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the lady (a marian apparition) who had appeared to them several times would perform a great miracle. After a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position. The crowds previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling.”¹

Absolute nonsense right?

But here’s the problem, there were between thirty and a hundred thousand witnesses to this miracle, including several newspaper reporters! Estimates of the number present range from 30,000 and 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século², to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra³, both of whom were present that day.

The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher. De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting research and interviewing the principals at length⁴. In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but none to our knowledge has directly denied the visible prodigy of the sun.”⁵

Miracles, when true, are meant to serve as a road from skepticism to faith, an opportunity for people to observe God at work in His world. Will they prove the existence of God beyond doubt for the determined skeptic? Of course not, nor are they meant to, for man’s freedom of choice is carefully guarded by his Creator. But the miracles which have been verified by the Church throughout the centuries do serve as markers along the road to belief. Concrete examples of something other at work in the world, something transcendent; something, perhaps, divine.

Miracles force us to question, but they don’t impose an answer. Man, as ever, is free to view the world as he sees fit. [Tweet This]

The Heart Of The Christian Faith

At the heart of the Christian faith lies a miracle of staggering proportions. A man who is brutally tortured and then publicly executed, is buried in a public tomb guarded by soldiers. Inexplicably, improbably, and in violation of the most central laws of nature he rises from the dead.

St. Paul writing of this event to the Corinthian Church circa AD 54 describes it thus, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”⁶

Notice the eyewitness nature of the account. Note the invitation to corroborate his story with eyewitnesses who were still living. Note that Christ fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written about the coming Jewish messiah; prophecies written centuries before he was even born.

For those who don’t share an automatic prejudice against the very possibility of miracles we could perhaps rework the two definitions as follows:

1. A miracle is an event that defies the known laws of science and therefore must be a result of an agency which exists outside of the natural order, OR
2. A miracle is an event that can be explained by science, but the explanation is so mathematically improbable as a matter of chance that, “God did it” is more likely than, “it just happened.”

I recognize that these definitions require at a minimum an agnostic openness (the possibility of God’s existence); but regardless of definition we are forced to admit that unexplainable events occur.

Events which science cannot explain. Events that carry a weight of testimony such that the counter explanations are indeed more ridiculous than the fact which the miracle endeavors to establish. Events that while improbable are nonetheless true. We can call them miracles, or we can make up another word which we assign as a placeholder, but the very fact that we argue at such lengths over these matters demonstrates that these phenomena exist.

Jacalyn Duffin, although herself an atheist, concludes her article Pondering Miracles, Medical And Religious, with these words. “Now almost 40 years later, that mystery woman is still alive and I still cannot explain why. Along with the Vatican, she calls it a miracle. Why should my inability to offer an explanation trump her belief? However they are interpreted, miracles exist, because that is how they are lived in our world.” 

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. De Marchi 1952b:150 ↩

2. De Marchi 1952a ↩

3. De Marchi 1952a:177 ↩

4. De Marchi, John. True Story of Fatima, Catechetical Guild Educational Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1956 ↩

5. De Marchi 1952b:143 ↩

6. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ↩

The post Can Miracles Be (Dis)Proven? appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

I don’t often post political pieces. In fact, this may be a first. But as I sit at my desk writing this, I find myself deeply troubled by our current state of affairs. In our nation, the term, separation of Church and state, has been aggressively employed in an effort to remove any influence of religion or faith from the public sphere. We live in a nation where we are proud of our ability to compartmentalize our morality and beliefs – effectively neutering them from any practical application within the society in which we live. And, as a people we wouldn’t dream of “imposing” our beliefs or morality on anyone else.

We are the “good men” who nevertheless do nothing while evil accomplishes it’s purposes, and we console ourselves with the reminder that our religion must never influence our politics. [Tweet This]

We are loyal sons of the state, and as such we believe wholeheartedly that the Church has no place within it’s boundaries. The merest imagination of an integration of Church and state, the very idea of bringing our religious beliefs to bear on our current sociopolitical sphere, makes us break out in a cold sweat.

Take for instance our current political candidates.

Render Unto Caesar…

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, claims to be a Christian, yet virtually every time he opens his mouth at political rallies and press conferences he makes statements that are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. The Huffington Post recently posted an article listing Trump’s “beatitudes” and comparing them to Christ’s actual words. Here are just a few examples:

Personal or Political?

Meanwhile, Tim Kaine, the Democratic nominee for vice president, is a Catholic who very clearly delineates between his “personal positions” and his political policies.

“I have a traditional Catholic personal position, but I am very strongly supportive that women should make these decisions and government shouldn’t intrude,” Kaine said. “I’m a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being able to make these decisions. In government, we have enough things to worry about. We don’t need to make people’s reproductive decisions for them.”

And as Christians we’re pretty okay with the nominations. Evangelical Christians are flocking to Trump in waves while liberal Catholics praise Kaine for keeping his personal beliefs out of public policy. Separation of Church and state indeed. But I think it is high time for a different approach.

An Integration of Church and State

Perhaps a better way to say it would be, “I want to see an integration between people’s faith and their life.”

Look, wordplay aside, I’m not looking for the United States to become a theocracy. I don’t want the Church involved in making political decisions. But that’s really not what we’re talking about here is it? We’re talking about how adept we as individuals have become at separating our faith and morals from every other aspect of our life.

For a political candidate to state that they are personally opposed to something due to their religious or moral beliefs, but that they believe that their “personal moral opinions” shouldn’t affect government policy is ludicrous. If we substituted any other human rights issue for the discussion that is currently taking place regarding abortion we would immediately see just how ridiculous this is.

“Due to my religious beliefs and upbringing, I believe that the objectification of women and their use as sex slaves is morally reprehensible. I also am personally against using violence to force women into sexual acts. Having said that, I support the rapist’s right to choose and would never dream of imposing my own personal beliefs on him! Pornagraphy is legal in the US and it provides legal employment for tens of thousands – surely the good that pornagraphers bring to the economy outweighs the unfortunate aspects of their trade?”

“I am personally against slavery. Nonetheless, I will not enforce my own personal morality on others, nor do I think that the government should. In this country slavery is legal, and slaveholders should have the right to choose for themselves whether or not they own slaves. It is ultimately a landholders own decision what he does with his property. Just because I personally disagree with his choices doesn’t mean that I would object to the law of the land!”

When it comes to abortion, I don’t want to “break” the law of the land. The law is already broken. I want to see it fixed. US law used to uphold slavery. The law was wrong. It was broken. It needed to be fixed. And it required lawgivers who were willing to challenge the laws of the land in the greater interest of human rights. The law has been wrong many times in the past. It is wrong now on a number of issues. We should, as people of principle, seek to change the law, rather than using it as an excuse for our own lack of character and resolve.

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” John Stuart Mill⁸

Abortion as a Human Rights Issue

With that in mind, I don’t believe that human rights issues are a matter of imposing ones religious beliefs on others. The state forms laws that protect human rights and enforce morality all the time; virtually every nation has laws against slavery, murder, rape, theft and so forth. If they don’t, we tend to try and compel them to change their laws on human rights issues by means of economic sanctions and the like. I’ve yet to hear anyone object to any of these state mandated laws on the grounds that the religious beliefs and personal moral opinions of others are being imposed on them…

When it comes to the abortion issue I would simply point out that the question of when human life begins isn’t really a religious question (or a matter of personal opinion) but rather a scientific question.

We can demonstrate that the unborn are alive because they take in nutrients and grow via cellular reproduction. We can demonstrate that the unborn have human DNA and are produced by human parents and are therefore human beings. Embryologist E.L. Potter points out that, “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”

It seems logical that since the unborn are living growing human beings in a particular stage of natural development, then their basic human rights should be protected by the state in the same manner that the state is responsible to protect any other human beings rights. Arbitrarily denying them basic human rights because they are at a particular stage of natural human development seems to be a logically weak position in addition to being morally problematic.

Citizens of Another Kingdom

In St. Peter’s first epistle we are reminded that we are “aliens and strangers” in this world.⁹ But, somehow we have forgotten that we are not truly citizens of this, or any other, earthly nation. We have forgotten that our first allegiance isn’t to this country or its laws, but to a heavenly kingdom with Christ as it’s head.

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”¹⁰

As Christ’s emissaries in this world, we have an obligation to speak, and act, on behalf of His kingdom. Obviously this should be done in charity and with mercy, but the reality is our Christian faith should influence every aspect of our life.

We desperately need Christian men and women who are not afraid to take a stand for their faith and who are actively engaging with the culture around us. We need Christians who allow Christ to work through them to bring truth to every aspect of our culture; medicine and bioethics, arts and entertainment, commerce and industry, immigration and services for the poor, and yes, even to the political sphere.

I don’t want politicians representing us who claim the title of Christian while denying the message and example of Christ. I’m tired of Christians who have been conformed to this world, rather than allowing Christ to transform and renew their minds so that they can discern the will of God – that which is good and acceptable and perfect.¹¹ And yes, all too often I include myself in their number.

Lord have mercy.

“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”¹²

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Luke 6:20 ↩

2. Matthew 5:9 ↩

3. Luke 6:27-28 ↩

4. Luke 5:32 ↩

5. Matthew 6:19-21 ↩

6. Matthew 25:34-35, 45 ↩

7. Luke 22:19-20 ↩

8. Inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, 1867 ↩

9. 1 Peter 2:11 ↩

10. Ephesians 2:19-20 ↩

11. Romans 12:2 ↩

12. John 17:14-18 ↩

The post An Integration of Church and State appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

This oft repeated idiom correctly points out that you are most likely to get the truth – or at least a more accurate version of the event in question – if your information comes from a direct source. In the arena of racetracks, jockeys, and large wagers, it doesn’t get much more direct than the horse himself! In the province of Protestant theology and belief, direct sources would be men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich (Huldrych) Zwingli, John Wesley, and the like – the fathers of the Protestant Reformation.

Many modern-day Protestants are reluctant, perhaps understandably, to listen to what Catholics have to say when it comes to the proper understanding of the Christian faith. That’s why I would like to share a bit of insider information with you before we place our bets. I’ve got some direct sources for you; in fact, I got this straight from the horse’s mouth!

The following quotes come directly from the fathers of the Protestant Reformation. These quotes reveal their theological positions on a variety of Christian beliefs. Today, many of these historic and orthodox Christian beliefs are assumed to be Catholic beliefs only – beliefs which the father’s of the Protestant Reformation presumably would not have shared.

Keep in mind that these are but a small selection of their quotes relating to various topics. For the sake of brevity I’ve made just a few short selections for each category; but there is far more that we could look at, both on these topics and a variety of others as well. As it turns out, the father’s of the Protestant Reformation were remarkably “catholic”¹ in their beliefs!

But hey, don’t take my word for it – here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth!

The Eucharist

“I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Nay, the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality…by this food believers are reared to eternal life.” John Calvin²

“We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it.” John Calvin³

“Let every one, therefore, who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God, and consult the good of his own soul, by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord’s day service. And for several centuries they received it almost every day: Four times a week always, and every saint’s day beside. Accordingly, those that joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed sacrament. What opinion they had of any who turned his back upon it, we may learn from that ancient canon: “‘f any believer join in the prayers of the faithful, and go away without receiving the Lord’s Supper, let him be excommunicated, as bringing confusion into the church of God.'”  John Wesley⁴

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” Martin Luther⁵

“For this is…how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago…When you receive the bread from the altar,…you are receiving the entire body of the Lord;”  Martin Luther⁶

Martin Luther in particular was an outspoken advocate of the historic and orthodox Christian position regarding the Eucharist. These quotes represent but a small fragment of all that he had to say on the matter. Notice how he frequently appeals to the apostolic fathers and the “true” ancient Christian Church of fifteen hundred years ago. How is it that modern Christians have departed not only from historic position of the apostolic fathers and early Church, but even from the position of the fathers of the Reformation some mere 500 years ago?

The Virgin Mary

• The Veneration of Mary

“[She] is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” Martin Luther⁷

“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.” John Calvin⁸

“The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.” Ulrich Zwingli⁹

• The Immaculate Conception

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” Martin Luther¹⁰

• Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.” Martin Luther¹¹

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.” John Calvin¹²

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.” Ulrich Zwingli¹³

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Ulrich Zwingli¹⁴  *Note: Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Christians everywhere and in every time – up to and including the father’s of the Protestant Reformation – have always held to the historic and orthodox teachings of the Christian faith in regards to the Virgin Mary. How is it that so many present-day Christians have strayed so far from these beliefs and are often openly critical of Christians who still honor Mary and hold to these historic and orthodox positions?

The Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

“Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.” John Calvin¹⁵

“They who regard baptism as nothing but a token and a mark by which we confess our religion before men… have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism. It is to recieve baptism with this promise: ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved.'” John Calvin¹⁶

“Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him…Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5…Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life…When sin and conscience oppress us…you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body…Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us…”  Martin Luther¹⁷

• Infant Baptism

“The children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God, who will forbid this baptism? Circumcision among the ancients…was the same as baptism with us.” Ulrich Zwingli¹⁸

“Little children…are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism…Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it,…the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.”  Martin Luther¹⁹

“If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value?” John Calvin²⁰

You can read Calvin’s complete argument for paedobaptism (infant baptism) directly from his Institutes of Christian Religion here: Paedobaptism. It’s Accordance With The Institution Of Christ, And The Nature Of The Sign

Christians, including the father’s of the Protestant Reformation, have always held that baptism is the normative means of salvation and entrance into the Church in accordance with the teaching of the Scriptures and the unanimous witness of the apostolic fathers. Christians, including the father’s of the Protestant Reformation, have also always practiced infant baptism²¹.  How is it that so many modern Christians reject both the teaching of the ancient Church, and the teaching of the father’s of the Protestant Reformation, and consider baptism to be only for adults, entirely optional, and merely symbolic?

So, there you have it; straight from the horse’s mouth as it were.

I will end with a final quote from Martin Luther found in a letter which he wrote to two pastors regarding the practice of re-baptism. In the letter he acknowledges many common beliefs shared by both Catholics and Protestants, even acknowledging, “So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures.”

He writes,  “We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.”²²

Sadly, in the centuries since the Protestant Reformation, it seems as if too many of these common Christian beliefs have been lost. Too many Christians today have cut themselves free from both historic Christianity and the Christianity of the Reformers. They find themselves set adrift in a sea of their own opinion and speculation, their own limited abilities as bible scholars and theologians, their own mistaken views and misunderstandings about the historical and cultural context of an ancient near-eastern world, a world that existed some two millennia in the past.

May I suggest something? Forget the televangelists of our modern day. Disregard the critical biblical scholars and the bestselling authors of our time. Don’t get your information from modern experts on Luther or Calvin – read Luther and Calvin for yourself. Get your information straight from the horse’s mouth.

And if you’re feeling especially adventurous? Go back even further. Read about Polycarp who was a disciple of the beloved apostle John. The Martyrdom of Polycarp was written by Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus, who went on to write Against Heresies circa 175-185 AD. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. If you want to know what early Christian’s believed, taught, and practiced, it doesn’t get much earlier than that! Here’s a link to his work so that you can read it for yourself: Against Heresies

My advice to you? Skip the so called reformers who arrived on the scene some 1,500 years after the fact. Read the apostolic fathers – get it straight from the horse’s mouth!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. universal -according to the whole ↩

2. Institutes of Christian Religion Book IV 17 ↩

3. Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, 17 ↩

4. Sermon 101 The Duty of Constant Communion Text from the 1872 Edition ↩

5. Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 ↩

6. Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, September 1544; LW, Vol. XXXVIII, 291-292 ↩

7. Sermon, Christmas, 1531 ↩

8. Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348 ↩

9. Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428 ↩

10. Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527 ↩

11. Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew 1523 ↩

12. Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 1 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p107; on Matthew 1:25 ↩

13. G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.76 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522 ↩

14. Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424 ↩

15. Institutes of Christian Religion Book IV, 15:1 ↩

16. Institutes of Christian Religion Book IV, 15 Scripture cited Mark 16:16 ↩

17. Large Catechism 1529 From edition by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165 ↩

18. A Refutation 1527 ↩

19. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197 ↩

20. Institutes of Christian Religion Book IV, 16:5 ↩

21. Disagreements in the earliest Christian communities had nothing to do with whether infant baptism should be practiced, but rather with whether it should be given immediately after birth or whether parents should delay eight days in keeping with the Jewish ritual of circumcision. ↩

22. Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, 1528, Luther’s Works [“LW”], Vol. 40, 225-262; translated by Conrad Bergendoff, pp. 231-232, 251, 256-257 ↩

The post Straight From The Horse’s Mouth appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

A couple of months back David Gray interviewed me for his My Catholic Conversion segment on the YouTube channel My Catholic Tube. Below I’ve put direct links to his channels so that you can check out some of the other great videos he’s put up there. Just as an FYI, the audio starts a little garbled due to some technical difficulties, but improves as we go. Here’s the full video of our conversation for your viewing pleasure – enjoy!

My Catholic Tube

My Catholic Conversion

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post My Catholic Conversion Video Interview appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

A friend recommended that I read an article by Sinclair Ferguson titled, “John Calvin on the True Church” – you can click on the title above to read it for yourself if you would like. He also thought that I might have some thoughts regarding the article, and surprise, surprise, I do! To set the stage for you, the article essentially asks the question,

“How do we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ?”

And it’s a great question. It is, in point of fact, a question all too often neglected by the modern Protestant, many of whom are blissfully unaware that reformers such as Calvin and Luther not only considered it a question of vital importance, but also asserted that there was no salvation outside of the “true Church.”

Consider the following quotes from Calvin for example:

“But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, …Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify, …hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.”¹

And fundamentally, the Catholic Church would agree. The Church has always taught the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or, outside the Church there is no salvation. Indeed, until very modern times this was the consistent teaching of all Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. It is only in our modern milieu of relativism (i.e. all paths lead to God, there are no absolutes, etc.) that it has fallen out of favor. And yet, it is only in the light of this central teaching of Christianity that the question, “How do we recognize the true Church of Jesus Christ?” has any significance whatsoever.

A Redefinition of Church

Interestingly enough, Ferguson would seem to disagree with Calvin himself on this very point when he writes, “The unity of the church, therefore, is not a formal, historical reality made concrete in an institution …Rather it is a dynamic reality, born out of living union and communion with the one true bishop of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But notice what Calvin writes in a letter to a friend, “Herman has, if I am not mistaken, in good faith returned to the fellowship of the Church. He has confessed that outside the Church there is no salvation, and that the true Church is with us.”² Calvin’s church was clearly a concrete institution, localized and hierarchal. Herman’s return to it required both a submission to it’s authority and a declaration of it’s superiority over all other churches. In other words, obviously it was not merely a dynamic reality born out of living union and communion with Christ alone.

One of the problems with the article is that Ferguson essentially seeks to redefine the word “church” in a way that is utterly foreign to the historic use of the word. This modern definition of “church” which sees it as a mere invisible and mystical body, somehow loosely aligned with the person of Christ, is a concept entirely out of step with historic and orthodox Christianity – including the Christianity of the fathers of the reformation! Again, in the quote from Calvin above he specifically references the “visible Church,” not an invisible one of modern day imagination.

But, as I said earlier, it is only in light of the universal Christian teaching that outside of the Church there is no salvation, that the question of, “How do we recognize the true Church of Jesus Christ?” makes any sense.

If “church” is merely a “dynamic reality, born out of living union and communion with Jesus.” then who cares which Christian church you attend? Why does it matter whether you identify as Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, or even …gasp! …Catholic?

But Ferguson doesn’t stop at redefining for John Calvin what “church” means. He’s also not afraid to take a stab at rewriting history itself stating, “This is why Calvin’s departure from the community of physical succession was not schism. …If the truth be told, not Geneva but Rome is schismatic.” But this is patent nonsense!

Regardless of whether you feel that Calvin and the fathers of the Protestant Reformation were theologically correct or not, it is still a historical fact that the reformers broke from unity with the Catholic Church and not vice versa. It would be akin to someone stating that because they believe the United States of America was justified in fighting it’s revolutionary war to gain independence from England and found its own nation, that therefore it was England who seceded from the United States rather than vice versa!

Calvin on the “True Church”

These issues aside, Ferguson states John Calvin’s answer to the question of, “How do we recognize the true church of Jesus Christ?” as, “essentially: the ministry of the Word and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the hallmarks of the true church. Where these are lacking, ‘surely the death of the church follows.'” You’ll note that even this definition is more institutional and visible than the definition he switches to just a couple of paragraphs later. Calvin’s definition involves the ministry of the word and the sacraments; Ferguson’s is merely a, dynamic reality, a living union and communion with Christ that somehow results in a unified church without the need for structure or hierarchy.

He goes on to state somewhat surprisingly, “Why should this be so? Because the church is built on the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20). They have a primacy of role in person in the course of redemptive history; but their teaching is the foundation for every generation of Christian faith. Substitute another foundation for the church and the whole building will crumble.” And, of course as a Catholic, I would wholeheartedly agree.

The real problem comes in the very next paragraph however, when he effectively neuters the apostles, removing half of their teaching office when he writes, “But in Calvin’s eyes Roman Catholic theology failed to grasp this, and effectively transferred the authority of the once-for-all written apostolic word to the questionable strength of a chain of bishops of varying degrees of orthodoxy and reliability. Physical succession may be attractive, but it guarantees nothing. That is precisely why we have the written Scriptures, so that the truth of God may be carefully preserved and passed on intact from believing generation to believing generation.” 

The Case for an Apostolic Church

Ah yes. Silly me. It is only the written word of the apostles which is authoritative. Obviously their spoken words count for naught. Never mind that St. Paul addresses this very issue when he writes, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.”⁴ Obviously, the apostle Paul was mistaken. Obviously, it is only the written apostolic word which is authoritative, not the oral words of the apostles, and certainly not any authority which they may have passed on to those who succeeded them! Certainly this so-called apostolic succession, this “chain of bishops” of varying reliability, isn’t Scriptural? Certainly physical succession (while perhaps attractive) isn’t necessary?

Well… actually in the very first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter references the book of Psalms and declares of Judas,

‘Let another take his position of overseer.’

Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.⁵

If even Christ’s betrayer Judas held an office that was intended to be filled after his death, how much more so that of St. Peter or St. Paul?

Of course, Ferguson contradicts his very own position in the very first paragraph of his post. The idea that the ministry of the Word, and the two sacraments which Calvin recognized (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are the hallmarks of the true church is nowhere to be found in Scripture. The idea that without these things, “surely the death of the church follows.” is merely Calvin’s personal assertion. Nowhere will you find a Scriptural reference to back this assertion. Now he may or may not be right in these assertions, but let’s be clear – these are not Scriptural assertions, they are merely the personal assertions of a man. A man of varying degrees of orthodoxy and reliability, not to put too fine a point on it.

On Whose Authority?

All of this leads to an objection I made in my post, “Why I’m Catholic ~ Catholicism and the Reformation” where I wrote:

You have men arguing against the authority of the Catholic Church and for the authority of Scripture alone, but ultimately all they are saying is that they have the right to authoritative interpretation and the Church doesn’t. This requires us to believe that God didn’t work through His Church to teach right doctrine and properly interpret Scripture, but instead we must believe that God has worked through Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other “Reformers” to teach right doctrine and properly interpret scripture.

Of course Christ works through fallible men to lead and guide His Church. The question is which ones? Do we trust in the men whom Christ commissioned and gave His very authority to, and to the successors of those men; or do we look to the reformers some 1,500 years later? Ultimately, this is still following the tradition of men – just men of much more recent descent.

And to be clear, bishops in the Catholic Church are not impeccable. Look at Judas. Look at St. Peter for that matter! Our very first pope committed the sin of apostasy by denying Christ three times! Nevertheless, it is not upon these fallible men that we rely, but rather on Christ who promised that He would preserve His Church from the very gates of hell.

And here I would like to end with a point of agreement between myself and the author of the article when he writes, “The episcopacy that holds the church together in unity is not man’s but Christ’s.” He’s more right than he knows, for the bishops (episkopos) minister to their flock in persona Christi – in the very person of Christ.

It is not their holiness on which we rely, but rather Christ’s working through them. In the same way that God was able to make use of very fallen and fallible men to pen His inspired and infallible Word, so too He can work through very fallen and fallible men in order to ensure that His Church is preserved free from error.

For truly, “The episcopacy that holds the church together in unity is not man’s but Christ’s.” and in Him, and with Him, and through Him, His bishops, the successors of the apostles, maintain His Church in unity. Truly the Catholic Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles – a claim which John Calvin’s Reformed church simply can’t make.

The Catholic Church is founded by Christ on His apostles. It is a foundation which continues to support His Church two millennia after it’s inception. It is a foundation with Christ Himself as the corner stone.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. John Calvin, Institutes Book IV, 1:4 ↩

2. John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, trans. M. Gilchrist, ed. J.Bonnet, New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, I: 110-111 ↩

3. CCC 818 – 819 ↩

4. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ↩

5. Acts 1:23b-26 ↩

The post The True Church appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.¹

The Profound Mystery of Christ’s Union with His Church

Of all that Saint Paul ever wrote, this passage has to be one of his most perplexing. In his teaching on Christian marriage, St. Paul reaches clear back to the first book of the bible, quoting from the relevant passage in Genesis,² and notes, “This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.”

Wait… what?!

I have to admit, when I read the account of Adam and Eve’s creation (and subsequent one flesh union) in the Genesis account my first though is not, “Ahhh, it’s obviously a reflection of Christ’s relationship with His Church!” 

It has been said that the Old Testament conceals what the New Testament reveals, and that the New Testament reveals what the Old Testament conceals. Thank God for inspired authors who can reveal to us that which was concealed in the Old Testament!

Even St. Paul’s denotation of “mystery” should give us pause, as this word in the original Greek (mysterion) became the root for what we now refer to as a “sacrament.”³ We will return to the sacramental nature of the mystery shortly, but first let’s examine the metaphor which St. Paul presents us with.

Primary Image or Reflection?

All too often we tend to turn the metaphor on it’s head. We think that somehow it is Christ and His Church who are supposed to reflect, or mirror, the intimate union of the marriage relationship. In reality, St. Paul tells us that exactly the opposite is true. Namely that human marriage – even from the very beginning – is but a dim mirror that is to reflect the reality of Christ’s relationship with His Church. Human marriage, when at it’s best, images the intimacy which Christ shares with His Church.

With this in mind, it is Christ and His Church who provide the example of one flesh union for husbands and wives to follow – not the other way around. John Piper, a Calvinist/Baptist preacher and author, puts it this way, “The mystery is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church after the pattern of human marriage; just the reverse! He created human marriage on the pattern of Christ’s relation to the church.”⁴

So if the union of one flesh refers primarily to Christ and His Church, and only secondarily applies to human relationships, then how are we to understand this divine union? Perhaps if we read the verses immediately preceding the Ephesians passage above we can begin to understand.

Christ’s Consummation with His Church

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body.”⁵

St. Augustine once preached that, “Like a bridegroom Christ went forth from his chamber…. He came to the marriage-bed of the Cross, and there in mounting it, he consummated his marriage. And when he perceived the sighs of the creature, he lovingly gave himself up to the torment in place of his bride, and joined himself to her forever.”⁶ He also notes that the marriage bed of the cross was, “…a bed not of pleasure, but of pain,” where He, united himself with the woman [his Bride, the Church], and consummated the union forever.”

Sexual Complementarity

In the larger context of the Ephesians passage we also read, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”⁷ In a human marriage the wife submits to the husband who is the head. The wife is receptive to the husband who initiates. Even our bodily forms reflect these differences of initiation and reception. The man’s very body is disposed towards an act of extending beyond himself to give of himself to his bride. The woman’s very body is disposed towards the reception of the man into herself. The two fit together as one.

Christopher West writes, “However, in the very process of receiving her bridegroom, she also gives herself to him, and he, in turn, receives her. As [Saint] John Paul II puts it: ‘the giving and the accepting of the gift interpenetrate, so that the giving itself becomes accepting, and the acceptance is transformed into giving.”⁸ … According to this ‘great analogy’ God is symbolically ‘masculine’ in relation to Man, while Man is symbolically ‘feminine’ in relation to God. As the Bridegroom, God freely and gratuitously initiates ‘the gift’ of his Life to Man, who, as the Bride, receives ‘the gift’ from his Creator. Having received such a great gift, Man is called in his freedom to make a gift of himself back to God in thanksgiving, a gift, which God, in turn, receives. This is the Life-giving Communion of Love that Man knew with his Creator ‘in the beginning’ in and through the life-giving communion of love he knew as male and female.”⁹

One Flesh Union

And here at last we may begin to understand the profound mysterion of which St. Paul writes – and the sacrament which is implied. Recognizing that we are symbolically “feminine” in relation to God, and that He is symbolically “masculine” in relation to us, we might ask ourselves how this one-flesh union is to play out? If it is on the cross that Christ gives of Himself to His bride, when do we (as His bride) receive Him into ourselves? The answer of course is in Holy Communion.

Reception of the Eucharist is an act of marital intimacy. In receiving the Eucharist, we receive Christ’s body (as the bridegroom) into our body (as His bride).

Part of the reason that communion is forbidden for non-Catholics is the recognition that the marital act is to be reserved for after the vows have been made. In the marriage vows spouses promise to give of themselves fully to each other, and then in the nuptial union they make good on their vows. It would be improper for those outside of full communion with the Church, those who have not stood at the altar and taken their vows as it were, to demand to participate in the nuptial act. When we partake of the Eucharist, we don’t just receive Christ into our hearts in some sort of mystical fashion – rather we receive Him body, blood, soul, and divinity into our very bodies – present within us in a mysterious and intimate way.

A Bride Pure and Without Blemish

Some will object to this idea of nuptial union between Christ and His Church, noting that the Church has done things both amazing and horrific in the name of God, but, …she is Christ’s bride, made holy and without blemish by Christ Himself (as referenced in the Ephesians passage above) and by the righteous deeds of His saints.

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty thunderpeals, crying out,

“Hallelujah!
For the Lord our God
the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready;
to her it has been granted to be clothed
with fine linen, bright and pure”

— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.¹⁰

And like all brides, she has been joined to Him that the two may become one flesh! And it is through this incarnational and nuptial mystery that we, the bride of Christ, become in that marital union of one flesh, the very body of Christ, with He Himself as our head.

Hallelujah! For the marriage of the Lamb has come!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Ephesians 5:31-32 ↩

2. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 ↩

3. sacrament (n.) “outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace,” also “the eucharist,” c. 1200, from Old French sacrament “consecration; mystery” (12c., Modern French sacrement) and directly from Latin sacramentum “a consecrating” (also source of Spanish sacramento, German Sakrament, etc.), from sacrare “to consecrate” (see sacred); a Church Latin loan-translation of Greek mysterion (see mystery).  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sacrament ↩

4. Desiring God, Meditations of a Christian Hedonist ↩

5. Ephesians 5:25-30 ↩

6. Sermo Suppositus 120 ↩

7. Ephesians 5:22-24 ↩

8. General Audience of February 6, 1980 ↩

9. A Great “Nuptial Mystery” https://www.catholicculture.org ↩

10. Revelation 19:6-8 ↩

The post An Intimate Union appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

I remember being quite taken aback when I first encountered the claim made by the Catholic Church stating that,

“The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation.”¹

What arrogance! How condescending to other Christians! The fullness of the faith?! The totality of the means of salvation?! I was aghast.

Biblical Foundations

Having been raised in an evangelical Christian home, I had never encountered a church that would have even dreamt of saying that they possessed the, “fullness of the faith.” I had never heard of a church claiming to be “infallible” in her official teachings, or one who claimed to administer the, “totality of the means of salvation.” I was used to attending churches that were very forthright and honest about just how fallible they were! I was used to listening to sermons by preachers who would often end their sermon by warning us to double-check what they had just taught us against our own personal understanding of the bible!

Growing up, it seemed like every church I attended had one thing in common – the bible was the sole rule and guide for all matters of faith and morals. The bible was the ultimate authority when it came to truth – not the church! Unfortunately, that was almost all that these churches agreed on. Each church had a different way of interpreting the bible, a different way of understanding the truth.
These differences ran the full gamut, ranging from what was necessary for salvation and whether or not salvation could be lost, to whether baptism was necessary and efficacious or merely optional and symbolic. We disagreed on moral issues like homosexuality, whether or not divorce was permissible, and whether or not abortion was okay in certain circumstances. We disagreed on what day of the week to worship, free will versus predestination, the necessity (or lack thereof) of good works in the life of the believer, end time chronologies, the gifts of the Holy Spirit  – the list went literally on and on.

We disagreed with one another on virtually everything, often completely convinced that we were right and they were wrong…but no one was ever audacious enough to claim that they were infallibly correct. A church that taught infallibly? A church that contained the fullness of the faith? A church that administered the totality of the means of salvation? Ludicrous.

So, when I learned that the Catholic Church claimed to be infallible in her official teachings on matters of faith and morals, when I discovered that she claimed to possess the fullness of the Christian faith, when I heard her proclaim that she bore and administered the totality of the means of salvation,

I found myself simultaneously offended and intrigued. Who was this church that had the audacity to make such radical claims?!!

Audacious Claims

Not only did the Catholic Church make radical claims as to her ability to dispense truth and salvation, but she also claimed to be the church which  Jesus Christ founded on and through His apostles. Which kind of made sense when I reflected on the fact that Christ Himself was no stranger to audacious claims. Not only did he claim to be God in the flesh, but he also declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”² As a Christian, this was a claim that didn’t strike me as being particularly arrogant or condescending, but I had to admit, if I had encountered Christ’s words as a Muslim, Hindu, or Jew, I might have felt very differently about the nature of His claims!

Ultimately, I realized that all declarations of truth are exclusive. In saying that one thing is true, we are by default eliminating other options. Fundamentally truth claims aren’t personal although we often tend to take them that way. Rather, they are an invitation to either prove or disprove the veracity of the claim that is being made. They are entirely non-subjective. They aren’t about personal feelings, desires, or how we want the world to be. They are either true or they are not. With that in mind, we should be free to evaluate truth claims without getting our panties in a bunch. I know, I know, it’s easier said than done sometimes, but nevertheless, there you have it.

I was also forced to admit that the Catholic Church’s claims to absolute truth weren’t in opposition to other Christian churches who made similar claims, rather she was the only Christian church which even claimed infallible truth. She alone claimed to possess the fullness of the Christian faith and the totality of the means of salvation. And that began to bother me. As a Protestant, why would I want to be a part of a church that admitted that they taught some error mixed with truth? Why would I want to be part of a congregation that flat out said, “Listen, we don’t have all the answers. Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes we think we’re right. We can’t know for sure, and ultimately you’ll have to follow your own best judgement, but you’re more than welcome to be a part of our group.”

The Catholic Church claimed to possess infallible truth and the fullness of the faith. Every other Christian church responds, “No you don’t – and we don’t either!”  [Tweet This]

Once upon a time, Protestants and Catholics fought over which side was correctly proclaiming the truth. When they squared off in the ring it was to see who could best defend the tenants of their faith. But in recent times, non-Catholic Christians have seemed less and less willing to engage in a fight to determine truth.

Modern Protestantism doesn’t claim infallible and absolute truth, rather it defaults to a fundamentally agnostic position asserting that no denomination can have complete certainty on all doctrinal and moral issues. The claim is essentially that no one possesses the fullness of the faith – that no one can say with absolute certainty, “We can teach you to observe all that Christ commanded.”

Protestant Christianity is kind of like a challenger who steps into the ring with the champ, but oddly enough isn’t interested in beating the champ or taking his title. Instead the challenger just wants to discredit him. He just wants the world to acknowledge that there’s no such thing as a title and no such thing as a champion. That the claim to greatness (or the claim to truth) is itself a lie. That there’s really no such thing. Their knockout punch is the claim that the fullness of truth can never be taught without an admixture of error.

In some ways these claims are as audacious as that of the Catholic Church, they are simply claims which find themselves at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Perhaps it will come as no surprise when I tell you that I found this approach unappealing. I decided that it was time to honestly and fairly consider the truth claims made by Catholicism.

A Rock in Shifting Sands

In the Sermon on the Mount, after Christ finishes His preaching, He gives an apt description of what will befall those who heed His words, and what will befall those who don’t.

“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”³

Interestingly enough, when Christ builds His house, His Church, it is also built upon a rock. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”⁴ Christ’s Church is built upon a rock – not on shifting sands. And it is His Church, “the church of the living God,” which becomes the very, “pillar and foundation of the truth.”⁵ The Church is the pillar of the truth – it upholds it and elevates it. The Church is the foundation of the truth – it supports it and strengthens it.

The foundation of the truth is the Church, which is built upon the rock. There are no shifting sands, everything is firm and stable and secure. Christ gives to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. To Peter and the apostles He gives the almost unbelievable authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth⁶. In sending them out he tells them, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”⁷ In the Great Commission, Christ also commissions and sends out the disciples saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”⁸

Perhaps then, it is not so odd that the Catholic Church speaks with the same authority and audaciousness as her founder. Having been given the very teaching authority of Christ (he who hears you hears me), the authority to bind and loose, the commission to teach all that Christ commands, the promise that Christ will be with her to the end of the age and that He Himself will ensure that His Church prevails over death and Hell…well perhaps the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth as the Scriptures claim. Perhaps she does proclaim the fullness of the faith and administer the totality of the means of salvation. Perhaps she is infallible in her official teaching. Perhaps no other church can claim this precisely because no other church was founded on the rock by Christ Himself.

A Walk Along the Beach…

Have you ever walked along the beach in deep sand? It can be pleasant enough for a while, especially on a beautiful day. But after awhile you may start to notice how much harder it is to walk in deep sand rather than on solid ground. Sometimes people will train by running on the beach because it’s a much more difficult workout versus running on a solid track.

Whether walking or running, you will notice that with every step, you have to rebalance and correct for the next step as the sand shifts under your feet. Soon your arches ache and you find yourself using muscles that you typically don’t pay any attention to as your body tries to compensate. Even though you are on relatively flat ground, the deep sand is making you breath harder than usual and you’re definitely not able to go in a straight line. It’s hard to find any sort of cadence because each step brings a uniquely shifting terrain that you have to adjust to on the fly. By the time you leave the beach and head to the parking lot your body is crying out for stable ground. As you step onto the pavement it’s wonderful. Firm and supportive, your body finds it’s natural walking rhythm, and your muscles are able to relax. Your breathing slows and your calves and arches unknot.

When I left the shifting sands of Protestantism for the firm ground of Catholicism it was a relief. I finally had firm teaching under my feet – fixed and unmoving. Spiritually I had been crying out for solid ground without even realizing it. I had been worn out by the shifting sands of doctrine and a lack of fixed truth. I needed solid ground. My soul echoed the cry of the Psalmist

Hear my cry, O God; Attend unto my prayer.

From the end of the earth will I call unto thee,

When my heart is overwhelmed:

Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.⁹

And in His mercy, Christ led me to His Church. The rock that is higher than I.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. CCC 868 ↩

2. John 14:6 ↩

3. Matthew 7:24-27 ↩

4. Matthew 16:18-19 ↩

5. 1 Timothy 3:15 ↩

6. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 ↩

7. Luke 10:16 ↩

8. Matthew 28:18b-20 ↩

9. Psalm 61:1-2 ↩

The post Built Upon The Rock appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Well, we are running a bit late on the Christmas newsletter, but better late than never

Since we don’t have everyone’s email, I figured it would be easiest to just post this to the blog and let everyone view it that way; it also saves on paper, ink, and postage!

Enjoy a look back at our last year as we begin 2016 and the new year! Just click on the link below to view our newsletter.

Crawford Newsletter 2015

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2015 appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Recently, one of our close friends lost his father. This last Saturday we attended the funeral. Prior to his death, his dad had selected which readings he would like to have read at his funeral. Inexplicably, the gospel reading that he chose was the parable of the prodigal son found in Saint Luke’s Gospel.

— 1 —

This man had been a faithful Catholic his entire life, raised ten children in the faith, and been married to his wife for an astonishing 66 years! In fact, shortly before his death he renewed his marriage vows, publicly proclaiming that after 66 years he was every bit as much in love with, and committed to his wife as he had been on the day that they were first married.

By any standard he had lived a commendable Christian life. He had lived a life of faith and commitment to family. And yet, as the hour of his death approached, he asked that the story of the prodigal son be read at his funeral. It was a reminder to me that,

We are prodigals all.

— 2 —

The word prodigal basically just means wasteful, or describes one who is a wastrel. The prodigal son leaves his father’s house with his share of the inheritance, and proceeds to waste his entire inheritance on a wild and reckless lifestyle.

“Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living.”¹

He takes the gifts which his father had bestowed on him and he squanders them.

— 3 —

But, who among us can say that we haven’t at some point wasted the gifts or talents that our Father has given us? All of us at one point or another have forsaken our Father and our family, have lived a life “of the world” rather than a life set apart but nevertheless “in the world.” We have squandered our inheritance and gifts.

All of us have at one point or another wandered dusty roads far from home, wanting nothing more than to return to the outstretched arms of our Father and be welcomed into His loving embrace.

We are prodigals all.

Who among us, coming to the end of this earthly sojourn, muddy and bedraggled by our exile here below, doesn’t dare to wish that he might be made but a servant in the heavenly realm? For in the end, just to return home, just to be fed the scraps from the table in return for service – is that not enough? To have a purpose and place? Even that of a servant? Happy thieves in paradise indeed!

We are prodigals all.

— 4 —

St. Augustine (perhaps the most famous prodigal son of all Christendom) wrote that, “The confession of evil works is the first beginning of good works.” It is, one could say, the first step on the journey home. And it is confession and reconciliation that are at the heart of the story of the prodigal son.

St. John Paul II writes that, “Confession is an act of honesty and courage – an act of entrusting ourselves, beyond sin, to the mercy of a loving God.” Confession, also called the Sacrament of Reconciliation by the Church, is certainly a means of grace. It is, in fact, the primary means by which God’s mercy is bestowed on us as repentant believers, for,

We are prodigals all.

And certainly the return of the prodigal son is both a confession and an appeal to mercy.

I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.”²

— 5 —

And yet, in taking that first step, in simply turning our face towards home, shockingly, we see the Father Himself running towards us! It is as if, “Jesus wants to make it clear that the God of whom he speaks is a God of compassion who joyously welcomes repentant sinners into his house.”³

And, amazingly, it is not as servants that we are welcomed home – but as sons! It is why the Church teaches us that,“Grace is a participation in the life of God.  It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.  By baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body.  As an adopted son he can henceforth call God ‘Father,’ in union with the only Son.  He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes clarity into him and who forms the Church”⁴

Grace brings us into restored relationship with the Father, not as servants, but as sons! [Tweet This]

— 6 —

Augustine famously wrote: “You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness.  You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness.  You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you.  I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more.  You touched me, and I burned for your peace”⁵

Henri Nouwen in his masterful book, The Return of the Prodigal Son, writes, “I wonder whether I have sufficiently realized that during all this time God has been trying to find me, to know me, and to love me. The question is not ‘How am I to find God?’ but ‘How am I to let myself be found by him?’ The question is not ‘How am I to know God?’ but ‘How am I to let myself be known by God?’ And, finally, the question is not ‘How am I to love God?’ but ‘How am I to let myself be loved by God?’ God is looking into the distance for me, trying to find me, and longing to bring me home.”⁶

— 7 —

Brennan Manning was a best-selling Christian author and speaker. He passed away in 2013, but it is his voice that speaks to us from the dc Talk song What If I Stumble? observing that, “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

Manning was also a failed Franciscan priest who broke his vows in order to marry and then later divorced. He was an addict who struggled with alcoholism and it’s effects throughout his life.

In his immensely popular book The Ragamuffin Gospel he writes:

“When I get honest, I admit I am a bundle of paradoxes. I believe and I doubt, I hope and get discouraged, I love and I hate, I feel bad about feeling good, I feel guilty about not feeling guilty. I am trusting and suspicious. I am honest and I still play games. Aristotle said I am a rational animal; I say I am an angel with an incredible capacity for beer. To live by grace means to acknowledge my whole life story, the light side and the dark. In admitting my shadow side I learn who I am and what God’s grace means. As Thomas Merton put it, ‘A saint is not someone who is good but who experiences the goodness of God.'”

Reflecting on the reading of the prodigal son chosen for the funeral Mass of my friends father, I realized that I could not imagine a more perfect selection to accompany his passage from this life into the next, for in truth,

We are prodigals all.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

You can buy Henri Nouwen’s book here:
The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. Luke 15:13 ↩

2. Luke 15:18-19 ↩

3. Henri J.M. Nouwen, Return of the Prodigal Son ↩

4. CCC paragraph 1997 ↩

5. Confessions, Book 7 ↩

6. Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming ↩

The post We Are Prodigals All appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

her·e·sy /ˈherəsē/ Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.

Okay…so what is orthodox?

or·tho·dox /ˈôrTHəˌdäks/ Conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

— 1 —

Questions of orthodoxy and heresy began to really occupy my mind several years back as I was beginning to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church. Essentially, I began to realize that even though I had been raised with the idea that certain Christian beliefs were “orthodox” and certain Christian beliefs were “heretical,” I really had no way within my Protestant tradition to say which beliefs were orthodox, which were heretical, or why. Everyone seemed to rely on their own personal interpretation of Scripture to determine right from wrong – orthodox from heresy. Within this context, notions of orthodoxy and heresy devolved into mere personal opinion, and in the interest of unity were typically surrendered as “non-essentials.” Orthodoxy became shorthand for “generally accepted” while heresy became shorthand for “generally condemned.”

When I was a Protestant, if I were to have read the definition of orthodox listed above, I would have been on board with the vagaries of “generally accepted” – but “traditional?!” Church traditions aren’t generally received very favorably within the Protestant movement. Most Protestants tend to exhibit a fierce individualism when it comes to their own personal interpretations of the Scripture. In fact, many Protestants today feel no particular need to hold to the traditions and doctrines espoused by the fathers of the Reformation – much less the patristic fathers of the Church in the first several centuries after Christ.

“Established and approved?” That gets even dicier. Established and approved by whom exactly?

— 2 —

Orthodox or Opinion?

And yet, these are critical questions. Orthodoxy assumes that truth is absolute and non-relative, and furthermore, that because of God’s self-revelation of Himself to man we can know the truth.

Feel free to check out my post: Thoughts on Absolute Truth and Certainty in a Post-Modern Relativistic World for more thoughts on this subject. And yes, if you thought the title was long, wait till you see the actual article

“Generally accepted” is obviously too vague. Are we really to assume that truth is simply a matter of popular opinion? That morality is merely a matter of taste? If not, then we must engage with the historical and traditional perspectives while also asking the question, “Who, ‘establishes and approves’ that which is true? Who determines orthodoxy?”

And in spite of the critical nature of these questions, these are questions which Protestantism can’t answer.

Orthodoxy has become opinion, and heresy is dismissed in the elevation of personal conscience and the desire for Christian unity. [Tweet This]

— 3 —

I read an interesting article the other day by author Ben Cabe, who is a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. The article is provocatively titled, “Is Protestantism a Heresy?”, but in spite of the title, the author attempts to answer the question graciously and with love. In the article he points out that, “It is natural that a Protestant understanding of the church, and church unity, would consist in a ‘least common denominator’ model since such a model is the only unity any Protestant church achieves. Due to this phenomenon, there will always be a variety of opposing views within the walls of any given Protestant church. Many Protestants may wonder why Orthodox and Roman Catholics will not accept such a model of unity where we can ‘agree to disagree’ on things they consider to be ‘non-essential.’ The biggest problem with this way of thinking is that, for the church of history, those other things are essential.”¹

I make a very similar point in my post, Altar Calls and Other Protestant Traditions There is a feeling among Protestants that as, “long as we agree on the ‘essentials’ we can disagree on the ‘non-essentials.’ [But] Nowhere in Scripture do we read that parts of Christ’s gospel are ‘essential’ and that other parts are ‘non-essential.’ To the contrary, none of Christ’s Gospel is nonessential, up for spurious opinions, or of a contradictory nature.”

— 4 —

Roadguides to Orthodoxy

In trying to get beyond this, “least common denominator model” Ben goes on to suggest three rules which can help guide us in our search for orthodoxy: Antiquity, Universality, and Consensus. In fact these three could be restated to fit the definition of orthodoxy above.

• Antiquity = Traditionally Accepted
• Universality = Generally Accepted
• Consensus = Established

You will notice however that we are still missing one point from the definition above – Approved.

We’ll return to this concept shortly.

In the article Ben goes on to say, “So is Protestantism a heresy? Forgive me, but I will not answer this question. I cannot answer the question…It seems clear, however, that Protestantism is not, and cannot, be considered grounded in history—something that both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics can claim. With respect to this, and the sayings above, this is a serious reality. But does this mean that there is an absence of God’s grace in Protestantism? I do not think so. After all, ‘All Truth is God’s Truth’ as Augustine tells us. Certainly there are some, however, that are closer to the Truth than others.”

— 5 —

A Better Way

And here I believe that Catholicism can answer the question in a way that perhaps Orthodoxy cannot. Here we see the necessity of the approved concept above. Without the authority of the Bishop of Rome, a first among equals, we are left with a general consensus but without a formal and binding stamp of approval. In fact, Eastern Orthodoxy struggles with this very issue today.

The Eastern Orthodox are only able to look to the past for answers to questions of today. They accept the ecumenical councils of the early Church, but in breaking from the authority of the Bishop of Rome they are left without the means to call new ecumenical councils or indeed formally “approve” the decisions of the various Orthodox patriarchs today. This lack of final authority – of binding approval – makes it increasingly difficult for them to determine what is orthodox and what is heresy in spite of the three guidelines which Ben proposes. Without this final and binding authority there remains much disagreement on issues ranging from contraception, divorce and remarriage, and yes, even on whether or not Protestants are heretics

In contrast, the Catholic Church is very precise in her definition of heresy and makes a clear delineation between heresy, apostasy, and schism.

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”²

With that in mind, does the Catholic Church consider Protestants to be heretics? The following is taken from the catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 817-819.

— 6 —

In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”³ The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism – do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.⁴

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”⁵

“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”⁶ Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”⁷

— 7 —

An Obligation to the Truth

Here we see the Catholic Church making a clear distinction between material and formal heresy. According to canon law, Formal heresy is the obstinate denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Material heresy is holding to heretical doctrines through no fault of one’s own. Material heresy, therefore, does not necessarily constitute a sin.

This was indeed my own experience. Having grown up Protestant, many of my beliefs were objectively wrong from a Catholic perspective. But since I was unaware that they were wrong, indeed since I sincerely held to these beliefs in good faith, there was no sin involved on my part.

From a Catholic perspective, the answer to the question of, “Is Protestantism a Heresy?” is this:

Some Protestant doctrines are objectively heretical, most Protestant individuals are not.

It is only when we are made aware of the error of our beliefs that we are then obliged to follow the truth where it may lead us.

May all of us be led by the Spirit of Truth further from heresy and closer to orthodoxy as we follow the One who is Himself Truth!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. Ben Cabe, Is Protestantism a Heresy? Conciliar Post, Sept. 03 2015 ↩

2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2089, 2nd Ed., p. 507. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference ↩

3. Unitatis redintegratio 3 ↩

4. Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9, 1: PG 13, 732 ↩

5. Unitatis redintegratio 3 ↩

6. Unitatis redintegratio 3 § 2; cf. Lumen gentium 15 ↩

7. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 817-819, 2nd Ed., p. 216, Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference ↩

The post What is Heresy?! appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Martin Luther, the Father of the Reformation, or perhaps more aptly, the father of the Protestant Revolt  As someone who has quit my own personal protest and has indeed come into full communion with the Catholic Church; it may be surprising to hear that there are actually areas of commonality where I would wholeheartedly agree with Martin Luther.

Those who know me well can attest to the fact that even prior to becoming Catholic I wasn’t overly fond of many of Luther’s teachings and even less impressed with his tendencies to swing from one radical extreme to another. However, just because I would disagree with Luther on many topics; in the interest of ecumenism there are also areas where I can say wholeheartedly that, “I stand with Luther.”

Below are several examples of areas where we would agree, with quotations directly from Martin Luther, and then brief follow up comments from me.

— 1 —

“That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”¹

Ecclesia semper reformanda is a Catholic insight that states, “The Church is always in need of reform.” This motto recognizes that the Church is always, and in every age, in need of reform. It was first formulated a century prior to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and was tied to the ancient understanding of the Church as people on a pilgrimage – an institution existing in but not necessarily of this world. As John Henry Newman once observed, “In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change; and to be perfect is to have changed often.”

Had Luther remained true to his own reflection that, “It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.” and remained a reformer within the Church, rather than breaking from her in order to promulgate his own doctrines and found his own church – well, we might find ourselves in a very different world indeed!

Perhaps a world where, as Luther speculated, love could accomplish all things through the bonds of Christian unity.

— 2 —

“We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.”²

Although Luther often railed against the pope (he frequently referred to the pope as the anti-christ), in this letter written over ten years after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, he rightly recognizes all the good that has come from the, “papal church.” Indeed in his words, “Everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source.”

Who am I to disagree?

Notice as well that Luther affirms both the sacraments and the Church’s authority to forgive sins – doctrines that most modern-day Protestants roundly reject. Speaking of sacraments, let’s take a look at a few quotes from Luther dealing with the Eucharist, Baptism, and Confession.

— 3 —

“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”³

Martin Luther was utterly unwavering in his belief that the real presence of Christ was to be found in the Eucharist. Indeed, this issue became the cause of the first split amongst the churches of the Protestant movement. The infamous Colloquy of Marburg, a meeting called by the German Prince Phillip of Hesse to try and unite Luther and Zwingli into a united Protestant front, failed rather famously with Luther angrily carving Hoc Est Corpus Meum (This is My Body!) into the meeting table in chalk and making frequent uncharitable remarks about Zwingli throughout the proceedings.

Notice as well though, Luther’s appeal to the Apostolic Fathers and the traditions of the Church. Certainly the arguments he makes here could be applied to a great many issues of our day if we were only willing to ask ourselves, “What has been the historic and unanimous position of the Church throughout the ages on this particular issue?” Recent novelties such as the rapture would fade away, while the enduring teachings of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity and efficacy of baptism, and the moral teachings of the church against contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, etc. would remain.

As a side note, if you haven’t had the opportunity yet to read Jimmy Akin’s excellent book The Fathers Know Best – I highly recommend that you click on the link and get it now!

— 4 —

“Therefore, expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .”⁴

“Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.”⁵

Not much to add here. Luther believed that baptism was necessary for salvation and efficacious in cleansing, renewing, and changing the one baptized. He also firmly believed in paedobaptism – the baptism of infants and children.

— 5 —

“What is the Office of the Keys? It is the peculiar power which Christ has given to His Church on earth to forgive the sins of penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent. What do you believe according to these words? When they absolve those who repent of their sins and are willing to amend, this is as valid and certain, in heaven also, as if Christ, our dear Lord, dealt with us Himself. What is Confession? Confession embraces two parts. One is that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven.”⁶

Granted, Luther appropriated to himself the right to the office of the keys – notwithstanding that it was never an office which was given to him! Christ extends to St. Peter alone⁷ (and through St. Peter to his successors) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Luther seemed to think that any Christian could act as confessor to other Christians and said in a sermon preached in March of 1522,

“I wish him [the pope] to keep his hands off the confession and not make of it a compulsion or command, which he has not the power to do. Nevertheless I will allow no man to take private confession away from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the world, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. No one knows what it can do for him except one who has struggled often and long with the devil. Yea, the devil would have slain me long ago, if the confession had not sustained me… Therefore, no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or draw any one away from it. And if any one is wrestling with his sins and wants to be rid of them and desires a sure word on the matter, let him go and confess to another in secret, and accept what he says to him as if God himself had spoken it through the mouth of this person. However, one who has a strong, firm faith that his sins are forgiven may let this confession go and confess to God alone. But how many have such a strong faith? Therefore, as I have said, I will not let this private confession be taken from me. But I will not have anybody forced to it, but left to each one’s free will.”⁸

Nonetheless, Luther affirms both the efficacy of the sacrament of confession and the very real strength and sustenance received through it.

— 6 —

Let’s wrap up with a few more quotes from Luther on a variety of different topics.

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin… Therefore the Virgin Mary is in the middle between Christ and all other men.”⁹

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”¹⁰

“In the morning, when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”¹¹

“As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice.”¹²

— 7 —

“In the first years of his separation from the Church, Luther declared that the Bible could be interpreted by everyone, ‘even by the humble miller’s maid, nay a child of nine.’ Later on however, when the Anabaptists, the Zwinglians and others contradicted his views, the Bible became, ‘a heresy book,’ most obscure and difficult to understand. He lived to see numerous heretical sects rise up and spread through Christendom, all claiming to be based on the Bible.

Thus, in 1525 he sadly deplored the religious anarchy to which his own principle of the private interpretation of Scripture had given rise¹³ :

“There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet.”¹⁴

This last quote from Luther can most properly be taken as a warning against the private interpretation of Scripture, but how bitterly ironic are the words above from the very man who invented the doctrine of sola Scriptura!

Luther’s comments could almost be a paraphrase of St. Peter who writes, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”¹⁵ and again, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.”¹⁶

It would seem that Luther observed firsthand the effects of the private interpretation which St. Peter warns against in his epistle.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this insight into some of the common beliefs that I share with the father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther.

Next up? Maybe John Calvin

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Martin Luther An Instruction on Certain Articles: Late February 1519 ↩

2. Martin Luther Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, 1528, Luther’s Works [“LW”], Vol. 40, 225-262; translated by Conrad Bergendoff, pp. 231-232, 251, 256-257 ↩

3. Martin Luther, Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391 ↩

4. Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1529 From edition by Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165 ↩

5. Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197 ↩

6. Martin Luther, Small Catechism, 1529, 18-19 ↩

7. “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:16b-19 ↩

8. Martin Luther, Sermon of 16 March 1522; LW, Vol. 51, 97-98 ↩

9. Martin Luther, Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527 ↩

10. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan v.22:214-15, 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4, 1539 ↩

11. Martin Luther, 1529 ↩

12. Martin Luther, 1528 ↩

13. John Anthony O’Brien, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion pg.136, Published by OSV 1974 ↩

14. Martin Luther, 1525 ↩

15. 2 Peter 1:20-21 ↩

16. 2 Peter 3:15b-17 ↩

The post I Stand With Luther appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision regarding same sex marriage, I had an interesting dialogue with a friend on Facebook the other day. The fact that she was on one side of the issue and I was on the other wasn’t a problem for me, but as our conversation progressed it quickly became clear that this was an issue in which respectful disagreement wouldn’t be tolerated.

— 1 —

The SCOTUS decision has been a controversial one, and one with many different facets. There are gay people who disagree with the decision and straight people who applaud it. It is an issue which has been primarily, and loudly, argued from an emotional perspective. It is an issue which has even deeply divided Christians. We have allowed our emotions to cloud the issue rather than engaging in reasonable and charitable discourse – both sides are guilty of this offense.

As I point out in my article Feel Good Religion:

“Everything is filtered through the screen of our emotions. The facts of a particular situation rarely come into play; rather we choose to focus almost exclusively on our emotions, feeling that they are far more trustworthy than our intellect in helping us to make decisions.

We feel that the rights of the individual override any other considerations (even the rights of other individuals), and we speak of things like personal choice, sex, and marriage as God given rights for all; because after all – wouldn’t God want us to be happy?

We feel that it is intolerant and judgmental for us to disagree with anyone on matters of philosophy, religious belief, or moral actions, because ultimately we feel that we have no way of determining objective truth – rather we must rely on what makes us feel good to guide our actions and beliefs, and trust that others will do the same.”

— 2 —

I really liked what Steven Greydanus posted on his FB page under the title of ‘So, What Do We Do Now?’  Here is an excerpt:

“I’m not going to add to the suck. I’m not going to embrace bitterness or anger — or unnecessarily give anyone else a reason to be angry with me. I plan to avoid going around freaking out, panicking, wringing my hands and anxiously huffing and puffing. I have it on excellent authority that does no good.

I intend to love my neighbor, not just in pious fiction but in practical fact, and, insofar as it is within my power, to be at peace with all men. I have no plans to insult, demonize, hate, disrespect, or harbor animosity toward anyone; indeed, I plan to resist insults and hatred toward anyone whenever and wherever I encounter it.

If you are celebrating the Supreme Court decision on marriage, you are my neighbor, and blessings on you. We disagreed yesterday and we disagree today, but I had no feud with you then and I have none now.

If you are lamenting the decision, you are my neighbor and I commiserate with you. If we trusted God yesterday, let us continue trusting Him tomorrow. “

— 3 —

In the wake of the SCOTUS decision I reposted several articles and quotes on my FB page. In the interest of full disclosure I have put links to them below:

Articles:

Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Just Fine

The Supreme Court Just Gave Evangelicals a Gift

Statements:

Sacramento’s Bishop Jaime Soto

Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians “[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.”

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy “The word that keeps coming back to me is ‘millennia.’ This definition [of marriage between two people of the opposite sex] has been with us for millennia, it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well we know better.'” Same-sex marriage has been legal in parts of the U.S. now for just more than a decade, and Justice Kennedy also said there hasn’t been enough time to see the effects of same-sex marriage. “If we’re not going to wait, it’s only fair to say we’re not going to consult the social science.”

— 4 —

As you can see, there is a wide variety of perspectives here. Many individuals looking at the issue from different perspectives. And that’s good. We need to be able to take a look at emotional and controversial issues while calmly and carefully examining the different perspectives that exist on an issue.

But here’s the thing. Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, we can still engage in reasonable discourse – right? We can still disagree with each other with charity and respect – correct?

Certainly you wouldn’t want to forcibly coerce my beliefs, take away my right to free speech, or prevent me from following my conscience on matters of religion and morality. You wouldn’t….right??

— 5 —

A work colleague and friend responded to the statement from Dr. Cretella and asked, “Just curious, is this also your perspective, Adam?” 

Well, …I’m no pediatrician. Bah du dum.

But in all seriousness, none of these are my perspectives. They are quotes and articles from others. A gay Catholic man who practices chastity. A Bishop of the diocese of Sacramento. A Supreme Court Judge. An Evangelical Christian. The president of the American College of Pediatricians. These are people that I may not agree with completely, but who nevertheless have something to offer to the conversation. As does my friend, who is a lesbian, married to her partner, and has a son through IVF.

Except that over the course of our conversation we came to this, “I am actually at peace with those who are ‘on the fence’ or struggling to accept this for whatever reason be it Religious or otherwise. I can coexist peacefully and respectfully with those who don’t believe my marriage and family deserve the same protections as theirs. I do it literally every day. However, I choose not to share personal moments, celebrations, triumphs, and [the] experiences I share with my son and wife with those who believe my family deserves less dignity…I will always be kind to you Adam. It isn’t even in my nature to be otherwise. But, tolerance simply isn’t enough for me.” 

And I was summarily un-friended.

— 6 —

I have to admit, I was floored.

Not because I was un-friended on Facebook – I think I’ll survive. What floored me about this statement was her assertion that she would not be friends with anyone who didn’t share her personal beliefs. That she chooses not to share her life experiences with those who don’t agree with her. And then the follow up statement – tolerance simply isn’t enough.

How did we get here?

When pushed to give my personal perspective I responded with this:

“As a Catholic I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God – even the stuff I have personally had to really struggle with  – and I fundamentally disagree with the decisions made by the Supreme Court yesterday.

I personally choose to share my personal moments, celebrations, triumphs, and experiences with people who disagree with me on any number of issues and have wildly different philosophies, religious, and political views than I do; but who nevertheless are still very close as both friends and family.

I certainly hope that we can still continue to be friends in spite of the fact that I disagree with the Supreme Court on their ruling. Blessings.”

— 7 —

Because for me, tolerance is the bare minimum. The inherent worth and dignity of every person as a human being demands tolerance, respect, and charity – at a minimum. Again, all emotions aside, it’s not a question of the rights of every person to legal protection, or a question of the inherent dignity and worth of all humans. Even if we disagree (even if we disagree passionately), on important issues you are still my neighbor and I love you.

It is tempting, but oh so dangerous, to only associate with others who share our own values and beliefs. People who affirm our every decision and tell us we are right no matter what. People who vote as we do, believe as we do, live as we do, and even raise their children in the exact same manner as we do. But it is incredibly valuable for me to have people in my life who disagree with me. To have people in my life who disagree with me on fundamental issues involving morality, religion, politics, and philosophy. People who can help me to see the world through a different lens and be more empathetic.

When encountering someone with a different perspective than mine will I change my views? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I will not stray from the teachings of Christ or His Church. It is His Church that helps me to properly form my conscience and develop my beliefs and worldview. But either way, there is value for me in seeing the world from another perspective.

So, is tolerance enough? Maybe not. I think she was right. Tolerance isn’t enough. No one wants to feel merely “tolerated.” And if I made her feel that way, then I am truly sorry.

Christ never preached a message of tolerance. Rather he preached love. And not just love for our friends and our family. Not just love for those who agree with us, or our neighbors. He told us that we were to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. And that kind of love goes far beyond merely “tolerating” someone. But to love others in this way demands that we are willing to have relationships with people that we fundamentally disagree with. People who rub us the wrong way. People who don’t share our views and beliefs. People who, if not our enemies, certainly are not our friends. And people who are our friends but still manage to disagree with us on virtually every topic imaginable

So perhaps tolerance isn’t enough. But love is. And I for one choose love.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

The post When Tolerance Simply Isn’t Enough appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Often my Protestant friends will allege that when Christ declares, “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”¹ – that He wasn’t really referring to Peter. They will talk at length about the difference between petra and petros in the Greek, and declare with certainty that Christ was referring to Peter’s declaration two verses earlier, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”² as the great truth upon which Christ will build His Church.

I can relate. As a former Protestant I used to believe as they did. And then I read something very interesting.

— 2 —

I was leading a men’s bible study going through the gospel of Matthew using the NIV Application Commentary published by Zondervan – in other words a thoroughly Protestant commentary. When we came to the passage in Matthew 16 the commentary presented a number of options for how to properly interpret the passage, but ultimately  agreed with the Catholic Church and the historic orthodox Christian position; namely, that the most natural reading of the passage was the correct one.

The NIV Commentary then went on to quote D.A. Carson who notes, “if it were not for Protestant reactions against the extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”³

Needless to say, I was a little shocked.

— 3 —

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been. As it turns out, many Protestants, as well as most of the Eastern Orthdoox biblical scholarship of today, would acknowledge that the rock Jesus speaks of is Peter himself. Why? Quite simply, it would appears that as the NIV Application Commentary points out, this is, “the most natural reading of the wordplay…[and] borne out in the historical record.”⁴ Some additional points that are commonly addressed by biblical scholars?

• It is certain that Christ and the apostles spoke in Aramaic. It is probable that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Aramaic. Thus, Christ’s actual declaration to Peter would have been simply, “I tell you, you are Kepha (rock), and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my church,” It’s actually pretty straight forward in the Aramaic.
• When it comes to the gospel written in Greek; we have two synonyms for Rock – one masculine and one feminine. Petra in the Greek is the most common and closet equivalent to kepha in Aramaic, but it is also a feminine noun. Therefore when Matthew writes his gospel in Greek he more appropriately refers to Simon as Peter – instead of Patricia.
• Additionally, we can look at how many times the personal pronoun “you” is used in the passage:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”⁵

Reading the above it’s hard to argue that Peter wasn’t the object of Christ’s words!

— 4 —

What about the significance of the new name which Christ gives to Simon? In the Scriptures when God changes someone’s name it is typically significant. Thus Abram becomes Abraham, father of multitudes, and Sarai becomes Sarah, mother of nations. Jacob the supplanter becomes Israel – he who has the power of God.

Are we really to suppose that Simon’s name change wasn’t significant? Simon (which means he has heard) becomes the one who now declares on behalf of the other apostles and ultimately the entire Christian Church, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter is literally history’s first “Rocky”, the first man to bear the name of rock, and in the context of this passage it is a name with tremendous significance.

— 5 —

When examining the writings of the early Church fathers, it is undeniable that they understood Peter to be the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Consider the following quotes:

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” Tertullian⁶

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.” Cyprian of Carthage⁷

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” Ambrose of Milan⁸

— 6 —

But like so many other issues, Catholics recognize this as a both/and passage. The faith confessed by Peter is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, and Peter himself is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church. The Church recognizes that we don’t have to limit ourselves to an either/or proposition.

For those who have read my post, That Damnable Catholic “And”, it will probably come as no surprise that the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem agreeing with Protestants that Peter’s declaration of faith is one of the “rocks” upon which Christ has built His Church.

In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself, in paragraph 424 states, “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.“⁹

— 7 —

In other words; Yes – Peter’s declaration of faith is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church – as is the man himself! The two are inseparable. Reading the early Church fathers we recognize that Peter’s faith could not be separated from Peter the man.

When Christ renames Simon, “Rock”, it draws our attention to both the bedrock nature of his declaration of faith, and to his role as the solid foundation of Christ’s Church.

“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”¹⁰

Thank God for solid foundations…and a first pope named Rocky!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. Matthew 16:18 ↩

2. Matthew 16:16b ↩

3. Carson, “Matthew,” 368 ↩

4. The NIV Application Commentary, Michael J. Wilkins, 564 ↩

5. Matthew 16:17-19 ↩

6. Modesty 21:9–10 A.D. 220 ↩

7. The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition A.D. 251 ↩

8. The Faith 4:5 A.D. 379 ↩

9. Catechism of the Catholic Church 424 ↩

10. Matthew 7:24-27 ↩

The post The First “Rocky” appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Yesterday I listened to a two hour debate between Catholic author and apologist Devin Rose, and Nathaniel Taylor a graduate of Biola University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and a current philosophy student at Talbot School of Theology. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to their debate; hopefully Devin and Nate will excuse me for weighing in with a couple of my own thoughts  

During the debate, I found myself really struck by one of the main arguments that Nate made – namely that individual fallibility renders us all, whether Protestant or Catholic,  equally uncertain about matters of faith.

A Fallible Collection of Infallible Books

During the debate Devin had quoted R.C. Sproul who has said that, “Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.”¹

Incidentally, it may come as a surprise to many Protestants that R.C. Sproul asserts that the best they can claim is a, “fallible collection of infallible books”! I’ve dealt with this very issue at length in a post that you can read here: Sola Scriptura ~ Logically Flawed

I found Nate’s response to be interesting though. Rather than dispute this point, he merely pointed out that in the same way that he as a Protestant must trust in a fallible church to provide him with the cannon of Scripture, so too must Catholics rely on their own fallible intellects in order to determine which church is the true church in the first place. In other words, how is one position any better than the other? Both are ultimately dependent on fallible human beings with limited human intellects. This was a point that Nate returned to again and again during the vast majority of the debate, but I found it to be a deeply flawed position. Allow me to explain why.

Does Certainty Exist?

Fundamentally, this question revolves around whether finite and fallible human beings can know anything with any degree of certainty.

But, if we are not very careful we can slide into a sort of infinite regress. The question then becomes not just whether we can know with any degree of certainty whether the canon of the bible is true, or whether the Catholic Church is true, but rather, “Can fallible and finite human being know with any degree of certainty even whether or not God exists?”

It seems odd in a debate between two Christians to have one debater defaulting to a fundamentally agnostic position – namely whether or not we can we trust in our limited and fallible human intellects in order to arrive at a knowledge of anything at all. Nevertheless, that is where Nate chose to spend most of his time. And at a certain level, it’s not that surprising. The agnostic position has become increasingly common in a society dominated by a philosophy of post-modernism and relativism as applied existentially. In a culture that questions our very ability to accurately perceive reality itself (do we even really exist?) – how can we know anything with any sort of certainty at all?

And perhaps that’s not really Nate’s position. Perhaps he was merely trying to point out that we are both limited by our fallibility. Perhaps he does believe that we can have an infallible certainty on certain issues. Perhaps.

Here’s the thing. I would agree that we have intellectual limits as humans. Some of us more than others I often find myself frustrated by my own intellectual limitations when reading and re-reading the great philosophers and theologians of earlier times. And, while I would agree that we can’t have have certainty about everything, I would vehemently disagree with a proposition that says that we can’t have certainty about anything. At one point in the debate Nate really hammered away at Devin asking, “Can you tell me that you can infallibly know that the Catholic Church is the true Church?!” The tone of his question made it clear that any answer in the affirmative would be the height of hubris on Devin’s part.

Divine Revelation Changes the Equation

I wrote a post called Thoughts on Absolute Truth and Certainty in a Post-Modern Relativistic World, where I pointed out the following:

Within Christian circles there are some who assert that man as a finite being cannot comprehend the infinite. And there is a certain element of truth to this. Werner Heisenberg said that, “It will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.” and, it is for this reason that I think that it is necessary to add something to the equation at this point. As Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, we would presumably agree on the following two points:

1. An infinite God chose to reveal Himself to finite man.

2. He did this by means of both General Revelation (i.e. creation, the natural order, the human soul, the human conscience – knowledge of moral absolutes, etc.) and Special or Particular Revelation (i.e. the Prophets, Incarnation, Scripture, His Church, etc.).

This presumes at least two truths:

A. God wishes to be known.
B. God can be known.

Therefore, as finite beings we can know “truth” because the Truth has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

We can presume that man was created with intelligence and reason to facilitate the reception of Divine revelation. We can further presume that Divine revelation makes it possible for men to know truth, because God wishes both to make Himself known, and to be known.

Logical Inconsistencies 

There are also logical inconsistencies with Nate’s position. Presumably we would both agree that Scripture is inspired –  i.e. that God used fallible human beings in order to infallibly transmit His own divine words in such a way that the Scriptures are free from error in spite of being transmitted through very human, very fallible, means.

But where is the logic in asserting that God was not actively involved in the process of preventing error in the selection of the canon of Scripture? Why would God communicate His message without error but be unconcerned with whether or not we receive the “full” message? Or be unconcerned with whether or not there are “additions” to the message?

As Christians we would both agree that God rendered the divine authors incapable of error when He inspired them to write the holy Scriptures. Catholic Christians simply take the next logical step in believing that God rendered His Church incapable of error when compiling these writings into a cannon. Is that really such a leap of faith for Mr. Taylor?!

But the Protestant position is just this:

There may be books missing from the bible because the Church did not infallibly define the cannon of Scripture. There may be books which were mistakenly added to the bible because the Church did not infallibly define the cannon of Scripture. Nonetheless, according to sola scriptura, the bible alone is the sole rule and guide for all matters of faith and morals in the life of the Christian.

The Protestant position is that God was so concerned that His message was infallibly transmitted that He worked through means of divine inspiration in order to render the writings of fallible men as inerrant. But He was so unconcerned with the transmission of this inerrant message that He provided no means of certainty whatsoever for whether or not the bible we hold in our hands today contains all of the word of God or just bits and pieces of it, or even portions that aren’t inspired at all.

Can you see the logical problems with this position?

Infallible Certainty

And here I would like to return to Nate’s question. If he asked me whether or not I could infallibly know that the Catholic Church is the true church – my answer would be yes.

I can know this with infallible certainty in the same way that I can know with infallible certainty that two plus two equals four. In studying science and mathematics and using the intellect that God has given me I can come to a certain and trustworthy knowledge about the world around me. In studying scripture, history, and the early Church fathers, I can come to a certain and trustworthy knowledge about the Church which Christ founded.

The fact that two plus two equals four isn’t really up for debate within the world of mathematics in the same way that there is no essential disagreement as to the historical reality that Christ founded the Catholic Church on and through His apostles. The Catholic Church can trace her bishops all the way back to the apostles – all the way back to Christ Himself.

For the first thousand years of Church history, Nate’s question, “Which church is the true church?” would have been nonsensical and anachronistic. Which church?! If you were a Christian during the first millennia after Christ then you were Catholic. There was only one Christian Church. It is only in the light of over forty thousand Protestant denominations some 2,000 years later, that Nate’s question even makes any sense at all.

And it’s not really a difficult one. We all know the answer when asked who founded a particular church. The Lutheran Church? Martin Luther. The Reformed Church? John Calvin. The Church of England? King Henry VIII. The Methodist Church? John and Charles Wesley. The Mormon Church? Joseph Smith. Calvary Chapel? Chuck Smith.

But when we ask who founded the Catholic Church, the only possible answer is Jesus Christ on and through His apostles. There is no real disagreement on this point by historians either religious or secular. I am as certain of this fact as I am that two plus two equals four.

The Gift of Infalliblity

But beyond this human certainty, I can come to an infallible certainty because of the revelation which God has given us which transcends human fallibility. In the same way that He inspired the fallible human authors of the Scriptures so that they might record His words without error; so too he rendered His Church infallible that she might without error compile the cannon of Scripture and teach from those same Scriptures without error.

It is through these great gifts – divine revelation, inspiration, and infallibility – that I can move beyond my own human fallibility and trust in the infallibility that Christ has promised to His Church. Unlike Protestant scholars and theologians, I don’t have to trust in my own intellectual ability in order to get it right. I don’t have to be infallible in my personal interpretation. I have only to trust in the Church that Christ founded and gave His authority to. I have only to believe that in the same way that He gave us His Word without error, He has also preserved His Word without error.

As a Catholic, I believe that the bible is an infallible collection of infallible books, and furthermore, I believe that when the Church teaches dogmatically on matters of faith or morals she is infallible as well. That is a statement that no Protestant can make. The best a Protestant can claim is a fallible collection of infallible books which must then be fallibly interpreted by each individual personally.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Source: R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, 58 ↩

The post The Great Uncertainty – Problems with Individual Fallibility appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Within each of us is a longing to know and experience God. A longing which if unrequited can often paradoxically push people farther away from the very thing which they desire, namely a relationship with God Himself. Many atheists and agnostics began their journeys as earnest seekers of divine truth, only to find themselves stranded on the rocky shores of unbelief when their hopes of finding God went unmet.

And I often wonder if it’s not our fault as Christians.

— 2 —

We live in a day and age of profound distrust when it comes to the function of the mind and the exercise of the human will. We have been told that we cannot trust our intellect, and that the ability to apprehend both truth and the nature of reality lie beyond us. We have been told that we should never force ourselves to do that which is distasteful to us. We have been told that the only viable way to determine the validity of a proposition is by asking ourselves how we feel about it.

How do you feel about a particular politician or political party? How do you feel about capitalism and big business? How do you feel about vaccines? How do you feel about America’s foreign policies? How do you feel about a woman’s right to choose? How do you feel about the right of every person to marry the one that they love regardless of all other considerations?

— 3 —

Everything is filtered through the screen of our emotions. The facts of a particular situation rarely come into play; rather we choose to focus almost exclusively on our emotions, feeling that they are far more trustworthy than our intellect in helping us to make decisions.

We evaluate politicians based on their warmth and charisma and whether they fill us with hope. We wonder whether big business is uncaring and selfish, and ask ourselves why they don’t provide for the little man? We fear that drug companies and food producers don’t care enough about our children, and struggle with whether Americans are perceived as arrogant and brash by the rest of the world.

We feel that the rights of the individual override any other considerations (even the rights of other individuals), and we speak of things like personal choice, sex, and marriage as God given rights for all; because after all – wouldn’t God want us to be happy?

We feel that it is intolerant and judgmental for us to disagree with anyone on matters of philosophy, religious belief, or moral actions, because ultimately we feel that we have no way of determining objective truth – rather we must rely on what makes us feel good to guide our actions and beliefs, and trust that others will do the same.  Consider the following quote from Tom Robbins:

— 4 —

And this has become the new Christian ideal. We read the bible and then ask each other, “What do you feel like that is saying to you?” We take for granted that our feelings, and what Scripture is saying “to us”, is inestimably more important that what the authors of Scripture were intending to convey to their audience.

Surely God wants for me to have a happy marriage at all cost. If I’m unhappy, then I should obviously divorce and remarry someone else who can make me happy. If I’m attracted to someone of the same sex, God couldn’t possibly expect me to be chaste! That would be difficult. That wouldn’t feel good to me. I would feel like I was denying my very truest self. Christ wouldn’t want me to deny my truest self would He? He certainly would never say anything like, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”¹ I don’t think that would make me feel good at all…

— 5 —

To return to my earlier assertion, we have told people that a relationship with God is something that you should feel. We have told people that if they don’t feel God is real it is because of a lack of faith on their part. That experiencing God is all about our feelings and “sensing His presence.” 

We have said things like, “You have to know, that you know, that you know that God exists.” What does that even mean?! We have blithely asserted that, “You should feel closer to Jesus than you do to your closest friend.” even though Christ Himself told His friends, “A little while and you will see me no more;”² He knew that they would feel lost and alone with Him, but also that it wouldn’t be a permanent state of affairs. “So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.”³

And then when people don’t experience God emotionally; when they can’t seem to feel His presence in their life; when they don’t hear His voice; when they struggle with faith; when they seek Him and can’t find Him in the emotional experiences that we assure them are necessary – they will frequently move farther away from the very thing which they desire most, namely a relationship with God. Many atheists and agnostics began their journeys as earnest seekers of divine truth, only to find themselves stranded on the rocky shores of unbelief when their hopes of finding God went unmet.

And I often wonder if it’s not our fault as Christians.

— 6 —

They [novices in worship] think prayer is all about finding pleasure and sensual devotion. Through great effort, they struggle to acquire that sweetness, exhausting their energy and confounding their heads. When they cannot find what they hunger for they become discouraged, convinced they have accomplished nothing. In light of this yearning, they lose true devotion and spirituality, which lie in humble and patient perseverance, in self-doubt, in the desire only to serve God.

Such souls give everything over to the pursuit of spiritual gratification and consolation. Beginners like these never get tired of reading sacred literature. They dedicate themselves to one meditation and then another, in constant search of some pleasure of the things of God. Justly and with loving care, God denies them this kind of satisfaction. If indulged, their spiritual gluttony and attachment to that sweetness would lead them into countless troubles. Those who are inclined toward gratification are generally lazy and reluctant to tread the rough road to union. A soul in search of sensory sweetness will naturally turn her face away from the bitterness of self-denial. ~ St. John of the Cross⁴

— 7 —

Perhaps it is time that we learned to deny ourselves and our ever-clamoring emotions. Perhaps we should repent of our need to gorge ourselves spiritually, and instead turn our worship away from our own gratification and back towards God. Perhaps it is time that we quit being lazy, self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and oh so sensitive, and instead became the men and women that God has called us to be.

We must disregard our feelings, for that which can only be found in the way of self-denial and perseverance. [Tweet This]

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. Matthew 16:24b ↩

2. John 16:16a ↩

3. John 16:22 ↩

4. Dark Night of the Soul, trans. by Mirabai Starr, New York: Riverhead Books, 2002, p. 54. ↩

The post “Feel Good” Religion appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

When it comes to a buffet, what’s not to like? Self serve, all you can eat; just meandering down the buffet line and picking whatever strikes your fancy. Eat what you like, leave what you don’t, and above all – don’t stop until you’ve gorged yourself! If there’s a dining experience that’s more thoroughly all-American than a good old fashioned all you can eat buffet; then I’m certainly not aware of it!

Buffet Style Spirituality

More and more, however, it seems as if people are approaching religion and spirituality with the same “buffet” mindset. They pick and choose, take what they like and leave what they don’t. This brilliant cartoon by Cagle sums it up rather nicely:

Unfortunately, more and more Christians are also approaching their faith in this way. All too often, people select churches based on issues that fundamentally come down to personal preference. What religious experience will be the most enjoyable for me? Which church has the best ministries and programs for my family? The best worship band and music? The most charismatic and engaging pastor? The best coffee bar and baristas? The most comfortable seats and best audio/visual experience? Social media sites?

Religious Gluttony?

Truly, we are able to gorge ourselves at the buffet of religion in a way that was unthinkable in years past. I stumbled across one church which promoted 208 separate ministries on it’s website, including 125 outreach programs (balloon art or DJ anyone?), and 53 separate ministries dedicated to individual sports! Don’t believe me? You can check it out here: Ministries – The Rock Church

I’m honestly not trying to come off as snarky or condescending – it comes naturally for me so I don’t have to try

Look, I appreciate that we all have unique talents and interests, and that our faith should inform every aspect of our life including our recreation. I get it.

The problem is this. Our religion has become recreation, our faith has become fad, and we ourselves have become people of the world rather than people in the world. We have forgotten that we are not of this world. [Tweet This]

This “buffet” mentality within Christianity can be especially prominent within certain Protestant movements, but it has also sadly found it’s way into the Catholic Church. Today too many Catholics seem to think that they can come forward to the altar table, to the very supper of the Lamb, and then pick and choose what they partake of. Receive Christ fully present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity? Yes please! Follow the Church’s teaching on contraception? No, thank you very much!

But the truth is, this “buffet” mentality is antithetical to an authentic Catholic faith! When I was received into the Catholic Church two years ago, I was required to make the following profession, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

Not some. Not just what I agreed with.

All.

This profession is obviously not one that should be made lightly! It is for this reason that the Catholic Church will typically require adult converts to attend almost a full year of catechetical instruction in the form of RCIA classes (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) prior to converting. If you are going to profess to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God, then you had best know what she teaches!

Picky Eaters

But it’s not just Catholics who want to be able to pick and choose when it comes to the bountiful table with which the Church presents us. Many of my Protestant friends and family struggle to understand why they are not allowed to receive communion within the Catholic Church when attending Mass with us. “Aren’t we Christians?” they will ask. “Don’t we serve the same Lord? Don’t we share many of the same beliefs?” Some of them even share our belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and ask, “Shouldn’t our shared beliefs mean that we can partake of the Lord’s Supper together?”

Many of them are deeply hurt and offended by the Church’s unwillingness to allow them to partake of communion. Others come forward anyway to receive communion against the wishes of the Church. Frequently they perceive this rule as displaying a lack of charity, humility, or ecumenism on the part of the Catholic Church when nothing could be further from the truth. Much like Christ Himself, His Church extends an invitation to everyone, inviting all to attend the supper of the Lamb!

But – and here’s the catch – the Lamb’s supper is not a buffet!

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.’ But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.

“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”¹

There is a great paradox at work in the parable above. Although everyone is invited to the feast, there are still rules which are enforced by the host. The guests must be willing. They must be worthy. They must be properly attired.

Eat Your Dinner!

There is a very simple answer to those who struggle with understanding the restrictions which the Church places on who can, and who cannot, receive communion. To partake of the Eucharist, to participate in the sacrament of communion – you must be in full communion with Christ and His Church!

It’s really that simple.

• If I am a Protestant and not in full communion with the Catholic Church – if I cannot say that, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” – then it is a scandal and a sacrilege to profess full and complete communion when there is not.
• If I am a Catholic and not in full communion with the Catholic Church – if I cannot in good conscience affirm that, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” – then it is a scandal and a sacrilege to profess full and complete communion when there is not.

[Far too many Catholics fall into this category, privately (or publicly) disagreeing with the Church on matters of dogma and moral teaching. They profess that they must be true to their conscience without understanding that it is the job of holy mother Church to help them properly form their conscience. It is not our job to attempt to mold the Church to our own opinions, morals, or societal norms; rather we must allow the Church to mold and shape us – a lesson we should have learned after witnessing the results of the Reformation.]

• If I am a Catholic who is not in full communion with Christ due to unconfessed mortal sin in my life – then it is a scandal and a sacrilege to profess full and complete communion when there is not full communion.

I, like many, have been guilty of at least one of these offenses in my life at some point and have had to repent. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”²

The Church, much like a loving mother, wants for her children to be well fed. But much like any loving mother, she will require them to eat their vegetables with their meal, and require them to finish their dinner before dessert. She will remind them, in other words, that the Lamb’s supper is a family meal – not a buffet. That all are invited, but that there are house rules. She will remind them that the guests must be willing, they must be worthy, and they must be properly attired. And then, she will feed them a meal the likes of which they have never seen and could never have dreamt of!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Matthew 22:1-14 ↩

2. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 ↩

The post The Lamb’s Supper Is Not A Buffet appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Last January Pope Francis was quoted as saying, “Some think that—excuse my expression here—that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits…No.”  He went on to say that, “God gives you methods to be responsible.”

Breeding Like Rabbits

Wait – what?! Isn’t the Catholic Church against contraception of any kind? Did his remarks signal a sudden change in Church teaching? Hardly. In his remarks the pope alluded to “licit ways” of being responsible when it came to determining the size of one’s family. What ways you may ask? Well, how about this suggestion from Roseanne Barr, “Birth control that really works – every night before we go to bed we spend an hour with our kids.”  

All joking aside, Pope Francis is right. There are methods that faithful Catholics can use in order to avoid pregnancies – when there is just cause to do so.

Natural Family Planning

Abstinence has long been a licit or lawful means for Catholic families to responsibly plan for the size of their family. The effectiveness of using abstinence as a means of regulating the size of a family has, of course, varied wildly – largely due to the self restraint (or lack thereof) of the practitioners!

Natural Family Planning or NFP is the method recommended by the Church in order to help families avoid pregnancies when there is just cause to do so. Here is a link to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website page dealing with all matters pertaining to NFP for those who want to learn more about the Church’s teaching on this subject and the methods of its effective use: USCCB – NFP

When used correctly NFP is very reliable. A study of 19,843 women in India (52% Hindu, 27% Muslim, and 21% Christian) using natural family planning to avoid pregnancy had an unexpected pregnancy rate of 0.2 pregnancy/100 women users yearly. A German study had an unexpected pregnancy rate of 0.8 pregnancy/100 women users yearly¹ .

I also want to briefly note that NFP is not a “Catholic” form of contraception! We’ll return to that in a bit, but fundamentally NFP can be used to both avoid and achieve pregnancy, and alters neither the fertility of the woman nor the fecundity of a particular sex act.

The Problem with Contraception

Unfortunately, many Christians aren’t overly fond of self control and would much rather simply use the birth control pill or a barrier method such as a condom in order to limit their family size. “After all,” they ask, “what’s the problem with using contraception within marriage?” Of course these same Christians are typically blissfully unaware of the fact that, “One can find no period of history, no document of the church, no theological school, scarcely one Catholic theologian, who ever denied that contraception was always seriously evil. The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century [Until the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican church in 1930] this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant.”² 

Be that as it may, most Christians will object, “What’s the big deal? It’s not like contraception is the same as abortion.” But unfortunately that’s not always the case either. In order to allow for the FDA and drug manufacturers to market hormonal birth control only as a contraceptive, and not as an abortifacient: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed the definition of conception and pregnancy from fertilization to implantation. The ACOG used to define “conception,” or the beginning of a pregnancy, as occurring at the moment when sperm and egg join to create a new human being. But now the ACOG defines the beginning of pregnancy as occurring when the embryo – which has likely been in existence for over a week – implants into the mother’s uterus, meaning that from a Christian perspective sometimes birth control pills will act as abortifacients and not merely as contraceptives.

Barriers to Birth?

Some may ask whether or not barrier methods such as diaphragms or condoms would be morally acceptable since they don’t pose the risk of unintentionally being an abortifacient? Actually, as stated above, the teaching of the Church has been remarkably consistent on this point throughout the millennia from the time of Christ until now. Effectively, a properly ordered sexual act must conform to a threefold natural and moral objective.  The moral/natural object of the sexual act must be marital, unitive and procreative.  This truth conforms to the observed natural order of our world, and is also faithful to the Scriptural admonishments regarding not just  marriage and children, but also any other form of disordered sexual acts. Using any form of contraception will in some way create an impediment to marital intimacy either in the unitive aspect, the procreative aspect, or both.

Isn’t NFP Just “Catholic” Contraception?

I want to return to the common objection I mentioned earlier. Isn’t using abstinence or NFP to prevent pregnancy just another form of contraception? If the end result is the same aren’t you still thwarting God’s purpose in some manner? I actually had this very conversation with a close friend of mine and my brother last year at Thanksgiving. Both of them felt that it was splitting pretty fine hairs to condemn the use of a condom to prevent pregnancy but to then allow a couple to use NFP to track the biological signs of fertility in order to prevent pregnancies. Isn’t the end result the same? You’re avoiding getting pregnant – what’s the big deal with how you avoid it?

First it should be noted that the Church teaches that abstinence and NFP are only to be used when the couple has just cause – in other words not merely for selfish reasons or just because, “We’d rather not be encumbered with kids right now.” Don’t get me wrong – I’ve been there! I’m still there some days! Prior to converting to Catholicism I actually went through a voluntary sterilization process and got “fixed” via a vasectomy. Recently however, I underwent a vasectomy reversal after being exposed to the Church’s very articulate arguments against contraception and sterilization. If you’re interested you can read about my change of mind in an article I wrote called, Getting Fixed ~ A Reversal of Conviction.

The End Doesn’t Justify The Means

Secondly we should remind ourselves of an oft repeated maxim, namely, the end doesn’t justify the means.

How we achieve a goal is every bit as important as whether we achieve a goal. Sometimes more so. Even if we have just cause to avoid a pregnancy in our marriage, even if avoiding a pregnancy is the responsible thing to do for financial or health reasons, even if the Pope himself has said that we don’t have to breed like rabbits… we still have a responsibility to use morally licit methods. How we choose to conduct ourselves in our marriages matter. Our decisions, even our private ones, are a witness to others. Whether or not we choose to use contraception or voluntarily sterilization says something to the rest of the world. Our reasons for not engaging in these practices says something even more important.

Why It Matters

I want to briefly attempt to answer the objections above with an analogy. There are times in our lives when it is advisable to fast from food for a period of time. Fasting can benefit us both physically and spiritually. Although food is a good, and is in fact necessary for life, there is nothing wrong with temporarily abstaining from it when there are physical or spiritual reasons to do so. Fasting is a morally permissible, and even advisable, practice. On the other hand you could make the argument that binging and purging achieves the same end. It prevents the body from benefitting from the sustenance of food. Shouldn’t it be acceptable to enjoy the sensations of eating, the tastes, textures, and smells, before purging our body of food by vomiting? Isn’t the end result the same – namely a lack of food in our bellies?

Obviously we can see the problem with the above analogy. Even though both methods achieve the same end, one is morally permissible and one is not. One is a choice to not partake of a good (eating) in order to achieve a greater good (spiritual nourishment) or perhaps to achieve another goal such as not overindulging. The other is a perversion of a good in order to still selfishly participate in it without the corresponding natural effects. When we seek to selfishly participate in the sexual act without wanting to “risk” the corresponding natural effects, then we have perverted a great good.

What Marriage Reflects

There is one further point which should be made – our marriages are meant to reflect the relationship of Christ and His Church. The Church is to be Christ’s bride, made holy and without blemish by Christ Himself and by the righteous deeds of His saints³ . And like all brides, she has been joined to Him that the two may become one flesh. And it is through this incarnational mystery that we, the bride of Christ, become in that marital union of one flesh, the very body of Christ, with He Himself as our head. And Christ, our example, gave of Himself fully for His bride! He withheld nothing, He sacrificed everything, and He joined Himself completely to her.

When our marriages reflect anything less than the fullness of this sacrificial love and complete union, then they become a distortion of His full and sacrificial love rather than a perfect representation of it.

Is there anything more grotesque than picturing Christ giving of Himself less than fully? Giving of Himself to His bride and yet withholding His very essence? Giving of Himself with a contraceptive mentality that says, “No strings attached”? Joining Himself to His bride and yet not being open to new life?

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body.

“For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.

This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.⁴

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Ryder, RE. Natural family planning: effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church: British Medical Journal 1993; 307: 723-726. ↩

2. Minority Papal Commission Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control ↩

3. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:25-27, “…and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready; to her it has been granted to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure” – for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.” Revelation 19:7-9  ↩

4. Ephesians 5:25-33 ↩

The post Abstinence Makes The Heart Grow Fonder… appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

At the very bottom of the front page of my blog you will find a couple of short paragraphs explaining why I began blogging along with a micro-snippet on my conversion to Catholicism and a quote from quite simply the best author of the 20th century, G.K. Chesterton. Next to it is my gravatar profile with some additional personal information. While these descriptions do an adequate job of briefly acquainting you with me they don’t really give you a very full picture of who I am. Which is why I decided that for this week’s post I would share a smattering of fascinating facts about yours truly!

We should probably start at the beginning.

I was born in Germany and maintained dual citizenship until I was eighteen. When I was eighteen I went back to Germany and toured Europe for almost a month with my sixteen year old brother. I decided that I did not want to enlist in the German military in order to maintain my dual citizenship. I was however, amenable to drinking beer and eating bratwursts.

I got married when I was twenty and my wife was nineteen. It’s currently been 21 years and remains one of my best decisions ever. You’d have to ask her if she feels the same way – twenty-one years with me can be a very long time

Another fun fact? We are both black-belts in a form of Tae Kwon Do that evolved from an older Moo Duk Kwon style, and we ran a martial arts studio for a number of years. I’m currently writing a book exploring the similarities between the martial way and the way of discipleship called The Tao of Discipleship.

Yes, that picture at the top of the page is me eating cuy (guinea pig) in Peru.

Since we’re on that topic let’s get weird foods off of the list next. In Peru I also partook of alpaca and chicken foot soup. I have eaten cow tongue, heart, and stomach, sheep liver and heart (I make haggis at least once a year), goat, snail, ants, buffalo, horse, turtle, pickled jellyfish, frog, and dog. Maybe others that I have forgotten to list.

I also believe that Thai food is by far the best of the “Asian” foods – so eat it Chinese food! Oh, and I insist on eating Spam when camping. And the converse? I only eat Spam when camping (mostly). For all you haters who haven’t tried it, fried Spam is actually quite good.

Ok, on to some quick hits:

• I have been both bungie jumping and skydiving. Bungie jumping is scarier.
• I used to climb (when I was like a hundred pounds lighter) at Smith Rocks and scream like a little girl when I fell.
• Another thing I do like a little girl – but only when on roller coasters – giggle.
• I’m deathly afraid of heights. I know that may seem like a contradiction, but I keep trying to get over my fear of heights and corresponding vertigo in spectacularly unsuccessful fashions…  I have some great video of me freaking out on the inca bridge trail at Machu Pichu…
• I tend to over utilize the “dot, dot, dot” effect during written communication…
• I play the bagpipes. But not very well. But, on the other hand, people are able to distinguish between my pipe playing and a cat fight.
• I’m SCUBA certified. I once did a night dive at Waldo lake in Oregon. It is the second purest lake in the world. We laid on the lake bottom and gazed up at the stars and the moon through sixty feet of crystal clear water. It was pretty amazing to stargaze from the bottom of a lake.

I am passionate about experiencing life. I love to travel to different places, try new things, eat exotic foods, meet new people, and read a plethora of books.

Quote:

Jefe: I have put many beautiful pinatas in the storeroom, each of them filled with little suprises.
El Guapo: Many pinatas?
Jefe: Oh yes, many!
El Guapo: Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, you have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?}

And for the record – yes I do know what a *plethora* is. I also sometimes use random quotes to amuse myself… I’m not sure if my friends are always as amused as I am.

My third son Seth was named that way because biblically Seth was the third son of Adam.

Interestingly Ethan’s name is spelled using elements of both Logan’s and Seth’s names and he’s sandwiched in the middle. MMMmmmm..sandwiches….

I have tattoo’s – two of them now. The first was the Crawford Crest on my left arm. The other is a Ginormous celtic cross on my back with a Chi Rho worked into the design and the words, “Way, Truth, Life” above it in Latin. It has a sunburst around it and looks very Catholic which is odd because I wasn’t remotely Catholic at the time. Is there such a thing as remote Catholicism? I think yes.

Bad habits?

I can come off as arrogant and condescending if I’m not careful. I tend to be entirely too selfish, and as a result I am often self indulgent. I’m also not overly modest, which is extremely unfortunate for any unexpected guests… One of my worst bad habits is having a few drinks and making nachos really late at night. Interesting fact? I make pretty damn good nachos. I’m also a serious over-achiever which is weird because I’m so chronically lazy.

I prefer theological discussions to philosophical, and philosophical to political. I don’t care to discuss Oprah’s show or magazine at all…

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post A Smattering of Fascinating Facts… appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Two of the five solae (only’s) resulting from the Protestant Reformation are that of solus Christus or, “Christ alone”, and soli Deo gloria or, “glory to God alone”. These two seem to have been added at some point well after the initial three (the bible alone, faith alone, and grace alone), but we see them commonly included in a list of five solae by the middle of the twentieth century. Depending on how these two are formulated they can be less problematic than the other two, but nevertheless in their exclusionary language they still fall short of the fullness of Christian teaching as contained in the Scriptures and as taught by the Catholic Church.

Through Christ Alone?

So what is typically meant by these declarations? Most Protestants would strongly assert that  Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and that there is no salvation through any other. And obviously, on the face of it we would agree. But by this teaching the fathers of the Reformation sought to eliminate the need for priests who would (through their apostolic authority) dispense of the sacraments on behalf of the laity – instead they taught a, “priesthood of all believers.”

In declaring Christ’s unique mediation, they unfortunately neglected the fuller context of St. Paul’s instruction to Timothy which begins with the instruction, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”¹

Did you catch that? It is St. Paul’s wish that we make intercession and mediation for all men! He then goes on to say, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” ² In other words, it is only through the primary mediation of Christ that our secondary mediation for others can have any effect. But we are called (indeed commanded) to mediate and intercede for others precisely because Christ mediates for us.

To the Glory of God Alone?

The fifth solae, the assertion that all glory belongs to God alone, was intended by the Reformers to eliminate the practice of venerating Christ’s mother Mary – or any of the saints or martyrs recognized by the Church. It is closely tied to the assertion of, “Christ alone” in that both of these solae denied the practice of asking the saints for their intercession, and grossly misconstrued the entire doctrine of the communion of saints.

Why ask for a saint’s intercession when you can go directly through Christ the one mediator between God and man? Why give any honor or praise to a saint when all glory belongs to God alone? On the face of it, these seem to be assertions that would be supported by the Scriptures and at least generally hold true – but let’s dive a little deeper.

Both of these statements are not fundamentally wrong on the face of it. If someone said, “To the glory of God alone.” we would respond, “Let it be!” If someone proclaimed, “Christ alone.” we would respond, “Amen!” It is only when we look at what the Reformers intended these statements to mean, indeed what they intended to strip from the faith with these proclamations, that a problem arises.

Instrumental Causality

In Catholic theology there is a principle which is referred to as instrumental causality. Instrumental causality recognizes that an individual can accomplish an action either with or without the use of a tool. The instrument can be defined as that which an individual uses in order to accomplish his purpose.

The tool may be external to the person accomplishing the action (a screwdriver or a hammer), or it may be a tool that is a part of their own constitution (their hand). I use my hand as a tool in accomplishing many tasks, but generally I would say that it is I who accomplish the task – not my hand. Even though it is I who accomplish the task, it may very well be through the utilization of tools that I accomplish my goals, i.e. I use a hammer to build my deck.

In Catholicism there is a recognition that God intends to make use of secondary instrumental causes in order to dispense of His grace. An example of this would be the way in which God inspired the sacred authors of Scripture and used them as instruments through which He communicated His divine Word. It is because of our understanding of instrumental causality that we can talk about the dual nature of the holy Scriptures, declaring that they are both fully the Word of God, and also fully the word of man – in the same way that Jesus Christ (the incarnate Word of God) is both fully human and fully divine.

The Sacraments as Tools of Divine Grace

Another example would be when God makes use of the Virgin Mary in order to give birth to His son. It was not necessary that Christ be conceived and born of a woman. He could have arrived on this earth as a fully grown man, descending from heaven in the same way that He would ultimately ascend. And yet Mary was the instrumental causality through which Christ was made incarnate. She was the instrument by which Christ entered the world.

In the sacraments we see another example of how God chooses to work through ordinary physical elements in order to dispense of His grace. Ordinary physical elements like water, or bread and wine, become instrumental causes of divine grace. The role of the priests in offering God’s forgiveness through the sacrament of penance is a particularly poignant example of this instrumental causality by which God dispenses of His grace.

The very first thing that Christ does when appearing to His disciples after His resurrection is to breathe on them, fill them with the Holy Spirit, and give them His own authority to forgive or retain sins.³ He makes them the instruments through which God forgives sins. St. Paul says it this way, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.”⁴

The Vine and the Branches

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.”⁵

Let me ask you a question. Does the fruit at the end of the branch come only from the branch? Does the fruit come only from the vine? Does part of the fruit come from the vine and part from the branch? No, rather the fruit comes completely from the vine and completely from the branches. It comes entirely from both inseparably. It is entirely God and entirely His instruments. God is the first cause and we are the causal instruments through which He works. This is what so many Protestants miss when it comes to the doctrine of the communion of saints. When we are joined to Christ as the branches are to the vine, when we are in Him as He is in the Father, when we become His very body, His very own hands and feet and mouth, then, “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”⁶ “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.”⁷

We, the body of Christ, are the continuation of the incarnation and Christ’s work in the world. Is it Christ at work or us? Is it the vine or the branches? The answer is yes. – Tweet This

Forgiveness of Sins

And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.⁸

Notice here that it is the faith of the paralyzed man’s friends which becomes the causal instrument through which Christ extends His forgiveness – it is not the faith of the paralytic! Furthermore, the scribes and pharisees object that it is blasphemy for a man to forgive sins. Notice Christ’s response – he doesn’t claim the authority to forgive sins via His divine nature. Instead, He says, “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins…”

It is through the instrument of His human nature on earth that Christ forgives sins.

If He can communicate from His own divine nature the power to forgive sins through the instrument of His own human nature, then surely He can communicate that same power to other human natures as His instruments. The crowd anticipates this reality glorifying the God, “Who had given such authority to men.” And, this is in fact exactly what we see at the end of St. John’s gospel when Christ communicates this divine authority to men.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”⁹

All to the Glory of God

Fundamentally we must realize that when God chooses to work through His instruments it in no way detracts from His glory! When we are joined to Christ (as branches to a vine) the question of who produces the fruit becomes meaningless. When we understand this principle, we can begin to understand St. Paul when he writes, “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”¹⁰ Is it Christ who saves? St. Paul who saves? The vine or the branches who produce fruit? The answer of course is yes!

Christ works in and through us, as the instruments by which He extends His grace, His forgiveness, and ultimately His salvation! – Tweet This

When we admire a painting or a sculpture by a great artist, the artist isn’t jealous – rather in appreciating their work we are appreciating them! And as the art reflects the glory of the artist, so to will we reflect the glory of God!

To the glory of God alone? Amen!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 ↩

2. 1 Timothy 2:5 ↩

3. John 20:21-22 ↩

4. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 ↩

5. John 15:1-9 ↩

6. Galatians 2:20 ↩

7. 1 Corinthians 12:27 ↩

8. Matthew 9:2-8 ↩

9. John 20:21-22 ↩

10. 1 Corinthians 9:22b ↩

The post On Christ Alone – The Parable of the Vine and Branches appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

There are many implicit realities in both life and the Scriptures. Things that while perhaps not explicitly stated are nevertheless very much true. I would like to briefly touch on several implicit realities found within the holy Scriptures. Let’s begin with one that we can all perhaps agree on.

— 1 —

The Trinity

The doctrine of the trinity is one that is not expressly taught by the sacred Scriptures, but rather is a doctrine that developed over time within the Church. While the Ante-Nicene Fathers affirmed Christ’s deity and spoke of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, there was no mention of the word “trinity” until the late 2nd century originating with Theophilus of Antioch’s writings. It is a word that is not found in the bible. Theological concepts such as hypostases, and consubstantial persons forming one divine being, developed slowly and over centuries. Scripture does not expressly contain a formulated doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, according to Christian theology, it bears witness to the activity of a God who can only be understood in trinitarian terms.

We see implicit in Scripture this trinitarian God from the very beginning when we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’”¹ In St. John’s Gospel account we are told that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”²

With this in mind we see that it is by God’s spoken Word that all things are created, as the Spirit hovers over the waters. God the Father, Christ the spoken Word, and the Spirit of God are all present at creation. This three-in-one nature may even be reflected in the words of God Himself as we read, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;'”³ Is God making use of the royal “we” or is there something more implicit in the text? Many of the Fathers of the Church saw even Old Testament elements such as the appearance of three men to Abraham in the book of Genesis chapter 18, as a foreshadowing of the Trinity.

It is in the New Testament however that we see the greatest indications of the three-fold nature of God. The most influential of the New Testament texts which imply the teaching of the Trinity is in St. Matthew’s gospel where we see Christ mandate that His disciples baptize “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”⁴ The text itself is fairly explicit in nature, and all the more so when we take a look back at Christ’s own baptism reordered earlier in St. Matthew’s gospel. “And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’”⁵

— 2 —

Apostolic Succession

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”⁶

Often when we read this passage we immediately appropriate Christ’s words to ourselves as if somehow the Lord was speaking directly to those of us who call ourselves by His name and live here in the 21’st century. And there may be a sense spiritually in which this is the case. But when Jesus actually said this He was speaking directly to His apostles – eleven men. It was to them that he conveyed His divine authority, and it was to them that He directly gave the charge of converting, discipling, baptizing, and teaching the whole world.

Oh yes, and one other thing…it was to them that He promised, “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

There is something important that we find implicit in this statement. Christ, the God-man, the risen Lord, will indeed still be here when the end of the age comes. But the apostles to whom He made this promise? As martyrs for their Lord⁷ they wouldn’t even live full lives, much less be around at the “end of the age” to benefit from Christ’s promise to them. Implicit in this statement then is the expectation that Christ’s promise would extend to their successors. Successors? The bible doesn’t mention any successors to the ministry of the apostles – or does it?

Actually, in the very first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we read that St. Peter stands up and quoting from the Psalms declares,

‘His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”⁸

Implicit in Christ’s commission and promise to the apostles was the extension of this commission and His promise to the apostle’s successors. Something that they themselves understood very well and carried out through the laying on of hands.⁹ It is only in this light of Apostolic succession that His promise to be with them always – even to the very end of the age – makes sense.

— 3 —

Confession

Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”¹⁰

This one actually seems pretty obvious once you read the text. Unless divine knowledge was somehow also conveyed in the authority to forgive and retain sins, Christ’s disciples would not have been aware of the hidden sins of others ( Padre Pio notwithstanding! ) unless confession of some kind was implemented. Confession to the apostles (or their successors) would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to the apostolic forgiveness of sins.

We see this implicit reality fleshed out in St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians when he writes, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”¹¹ Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church refers to confession as the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

— 4 —

The Role of High Priest

This one is perhaps a little trickier, but let’s start by defining what a priest does. Luckily we can look to holy Scripture itself and read that, “every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”¹² Pretty straight forward – no? A priest’s duty is to act on behalf of men in relation to God, and to offer sacrifice for our sins.

In the epistle to the Hebrews we see that Christ has become our high priest and is to be, “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”¹³ According to the author of Hebrews, “Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘Thou art a priest for ever.” This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”¹⁴ Christ exists to fulfill his priestly duties forever, and we should remember that a priest’s sole function wasn’t just intercession but also sacrifice. Implicit in Christ’s eternal priestly duties is His ongoing sacrificial offering on our behalf.

The fact of the ongoing nature of the heavenly sacrifices is admitted by the Protestant commentator George W. Buchanan. In his commentary on Hebrews, he writes, “Since the heavenly archetype functions just as its earthly imitation, it seemed reasonable for the heavenly high priest to offer sacrifices in heaven (Heb 8:3-4). These sacrifices, of course, must be better than their earthly counterparts, but their function is to cleanse “the heavenly things” (Heb 9:23). [Protestant] Scholars have had trouble with these passages, because Christ’s ‘once for all’ sacrifice on earth was thought to make all other sacrifices unnecessary. It also seems a little surprising to think of heaven as a place where there would be sin and defilement that needed cleansing. The author of Hebrews found no difficulty with this, however. For him, heaven and the holy of holies were very close together. God’s presence and his angels were in both. From the holy of holies the smoke carried the incense from the sacrifices directly to heaven, where there were also a holy of holies, sacrifices, and angels. When Jesus, as the heavenly high priest, passed through the curtain into the holy of holies, which was like heaven, he not only offered a sacrifice, but he was himself the sacrifice (Heb 9:12).”

Implicit in Christ’s ongoing role as high priest therefore is his ongoing intercession and his ongoing sacrificial offering to God on our behalf.

We should be careful to note however that this sacrifice is an un-bloody one in which Christ re-presents His once and for all sacrifice to the Father throughout eternity on our behalf. This implicit sacrificial nature of the Mass was understood by the very earliest Christians as we see reflected in the Didache itself, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles written around A.D. 70. “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matthew 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Malachi 1:11, 14]”¹⁵

— 5 —

Real Food and Real Drink

This is another one that I actually think is far more straightforward than we give it credit for. When Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”¹⁶ – He means exactly what he says.

His disciples understand Him to mean exactly what he says – they leave Him because they cannot accept this teaching; and He lets them go! He repeats this claim over and over within the chapter even resorting to saying, “Unless you chew my flesh…” Implicit in this claim is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is why St. Paul will write to the Corinthians saying, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body of Christ eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”¹⁷

Notice what St. Paul doesn’t say. “Those who eat or drink in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning a symbol of the body and blood of the Lord.” Or perhaps, “Those who eat and drink without discerning the metaphor of Christ in communion will eat and drink judgement on himself.” No – rather the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an implicit reality that is taught by Scripture.

— 6 —

The Visible Church

There is a tendency among certain Christians to view the Church as something mystical, non-heirarchial, non-localized, invisible. But when we look to the Scriptures we see that Christ views His Church in a very different way. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”¹⁸

Implicit in Christ’s words is the hierarchal, authoritative, and visible nature of His Church. It is a Church founded by Christ that speaks with His authority. If the Church is merely mystical and invisible, how are we to take our problems to the Church for her ruling? What Church? Where?

In the last 500 years we have had any number of men starting their own churches based on their own authority and scriptural interpretation and dispensing their own judgements as they speak on behalf of Christ. If I take my problem to 40,000 different denominations, in all likelihood I will receive 40,000 differing judgements. This cannot be what Christ intended. When Christ commands them to, “tell it to the Church;” He had to have had a specific Church in mind.

— 7 —

There is so much truth that is implicit in the sacred writings! These examples serve only to scratch the surface when it comes to implicit truths which can be found in the texts. All too often we read the Scriptures with an eye for only the obvious truths, the explicit claims of Scripture, without ever stopping to consider the implications that are woven throughout.

Today we have the benefit of centuries of accumulated wisdom from the mind of the Church that we can rely on in order to help us sift through difficult passages and come to a fuller understanding of the Christian faith. We should take seriously the words of the Apostle Paul who writes, “I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”¹⁹

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Genesis 1:1-3a ↩

2. John 1:1-3 ↩

3. Genesis 1:26a ↩

4. Matthew 28:19b ↩

5. Matthew 3:16-17 ↩

6. Matthew 28:18-20 ↩

7. with the exception of St. John ↩

8. Acts 1:20b-25 ↩

9. 1 Timothy 1:6, 4:14, 5:22 ↩

10. John 20:19b-23 ↩

11. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 ↩

12. Hebrews 5:1 ↩

13. Hebrews 5:6, 7:17 ↩

14. Hebrews 7:21-25 ↩

15. Didache 14 ↩

16. John 6:53b-55 ↩

17. 1 Corinthians 11:27 & 29 ↩

18. Matthew 18:15-18 ↩

19. 1 Timothy 3:14b-15 ↩

The post Implicit Realities in Scripture appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

We have all heard about the art of manliness. But what about the art of becoming a child?

As a father of three boys I consider it my solemn duty to turn my three children into men. When you hear the word “men” in your head, hear it as if John Wayne or Clint Eastwood were saying it: low, gravelly, hard, menacing – Men.

Men, a word synonymous with strength and toughness, integrity and resolve, character and conviction, provision and protection. It is my job, my solemn duty, to teach my boys to put away childish things and to become men. And let’s face it, I have the Apostle Paul on my side.

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”¹

I’ve written a post about one of the ways I help my boys become men; here it is for those who are interested: A Rite of Passage

— 1 —

The Art Of Becoming A Child

Of course with all this talk of becoming a man and the art of manliness, we should also pause for a moment to consider the words of Christ. “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”²

Christ Himself knew what it was to be a little child. He chose to enter this world not as a man, but as a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes. Have you ever stopped for a moment the picture God as a child? It’s hard to imagine. In art God is most often portrayed as the Eternal One, an old man with a long flowing white beard. And yet, there is something childlike in the wonder of the creation account. God at play building in the mud, and the oft repeated refrain: it was good, it was good, it was very good!

It is in looking to Christ and His relationship with God the Father that we can see glimpses of what it is to, “become like children”. It is from Christ, the eternal Word, that we can learn the art of becoming a child.

— 2 —

A Child’s Trust In His Father Is Implicit

Have you ever wondered why a child’s sleep is so undisturbed? So peaceful? They sleep without a care in the world, because they know that they aren’t in control and don’t have to be. I remember long road trips in the old family station wagon when I was a child, with my dad sometimes driving all night to get us to our destination. Us kids would fall asleep unconcerned about the long miles and whether or not my dad would keep us on the road. My mom on the other hand would constantly jerk herself awake just to make sure my dad hadn’t fallen asleep at the wheel!

Christ’s disciples once displayed a similar lack of trust asking themselves if perhaps God had fallen asleep at the wheel.

And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?”³

Christ demonstrated to them His absolute and childlike faith in the Father. He didn’t sweat the small stuff (or the big stuff for that matter) – a lesson that he constantly sought to teach His followers. We live in a world of jaded skeptics and hardened cynics. Childlike trust is hard to come by in our day and age. But then again…so is deep and peaceful sleep.

— 3 —

A Child’s Reliance On His Father is Complete

That implicit trust also leads to complete reliance.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.⁴

Children by nature are dependent. At an early age it is quite literally true to say that a child can do nothing of his own accord. The child is utterly dependent for even their most basic functions. A child cannot feed himself, dress himself, or bathe himself.

Jesus accepts this utter childlike dependency as a forgone conclusion when it comes to His relationship with the Father. When He says, “The Son can do nothing of his own accord,” it is not false humility at work, but rather the simple acknowledgment of a child who is utterly reliant on his father. Complete and utter childlike reliance will bring humility to our lives while relieving us of the anxiety of having to pretend like we are in control.

“And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be of anxious mind. For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well. Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”⁵

— 4 —

A Child Imitates His Father

Let’s look at the second half of the verse above again:

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.⁶

Children are by nature imitators. As children we want nothing so much as to be like our dads. We want to be as big, as strong, and as smart as our fathers – mainly because we are convinced that our dad is the biggest, strongest, smartest guy on the planet! Christ encourages this childlike imitation in His disciples when he tells them, “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”⁷ I know, it’s a tall order, but remember that childlike reliance above? The knowledge that we quite literally can do nothing on our own? It is only when relying on dad and carefully imitating him, that we gradually become like him.

— 5 —

A Child Wants To Make His Father Proud

In the fourteenth chapter of St. John’s gospel, Christ is recorded as saying two very interesting things. In verse thirteen we read, “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;”⁸ and in verse twenty-eight He says, “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”⁹

Let’s start with the second one first. Children instinctively know that their fathers are “greater” than them, it’s why we imitate them! We want to grow up to be as big, strong, smart, funny, and tough as dad. St. Paul puts it this way, “So that we may no longer be children, …we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”¹⁰

But in trying to become like dad we also bring him glory! What father doesn’t look on with pride at his children’s academic or athletic accomplishments? As the father of the Pioneer Valley League defensive player of the year in football, and two younger boys who excel at cross country, I can tell you all about the swollen head that comes from being a proud papa!

Years spent trying to “build character” into our kids instantly become worthwhile when we hear from a friend, neighbor, family member, or co-worker how polite, respectful, honest, hardworking, or kind our children are.

And children instinctively want to please their fathers. They want their dad to be proud of them. Christ isn’t afraid to admit that He does what He does so that,“the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

It’s okay to want to make your papa proud!

“Then you will know… that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”¹¹

— 6 —

A Child’s Obedience To His Father Is Unwavering

And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”¹²

There are several things of note here. Again, Christ’s trust in His Father is implicit, “all things are possible to thee…” Also, we should take note of the great affection with which He prays to Abba, His daddy. But, what is perhaps most striking is His complete childlike submission to His Father’s authority. Not my will, but thy will.

What child isn’t intimately familiar with this reality? It is the parents who decide on the day’s activities and schedule. The parents who determine meal time, play time, bedtime, and what chores are to be done. Childhood is one long exercise in submission to authority – how is it that we become defiant so quickly upon becoming adults? How is it that we forget so quickly that our Father has our best interests in mind?

— 7 —

All too quickly in life we grow up and forget that dad can be trusted. Like rebellious teenagers we are sure that we know what is best for us and that we can handle anything that life can throw our way. We want to be our own men and forge our own way, and the only person we aim to please is ourself. But then the storms of life come and we quickly panic. We realize that maybe we don’t have all the answers and maybe dad really did know best. Maybe we realize that we are all alone on the stormy sea and the ship is going down and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Perhaps, if we listen carefully we can still hear the words of Christ whispered to us across the centuries, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”¹³

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. 1 Corinthians 11:13 ↩

2. Matthew 18:3b ↩

3. Mark 4:37-40 ↩

4. John 5:19 ↩

5. Luke 12:29-32 ↩

6. John 5:19 ↩

7. Matthew 5:48 ↩

8. John 14:13 ↩

9. John 14:28b ↩

10. Ephesians 4:14a-15 ↩

11. John 8:28b-29 ↩

12. Mark 14:36 ↩

13. Matthew 18:3b ↩

The post The Art of Becoming a Child appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Recently I stumbled upon this video on Facebook and felt compelled to share it with you along with a few of my thoughts. Please take a moment to watch it, it’s under twenty minutes – you’ve got the time

After you’ve finished watching you can read my thoughts below and then let me know what you think in the comments section – I look forward to hearing your feedback!

— 1 —

First of all, I loved this. Julie was open and honest – she didn’t try to sugar coat it or give any easy answers. She was incredibly gracious, even when looking back at years of her life spent in a ministry that she no longer agrees with. She acknowledged her very real desires, frustrations, struggles, doubts, and conclusions.

And, most importantly, she offered hope and a fresh perspective.

Okay, on to a few minor quibbles. I raise these minor points precisely because Julie herself states that, “There just hadn’t been many people thinking about this with very much nuance.” and I agree. Hopefully I can add a couple of other nuanced points to the conversation.

— 2 —

Quibble #1

First and foremost I think we need to steer clear of defining human beings by their sexual orientation. Julie rather interchangeably refers to herself either as gay or as same sex attracted. I think that a distinction should be made. Human beings are not fundamentally straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or any other label we would use based on sexual orientation. You don’t have to be a Christian to agree with me on this; consider the quote from Gore Vidal below:

“Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people.”

And he’s right – sex is something we do, not something we are. The Scriptures give us a window into who and what we are in the very first chapter of the very first book of the bible.

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.¹

We are human. We are created in God’s image. We are male and female. We are not defined by our sexual acts. I think that Julie would agree with me on this – after all, choosing not to engage in sex doesn’t mean that you’re not a person! Again, this a minor quibble, but one worth noting. We need to stop having a conversation that is defined by what we do instead of by who we are. I’ve written much more extensively on this in another post: Homosexual, Heterosexual, or Just Plain Human? that may shed further light on the subject.

— 3 —

Quibble #2

Implicit in Julie’s experience (and those of her friends) is the idea that ones sexual orientation is a genetically predetermined fact and not the result of, “childhood baggage”, psychological issues, environment, abuse, etc. It is clear that she comes down on the nature side in the nature vs. nurture debate.

There is nothing wrong with holding this as your opinion, and it may indeed be very true to her personal experience; but again in the interest of nuance, I would like to suggest that the truth may be far more complex than an “either/or” answer. When looking at individuals with same sex attractions as a whole, I think that many different factors would come into play including (and not limited to) all the ones listed above. There are many individuals who have emphatically asserted that they chose a gay lifestyle – i.e. that they weren’t just born that way.

Either way, it’s not the point of her talk and it really is a minor quibble on my part, but I do think that we have to be nuanced and careful, and not just slip into discussing all individuals as if they were the result of the same internal/external forces.

— 4 —

The other reason I wanted to bring up this second quibble is to note that there are really two basic assertions that come into conflict in Julie’s story.

1. Assertion one is that she was born this way and cannot change. I want to be clear that I’m not denying this assertion. I also want to be clear that just because this has been her experience, it doesn’t follow that the same is true for everyone who has ever struggled with some aspect of same sex attraction.
2. Assertion two is the perceived assertion of many churches that marriage is the primary goal for all “normal” human relationships.

You can see the obvious conflict between these two. How refreshing is it to hear a Christian state unambiguously, “I knew that…my starting point was that I loved Jesus with all my heart. And that I was going to follow Him no matter what. I knew that everything about my life was here to glorify and honor God.” ? I wish that all of us as Christians approached our walk with Christ with the same attitude. Following Him comes first. Obedience comes first. Sacrifice is just part of it. No excuses – no whining.

But there was still a conflict between the two assertions. I was born this way and cannot change – therefore I cannot fulfill the primary goal of human relationships, namely marriage. Julie puts it this way, “The gospel of Jesus for me had really been married to [sexual] orientation change…and heterosexual marriage.” 

— 5 —

Again, to her credit, she doesn’t buy into revisionist theology. Scripture is actually pretty clear. Sex is a good and beautiful thing within the constraints of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s all He wrote.

“There’s been this story that was told about love and about belonging, that was primarily found within the context of a marriage, within the context of sexual relationship in a marriage.”

Julie correctly recognizes that two things are being conflated here. Sexual intimacy and marriage are being conflated with love and intimacy of a platonic nature. You can be celibate and still love and be loved deeply. You can be celibate and still experience intimate relationships. Just look at Jesus! Would anyone argue that this was a man devoid of deep loving relationships? Devoid of deep personal intimacy? Of course not.

In fact, when the disciples assert that it is perhaps not expedient to marry, Jesus replies saying, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”²

St. Paul is perhaps even clearer writing,

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.³

— 6 —

Debunking False Assertions

Let’s leave the first assertion alone for now, and just agree that sexual orientation may be more nuanced than simply whether or not someone is, “born that way.” The second perceived assertion – marriage is the primary goal for “normal” human relationships – is an interesting one for me. I would agree with Julie that this was very much my experience growing up in Protestant Christianity. Since becoming Catholic however, I have been exposed to a Christian tradition far more in keeping with the teaching of Christ and of St. Paul. A tradition which asserts that marriage, sexual intimacy, and procreation are all good things, but perhaps not the best thing. That in certain aspects, and for certain people, celibacy is far better. Catholic history is literally littered with saints who were virgins – celibate and consecrated for the Lord’s work. Priests, nuns, monks, ascetics, and even laymen and women who had forgone one form of intimacy for another which they found to be far deeper, richer, and more rewarding.

We forget that marriage to another person is only one of the options which we see expressed in the Scriptures. That marriage between a man and a woman is itself only a dim reflection of the marriage that takes place between Christ and His Church. That we are all called to the vocation of marriage with our Lord – even if we are not called to take a spouse here on earth.

— 7 —

I wholeheartedly agree with Julie’s conclusions and with her call to, “costly obedience” regardless of her sexual orientation. We are all called to be chaste regardless of our sexual orientation. We are all called to intentional discipleship and costly obedience regardless of our sexual orientation. And for many the call to celibacy is a higher call – regardless of sexual orientation.

Celibacy is not settling for less, but rather denying yourself for the sake of something more! Costly obedience should be the norm in every Christians life, and it should be done within the context of community! Celibacy is, for some of us, a form of costly obedience; but we should all have areas in our life where Christ is calling us to costly obedience. It will look different for all of us, but the call is the same. “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”⁴ We are all in this together. We are all a part of Christ’s bride. And we need each other desperately on this long journey in the same direction.

“We can live without sex ya’ll, but we can’t live without intimacy.”

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. Genesis 1:27 ↩

2. Matthew 19:11b-12 ↩

3. 1 Corinthians 7:32-28 ↩

4. Luke 9:23 ↩

The post Praying the Gay Away…Or Not appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Two of the five solae (only’s) of the Protestant Reformation are those of sola fide or “faith alone,” and sola gratia or “grace alone”. With that in mind, a dispute often arises among Christians over the role (or even necessity) of good works in the life of the believer. Many believers claim that faith alone is enough – even the word “believer” connotes images of faith and belief, whereas the word “disciple” brings to mind negative connotations of hardship and discipline undertaken at another’s command. Is it any wonder that many tend to call themselves believers and not disciples? 

— 1 —

For the faith alone folks, let me just say – we don’t disagree. In fact I will go one better and claim grace alone. After all, faith itself is a work. It’s something that you have to do. It is an action. If you don’t put your faith in Christ, then you aren’t saved. In fact, as a Catholic, I believe in grace alone so thoroughly, that I am more than willing to forgo the “work of faith” and baptize babies who aren’t even able to put their faith in anyone or anything. And, as a bible believing Christian, I thoroughly believe the Scriptures when they tell me that, “Baptism, …now saves you.”¹ In fact you can read all about my views on the subject in an article I wrote on that very topic: Baptism, Babies, and Being Born-Again

And incidentally, this grace alone stuff isn’t just for babies. I would also extend it to all of those who through no fault of their own are unable to place their faith in Christ prior to their death, such as small children and the mentally handicapped. I think that we could all agree that those without the capacity for faith don’t need to perform the “work of faith” in order to be saved right?

— 2 —

The lynchpin verse for the faith alone crowd is frequently taken from St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans where he writes, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”² Many will read the passage unconsciously adding the word “alone” even though it is strangely absent. Although the word alone doesn’t appear there (unless you are reading one of Luther’s translations – he added the word to the text), I have to admit that the bible does indeed use the term “faith alone” although it can only be found in a single passage in all of Scripture. In St. James’ epistle we read, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”³

Also, it is worth mentioning that contextually St. Paul is actually referring to the ceremonial works of the Torah – not the moral or natural law. Of course as Christians we are to keep the moral law! In fact, just three chapters later, St. Paul encourages us to become, “slaves to righteousness” though our obediance! ⁴

St. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians is another passage that is often used when trying to prove faith and grace alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” ⁵ Many believers stop here, well pleased with their faith – a gift given to them by God’s grace with no strings attached. St. Paul however continues, “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”⁶ What?! God expects us to do good works?! Hasn’t He heard of faith and grace alone?! Certainly He doesn’t want us trying to work our way to heaven does He?!

Sorry true believers, but it’s just possible that Christ actually wants disciples

— 3 —

Here’s the thing. Yes we are saved by grace alone – through faith when the capacity for faith exists – but it is for something that God saves us, and that something is good works! Specifically the good works that we can do through,⁷ with,⁸ and in⁹ Christ Jesus! Outside of Christ our works can have no merit, but having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, it is now incumbent on us to perform the works for which we were created!

— 4 —

To summarize the above, there is nothing we can do to “earn” salvation. We come to baptism by grace alone and are washed clean solely by Christ’s sacrifice. But that is only the beginning. Justification begins a process called sanctification that ultimately will result in our salvation – if we continue to remain in Christ. Remember His parable of the vine and the branches?¹⁰ Here’s a little illustration that seems to somewhat aptly illustrate the point.

— 5 —

According to the catechism, Catholics believe that, “Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith ‘man freely commits his entire self to God.’¹¹ For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ Living faith ‘work[s] through charity.’¹² The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But ‘faith apart from works is dead’¹³ : when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.”¹⁴ 

So faith is not mere intellectual assent. After all, as St. James reminds us, “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.”¹⁵

Faith works itself out in love.

— 6 —

So what does the parable of the talents have to do with faith and works? Lets read the parable below.

“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”¹⁶

— 7 —

There are many who point to the passage in Ephesians and say that salvation is a free gift. That if you do anything to earn it it isn’t free. And they are right. But, let’s examine the parable of the talents. The talents were free gifts – grace and faith leading to salvation. The servants did nothing to earn them. Two of the servants used their talents – faith working in love. One of the servants did not. He buried his talent – he had faith alone. And what was his master’s response?

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit This Ain’t the Lyceum!

1. 1 Peter 3:21a ↩

2. Romans 3:28 ↩

3. James 2:24 ↩

4. Romans 6:15:23 ↩

5. Ephesians 2:8-9 ↩

6. Ephesians 2:10 ↩

7. ‘I am the way. No one can come to the Father except through/by me’ John 14.6, ‘Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand’ Romans 5:1-2 ↩

8. ‘But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him’ Romans 6:8 ↩

9. “May they all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, I pray that they also may be in us” John 17:21, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 ↩

10. John 15:1-10 ↩

11. Dei Verbum 5 ↩

12. Romans 1:17, Galatians 5:6 ↩

13. James 2:24 ↩

14. CCC 814-815 ↩

15. James 2:19 ↩

16. Matthew 25:14-30 ↩

The post On Faith and Works – The Parable of the Talents appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

— 1 —

It is an odd thing to find yourself within a society as schizophrenic as ours. A society which worships at the altar of science while simultaneously denying the existence of absolute truth. A society with an intense craving for “spirituality” and yet one that dismisses out of hand anything that cannot be materially proven. Truth claims – especially claims of absolute truth – are considered to be the height of arrogance – a perspective previously unknown within human history.

All of the ancient Greek philosophers believed that truth corresponded with an objective reality. Aristotle, for instance, wrote in his Metaphysics, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”

Aquinas restates Aristotle rather elegantly, stating simply, “Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things.” In more modern times Steven Robiner has said, “What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity’s ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth.”

— 2 —

Therefore truth claims, absolute or otherwise, shouldn’t be greeted with hostility, but rather with a simple question, “Does this claim conform to reality?” – Tweet This

— 3 —

The Trilemma is a Christian apologetics argument, made popular by C.S. Lewis, which examines the truth claim made by Christ in regards to His divinity. Many Christians are at least generally aware of this argument which is also sometimes referred to as the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. For those who haven’t encountered it before here is the relevant quote from Lewis’ masterpiece Mere Christianity:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”¹

It should be pointed out that for many years Lewis was an atheist. But, rather than taking offense at the truth claims of Christ, he examined them to see if they were true. To see if they corresponded to reality. And let’s make no mistake about it; Christ didn’t claim to be just a way, or a truth; but rather He claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, stating that no man comes to God but by Him. Arrogant? Exclusivist? Hostile? – Or just the truth?

— 4 —

Lewis’ argument is far from perfect, but I would argue that it was never meant to be an airtight proof, or the penultimate logical exercise. Rather, I believe that it was designed to force people off of the fence. To prevent anyone from, as Lewis put it, “…saying the really foolish thing that people often say about [Christ].”

His argument is merely designed to illustrate the foolishness of trying to straddle the fence when confronted with a claim of absolute truth.  Absolute truth is exclusive – both sides can’t be true. We can’t simply cop-out when confronted with a claim of this nature – we must either accept it or reject it. Christ is either God, a poached egg, or the Devil of Hell. He cannot be merely a good man. He cannot be merely a wise teacher.

We cannot comfortably straddle the fence without abandoning logic and reason completely. Without ultimately abandoning truth itself.

— 5 —

I said all of that to say this…  The same is true of the Church which Christ founded.

Much like her founder, the Catholic Church also makes truth claims of an absolute nature. She claims to be the Church founded by Christ. She claims to have direct succession from the Apostles. She claims divine authority. She claims to have infallibly canonized the bible. She claims to have an infallible teaching authority. She claims to be able to forgive men’s sins. She claims the authority to dispense the Sacraments.

She claims the very authority of Christ, and that it was Christ Himself who gave this authority to her. She claims that the fullness of the Christian faith is contained in her.

Many people respond by accusing her of arrogance, hostility, or exclusivity. For those people I would like to suggest a different response – that of the simple question from above, “Do her truth claims conform to reality?”

— 6 —

Study the historical record and the writings of the early Church fathers – disciples who were themselves instructed by Christ’s disciples. Men like Polycarp, Iranaeus, and Clement (two of the Church’s earliest popes are actually mentioned in the New Testament writings – Linus and Clement). Read their words for yourself and ask the question, “Do these claims conform to the historical reality?”

Read the catechism of the Catholic Church with your bible open in your other hand. Look up every cross reference and ask yourself, “Do these claims correspond with the teachings of Scripture?”

If you study the Catholic Church’s claims to truth without hostility and defensiveness you may be surprised by what you find. [Tweet This]

Many others straddle the fence saying, “Well, the Catholic Church is a church to be sure…just not the Church.” Or, “She may contain some truth, but certainly not all truth.” Or even, “All paths really lead to the same place, any brand of religion is as good as any other.” In other words, they seek to straddle the fence.

To these people I would like to say that I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish things that people often say about Christ’s Church…  

— 7 —

I would like to offer an excerpt from an excellent article by Dr. Peter Kreeft, himself a convert to Catholicism. Dr. Kreeft is an author, and a professor of philosophy at Boston College, and in his article Hauled Aboard the Ark, he extends the logic behind Lewis’ trilemma argument, applying it to the question of the truth claims made by Catholic Church.

I thought, just as Jesus made a claim about His identity that forces us into one of only two camps, His enemies or His worshippers, those who call Him liar and those who call Him Lord; so the Catholic Church’s claim to be the one true Church, the Church Christ founded, forces us to say either that this is the most arrogant, blasphemous and wicked claim imaginable, if it is not true, or else that she is just what she claims to be. Just as Jesus stood out as the absolute exception to all other human teachers in claiming to be more than human and more than a teacher, so the Catholic Church stood out above all other denominations in claiming to be not merely a denomination, but the Body of Christ incarnate, infallible, one, and holy, presenting the really present Christ in her Eucharist. I could never rest in a comfortable, respectable ecumenical halfway house of measured admiration from a distance. I had to shout either “Crucify her!” or “Hosanna!” if I could not love and believe her, honesty forced me to despise and fight her.

But I could not despise her. The beauty and sanctity and wisdom of her, like that of Christ, prevented me from calling her liar or lunatic, just as it prevented me from calling Christ that. But simple logic offered then one and only one other option: this must be the Church my Lord provided for me—my Lord, for me. So she had better become my Church if He is my Lord.

I have linked to his full article below, it is well worth the read if you have the time.

Truth is a tricky thing, especially in our day and age. Christ himself was met with both hostility and incredulity, both defensiveness and accusations of arrogance, when He made His claims all those long centuries ago. He forced people to get off the fence; to either acknowledge Him as Lord, or crucify Him as a blasphemer. We must take seriously the claims of both Christ and His Church. We must dispassionately examine them, and then make a decision – we must get off the fence.

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”² ~ Jesus

Hauled Aboard the Ark ~ Dr. Peter Kreeft

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, pp. 54 – 56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, “The Shocking Alternative.” ↩

2. Matthew 12:30 ↩

The post The Catholic Trilemma appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

It is perhaps interesting to note that Christ never commands his disciples to read the Scriptures daily. Living in a culture which was largely illiterate and lacked the technology to produce books, it probably wouldn’t have done much good anyway The vast majority of the people received the Word of God by hearing – not by reading. “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? …So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.”¹

Which is why, when Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount, he says to his audience, “You have heard it said…” not, “You have read…”

He doesn’t tell His disciples to read their bibles daily (there wouldn’t be a “bible” for another 400 years) because in Jesus’s time daily bible reading wasn’t the hallmark of a deeply spiritual life.

Rather, there were three things which were the hallmark of a profoundly religious life. Three things that were so foundational to a meaningful religious life that Jesus doesn’t even command them, but rather He presumes them, telling the crowd, “When you give, when you pray, when you fast….you are to do it in these ways.”

“When you give…”²

Did you notice that? Christ doesn’t command the crowd to give, rather He presumes that they are doing it already. We will see this same presumption repeated with each of these three practices. These practices are so foundational to spiritual life, so necessary, that the practice itself goes without saying. In a similar fashion, when discussing the practices which are necessary for physical life we could say, “When you breathe…”, or, “When you eat…”, or “When you sleep…”

These are the presumed necessities of a life which is spiritually alive, and giving is first on the list. No wonder I’m so bad at it. In my defense I’m Scottish. I prefer to think of myself as frugal rather than cheap, but either way, giving doesn’t come easily for me. And yet this is what the Christian life is to be characterized by. And almsgiving is only a very small part of what it means to give of ourselves. We are to give of our possessions, our forgiveness, our love, our very lives. We are to be people who give in a way that is as fundamental as breathing. Truth be told, I’ve got a long way to go.

But when we do give alms it is to be in secret – without asking for, or receiving, any recognition for our charity.

“When you pray…”³

Again, it’s not a question of if, but when. Luckily, we have the words of St. Paul to tell us when. “Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”⁴ Other translations render it pray without ceasing. And, St. Paul claims that this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for us. Having been raised among Christians who emphasized constant bible reading, the practice of constant prayer has been much more difficult for me.

I also come from a background that viewed prayer in a very constrained way. Prayer was our communication with God and it was felt that it should be largely improvised by the one praying. Within the Catholic tradition I have found that prayer encompasses a much richer definition. Prayers can be improvised or rote, from the Psalms or the saints, entreaties to God or any of His Holy ones who are with Him, meditations on God, or even sung, for as the old saying goes, “he who sings, prays twice.” With this much richer definition, it becomes much easier to find ways to pray without ceasing.

But again, we are told by Christ to pray in secret and not for show. To pray with intent and not with empty words. And then we are given the great gift of the Our Father to help guide our prayers.

“When you fast…”⁵

This is a discipline that I have actually practiced with some degree of regularity throughout my life depending on the season. Of course you wouldn’t know it to look at me. Turns out when I’m not fasting, I’m more or less glutinous in my eating habits. This is why Christ reminds us that, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”⁶ Prayer is more important than eating and God’s words offer far greater sustenance than bread – hence the practice of fasting.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once remarked that, “Fasting detaches you from this world. Prayer reattaches you to the next world.” I would suggest that the practice of giving also detaches you from this world. So we have two practices which help us to disengage from the things of this world and one which helps us to re-engage with the next world and the life to come. And again, there is the injunction of Jesus to fast in secret, “…that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”⁷

So Why All The Secrecy?

If these spiritual disciplines are so fundamental as to be presumed, so necessary to the religious life that they go unsaid; why all the secrecy? The answer is quite simple when we ask the question, “Who are you doing these things for?” If you are merely wanting to impress men with your deep spirituality and religious piety – congratulations! Job accomplished!

But, if you are truly wanting to please God and engage in a lifelong process of sanctification, then the acclaim of men will be very much besides the point, and may in fact lead to further difficulties – namely the sins of pride and hypocrisy. So, when you give, when you fast, and when you pray – do it in secret that your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Far from being just spiritual disciplines to practice during the lenten season, these practices are absolutely essential to our spiritual life in the same way that breathing, eating, and sleeping are absolutely necessary for our physical life.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Romans 10:14 & 17 ↩

2. Matthew 6:2 ↩

3. Matthew 6:5 ↩

4. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 ↩

5. Matthew 6:16 ↩

6. Matthew 4:4b ↩

7. Matthew 6:18 ↩

The post When You Give, When You Pray, When You Fast appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Since we don’t have everyone’s email, I figured it would be easiest to upload this PDF to my blog and let anyone who wanted to read it there. Enjoy, and merry Christmas to all!

Here’s The Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2014:

Christmas Newsletter 2014

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post Crawford Christmas Newsletter 2014 appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Only 500 years ago it would have been absolutely inconceivable to think of any individual Christian simply going out and creating their own church. Christ had already founded a Church on, and through, His apostles. This Church was called by His name – Christian – and it was known as the Church Catholic, i.e. the Christian Church universal.

A church created by someone else 1,500 years after Christ, naming itself not after Christ, but instead naming itself Lutheran after it’s founder Martin Luther (or Calvinist after John Calvin, etc.)? Inconceivable! Churches who define themselves not by their universality, but rather by their protest against the Church universal? Inconceivable! Churches who take their name and define themselves by a very singular aspect of their theology (Adventist, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, Evangelical, etc.)? Inconceivable!

And yet…

500 years ago it would have been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would teach that baptism was not the normative means of salvation. Martin Luther himself wrote in his large Catechism that, “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted.”¹ Baptism was universally seen by Christians as in some sense necessary for salvation, until Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th century denied its necessity.² Now there are literally thousands of Christian denominations (and non-denominations) which teach that baptism is optional, unnecessary, or merely symbolic. Inconceivable!

And yet…

500 years ago it would’ve been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would teach that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was only symbolic. In fact, with the exception of Ulrich Zwingli, all of the Protestant reformers believed in some way that Christ was really present in the communion elements; that His presence was not merely symbolic, metaphorical, or by His activity alone. Zwingli challenged this notion asserting that communion was only symbolic, and countless Protestant churches and denominations have followed suit.

The celebration of the Eucharist has always been at the center of the Mass – reflected in the Scriptures as the reason for the gathering of the early Christians, and pronounced by the Church as the, “source and summit of the faith.” Now merely a metaphor, the Eucharist has been removed from the altar, the central focus of the nave, and regulated to the sides or backs of the auditoriums where many Christians meet; partaken of infrequently if at all. Most Protestant churches are bereft of crucifix, altar, tabernacle, candles, and religious images and statues of any kind. It is the preacher’s podium which has become the central aspect of the church service rather than the real presence of Christ. Inconceivable!

And yet…

500 years ago it would’ve been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would allow for divorce and then permit remarriage. Based on the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures, Christians have always believed that divorce was only permissible in the case of adultery, and if a divorce was granted, both partners were directed to remain celibate so long as their former spouse was alive. But then King Henry VIII came along. The king demanded a divorce and was willing to declare himself Supreme Head of the church (1534) in order to justify his continued divorces and new marriages. What’s good for the king is thus good for the people, and virtually every Protestant church has since followed suit, allowing for both divorce and remarriage by it’s members. Inconceivable!

And yet…

Less than 100 years ago it would have been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would teach that contraception was permissible for married Christians. In issuing Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI relied on the Minority Papal Commission Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. The Minority report argued that: “One can find no period of history, no document of the church, no theological school, scarcely one Catholic theologian, who ever denied that contraception was always seriously evil. The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant. The Orthodox retain this as common teaching today.” 

As a point of historical fact, all of the major reformers shared the view that contraception was a grave moral wrong. It is not until the 1930 Lambeth Conference that the Anglican church first gave approval for birth control in some circumstances. At the 1958 Lambeth Conference it was stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents “in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife.” Virtually every Protestant church has since followed suit permitting it’s members to use contraception as they see fit. Inconceivable!

And yet…

Less than 50 years ago it would have been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would teach that directly causing an abortion was permissible. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.”³ Likewise, Protestant reformer John Calvin followed both the Scriptures and the historical position of the church when he affirmed, “The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life, which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”⁴

Within the last few decades, however, it has become popular for certain theologians, ministers, and Christian denominations to be pro-abortion. The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights has, for instance, adopted the motto, “Prayerfully Pro-choice,” and pro-choice advocates point to it as proof that conscientious Christians can be pro-choice. Several mainline Christian denominations have followed suit including the Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Inconceivable!

And yet…

Less than 50 years ago it would have been absolutely inconceivable to think of any Christian church who would teach that homosexual acts were permissible, much less ordain homosexual clergy or perform homosexual marriages. Historically, Christian churches have regarded homosexual acts as sinful, based on the Catholic understanding of the natural law and a traditional interpretation of certain passages in the Bible.

Recently however, many Christian churches and denominations have interpreted these biblical passages differently and argue that the practice of homosexuality can now be seen as morally acceptable. This approach has been taken by a large number of denominations in the US, notably the United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church, the Anglican Episcopal church, Friends General Conference, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and others. Relatively large denominations have also taken this approach in Europe including United, Reformed and Lutheran Churches, the Anglican Church, the Evangelical Church in Germany, Church of Sweden, Church of Norway, Church of Denmark, Protestant Church of the Netherlands, Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, and others.

In 1989 The Evangelical Network was formed with LGBT Evangelical Christians. It is a network of churches, ministries and Christian workers. A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church, has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. Inconceivable!

And yet…

What will the next decades and centuries bring in the continuing dissolution of the Christian faith? An even more radical departure from historic and orthodox Christian teaching and practice?

Inconceivable?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Large Catechism 4:6, Martin Luther ↩

2. Cross, Frank Leslie; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). “Baptism”. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 151–154. ISBN 0-19-280290-9. OCLC 58998735 ↩

3. Michael Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p. 9. ↩

4. John Calvin, Commentary on Pentateuch, cited in Crisis Pregnancy Center Volunteer Training Manual (Washington, D.C., Christian Action Council, 1984), p. 7 ↩

The post Inconceivable! The Ongoing Dissolution of the Christian Faith appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

When considering the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the most commonly used passage is that of 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” In the text, the actual word used is theopneustos from the Greek, theós, “God” and pnéō, “breathe out”. It is the only place in all of Scripture that we find the term, “God-breathed” – we translate it as inspire.

To inspire is to fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. It is to animate, to fill or to give rise to. Considering this definition, there is another passage of Scripture which immediately springs to mind, one in which we witness God breathing His divine life, His Spirit as it were, into something. In the second creation account we read that, “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”¹ Here man becomes a living being after being filled, after being animated, after being inspired, by God Himself.

To feel someone breath on you is incredibly intimate. A child’s breath as she lays sleeping in your lap, a puppy’s breath as he licks your face, a lovers breath soft on your neck. Humanity came into existence as God breathed into our nostrils the very breath of life. The inspired Scriptures came into existence as God breathed His inspiration into the authors of the divine Word. Close, intimate; filling and shaping and empowering. A divine breath…

There is another spot in the New Testament writings where we are able to witness this divine breath, this inspiration – but it is often missed.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”²

Here we see Christ’s apostles filled, animated, inspired – with the very Spirit of God! They are filled with inspired authority – God-breathed authority! Christ breathes on them and fills them with His own divine authority and Holy Spirit.

Remember the definition of the word inspire? To fill someone with the urge or ability to do something. That something may be writing sacred Scripture. It may also be forgiving men’s sins.

And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.³

The scribes immediately realize that the the forgiveness of sins is the purview of God alone – for a man to forgive sins is blasphemy. But here is the God/man Jesus who demonstrates His authority to forgive sins in the healing of the paralytic. The paradigm has been forever changed. Seeing this, the crowds glorify God, “who had given such authority to men.” Notice that the authority is given to men – not to Christ alone. This sets the stage for Christ to hand on this authority to other men in John 20:22-23 – namely his disciples. In the person of Christ, God-breaths into them His Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins.

Inspired indeed.

St. Paul connects the dots for us when he writes of being first reconciled to God through Christ, and then in turn, being given the ministry of reconciliation.

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.⁴

Christ at work in us, and with us, and through us. Inspiration – the very breath of God creating new life, preserving His Word inerrant; and through His ministers of reconciliation, His ambassadors, His apostles, bringing His forgiveness and reconciliation to the world.

Truly, this is the inspiration of reconciliation!

It is so incredibly freeing to hear the words of absolution pronounced by the priest in the confessional, “God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of your Son, You have reconciled the world to Yourself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon and peace.” And then through the priest, breathed by Christ Himself into my ear, “I absolve you of your sins.”

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Genesis 2:7 ↩

2. John 20:22-23 ↩

3. Matthew 9:2-8 ↩

4. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 ↩

The post God Breathed: The Inspiration of Reconciliation appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Many people are unaware of the fact that the word Eucharist means Thanksgiving. Based on the ecclesiastical Greek eukharistia ‘thanksgiving,’ and coming from the Greek eukharistos ‘grateful,’ it is a combination of eu “well” and, kharizesthai “offer graciously.” Fundamentally then, to celebrate the Eucharist is to give thanks.

Which is why it seemed so appropriate for us to begin our Thanksgiving celebration by going to Mass. It was a great service. I especially enjoyed Fr. Legerski’s homily and his reminder to us that it is far more important to keep our focus on who we are grateful to rather than just on what we are grateful for. In other words we should be grateful for not just the gifts that we receive, but even more so for Giver of all good gifts.

“Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”¹

The First Thanksgiving

Most people are at least generally aware of the “first” Thanksgiving celebrated by the Pilgrims, who having landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts, endured many hardships before being befriended by Native Americans. This native intervention has commonly been attributed to divine providence as it is doubtful whether the Pilgrims would have long survived without the aid of their Indian friends.

After surviving their first year, and in celebration of their first successful harvest in the New World, they celebrated a Thanksgiving feast with their Native American friends in the autumn of 1621.

What most people are generally unaware of is the story of the Indian who came to their aid, a man named Tisquantum, but commonly called Squanto.

Squanto’s Story

Squanto’s story actually intersects with that of another rather well known historical figure, John Smith. It was actually Thomas Hunt, Smith’s renegade subordinate, who had kidnapped Squanto with more than a score of his fellows, taking them across the seas to Spain to be sold into slavery.

“In fact, Hunt managed to sell only a few of his captives before local Roman Catholic priests seized the rest—the Spanish Church vehemently opposed brutality toward Indians. (In 1537 Pope Paul III had proclaimed [in a papal bull entitled Sublimis Dei] that “Indians themselves indeed are true men” and should not be “deprived of their liberty” and “reduced to our service like brute animals.”) The priests intended to save both Tisquantum’s [Squanto’s] body, by preventing his enslavement, and his soul, by converting him to Christianity,”²

His story back to the New World would take more time than I wish to devote to it here, but suffice it to say he returned to his homeland a baptized Catholic who was also fluent in English.

Divine Providence at Work

While the Pilgrims certainly saw divine providence at work in Squanto’s aid, they may not have realized to just what lengths God had been involved in Squanto’s kidnapping, miraculous release from slavery, conversion, and lengthy return to his home in America – a journey that was fraught with it’s own dangers and difficulties.

“Without Squanto – and, indirectly at least, the Pope and some Jesuit priests – the fate of the Puritan Pilgrims would have been vastly different, and Thanksgiving would likely have never taken place. Squanto was, as Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation wrote of him,”

“A spetiall [sic] instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations.”³

It’s appropriate on this day to look back to that first Thanksgiving and acknowledge God’s hand at work, both then and now. To offer thanks not just for what we have, but also from whom we have it. To pause and give praise to the giver of all good gifts; but most importantly to thank the One who was willing to give His only Son.

Much like the Pilgrims of old, we lack the skills necessary to survive this life and enter into the next without the help of a divine emissary. Without Christ we are poor, afraid, and alone – starving and dying without aid. And yet He came, speaking our language, living amongst us, and showing us a better way.

A Eucharistic Thanksgiving

Truly the greatest gift we have been given is Christ Himself. And at every Mass we receive Christ Himself fed to us in the Word and in the Eucharist – a true Thanksgiving meal! To partake of our Lord, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist is “comfort” food indeed – food for our very souls.

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”⁴ ~ Jesus

Happy Thanksgiving!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. James 1:17 ↩

2. Charles C. Mann, Native Intelligence, Smithsonian Magazine December 2005 ↩

3. Fr. Gordon J. Macrae, The True Story of Thanksgiving: Squanto, the Pilgrims, and the Pope ↩

4. John 6:48-51 ↩

The post A Eucharistic Thanksgiving appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

— 1 —

As you can see from the photo above – last week we had the opportunity to hang out with some really great people!

I actually grew up with Alex – I’ve known him since literally before I was born. Our dads were in the Air Force at the time, and we were both born over seas in Germany. Our folks ended up in largely the same spots over the years and we basically grew up as brothers. So, as you can imagine, it’s been fun to start watching him on TV now that he is with Nelson Treehouse and Supply and being featured on Animal Planet’s hit show, Tree House Masters!

— 2 —

With all the travel that he does for the show we typically only get to catch up once or twice a year so it’s always a treat when ‘Uncle Alex’ comes to town. For my boys, having an uncle who’s a famous TV personality, treehouse builder, rock climber, and all around adventurer is pretty cool – especially when compared to plain old dad

Alex has actually been in our neck of the woods for the last few weeks working on a build and so we’ve had the pleasure of catching up with him a bit. He even made it to the final football game of the regular season for my oldest son Logan and got to cheer him on from the stands while trying to keep a low profile with all the locals who kept recognizing him from the show!

— 3 —

Incidentally, in other big news – Logan’s team won the PVL (Pioneer Valley League) Championship and Logan was declared Defensive Player of the Year for the entire league!

Here he is making a diving tackle to force a fumble below.

— 4 —

Last weekend Alex invited us to come check out the current treehouse that the crew is working on for the show. He had ordered in Nelson Treehouse and Supply T-shirts for all of us, and he showed us around the site, giving us the full tour and letting us climb up into the treehouse to check everything out. We even got to meet Pete Nelson and get some photos! The boys had a really great time checking out everything at the job site!

Afterwards, he came out to the house and we had a very enjoyable evening of sipping hand selected single barrel Jack Daniels, sitting in front of a roaring fire, and just catching up. We also ended up recording a podcast while we rambled on about everything and nothing at all. Here’s a link to the show – enjoy!

AFFL #013 Masters of the Treehouse (and maybe the Universe)

— 5 —

And then there were all the septic issues…

So, we ended up with a backed up line which resulted in this over the last week and a half.

Initially we thought that we could just have a plumber come out and snake the line, but then it turned out that a clean out had never been installed. No problem, I figured we could save some money by digging down to the pipe ourselves.

Turns out the septic tank was about four and half feet under ground and the main line had become disconnected from the tank! Yep, you guessed it – time to replace all the lines from the house to the tank and get it done right! We talk about it in the podcast below and play a little game I like to call, “Where did you Poo?”

AFFL #012 It All Runs Down Hill…

— 6 —

Other than that, life’s been fairly uneventful. I’ve begun to realize that I don’t pray consistently enough. And I’m not saying that because of the septic problems! I’m just acknowledging that it’s an area of my life which could use some work. I often feel as though I get far more out of reading the Scriptures, studying theology, or reading some other religious work than I do from prayer. It is as St. Jerome said, “When we pray we speak to God; but when we read, God speaks to us.” 

And yet I know that I need to be far more diligent in speaking to God.

— 7 —

A few quotes on prayer:

“Man by prayer merits to receive that which God had from all eternity determined to give him.” St. Gregory

“For prayer is nothing else than being on terms of friendship with God.” St. Teresa of Avila

“It is simply impossible to lead, without the aid of prayer, a virtuous life.” St John Chrysostom

“To recite the rosary is nothing other than to contemplate with Mary the face of Christ.” St John Paul II

If you don’t mind, share some of your favorite quotes on prayer with me in the comments section below. Pray for me, and I will pray for you. Until next time,

– An Tiarna leibh –
(the Lord be with you)

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

The post To The Trees! Hanging Out With The Tree House Masters! appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Everyone Follows a Pope

In a previous post I answered the question, “Do you follow the Pope or Jesus?” If you haven’t read it yet, I would suggest taking a moment to do so now so that there is no confusion moving forward; but for those of you who don’t have the time, here’s a brief summary. When asked, “Do you follow the pope or Jesus?” my answer is an unqualified “yes” for the following two reasons:

1. There is no contradiction.
2. It is in following Jesus that I am willing to submit to the authority He has placed over me.

In this post I would like to go on to suggest something rather audacious. Everyone follows a pope. This is true for Protestants as well as Catholics. The pope you follow may be a TV evangelist, a theologian, a Christian author, a particular denomination, or pastor, but make no mistake we all have someone who fills the role of the ultimate spiritual authority in our lives –  even if it is just ourself.

No One Wants to Be a Pawn

I know that my Protestant friends will immediately object, saying that for them the only authority in their lives are the Holy Scriptures. I can sympathize – I used to make the same claim. But in reality, this is a claim to an “authority” which lacks the means to adjudicate. While it is true that Scripture is authoritative, it cannot by itself be an authority. Why? Because Scripture must always be interpreted by an individual – and to be frank, most of us aren’t bible scholars.

We don’t speak Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. We don’t live in the Ancient Near East, and we certainly aren’t a part of that culture or those times. We’re not trained theologians; I mean lets face it, most of us are blissfully unaware of the various literary genres employed within the text, much less being able to differentiate between the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses of Scripture. I read an excellent article the other day entitled 3 Ways Not to Use Greek in Bible Study, which made the following three points:

1. Usage trumps etymology
2. Scholars are necessary
3. Context is king

All three points (and their explanations) are excellent, but I would like to focus on point number two.

Scholars are Necessary

We can see this most clearly when we look at the account of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles who sat in his chariot reading the Scriptures.

“Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to this chariot and join it.’ So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.”¹

In other words, the bible acknowledges that it can be a difficult book to understand. St. Peter says as much when he writes, “There are some things in [the letters of Paul] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”²

Gilbert Meilaender, a Lutheran who holds the Phyllis and Richard Duesenberg Chair in Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University, wrote an article in the November 2007 issue of First Things, entitled Conscience and Authority, in which he quotes a Methodist theologian who says, “I cannot accept the conflation of genuine obedience to the gospel with ‘submission’ to authority. In fact, in the name of ­Christian freedom and the priesthood of all believers Protestants must oppose the enterprise of concentrating power in the hands of elites to whom everyone else is to submit. Truth, especially hermeneutic truth, is not a subset of authority; authority, for a Protestant, must be based on truth.” 

“Which,” as Meilaender points out, “is to say, of course, that there is no genuine authority other than the aesthetic power of the genius.”

How authoritative, in other words, is your interpretation of Scripture? Is your interpretation infallible? Are you some sort of sublime genius? If not; is it really Scriptural authority that you appeal to or merely your own? – Tweet This

Some Would be Pastors and Teachers

“The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.”³

It is because we are not all bible scholars (or theologians, or geniuses) that God has gifted His body with apostles, pastors, and teachers in order to equip His saints. It is His Church which is to be the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth”⁴ – not you and I as individuals. And, according to the Scriptures, this Church has been gifted with leaders to equip the saints. “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”⁵

I would submit that even Protestants recognize the need for this authority structure within the Church. In 1988 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution affirming that the pastor was the ruler of the church. W. A. Criswell said, “Lay leadership of the church is unbiblical when it weakens the pastor’s authority as ruler of the church . . . a laity-led church will be a weak church anywhere on God’s earth. The pastor is ruler of the church.” 

That’s pretty strong language for folks who dismiss the idea of a pope as being entirely un-biblical! But, as a matter of fact, this need for ecclesial authority was something that was recognized by the fathers of the Reformation themselves!

The New “Popes” of the Reformation

The following excerpts are from Dr. David Anders’ excellent article entitled, How John Calvin made me a Catholic:

“In Calvin’s native France, there was no royal support for Protestantism and no unified leadership. Lawyers, humanists, intellectuals, artisans and craftsman read Luther’s writings, as well as the Scriptures, and adapted whatever they liked. This variety struck Calvin as a recipe for disaster. He was a lawyer by training, and always hated any kind of social disorder. In 1549, he wrote a short work (Advertissement contre l’astrologie) in which he complained about this Protestant diversity: ‘Every state [of life] has its own Gospel, which they forge for themselves according to their appetites, so that there is as great a diversity between the Gospel of the court, and the Gospel of the justices and lawyers, and the Gospel of merchants, as there is between coins of different denominations.’

I began to grasp the difference between Calvin and his descendants when I discovered his hatred of this theological diversity. Calvin was drawn to Luther’s theology, but he complained about the “crass multitude” and the “vulgar plebs” who turned Luther’s doctrine into an excuse for disorder. He wrote his first major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), in part to address this problem.

Calvin got an opportunity to put his plans into action when he moved to Geneva, Switzerland. He first joined the Reformation in Geneva in 1537, when the city had only recently embraced Protestantism. Calvin, who had already begun to write and publish on theology, was unsatisfied with their work. Geneva had abolished the Mass, kicked out the Catholic clergy, and professed loyalty to the Bible, but Calvin wanted to go further. His first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by Calvin) and to force all citizens to affirm it. Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory. Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.

Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated.⁶ Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent.

Calvin once persuaded an Anabaptist named Herman to enter the Reformed Church. His description of the event leaves no doubt about the difference between Calvin and the modern Evangelical. Calvin wrote: ‘Herman has, if I am not mistaken, in good faith returned to the fellowship of the Church. He has confessed that outside the Church there is no salvation, and that the true Church is with us. Therefore, it was defection when he belonged to a sect separated from it.’⁷ Evangelicals don’t understand this type of language. They are accustomed to treating ‘the Church’ as a purely spiritual reality, represented across denominations or wherever ‘true believers’ are gathered. This was not Calvin’s view. His was ‘the true Church,’ marked off by infant baptism,⁸ outside of which there was no salvation.”

Calvin believed in the authority of Scripture alone – provided it was his interpretation of Scripture, and his interpretation alone.

It is obvious that Calvin didn’t believe that the, “crass multitudes” and, “vulgar plebs” were able to properly interpret Scripture for themselves with the Holy Spirit to guide them. He wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion precisely to, “aid those who desire to be instructed in the doctrine of salvation,” – a noble cause to be sure, but so much for the doctrine of perspicuity! The bible (and the doctrine of salvation) are apparently so easy to understand that they require a twenty-two volume work to make them clear!

Going far beyond Calvin’s commentary on the Scriptures, Martin Luther simply changed the Scriptures to suit his theology. He adds a word here, removes seven Old Testament books there, and vigorously petitions to remove New Testament books as well – especially the Epistle of James saying, “St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” In defending himself, Luther wrote,

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.’ …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I…Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: ‘Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.’ Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”⁹

Papal authority indeed!

The Necessity of Human Authority

The long and the short of it is that it is impossible to be a Christian and not submit to some form of human authority. I will repeat what I said earlier, all of us as Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, follow a “pope”. The pope you follow may be a TV evangelist, a theologian, a Christian author, a particular denomination, or pastor, but make no mistake we all have someone who fills the role of the ultimate spiritual authority in our lives – even if it is just ourself.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”¹⁰

The good news is, submitting to authority is entirely Scriptural. The bad news is you aren’t the infallible authority on which Christ established His Church and through which He promised to preserve it.¹¹ – Tweet This

As Dr. Jeff Mirus points out in responding to Meilaender’s article, “The article looks squarely at three imperatives which Meilaender takes as givens:

1. The need for the ‘Church’ to speak with authority in order to preserve and transmit Christianity.¹²
2. The need for the individual Christian to respect that authority.
3. The need for the Christian to form his conscience ultimately through a direct personal relationship with God.

As the author rightly notes, these givens necessarily create a tension which cannot be completely resolved. After struggling for some 5,000 words to maintain both the authority of the ‘Church’ and the primacy of the individual conscience, Meilaender concludes that when the individual Christian feels bound to disagree with the ‘Church’, he may do so only while acknowledging that he cannot claim ‘Church’ authority for his decision.”¹³

Resolving the Tension

There is a way to resolve this tension. If Christ established His Church on the Apostles saying something along the lines of, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”¹⁴ And if Scripture actually bore witness to this saying something like, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”¹⁵ And if Scripture furthermore instructed us to,“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you.”¹⁶

Well then…. this apparent conflict between individual conscience and Church authority could all be resolved by forming one’s conscience according to the Church’s teaching authority – without exception. In other words, rather than trying to conform the church to our whims, we should allow Christ to work through His Church in order to properly form us.

And that goes double for dissenting and rebellious Catholics.

“Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away. In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders.”¹⁷

It is Christ’s plan that Peter should lead His Church.

We all follow a pope – be sure that you follow the right one! – Tweet This

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Acts 8:29-31 ↩

2. 2 Peter 3:16b ↩

3. Ephesians 4:11-13 ↩

4. 1 Timothy 3:15b ↩

5. Acts 20:28 ↩

6. “The Consistory of Geneva, 1559-1569,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 38 (1976): 467-484 ↩

7. Letters of John Calvin, trans. M. Gilchrist, ed. J.Bonnet, New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, I: 110-111 ↩

8. Calvin associated regeneration with baptism and taught that to neglect baptism was to refuse salvation. He also allowed no diversity over the manner of its reception. Anabaptists in Geneva (those who practiced adult baptism) were jailed and forced to repent. Calvin taught that Anabaptists, by refusing the sacrament to their children, had placed themselves outside the faith. ↩

9. Martin Luther, Open Letter on Translating, 1530 ↩

10. Romans 13:1-2 ↩

11. Matthew 16:18-19 ↩

12. Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, Matthew 18:17-18, 1 Timothy 3:15b ↩

13. Conscience and Authority: The Protestant Dilemma, Dr. Jeff Mirus ↩

14. Matthew 16:18-19 ↩

15. Ephesians 2:19-20 ↩

16. Hebrews 13:17 ↩

17. 1 Peter 5:1-5a ↩

The post Everyone Follows a Pope appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

— 1 —

Today I celebrate twenty-one years of marriage with my bride! It’s hard for me to believe that so many years have gone by already.

We’ve been blessed. We’ve had far more joy than sorrow, far more good times than bad. Over the years, we’ve been in love more than out, and we’ve grown closer together rather than farther apart.

It hasn’t always been easy, Lord knows I’m not saying that! We’ve had our share of hard times and hurt feelings, we’ve said bitter words and kept bitter hearts.

But through it all, we’ve stayed true to a promise that we made to each other over two decades ago.

— 2 —

We’ve lived our lives constrained by this promise – a promise that we made to each other when we were still children. She was nineteen, and I was twenty.

We didn’t understand what we were promising on that day. How could we have? When we said the words, “For better or for worse, in sickness and in health,” the worst we could imagine was having to care for each other if we got sick with the flu.

Since then we have learned the meaning of good times and bad. But our vows have held us together. Marriage is what holds us together.

— 3 —

My brother posted a comment on Facebook telling us that he was proud of us. I really appreciated his comment, and I have to admit that I am proud of us as well! A successful marriage spanning not just months or years, but actual decades has become something of a counter-cultural statement in our society.

Marriage isn’t easy, and we have witnessed far too many of our friends and family who have experienced the heart-rending pain of divorce.

But as I look on Facebook today, I see a post from friends of ours who were married on the very same day that we were; and they too are still together after twenty-one years. I see another post from some of our friends who also share an anniversary with us and are celebrating their fifteenth year of marriage today.

We may be increasingly uncommon, but we are not the only ones. Marriage is what brings us together.

— 4 —

I want to take something back that I said earlier.

I am not proud, I am blessed.

I am blessed to have found such a wonderful woman. I am blessed to have the support of friends and family who love us, pray for us, and give us a swift kick in the butt when we need it. I am blessed to have been given the children that I have. I am blessed to have the in-laws and extended family that came as a package deal with my wife.

I have been blessed with the grace and the endurance necessary to remain married for these twenty-one years, and if God has graced me in these ways, then surely He has done far more so for my wife! Grace is what keeps us together.

— 5 —

You see, marriage is a sacrament. It is a means by which God conveys His grace to us. And this grace is something that I don’t deserve, it is a gift. My marriage is a gift. It is God’s gift to myself, my wife, our children, and hopefully those we come in contact with.

Twenty-one years ago we made promises. We took vows. And God has been faithful. He has given us the grace to keep those promises and the strength to live up to those vows. This sacrament keeps us together.

— 6 —

Today, marriage is in jeopardy. Marriage, once so foundational to civilization itself, has now become irrelevant. The idea of one man and one woman entering into a sacramental and covenantal relationship, the idea of choosing to constrain your choices and actions by the vows you take, the decision to commit the rest of your life to one person only; this institution is profoundly counter-cultural in today’s world.

Marriage is no longer mainstream, marriage has become subversive in a culture without moral norms.

And that’s okay. Nothing spices up a marriage like some subversive and countercultural efforts!

Because ultimately, when I see the heartache that our friends have experienced in divorce, when I look at the disintegration of the American family, when I watch as people become more and more obsessed with themselves and less and less able to give of themselves fully to another; I sit back and realize that it’s okay to go against the flow.

— 7 —

There’s a tendency in life to gravitate towards one of two extremes. We tend to either take credit for all of the success in our life or none of it. Either it was all God or all me.

The truth, of course, is far more subtle and profound. We are invited to participate with God in His works, and He delights in partnering with us in our vocations. He doesn’t promise that it will be easy, but when we live our lives in Him, and with Him, and through Him, then we can declare with St. Paul that His grace is sufficient for us.

Once we were two – now we are one, and truly it is the gift of marriage that has brought us together.

I love you babe – now more than ever!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

The post Marriage is What Brings us Together appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Evangelical Christians often enjoy asking cradle Catholics if they have been, “born again”. If you ask them what they mean by “born again”, you will more than likely get an answer like this: “You are born again when you believe in Jesus Christ and put your faith in Him. To be born again you should pray the Sinner’s Prayer, and ask Christ to come into your heart.” This question, and its explanation, frequently confuses Catholics, many of whom aren’t quite sure how to respond. Often they will simply stand there with their mouth ajar and a blank stare on their face. Evangelical Christians love this response. “Aha!” they think, “I knew it! Catholic’s aren’t even Christians!”

I know of at least one Catholic however who has the perfect response. Steve Ray, a Catholic author, speaker, and certified guide to the Holy Land answers,

“When someone asks me ‘Have you been born again?’ I simply answer ‘Absolutely! But I’ve been born again the Bible Way!’“ 

Let me tell you from first hand experience, when an evangelical Christian is told by a Catholic that they have been born again the “bible way” it tends to confuse them. They often simply stand there with their mouth ajar and a blank stare on their face. After all, they’re used to calling themselves the “bible” Christians.

The Problem

The problem with the common evangelical conception of being born again is just this: it is entirely un-biblical.

Allow me to illustrate. Please direct me to where I can find the “Sinner’s Prayer” in the bible.

No? Then please refer me to the verses which talk about, “asking Jesus into your heart”.

Coming forward after an altar call?

Hmmm…it would appear that we have a problem…

Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, I want to take a step back for a moment and admit something. I don’t have a problem with the sinner’s prayer per se. I don’t even have a problem if we visualize welcoming Christ, “into our hearts”. But, we should be clear that these practices certainly do not come from the bible alone – something that Protestants typically insist on. Furthermore, when we look to the Scriptures, we find that these things actually have nothing to do with the practice of being born again as described by Christ Himself.

Believe and Be Baptized

I was [briefly] talking with one of my sisters the other day about baptism. She and her family are helping to lead a small group at the Baptist church that they attend. They are working with a new family who want to become members of the church, but are struggling with the fact that they will be required to be re-baptized before becoming members. The wife of this family was christened as an infant in the Lutheran church that she grew up in, and for the life of her, she can’t understand why she is now being told that her baptism wasn’t valid.

My sister told me, “I know that we won’t agree on this issue, but in our church it is necessary that one be baptized as an adult. We’ve explained to her that baptism doesn’t save you, it is only an outward sign of an inward reality.”

At this point I asked her, “Where does the bible say that?”

She replied, “Over and over again we see the words, ‘believe and be baptized, believe and be baptized.’ It is our belief which saves us, the baptism is merely an outward sign of what has already occurred inwardly. With the exception of maybe one passage in the bible, the only people we see being baptized are adults. Since infants can’t possibly believe, they shouldn’t be baptized.”

Since this particular issue wasn’t really the point of our conversation, and since we both knew that we didn’t see eye to eye on the subject, we didn’t really linger on the topic. But it did get me thinking. Because for the vast majority of my life I would have agreed with her statements, and until even very recently I would have probably asked the question, “Is it really that important whether or not we as Christians agree on this issue?”

The Answer

The answer, of course, is, “It depends.” 

If baptism is only symbolic – if it doesn’t really do anything, then no – it doesn’t really matter all that much. This is the position that the vast majority of Protestant Christians have taken. Baptism is only a symbol. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Of course, for me this only leads to the following question:

Why is it that this purely symbolic non-necessary action requires adult belief to be “valid”? Valid in what sense? A valid symbol?

If on the other hand baptism in not merely symbolic but also efficacious (causing an effect) – If in other words, in addition to being symbolic it also does what it says it does – then yes, it vitally important that we understand and agree on the necessity of baptism; especially as it relates to being born again.

Both Protestants and Catholics appear to largely agree on the symbolic nature of baptism. Where they tend to disagree is on the question of whether or not baptism also actually does anything. While resonating with the idea of baptism as, “an outward sign of an inward reality”, Catholics are careful to note that the sacraments are, “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.”¹ So what exactly does baptism claim to do from a Scriptural standpoint? Let’s take a look.

• “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;'”²
• “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”³
•  “Baptism,… now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”⁴

It seems relatively clear from a Scriptural standpoint that baptism is not merely symbolic but that it also does something – namely wash us of our sins and save us. In fact, to come full circle back to where we began, as it turns out Baptism is the biblical method for being born again!

Born Again the Bible Way!

Many will be surprised to learn that the only biblical use of the term “born again” occurs in John 3:3-5. We do however, see similar and related expressions such as “new birth” or “regeneration” found elsewhere in Scripture.⁵ With that in mind however, it may be useful to turn to John chapter 3 and look at the term “born again” in its rightful context.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”⁶

What could Christ have meant when He spoke of being born of, “water and Spirit”? To answer the question we could turn back a few short verses and read the account of Jesus’ own baptism:

And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”⁷

John, who baptized with water, here testifies of Christ who has come not just to baptize with water, but also with the Holy Spirit. This makes perfect sense of Christ’s words to Nicodemus that one must be, “born of water and the Spirit.”

Or we could continue reading the verses immediately following Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus when the text goes on to say, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.”⁸

Either way, we will see that the context of new birth – what Jesus refers to as being, “born again”, is entirely about baptism – both by water and the Spirit. This is reinforced throughout the New Testament in texts such as Titus 3:5 which reads, “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

Scriptural Types

Indeed this typology – the new birth of water and Spirit – is repeated over and over throughout all of Scripture, beginning with the very creation account in Genesis! “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.“⁹ Here we see the earth, and indeed all of creation, born of water and Spirit. In a similar way when the earth is reborn after the flood we also see it born anew (or born-again) by water and Spirit. “the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated; …He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove [a symbol of the Holy Spirit] came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.”¹⁰

St. Peter himself draws our attention to this connection between Noah’s flood and baptism when he writes, “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”¹¹

The nation of Israel was born of water and the Spirit as they passed through the Red Sea, led by the Spirit of God as a pillar of fire or cloud.¹² God promises a rebirth for the nation of Israel and a New Covenant saying, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, …A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you;”¹³ Again, the cleansing of water and the gift of the Spirit.

Christ is baptized by John in water and the Spirit descends (like a dove) upon His head,¹⁴ and He then teaches Nicodemus that unless we are born of water and Spirit we will not enter the kingdom of God.

This is, and always has been the prescription for new birth. It is why He commissions His disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;”¹⁵ Did you notice that He doesn’t instruct them to lead others in the sinner’s prayer? Or instruct them to use altar calls, inviting people forward to ask Jesus into their hearts? They are to create disciples by baptizing and then they are to teach them to obey all that Christ commands. I fear that too many Christians have strayed far afield from the instructions of this commission.

But it is because of this commission that St. Peter tells the crowd, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”¹⁶

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Born again the bible way!

This Promise is to You and Your Children

But isn’t belief a necessary component of being baptized? Contrary to what most Protestants think, I could only find a single scriptural reference which directly links the two: Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved;” 

The vast majority of verses dealing with baptism speak far more of repentance than belief. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that belief shouldn’t be a part of an adult conversion, but as St. Peter points out, “the promise is to you and your children…” and we see this reflected in multiple places in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and in St. Paul’s writings.

• “And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’¹⁷
• “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.”¹⁸
• “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”¹⁹
• “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas”²⁰

Additionally, there are many places where Acts records crowds of thousands being baptized without telling us who is in the crowd. In contrast to this,

Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see a prohibition against baptizing infants.

Obviously, the first converts to Christianity were adults. For them conversion consisted of belief and repentance which culminated in the new birth of baptism and the Spirit. But, as these early converts had children it was natural for them to initiate their children into the family of God; into this new life and second birth. It is Christ who teaches us that unless one is born again, “he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” and it is also Christ who asserts that the kingdom of God belongs to the children – who are we to keep them from it?

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”²¹

Reflecting on this, St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?” 

St. Paul teaches that baptism replaces the circumcision of the Old Covenant,²² and we should note that the Jews circumcised their infants on the eighth day after birth. In fact, in the early Church the argument wasn’t over whether or not infants should be baptized, but rather over whether or not parents had to wait a full eight days before baptizing their babies! The Council of Carthage, in AD 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth arguing that requiring parents to wait that long before baptizing their infant was waiting too long!

Origen wrote that, “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants.”²³ and later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.”²⁴

Circumcision was the rite of initiation into the Old Covenant; Baptism the rite of initiation into the New. From the earliest days of the Church, Christians everywhere have followed suit, baptizing their infants into the New Covenant, into God’s family, and into new life as they are washed clean of the stain of original sin.

Final Thoughts

Finally, we should remember that Scripture teaches that baptism is the means of new birth, of being born again, and a new birth by definition is a beginning – not the end. Those who believe in a doctrine of, “once saved, always saved” often equate salvation with a mere intellectual assent to the truth along with a simple prayer of faith. In their view this prayer of faith is both the beginning and the end. They’ve been saved! Process complete!

But salvation (as the bible teaches it) merely begins as we are born again to new life in the waters of baptism and the indwelling of God’s Spirit. The stain of original sin is removed, grace is imparted, and another soul has been welcomed through adoption into the family of God!

But, this is only the beginning of the process – not it’s end! How foolish we’d appear if we were to look at a newborn and say, “Well, that’s it! You’ve arrived! Well done, now just sit back and relax, the hard part is over!” In some ways that may be true, but in many more ways the hardest parts are still to come. The hard work of sanctification is now before us!

It is because Catholics believe so fully in the grace of God alone that we are willing to baptize our infants who are completely unable to earn their salvation – even by putting their faith in God.

It is because Catholics believe that salvation is also a process that we acknowledge that this new life will still require the individual to, “work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling;” because having been born anew, “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”²⁵

Amen! Welcome to the beginning!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1131 ↩

2. Acts 2:38a ↩

3. Acts 22:16 ↩

4. 1 Peter 3:21 ↩

5. Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23 ↩

6. John 3:3-5 ↩

7. John 1:31-34 ↩

8. John 3:22 ↩

9. Genesis 1:2 ↩

10. Genesis 8:2-3, 10-11 ↩

11. 1 Peter 3:20b-21 ↩

12. Exodus 13,14 & CF 1 Corinthians 10:2 ↩

13. Ezekiel 36:25-26a ↩

14. Matthew 3:16, John 1:29 ↩

15. Matthew 28:19-20b ↩

16. Acts 2:38b-39 ↩

17. Acts 16:15a ↩

18. Acts 16:33 ↩

19. Acts 18:8 ↩

20. 1 Corinthians 1:16 ↩

21. Luke 15:16-18 ↩

22. Colossians 2:11-12 ↩

23. Origen, Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244] ↩

24. Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408] ↩

25. Philippians 2:12b-13 ↩

The post Baptism, Babies, and being Born-Again appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

I have a difficult enough time defending my own words and actions. It’s a new and disconcerting experience for me to be asked to defend the words, writings, and actions of the entire Church Catholic. Nevertheless, I find that often times well meaning friends and family outside of the Catholic Church will ask me to attempt to explain the Pope’s latest interview, or, in this case, the Synod on the Family. Well, you asked for it.

— 1 —

Over the last couple of weeks there has been a tidal wave of media coverage regarding the Synod on the Family; largely because Pope Francis has gone out of his way to make sure that the entire proceedings were presented with complete transparency. Pope Francis encouraged participants to speak freely, prayed for the gift of parresia (a Greek term meaning openness); and then allowed for daily press briefings, made public the interim report, published the working groups notes, and disclosed the participants vote counts on the final document. All this transparency is good – and bad.

— 2 —

There has been a lot of confusion. Part of this stems from the fact that the media covering the event has their own obvious agenda when reporting on anything Catholic. Part of this stems from the differing views amongst the bishops on how the Church is to pastorally address such issues as homosexuality, and whether those who have been divorced and remarried could be readmitted to the sacrament of communion without an annulment.

For those observing from the outside it has appeared to be a synod deeply divided. Liberal bishops versus conservative bishops. Individual conscience versus Church authority. Truly, a tale of two synods.

For many of the Catholic faithful, myself included, there came a moment in the proceedings that I will call a “hippocratic moment”;  a moment when I was suddenly no longer concerned with any possible good that might come from the synod, but instead I was feverishly praying that the bishops would, “First (and foremost) do no harm!”

— 3 —

There has been a lot of talk about “gradualism”, with many people attempting to equate the word with “progressivism.” In other words, they understand gradualism to mean that the Church is slowly – gradually – moving away from orthodoxy and towards a more progressive, and indeed a more liberal stance on issues such as divorce and homosexuality. Gradualism sounds a lot like relativism – no?

Actually, gradualism is a principle that has been at work in the Christian Church from it’s very beginning. Gradualism is a principle of Catholic moral theology which encourages people to grow closer to God and His plan for their lives while acknowledging that sanctification is a long and slow process of small steps, rather than expecting individuals to jump from initial conversion to perfection in a single step.

St. Paul speaks of it in this way, “I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh.”¹ To be clear, we don’t leave people where they are at, but we do realize that we must encourage as much as we exhort, and that we must try and help them to take the small steps that will bring them closer and closer to Christ.

— 4 —

The law of graduality aside, there were a minority of bishops in the synod who were pushing for a more liberal agenda. And the midterm report released by the synod seemed unduly influenced by this minority viewpoint. There was talk of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to return to the sacrament of the Eucharist on a case by case basis after an appropriate period of penance, and a section that read,

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” The report also said that,“Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners,” 

While it is important to evaluate how the Church welcomes those who have strayed from the teachings of Christ, it is also important to keep in mind the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput who said that, “None of us are welcomed on our own terms in the Church. We are welcomed on Jesus’ terms, that’s what it means to be a Christian. You submit yourself to Jesus and his teaching. You don’t recreate your own body of spirituality.”

— 5 —

Cardinal Wilfred Napier had the following to say, “[M]edia reaction to the document — some of which called the report a ‘stunning’ change in the Church’s approach to homosexuals — has caused such an upset among the synod fathers.” He added: “We’re now working from a position that’s virtually irredeemable. The message has gone out that this is what the synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying, and it’s not what we’re saying at all,” He went on to say, “No matter how we try correcting that, and this is my experience with the media, once it’s out there in the public, there’s no way of retrieving it.”

“Just like you, I was surprised that it was published,” he told reporters. “You people got the document before we got it, so we couldn’t have possibly agreed on it.” Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was even more terse in his assessment calling the document, “Undignified, shameful” and “completely wrong.”

— 6 —

Having been raised Protestant, I have seen disagreements in churches before. I have seen ministers who push their agendas or try to reshape the gospel to fit the current cultural norms. I have seen division and church splits. I have grown up being well acquainted with the fallibility of the church.

It is an altogether new experience for me however to be a part of a Church indefectible.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines indefectiblity in this way, “By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” 

Having grown up outside of the Catholic tradition, this is a brand new area of faith for me. I have struggled previously with faith in God, now I must also struggle with faith in His Church. It is one thing to accept intellectually the promise that Christ gives to His Church that he will preserve her indefectible, it is another thing to hold to that faith in the midst of watching the synod disintegrate into a media debacle. Apparently I have entered into uncharted waters on my faith journey.

Last week I read an excellent article at the Patheos website that really spoke to me where I was at.

“In short, neither Progressive nor Reactionary dissenters really trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the indefectibility of the Church. Both believe the development of doctrine is, at bottom, not the Church coming to a deeper understanding of the will of Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but a random collision of power and mere human will in which anything might happen and any ideology might become top dog depending on who is the strongest. And therefore, they believe it is all on them to (for Progressives) Change the Church into modern reflection of Liberal Values or (for Reactionaries) Save the Church from mutating into a ‘dark and false Church.’ Neither really believes the job of Savior of the Church has already been filled, so they need to make it happen.”²

— 7 —

But, apparently all my concern was for naught. Apparently the job of “Savior of the Church” has been filled, and Christ is still at work preserving His Church.

The synod’s final report was released last Saturday without any of the problematic areas reflected in the midterm report. It is a beautiful statement from the bishops of the Catholic Church to families everywhere – I highly recommend taking the time to read it.

Pope Francis’ speech at the close of the synod is also very much worth reading, and earned him a standing ovation from those attending. The last two millennia have proven time and again that Christ is still at work preserving His Church from error, but to witness the process firsthand is a new and disconcerting experience for me.

It is important to note, that none of what the synod discussed or the reports which they released are doctrinal in nature – as Cardinal Dolan reminds us, “Synods don’t change doctrine. Nobody changes doctrine. We believe that we’re given doctrine by God and our job is to faithfully and effectively pass it on,” he continued. Synods are more of a pastoral conversation of a family coming together to kind of give ourselves a report card on how we’re doing that and if we can do it better.”

Rather, we have merely been invited to listen in on the pastoral discussions surrounding the Church family as our bishops prepare for the larger synod next year to be followed ultimately by Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation. I can hardly wait!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 ↩

2. Mercy for heterosexuals? Everybody is fine! Mark Shea ↩

The post A Tale of Two Synods… appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

The Church which Christ established has no name other than that of its founder. It is known simply by His name and that of His followers; it is known solely by the name of Christian. While it has no “denominational” name to identify it, it does possess identifying marks. Historically and Scripturally there have been four marks by which the Christian Church identifies itself.

The Church is One

After establishing His Church, Christ’s prayer is that the Church will be one. “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”¹

The first mark of the Church, and according to Christ, the way by which the world will know that the Father has sent Him, and that the Father loves us, is oneness. Not just oneness, but that we become completely one. In case we are unclear He repeats Himself. It seems essential then to ask – is this how the world sees the Church? Do they perceive the Church as being completely one?

St. Paul returns to this theme frequently writing that, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.”² Indeed this unity of the Church appears to be a common theme throughout the New Testament, and it is a unity which is fundamentally Eucharistic in nature. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”³

The Church is Holy

In the very next chapter St. Paul speaks of the Church’s holiness when he writes, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.”⁴

We often struggle with the idea that holiness is one of the marks of the Church. After all, we’ve witnessed the numerous failings of both the Church and her members over the many centuries since Christ. Pope Francis addressed this very objection last year when he said,

“We thus affirm the holiness of the Church, and this is a characteristic that has been present ever since the beginning in the conscience of the first Christians, who called themselves simply ‘the holy’, as they were certain of the action of God, of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies the Church.”

“But,” he asked, “How can we say that the Church is holy, if we see that the Church throughout history, during her long journey through the centuries, has experienced many moments of darkness? How can a Church be holy if she is made up of human beings, of sinners? Of men who are sinners, women who are sinners, priests who are sinners, nuns who are sinners, bishops who are sinners, cardinals who are sinners, popes who are sinners? Everyone. How can a Church like this be holy?”

Almost echoing the words of St. Paul, he went on to say that the Church is holy because, “…she comes from God Who is holy, Who is faithful to her and never abandons her to the power of death and evil. She is holy because Jesus Christ, Son of God, is indissolubly united to her; she is holy because she is guided by the Holy Spirit which purifies, transforms, and renews. She is not holy by our merits, but because God makes her holy.”

“Do not be afraid of holiness,” concluded Francis, “of letting yourself be loved and purified by God. … Let us allow God’s holiness be transmitted to us. Every Christian is called to holiness; and holiness does not consist, first and foremost, in doing extraordinary things, but rather in letting God act. It is the encounter between our weakness and the strength of His grace.”⁵

The Church is Catholic

It is important to note that the word “catholic” means universal, and that this was a mark of the Church which Christ founded long before it was ever its “name.”

“It refers as much to the fullness of the faith which it possesses as it does to the undeniable extension in both time and space which has characterized it virtually from the beginning…The Catholicity of the Church in any case resides as much in the fact that the Church is for everybody at all times as it does in the fact that it was indeed destined to spread everywhere throughout the whole world.”⁶

The Church which Christ established is the Church universal, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”⁷ It is the Church in Rome, in Hong Kong, in Kenya, and Detroit. The Church as the Body of Christ is not limited to a time, place, race or culture.

The Church is Apostolic

This mark of the Church is foundational from her very inception. “Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve?”⁸ In establishing His Church He creates it apostolic when He says, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”⁹

This apostolic structure is further reinforced when Christ passes on the same authority to the rest of the disciples just two chapters later saying, “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”¹⁰

This apostolic nature of the Church is reflected in Christ’s plan for the transmission of the faith seen in the Great Commission,¹¹ and in His prayer that we began with above, “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.”¹²

The apostles themselves seemed to clearly see the need for the transmission of their apostolic authority and office, as witnessed by the Acts of the Apostles:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms,…‘His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.¹³

Scripture also bears witness to the laying on of hands in order to ordain bishops (the successors to the apostles) and pass on this authority.

The Witness of the Early Church Fathers

Writing around AD 190 St. Irenaeus writes of his master Polycarp, himself a disciple of the apostle St. John, “[he] taught only what he received from the apostles, what the Church transmitted, and what alone is true.”¹⁴ As St. Polycarp died he prayed, “for all the Catholic Church.”¹⁵ And St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote that, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”¹⁶

By the First Council of Constantinople in the year AD 381, we see the formation of the Nicene Creed, and with it the statement: “[We believe] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

Indeed, this Creed, along with the four identifying marks of the Church, are still being professed by the faithful throughout the world every day, and at every Mass.

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. John 17:20-23 ↩

2. Ephesians 4:4-5 ↩

3. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ↩

4. Ephesians 5:25b-27 ↩

5. Pope Francis, General Audience Vatican City, October 2, 2013 ↩

6. Kenneth D. Whitehead Four Marks of the Church ↩

7. Matthew 28:19a ↩

8. John 6:70b ↩

9. Matthew 16:18-19 ↩

10. Matthew 18:17-18 ↩

11. Matthew 28:18-20 ↩

12. John 17:20 ↩

13. Acts 1:20-26 ↩

14. Against Heresies 3.3.4 ↩

15. To the Philippians 7 ↩

16. Letter to the Smyrnaeans ↩

The post The Marks of the Church appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Pursuing individual happiness will never make you happy.

Personal happiness is often the byproduct of holiness – but it is never the goal. [Tweet This]

Before everyone freaks out, let me explain what I mean.

The process of becoming holy, or to put it another way, the process of becoming what you were created to be, will often (although not always) bring about personal happiness. There is great joy in fulfilling your purpose, in using your gifts, and in being transformed into the image and likeness of our eldest brother and Lord Jesus Christ.

But, and I kid you not, holiness is also an incredibly difficult process. I know, I know, now you’re asking yourself, “How does this guy know?! Are you trying to tell me that you’re holy?!” And my answer is, “No – not especially. But I am trying.”

Here’s the thing. When it comes to my claim that holiness is a difficult process, you don’t have to take my word for it. We can look at what Jesus Himself had to say. We could even call it:

The Massively Un-Popular Sayings of Christ

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”¹

“Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.”²

“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; …For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”³

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”⁴

“But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.”⁵

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”⁶

“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”⁷

“But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.”⁸

““If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”⁹

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”¹⁰

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”¹¹

You know, basically just, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”¹²

And really, that just scratches the surface. (In fact, if you have your own favorite massively un-popular saying of Christ, or “MUPSOC” for short, feel free to add it in the comments section below!)

And this brings me back to my original point. If you are trying to attain happiness through the usual means – money, popularity, positions of influence and power, relationships with family and friends, sex, food, possessions – well, “Truly, you have received your reward in full!”¹³

We should be clear – these things may bring you happiness in the short term while a life of holiness may not. And, according to Christ, that’s the gospel truth. It would seem that holiness is far more about obedience, sacrifice, and selflessness, than it is about pursuing our own personal happiness. So maybe we should re-state the statement above as:

Pursuing individual happiness will never make you Truly happy – just temporarily happy.

I was listening to Catholic Answers the other day and a woman called in to ask a question about what constitutes a valid marriage. Her question revolved around the fact that due to a disability she would be unable to complete the marital act, but would still very much like to participate in the sacrament of marriage. She was dumbfounded by the Church’s stance that a marriage must be consummated in order to be valid. She couldn’t understand why the Church would prevent her from experiencing the happiness of a marriage relationship along with whatever other forms of sexual pleasure may be available to her and her spouse aside from actual intercourse.

The apologist calmly and sympathetically explained the Church’s position that human sexuality is never merely about personal sexual gratification, but rather about the complete giving of the man and the woman to each other in a way that is both unitive and open to the procreative purpose of the sexual act (I discuss the purpose of human sexuality at length in a post titled Homosexual, Heterosexual, or just plain Human?). In other words both marriage and sex have a purpose which is much larger than individual happiness. According to Scripture marriage also represents a reality that is much larger than an individual relationship – namely that of Christ and His Church.¹⁴

It is precisely because marriage is representative of Christ’s relationship with His Church that it is so essential that the two become one flesh and are able to fully give of themselves to each other – the image must reflect the greater reality. This is not to say that an unmarried couple cannot live together chastely as “brother and sister” enjoying a loving relationship, a shared home, and common goals, but this wouldn’t be marriage.

The woman on the phone was very upset that the Church would deny her right to marriage and happiness. I empathized with her feelings, but I disagreed with her position.

A Reality Check

We don’t have a right to happiness. Or marriage. Or children. Or a home. Or wealth. Or health. The Sacraments don’t exist to make us happy, but rather to help us to conform ourselves to the very image and nature of Christ, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”¹⁵ And again, lest you think that I am being unnecessarily harsh, I would refer you to the massively un-popular sayings of Christ above.

We are not called to happiness but to holiness; and I’m sorry, but Victoria Osteen is just plain wrong when she claims that, “When we obey God, we’re not doing it for God…we’re doing it for ourselves. Because God takes pleasure when we’re happy, that’s the thing that give Him the greatest joy.”

Our happiness is not what gives God the greatest pleasure. Our obedience is. Even when it’s hard. Even when it doesn’t make us happy. We are called to become the very creatures that we were created to be, and then to become something more – actual sons and daughters of God. Partakers in Christ’s divine life and glory. We are called to happiness and to joy superabundant – but not necessarily the happiness offered by this life. Rather we are being called to our true home, a new life, and an unutterable joy.

Without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls.

The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile. 

Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for

“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers, and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord abides for ever.”
That word is the good news which was preached to you.¹⁶

Also check out our podcasts!

1. Matthew 16:24b-25 ↩

2. Matthew 5:11-12 ↩

3. Matthew 5:19a, 20 ↩

4. Matthew 5:29-30 ↩

5. Matthew 5:39-42 ↩

6. Matthew 5:43-44 ↩

7. Matthew 23:11-12 ↩

8. Luke 6:24-25 ↩

9. Luke 14:26-27 ↩

10. John 14:15 ↩

11. Matthew 7:21 ↩

12. Matthew 5:48b ↩

13. CF Luke 6:5b ↩

14. CF Ephesians 5:21-33 ↩

15. Philippians 2:6-8 ↩

16. 1 John 1:8-17, 22-25 ↩

The post Holiness (not Happiness) is the Goal appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Been scandalized much lately? Impropriety, misconduct, immoral behavior, unethical behavior, outrageous behavior – are there even any such things in our society anymore?

Not to beat a dead horse, but when Hannah Montana hits you upside the head with all the subtlety of a Wrecking Ball, you begin to wonder if previously scandalous behavior has become the new societal norm.

Scandal is defined as, “An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.” – but recently public outrage seems to be strangely lacking. Outrage? More like an indifferent apathy.

In a society which has lost all sense of propriety it’s pretty hard to feel outraged.

Propriety is defined as, “The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.” Decorum, respectability, decency, courtesy, politeness, rectitude, morality, civility, modesty – again, are these concepts we are even familiar with anymore? The problem as I see it, is there can be no scandal, no outrage, in a society that doesn’t acknowledge, “accepted standards of behavior or morals.” 

When there is no such thing as decency, there is no such thing as scandal. It’s as simple as that.

Political Scandal? Not so much since the Clinton era. I mean, really, where do you go from here?

Entertainment Scandal? Where would I even begin?

Financial Scandal? More like business as usual with all the government bailouts, golden parachutes, and businesses who are, “too large to fail.”

Literary Scandal? Hardly, Fifty Shades of Grey has topped bestseller lists around the world and has laughingly been described as, “Mommy porn” by the media.

Religious Scandal? Ahhh…now there’s an area where we can all still share a sense of moral outrage!

It’s odd to me that in a society as laissez faire and “anything goes” as ours is, that religious failings can still incite such public indignation. Awash in a sea of apathy towards all of the other shortcomings of our society, we nevertheless manage to summon our collective vitriol when it comes to the failings of religious institutions and people. We rage against abusive priests in the Catholic Church and shrug when it comes to abusive school teachers; all while statistics reveal that the problem in our schools is far more dramatic than the problems in our churches.

According to Dr. Philip Jenkins from Pennsylvania State University,”If anyone believes that priests offend at a higher rate than teachers or non-celibate clergy, then they should produce the evidence on which they are basing that conclusion. I know of none. Saying ‘everybody knows’ does not constitute scientific methodology.”¹

In fact, only approximately 4% of all all active priests between 1950 and 2002 were even accused of abuse – a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population. As a comparison, a 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that “the most accurate data available” reveals that “nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.” This result prompted Hofstra University’s Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the author of the study, to opine in 2006, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” And when it comes to comparisons with the general adult male population in the US, it turns out that children who have anything to do with priests are somewhere between 2 and 4 times LESS likely to be abused by them than by anyone else. That’s something you don’t often hear.

Statistics aside, even one case of legitimate abuse is one case too many. And we should all be morally outraged. Religious abuse is a scandal in the truest sense of the word.

A Double Standard

But it still doesn’t change the fact that there is a double standard at play. And it’s not just the clergy and religious institutions that bear the brunt of our displeasure. We don’t waste our time judging politicians or celebrities – but our neighbors? There’s some real scandal!

“Can you believe that so and so calls themselves a Christian and…”

• Wears that skirt?! (or bikini, or t-shirt, or whatever)
• Lives in that large a house?! (or drives that sort of car, or vacations in those types of places)
• Listens to secular music?! 
• Uses that sort of language?!
• Hangs out with those sort of people?!
• Watches R-rated movies?!
• Smokes or drinks or eats fatty food?!

Let me just say it for all of us, “Scandalous!” 

And meanwhile the rest of society gets a free pass while we crucify our clergy, family, and friends. Yay us.

A Stumbling Block

Having said that, I also get it. There’s really no point in trying to tell a non-Christian culture how to behave. There’s really no point in trying to argue ethics with people who believe that all morality is relative. And as Christians, we should be held to a higher standard.

We can trace the root of the word scandal clear back to the Middle English in the sense of a “discredit to religion by the reprehensible behavior of a religious person.” In the ecclesiastical Latin scandalum meant a “cause of offense,” and before that in the Greek skandalon was a “snare or stumbling block.” Starting to sound familiar?

“Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.”²

St. Paul recognized that eating meat offered to idols wasn’t an issue. But he also recognized that if eating that meat caused a problem for someone with a weak conscience, then he was sinning against Christ. Yikes!

Is cussing wrong? If it offends my brother it is. Is watching a particular movie or TV show a problem? If there is someone there who would be offended it is. We are called to Christian charity.

But, when we look at the other end of the spectrum we see other Christians who are all too willing to use their “sensitivity” or “weakness” as an excuse to judge their brothers and sisters who do enjoy greater freedom of conscience. Luckily St. Paul has something to say to them as well.

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.’ So each of us shall give account of himself to God. Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”³

In other words we ought to avoid giving cause for scandal, but we also ought to avoid judging those who we consider to be scandalous.

The Right Sort of Scandal

I know, avoiding scandal (or the urge to tell other people that they are being scandalous) doesn’t sound like much fun. In fact, it sounds kind of boring. But, take heart! Scripture actually encourages the promotion of scandal in certain cases! “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block (scandal) to Jews and folly to Gentiles,”⁴ It turns out that the very gospel message is a scandal to the rest of the world!

“Love your enemies? Scandalous!”

“Give away all that you possess? Ludicrous!”

But it’s not just the world who finds Christ so scandalous. It’s also us religious folk, “I mean he hangs out with whores and ‘gasp!’ bureaucrats!”

Listen, I get it. I myself am often not afraid to throw a few stones before retreating to the safety of my glass house. I was thoroughly nonplussed with Cardinal Dolan’s decision to act as grand marshall of the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade despite its decision to allow an openly homosexual organization to promote itself in the parade. I felt that his decision brought scandal to the Church, especially since the LGBT group will be the only group allowed to participate under their own banner while promoting an agenda having nothing to do with Irish heritage. As an example, pro-life groups will not be allowed to march under a pro-life banner.

I struggle with this. To me this isn’t the sort of “good scandal” that we need to be causing as followers of Christ. But…again, I’m forced to consider the sort of folks Christ hung out with, and the sort of reactions he received from the religious people of his time.

Ultimately, Bishop Dolan will have to give an account of himself to God – not to us.⁵ Ultimately, we will all have to stand before God – not before each other. Ultimately the Gospel should cause scandal – it is a stumbling block and folly.

And, it is the very power of Christ at work in the world.

God became human and walked among us?!

He loves us even though we are sinners?!

Scandalous!

Also check out our podcasts!

1. USA Today June 6, 2010 ↩

2. 1 Corinthians 8:9 ↩

3. Romans 10:10-13 ↩

4. 1 Corinthians 1:23 ↩

5. Cardinal Dolan explains his decision here: Explaining My Decision to Serve as Grand Marshall ↩

The post Scandalous! appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

So, a lot has been happening. Allow me to sum up…

— 1 —

Last week I was contacted by a producer from Seize the Day on the Catholic Channel Sirius/XM 129. He wrote:

“I saw your conversion story on Why I’m Catholic and I was wondering if you would like to come on our program tomorrow morning via telephone, and share it with our listeners. We have a segment we do from time to time called Conversion Corner where Gus and a convert have a one-on-one conversation about the latter’s conversion to the Catholic faith and I think you’d be perfect for it.”

Since they record on the East Coast, he had a twenty minute time slot available at 6am Pacific.

I live in California.

So allow me to repeat that…6am Pacific.

I calmly agreed to do the show.

Then I panicked.

— 2 —

Luckily, since I was going to be on the air in less than 24 hours, I couldn’t panic for very long. I’ve never been on live radio or television before, certainly never on satellite radio, nor have I had to do an unscripted interview. I’m a pretty confident speaker, and I’m not typically shy, but I found that I was really worried about the upcoming interview. I’m not necessarily at my best at 6am in the morning.

I made my wife do a mock-up interview with me the night before and it was a dismal failure. I didn’t sleep that night. I was really nervous about sharing my story.

— 3 —

That may seem like an odd thing to say. After all, I’ve been sharing various aspects of my faith on my blog for several months now. After only a few weeks my conversion story has already been read by nearly two thousand people at Why I’m Catholic, and my wife Missy and I have even recently started our own podcast – so I shouldn’t be so nervous about sharing my story, right?

Wrong.

— 4 —

Here’s the thing. When I write, I can choose my words very carefully. I can edit, and re-edit, and edit again. I can check sources, insert quotes and scripture references, and make sure that the article proceeds clearly from point to point until reaching it’s conclusion. In a similar manner, when podcasting I can cut and edit after the fact, add effects, delete mistakes, and even re-record the entire episode if necessary. But live satellite radio is another matter all together.

Additionally, the vast majority of my friends and family are non-Catholics. How do you share your reasons for becoming Catholic without putting down the people who aren’t? How do you convey how profoundly grateful you are for the faith of your childhood while expressing how wonderful it has been to see that faith grow and change into something deeper and fuller and richer than you could have ever imagined? How do you humbly suggest to them that there is something more?

— 5 —

My interview with Gus went very well. He did a great job of letting me talk, and then asking questions that either helped to clarify a particular point or move the story forward in a logical way. I really appreciated his professionalism and his obvious experience when it came to doing interviews. He did a great job of helping me to present my story in a mostly coherent manner, and I was very thankful to have him on the other end of the line.

— 6 —

I’ve put the audio from the interview on the latest podcast and you can listen to it here. I have to admit – I couldn’t resist doing a “directors cut” with a couple of short clarifications and additions. Let me know what you think

— 7 —

Faith is a journey. I have been blessed to have parents and family and friends who set my feet on the path at a very young age. Pastor Eugene Peterson wrote a book on discipleship entitled, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, and I am fortunate to be journeying on that path with so many others who are involved in that same process whether Protestant or Catholic.

My prayer is that we will all draw closer together as we draw closer to Christ.

The post Allow Me to Sum Up… appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

Between Heaven and Hell

Purgatory. Of all the many misunderstood doctrines of the Catholic Church, Purgatory may be one of the most lampooned by non-Catholics and most misunderstood by Catholics themselves. Last week, my wife and I published our first ever podcast. On the show we discussed C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce and the concepts of Purgatory found within it. In this post, I thought I would examine some of the more common misunderstandings I run into when it comes to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

To begin with, I want to start with a quote from Dr. Scott Hahn (an Evangelical convert to Catholicism), to help us clear up a pretty central issue. I really resonated with his statement, and quite honestly he says it much better than I would have!

“On the one hand, as an Evangelical Protestant, I had firm convictions about the finished work of Jesus Christ; that He accomplished our redemption on the cross. Those convictions I still hold fast to. Every Christian, every Catholic must. The work of our redemption is accomplished. It is finished. But the application of that redemptive work of Christ by the Holy Spirit is another matter, one that I did not really come to grips with because it involves suffering which nobody wants to come to grips with — either suffering in this life or suffering afterwards to expiate or to repay or to provide restitution for the effects of sin…Christ has accomplished our redemption. It’s over and done with. He has finished it. But then He sends the Holy Spirit to apply it, and the application of redemption is just as essential…Jesus said, ‘I come to baptize with fire and spirit.’ And so, when the Spirit comes at Pentecost, tongues of fire appear, and whenever the Holy Spirit appears, there is Holy Fire. When we are taken up into the Spirit, there we are consumed with a passionate, burning love, the furnace of Christ’s heart, the reality of the Holy Spirit, the fiery love of God. That is not because Christ’s work is not enough. It’s rather the application of the work of Jesus Christ.”¹

Now onto some other misconceptions.

Some Common Misconceptions About Purgatory

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Purgatory is the state, place or condition in the next world which will continue until the Last Judgment, where the souls of those who die in a state of grace, but not yet free from all imperfection, make expiation, that is, restitution for unforgiven venial sins and mortal sins that have already been forgiven, and by doing so, are purified before they enter heaven.”

1. Purgatory isn’t a second chance. You either die in a state of friendship with God and in His grace or you don’t.
2. Purgatory isn’t a place per se, but rather a process. This process may take place “somewhere” or it may be merely a condition or a state in the afterlife.
3. Purgatory doesn’t necessarily require time. Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote that purgatory may involve “existential” rather than “temporal” duration.²

Church Teaching on Purgatory

The doctrine of Purgatory is covered in three fairly brief paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They are paragraphs 1030-1032 and you can read them here. Simply enter the paragraph number into the search bar and hit enter, then click on continue to read more. Essentially the Church’s teaching can be distilled into a few brief points:

1. The souls in Purgatory are saved, but they are being purified in order that they may stand before an all-holy God.
2. This purification involves some kind of pain or discomfort.
3. The teaching of the Church on this matter is based on the teaching of Scripture, and it’s teaching on prayers for the dead.

So, where in Scripture do we see Purgatory?

Scriptural References to Purgatory

The word Purgatory (much like the word ‘trinity’, or ‘incarnation’, or even the word ‘bible’) is never actually used by the Scriptures. But the concept of Purgatory – the purification from the attachment to sin and the things of this world; the removal of all works which are not done in and with and through Christ – that concept actually seems to be quite clear.

Perhaps the clearest reference in Scripture comes from St. Paul’s writings where he discusses the concept of being saved “though fire.” “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”³ Here St. Paul discusses a Day of Judgement which will reveal the eternal value (or lack thereof) of each man’s works. He acknowledges the suffering that is a part of this judgement of the man’s works, and his ultimate salvation – “but only as through fire.”

And Christ Himself speaks of forgiveness for sins in the “age to come” when He says, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”⁴ For those Christians who dismiss Purgatory out of hand, the question must be asked, “What then are these sins which can be forgiven in the age to come?”

The Place of the Dead

There are multiple places in Scripture where a distinction is made between those, “in heaven or on earth or under the earth”⁵ and St. Paul reveals to us that Christ is with these souls as He is with us when he writes,“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”⁶

Scripture is full of verses referencing either Sheol or Hades. Both reference a place other than Hell – which is not Heaven. The words Sheol (in Hebrew), Hades (in Greek), and Purgatorium (in Latin) represent the concept of Purgatory as we have come to know it today.

We can see the story of Purgatory unfold as we examine Scripture passages beginning in the Old Testament and moving to the New.

“Great is thy steadfast love toward me. Thou hast delivered my soul from the depths of sheol.”⁷ 

“Withhold not your kindness, O Lord from the dead.”⁸

“For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”⁹

Purgatory itself comes to an end as we look at the book of Revelation which describes how, at the end of time, both death and Hades will be thrown into hell, saying that this is the second death, the lake of fire.¹⁰ At the end of all things, there will be no more death; and once the purification of all souls has taken place, there will be no more need for Hades or Purgatory.

These and other passages have given rise to the Church’s understanding of the three states of the Church – “…some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory, contemplating ‘in full light, God himself triune and one, exactly as he is’ ”¹¹

Prayers for the Dead

Prayers for the dead are attested to even prior to Christ in 2 Maccabees where we read, “So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”¹²

This passage establishes, even for those who may not consider Maccabees to be Scriptural, that this was a common practice within Judaism prior to the time of Christ. We see an echo of this in the New Testament when Paul offers a prayer for a dead Christian named Onesiphorus saying, “may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.”¹³ And indeed in the early Church we see an abundance of evidence for the practice of praying for the dead.

The inscriptions in the Roman Catacombs showing prayers for the dead range in date from the first century (the earliest dated is from A.D. 71) to the early part of the fifth; with the greatest number (of the several thousand which are extant) belonging to the ante-Nicene period, i.e. the first three centuries after Christ.¹⁴ There are prayers of a formal character, in which survivors address their petitions directly to God the Father, or to Christ, or to the angels saints and martyrs collectively, or even to one of them in particular. Most frequently they ask for: peace, the good (i.e. eternal salvation), light, refreshment, life, eternal life, union with God, union with Christ, union with the angels and saints, and liberation from sin. Sometimes the writers of the epitaphs request visitors to pray for the deceased, and sometimes the dead themselves ask for prayers, as in the well-known Greek epitaph of Abercius which says: “Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius.”

So overwhelming is the witness of the early Christian monuments in favour of prayer for the dead that no historian any longer denies that the practice and the belief which the practice implies were universal in the primitive Church, and in this there is no break of continuity between Judaism and Christianity.

Additionally, the testimony of the earliest liturgies is in harmony with that of the monuments. All of them without exception – Nestorian and Monophysite as well as Catholic, those in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic as well as those in Greek and Latin – contain the commemoration of the faithful departed in the Mass, with a prayer for peace, light, refreshment and the like, and in many cases expressly for the remission of sins and the effacement of sinful stains. The following, from the Syriac Liturgy of St. James, may be quoted as a typical example: “we commemorate all the faithful dead who have died in the true faith…We ask, we entreat, we pray Christ our God, who took their souls and spirits to Himself, that by His many compassions He will make them worthy of the pardon of their faults and the remission of their sins”¹⁵

There are Protestants Who Believe in Purgatory?!

You really don’t have to look much further than C.S. Lewis himself.  Check out the following quotes.

“Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?”

“I believe in Purgatory. . . . Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not beak the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleansed first.’ “It may hurt, you know’—”Even so, sir.'”

“I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don’t think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.”

“My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am ‘coming round’,’ a voice will say, ‘Rinse your mouth out with this.’ This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed.”¹⁶

Also check out our latest podcasts!

1. Answering Common Objections, Purgatory: Holy Fire, Dr. Scott Hahn ↩

2. cf. Joseph Ratzinger’s book Eschatology ↩

3. 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 RSVCE ↩

4. Matthew 12:31–32 RSVCE ↩

5. Revelation 5:3, 13 ↩

6. Romans 6b-7 ↩

7. Psalms 86:13 ↩

8. Sirach 7:33 ↩

9. 1 Peter 3:17-22 ↩

10. Revelation 20:14 ↩

11. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 249). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference ↩

12. 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 ↩

13. 2 Timothy 1:18 ↩

14. For detailed references see Kirsch, “Die Acclamationen”, pp. 9-29; Cabrol and Leclercq, “Monumenta Liturgica” (Paris, 1902), I, pp. ci-cvi, cxxxix, etc. ↩

15. Syr. Lit. S. Jacobi, ed. Hammond, p. 75 ↩

16. C.S. Lewis excerpts from Letters to Malcom ↩

The post Purgatory ~ Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell … appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

So I just found out today that I will be interviewed tomorrow morning bright and early on The Catholic Channel (Sirius/XM ch.129) show Seize the Day with Gus Lloyd during his Conversion Corner segment. I should be on around 9am Eastern, but I think they have started rebroadcasting the show at a later time here in the West so you may be able to catch it later in the morning as well.

If all goes well, I’ll probably have the audio up on the site within the next couple of weeks. If I completely bomb, you can forget about it!

Keep me in your thoughts and prayers – I’m a little anxious about it

The post Coming Soon – Catholic Channel Interview appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

— 1 —

We finally got our first podcast published!  It’s almost 1am, but I think it’s finally up! You can check it out here: AFFL Podcast Episode 1. Hopefully within a few days it will be up and running on iTunes.

— 2 —

My conversion story was also featured at Why I’m Catholic – a website that shares the stories of converts to the Catholic Church. Check it out and leave a comment on their site letting me know what you think! While you’re there, check out some of the other great conversion stories as well!

— 3 —

My son came home from football practice tonight and told me that the father of one of his friends had been talking to an acquaintance who lives in a different part of the state. He was telling him about a story he had just read on the website Why I’m Catholic. He had no idea that he was talking to someone I go to Church with… It really is a small world sometimes

— 4 —

I also got a very encouraging message from a friend of mine who I haven’t talked to in years. As it turns out, he is also wrestling with some of the same logical inconsistencies with the Protestant faith that I had, and wanted to let me know that I wasn’t alone and that I wasn’t the only one who had been wrestling with tough questions.  It really made my day!

— 5 —

Several friends from my past who are Catholic also wrote to encourage me and welcome me home – one of them shared some experiences from her life which left me very humbled indeed. I am so grateful for the people in my life that God uses to extend His grace to me!

— 6 —

I was really over my head technically trying to get the podcast finished and posted. It’s late and I’m beat. Usually I’m entirely too verbose. You’re getting off easy this week – enjoy it!

— 7 —

God Bless and Good Night!

The post 7QT Podcast! appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

A couple of months back I posted an article examining 7 Myths About the Crusades. It seemed to resonate with a lot of folks, so this week I thought I would post a similar article looking at some of the common myths surrounding the Inquisition.

— 1 —

The term “Inquisition” actually refers to an institution not an event.

Actually, more like a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat or suppress heresy. Begun in 12th century France, the ecclesiastical tribunal known as the inquisition has evolved over the years but is still an active part of the Roman Curia today, although admittedly operating under a different name. Originally the inquisition was carried out using local clergy as judges,¹ but starting in the 1250’s inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order due to their unique charism. St. Dominic founded his order in 1216 in order to preach the Gospel and combat heresy. Is it any wonder that their name gave rise to the pun that they were the Domini canes, or Hounds of the Lord?² In 1904 the office of the inquisition was given the new name Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and in 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and remains as such to this day.

— 2 —

Much like the Crusades, the Inquisition was not a single event, but can be generally broken into the following categories.

• Medieval Inquisition – 1184 AD through the 14th century.
• Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance – During this time the tribunal’s geographic scope was expanded to other European countries resulting most notably in:

1. The Spanish Inquisition – 1478 AD – 1834 AD (this is the inquisition which is perhaps most widely misrepresented today.)
2. Portuguese Inquisition – 1536 AD – 1821 AD

• The Roman Inquisition – 1588 AD – Present, in the form of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Spain and Portugal in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires with a particular focus on the issue of Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism – partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted back to their previous religions.

The concept and scope of these inquisitions were also significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

— 3 —

The Inquisition was born out of a need for fair trials, and to prevent unjust executions.

“For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.”³ 

— 4 —

The Spanish Inquisition was actually vastly superior to other secular courts of the day. [Tweet This]

Unlike the situation in the secular courts of the day, the use of torture was strictly regulated by the Church. In fact, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was actually prohibited for the first twenty years of the inquisition before being first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1265.

The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were also theological experts who followed the rules and instructions meticulously, and were either dismissed or punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Pope Gregory IX.⁴

From the start limits were placed on the use of torture that were unheard of in the secular courts of the day.

• It was not to cause bloodshed, the loss of life or limb, or imperil life.
• Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless all other expedients were exhausted.
• When it was used, it was not to be applied for more than 15 minutes.
• It was never administered by the inquisitor (a cleric) but rather by the executioner appointed by the state. (In fact, in the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity)
• A Physician had to be present and could stop the proceedings at any time.

There were no rapes, feet burning, creative torture chambers, iron maidens, etc., and reports show that between 98%-99% of all inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. Compared to secular courts that decreed the death penalty for damaging shrubs in England, or disembowelment for sheep-stealing in France, the Spanish Inquisition was actually far more conservative than the secular Europe of the day. In fact, there are multiple accounts of convicts in Spain blaspheming on purpose, precisely so that they would be transferred to the significantly more humane prisons of the Spanish Inquisition.

According to Professor Kamen, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.” Prof. Jaime Conterras agreed: “We find when comparing the Spanish Inquisition with other tribunals that the Spanish Inquisition used torture much less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with tribunals in other countries, we find that the Spanish Inquisition has a virtually clean record in respect to torture.”⁵

— 5 —

The death toll numbers that you may have heard are wrong.  Flat out wrong.

Protestant preacher Jimmy Swaggart claimed that 20 million people were murdered by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.⁶ Another Protestant text, “The Mystery of Babylon Revealed” claims 95 million people were killed during the Inquisition.

Really? 95 million? How is that even possible? It is not until modern times that the population of all of Europe even begins to approach 95 million. The present-day population of France, Spain, and Italy is about 150 million. To kill 95 million during just the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church would have had to kill every man, woman, and child in all of Europe, then import millions more just to kill them too.

In contrast to these claims, modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Spanish Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all inquisition processes between 1560 and 1700 AD. This material provides information about 49,092 judgements which were carefully studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. They calculate that only 1.9% of those processed were burned at the stake.

You read that right –

According to the historical records, less than 2% of all accused heretics were executed.

García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Spanish Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560 – 1700 AD (about 2%), the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Even if we take into account variances due to records from other regions and possible variations throughout the rest of the time period, it is highly unlikely that the total death toll would exceed 3,000 – 5,000 executed during the entire 300 year period of the Spanish Inquisition. Henningsen and Contreras also studied the records of 44,674 other cases, finding that 826 resulted in executions in person and 778 were executions in effigy alone – i.e. a straw dummy was burned in place of the person.⁷

With all of that in mind, it is also important to note:

— 6 —

The Catholic Church executed no one.

That’s right, the Catholic Church never executed a single heretic. The Church did impose punishment on heretics in order to bring them to repentance. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other punishments were more severe: fines whose proceeds were devoted to public purposes such as church-building and road-making, whipping with rods during religious services, the pillory, the wearing of colored crosses, and so on.

The hardest penalties were imprisonment, excommunication from the Church, and surrender to the civil authority. “Cum ecclesia” ran the regular expression, “ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari” — i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority.

Officially then, it was never the Catholic Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death. Rather, it was the state who determined and carried out the sentence of death. Heretics were traitors to both God and king, and dangerous to the welfare of the kingdom. Therefore, they deserved death. And unlike the Church, the state had no qualms about carrying out this sentence.

— 7 —

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

“Between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries in western Europe, the Latin Christian Church adapted certain elements of Roman legal procedure and charged papally appointed clergy to employ them in order to preserve orthodox religious beliefs from the attacks of heretics … Between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries … these procedures, personnel and institutions were transformed by polemic and fiction into myth, the myth of The Inquisition. The institutions and the myth lived — and developed – in western Europe and the New World until the early nineteenth century, when most of the inquisitions were abolished, and the myth itself was universalized …

Although the inquisitions disappeared, The Inquisition did not. The myth was originally devised to serve variously the political purposes of a number of early modern political regimes, as well as Protestant Reformers, proponents of religious and civil toleration, philosophical enemies of the civil power of organized religions, and progressive modernists; but the myth remained durable, widely adaptable, and useful, so that in time it came to be woven tightly into the fabric of modern consciousness. So tight is its place in that weave that the myth has been revived in the twentieth century …

Some myths are tougher and more durable than the occasions which first create and employ them. The Inquisition [as myth] was an invention of the religious disputes and political conflicts of the sixteenth century. It was adapted to the causes of religious toleration and philosophical and political enlightenment in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In this process, although it was always anti-Catholic and usually anti-Spanish, it tended to become universalized, until, by the end of the eighteenth century, it had become the representative of all repressive religions that opposed freedom of conscience, political liberty and philosophical enlightenment.

In the United States, far more than in Europe, The Inquisition remained an evil abstraction, sustained by anti-Catholicism and supported by political opposition.”⁸

In 1994 the BBC broadcast a television documentary entitled, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. It is just over 45 minutes long, free to watch on YouTube, and I highly recommend it. Enjoy!

Also check out our latest podcasts!

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

1. Peters, Edward. “Inquisition”, p. 54. ↩

2. The reference to “hounds” draws on the tradition that St. Dominic’s mother, while pregnant with him, had a vision of a black and white dog with a torch in its mouth; wherever the dog went, it set fire to the earth. It was explained that the vision was fulfilled when Dominic and his followers went forth, clad in black and white, setting fire to the earth with the Gospel. In English, the word “hound” has two further meanings that may be drawn upon. A hound is loyal, and the Dominicans have a reputation as obedient servants of the faith. And a hound pursues its quarry (“hounds”), with perhaps a sometimes negative connotation or reference to the order’s involvement with the Holy Inquisition. ↩

3. The Real Inquisition, National Review Online, Thomas F. Madden. ↩

4. Maycock, The Inquisition, 128-29 ↩

5. The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, BBC ↩

6. Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism and Christianity, pg. 31 ↩

7. Gustav Henningsen, The Database of the Spanish Inquisition. The relaciones de causas project revisited, in: Heinz Mohnhaupt, Dieter Simon, Vorträge zur Justizforschung, Vittorio Klostermann, 1992, pp. 43-85. ↩

8. Edward Peters, Professor of Medieval History, University of Pennsylvania, “Inquisition”, published 1988 by the Free Press (pp. 1, 2, 231, 263, 308)  ↩

The post 7 Myths about the Inquisition appeared first on A Faith-Full Life.

I came across the following quote on a friends Facebook page earlier this week. “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why?’ If you need a reason, invent one that empowers you and begin living from there.” I am frankly unsure of whether this is a quote from my friend or from someone else – but it has stuck with me throughout the week.

— 1 —

Initially, I found myself disagreeing with his statement on several levels. Of course the question of “why” matters, and virtually any field of human knowledge pre-supposes that there are actual answers to the question of “why”. But I also understand that we can come at this differently – much like Calvin and his furry friend.

Nonetheless, Science, Philosophy, History, Mathematics, Industry, Technology – all of these disciplines seek in their own way to answer the “whys” of life with actual facts – not made up reasons. In other words when these various human endeavors seek to answer a question within their individual field of study they presuppose that there is an actual answer to the question which they are asking, and that it is an objective answer. To quote Fox Mulder:

— 2 —

Don’t get me wrong. The X-Files were so 1990’s, and now we’ve got this guy on the History Channel:

And we’ve kind of come to believe that there are no answers.

Or that the answers don’t matter.

Or, you can make up any answer that works for you and it’s just fine because – there is no such thing as absolute truth.

And I fundamentally disagree with that. Two plus two is four and that is the answer – period.

— 3 —

I suppose that the statement, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why?'” could be interpreted in various different ways; but maybe fundamentally it is an example of the ultimate metaphysical or existential question – Why?

And on that level, I kind of get it.

It’s a big universe. There’s a whole lot that we don’t understand. There’s a lot of suffering and pain and we have a pretty limited vantage point.

But it is in light of these ultimate questions of philosophy and religion and existential angst that I believe that the question of why is all the more important, and the answers all the more profound.

And, like any other endeavor of human reason, I just don’t believe that we get to make up the answers. I actually agree with Fox – the Truth is out there, and it’s up to us to find it – not invent it.

— 4 —

Speaking of suffering and pain and unanswered questions, the other thing which has been weighing heavily on my heart and mind this past week is the ongoing persecution of Christians in Iraq by ISIS. And for me, this is where I begin to resonate with the question above of “Why?” Why does God allow this? Maybe more importantly – why do we? And there is a temptation to say, “There is no answer.” After all, what can you possibly say in the face of such evil?