I was thinking about things on my way to work today, and one of the things that crossed my mind is the fallacies that occur in the philosophies of our political parties, particularly in concern to social and moral issues.
I'm not a political genius, but here's how I see it breaking down. The primary mistake Democrats as a whole make in their social-moral philosophy is thinking that social issues are actually individual issues, whereas Republicans, as a whole, overlook the value of free-will and personal choice.
Democrats believe that what happens in the bedroom or in the womb is an individual choice which doesn't affect the population as a whole. Ironically, this is despite what the individual might think concerning the "moral rightness" of an act. They say, "I believe abortion/Birth Control/Homosexual Marriage is wrong, but I have no right to impose that view on others, especially when it doesn't affect me". Granted, some Democrats think abortion is a moral good, but that's not the point here. What I'm trying to say is, we ARE our brother's (and sister's) keeper. This is actually an act of love, despite what much of the modern secular world might think. Individual acts do affect the greater population both immediately and indirectly. Abortion has negative effects on women, birth control in one woman can affect various sexual partners, the psychological ramifications of damaging acts affect how the individual relates with others, it leads others to do those immoral acts (through scandal), and from a theological standpoint it further corrupts the state of the world, increasing the presence of social sin. All those baptized are part of the Body of Christ. Sinful acts damage the world as a whole, not just the person(s) committing them.
However, some of these acts in and of themselves, should not be so far as outright banned on a federal level. This is where, I think, Conservatives sometimes overlook the value of personal choice and free-will. It's the same reason why the Church doesn't hold socialism as legitimate economic system. Just as you can't FORCE people to give up their hard-earned money, you cannot FORCE people to uphold the positive norms in every and all instances. While I agree that negative norms should be prohibited, we must still find a way to assure that people are able to live lives focused on a freedom to choose love rather than obey the religious law.
Its a hard balance to tread. I'm sure there are gaping holes in my argument. I also realize that I'm arguing a primarily religious position. Indeed, this is written mostly to my Christian brothers and sisters, those of whom think we should not hold each other accountable, those who think we need to control every action, and those of us who are stuck in the middle not knowing which side to take.
Being a Christian is hard work, often there is no apparent right answer. However, I believe there is a middle way somewhere in this mess; a balance of Christian morality and civil law that helps people avoid moral evil and yet challenges them (without forcing) them to live out the fullness of the positive norm Christian Charity. I have no answers, just observations about some of our problems. I realize this was kind of a rambling post, but hopefully you found a nugget or two of Truth within it.
Peace.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Lenten Reflection—“Choose Life (again)”
One of my Lenten devotions this year is to reflect on the daily readings. While I won’t always have the time or motivation to post my reflections every day, I will try to post some of the ones that I find more edifying or relevant.
I reflected on these same readings two years ago as well, but I wanted to come at it from a slightly different angle this time around.
The “sound-bite” that we can take from the 1st reading, and which will serve as our theme for reflection is “Choose life… that your descendants might live”. This begs the questions—how do we choose life, and what does it mean to do so?
In the Readings:
In today’s first reading we see that we have two choices: Life or Death. From the Old Testament perspective choosing life, or rather, choosing God, means keeping the commandments as well as “loving him and walking in his ways”. It is these last two that I think are especially important, and we will flush out their meaning next.
We find a completely different story in the Gospel reading. Though we should still keep the moral law (commandments) of the Old Testament, we find, through the fulfillment of Jesus and thus the law, that we are charged with a responsibility that is both harder than merely keeping commandments but also easier, as it speaks to our deepest human nature. Basically, we are called to love.
Loving in Lent:
I’ve posted a lot about love in the past, both in my Lewis Blog and this one. However today I want to focus on a particular aspect of it as it pertains to the readings and to Lent, and which may be especially relevant over the last couple months.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well I think it can be more than just flattery, it can also be a sincere form of love. In fact, as an act of love, we are called to imitate Christ and do the will of God. Today’s readings outline the best (though hardest) way to imitate Christ—dying and Sacrifice.
A good parallel is John 12:24-25, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.”
The Gospel for today is much the same, and in fact it’s likely that John used the words of Luke for his passage. The point is, if we truly want to love God, if we want to be with him in eternity (choosing life), there is better way (and in fact really no OTHER way) than to sacrifice everything for him, even if that be our lives. This is what the focus of lent should be… teaching ourselves to sacrifice so that we may love Christ and love like Christ.
How do we Sacrifice?
Now let me concede a point—very few of us, especially those of us with the means to be reading this blog right now, will be called to literally sacrifice our lives for Christ. Martyrdom is still a very real and beautiful reality within the Church (and we should all, with God’s grace, pray that we be willing to accept it if it comes), but it most likely won’t happen while residing in a first world country (despite the path that certain first world countries seem to be taking concerning religion). However, there are other ways to sacrifice or give up our lives for Christ, as well as opportunities, every day in fact, to sacrifice smaller things. We call this “dying to ourselves”.
The major way in which we give our lives to Christ is through vocation—offering ourselves, our gifts, our work, to do what God is calling us to do. Whether it’s being a priest, religious, raising a large family, doing missionary work, serving the poor, etc. following God’s will despite how scary it can be is a form of giving up our lives.
There are other, smaller ways, however, and this is where Lent comes in. Dying to ourselves, to our desires and passions, is a way to grow in virtue (particular those of temperance and fortitude), and this is why we fast. By fasting and giving up things that are important for us, and which are hard to give up, we slowly come to form the habit of giving things up. Not only that, but it also drives us to prayer and contemplation on Christ’s suffering, and further cultivates in us a desire to imitate him. See how this is cyclical? See why it’s important to give things up, even if it’s little, as long as it’s important to us? By practicing the small things, we can begin to find the larger sacrifices a little easier.
I was going to take this and apply it to why some people choose to have abortions or use birth control… but perhaps this isn’t right place or time, and I think you can make that connection by yourself (plus that’s why there’s a comments section ;-) ).
Choose life…
With all this said and done, let us try to choose life this lent by sacrificing those little things, and if need be anything big. Let us pray as well that we may be willing to imitate Christ in love for him. When it all comes down to it, loving like Christ is what we should all be focused on, whether it’s Lent or not.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
One Year After Marshall
Today (Jan 15, 2012) marks the one year anniversary of me quitting my Youth Ministry job in Marshall, MN. I've thought a lot about what happened over the last year, why it happened, who its changed me, and where I am in life now because of it. This post is, for the most part, a reflection and attempt at healing, it is also in part, an apology.
As much as I would like to blame my departure from Marshall mostly on other people, the truth is it had as much to do with me as anyone else. Yes, I was working long hours with what seemed to be very little support from parents. Yes, there were people I didn't get along with. But more than that, I had no friends and I was homesick--four hours away from my now fiance, and 3 from my family. I was spiritually dead--I didn't feel a part of the parish or able to upkeep my spirituality. I missed grad school and the challenge of learning. I was inconfident in my ability as a youth minister and got very little affirmation I was doing a good job. All these combined lead me to be depressed, which lead me to be apathetic about how I was doing. Let's get one thing straight though--I did not leave because of the youth. They were great, and the reason why I stayed as long as I did. The reasons I left were because of the parents, the job itself, and even more so because of my personal inadequacies.
My program started to slip, parents began to meet and decide whether I should stay or go. I think secretly I was looking for a way out, so when the priest came and offered a chance to peacefully resign, I jumped at it, and I was gone two days later. Without saying goodbye to anyone.
This last part is what I regret the most. It's not that I was a crappy youth minister, that I didn't do everything I could have done in the program, or even that I realized that's not what I'm called to do as a job--but what I regret the most is that I feel I both ran away and abandoned the youth.
And it is this regret that I am still trying to get over--did I do the right thing, or was leaving in the manner I did cowardly? I don't really know yet, but i'm working through the answers to some of my questions. Was going to Marshall in the first place the right decision? I'm pretty sure it was. Was leaving Marshall the right decision? I think it probably was. What I do know however, is that no matter how much I regret the manner in which I left, if I'm to evaluate the decision based off of the current status of my life, leaving Marhsall is quite possibly the best decision of my life.
In just a year I've gotten engaged to (I can honestly say) the most beautiful woman in the world (an event that probably would not have happened if I had stayed in Marshall), I've completed a semester of my Masters of Arts in Theology program at Saint Paul Seminary, and I'm two weeks into a job that I absolutely love. I must say, while in Marshall I was nearly miserable, lately I am the happiest that I have ever been.
I still have some healing to do, still have some things to work out in my mind and heart... but now that I'm happy, I can do that.
As much as I would like to blame my departure from Marshall mostly on other people, the truth is it had as much to do with me as anyone else. Yes, I was working long hours with what seemed to be very little support from parents. Yes, there were people I didn't get along with. But more than that, I had no friends and I was homesick--four hours away from my now fiance, and 3 from my family. I was spiritually dead--I didn't feel a part of the parish or able to upkeep my spirituality. I missed grad school and the challenge of learning. I was inconfident in my ability as a youth minister and got very little affirmation I was doing a good job. All these combined lead me to be depressed, which lead me to be apathetic about how I was doing. Let's get one thing straight though--I did not leave because of the youth. They were great, and the reason why I stayed as long as I did. The reasons I left were because of the parents, the job itself, and even more so because of my personal inadequacies.
My program started to slip, parents began to meet and decide whether I should stay or go. I think secretly I was looking for a way out, so when the priest came and offered a chance to peacefully resign, I jumped at it, and I was gone two days later. Without saying goodbye to anyone.
This last part is what I regret the most. It's not that I was a crappy youth minister, that I didn't do everything I could have done in the program, or even that I realized that's not what I'm called to do as a job--but what I regret the most is that I feel I both ran away and abandoned the youth.
And it is this regret that I am still trying to get over--did I do the right thing, or was leaving in the manner I did cowardly? I don't really know yet, but i'm working through the answers to some of my questions. Was going to Marshall in the first place the right decision? I'm pretty sure it was. Was leaving Marshall the right decision? I think it probably was. What I do know however, is that no matter how much I regret the manner in which I left, if I'm to evaluate the decision based off of the current status of my life, leaving Marhsall is quite possibly the best decision of my life.
In just a year I've gotten engaged to (I can honestly say) the most beautiful woman in the world (an event that probably would not have happened if I had stayed in Marshall), I've completed a semester of my Masters of Arts in Theology program at Saint Paul Seminary, and I'm two weeks into a job that I absolutely love. I must say, while in Marshall I was nearly miserable, lately I am the happiest that I have ever been.
I still have some healing to do, still have some things to work out in my mind and heart... but now that I'm happy, I can do that.
Friday, January 13, 2012
No Place to Call Home: The State of Catholic Young Adults in American Politics
This is one of the few political posts you will ever see me write, mostly because, as I will discuss later, I hate politics. Why do I hate politics?
There is a movement among my generation of devoted Catholics to move towards the conservative and traditional aspects of the faith, perhaps in response to the (some would say) abusive implementations of Vatican II. However, that's not the point of this post. Rather, it is a platform for me to stage the conundrum my generation faces against the rising liberalism of the western world.
First, let me say this: I am not educated in politics, I understand very little of it, and for the most part I'm relatively apathetic about it. So if I say anything that objectively untrue, please feel free to logically and reasonably correct me with evidence. However, if you care to spout partisan bias based off of something you hear from one of your catered news shows, please don't bother.
OK. So why do I hate politics? Quite simply, I view politics as a lose-lose situation. The only reason I even vote is because its my obligation to do so as a responsible citizen and Catholic. I hate doing it because there is NO mainstream political party or movement that correctly lines up with traditional Catholic views. No matter who you vote for, the person you vote for will be against something in the Church.
I firmly believe that, from a Catholic (and hopefully mainstream Christian) perspective, we should be voting for "socially conservative--financially liberal" candidates. This ensures that our culture is held accountable to live moral lives while providing for the poor and vulnerable. It is the best balance between Social Justice and virtuous internal and family lives. Now, "liberals", which fall mostly under the term "democrats" are obviously liberal on both axes, while "conservative" "republicans" are conservative (again obviously). So the problem, in theory, is that we can either vote on fiscal matters and go democrat, or vote on social matters and go republican. Still there are problems with this... many young Catholics have been brought up to think that voting democrat is near evil, and that democratic fiscal views are socialist, communist (yes there IS a difference), or at the very least want to take away what people earn. Additionally, we've basically been told to "pro-life" (another term I loathe), and thus "socially" is the only way to vote. The problem is, and let me try to be succinct in this, Republicans don't have a consistent pro-life platform either, and economic and educational status has at least a correlation with the likely-hood of getting an abortion. Could the economy be at least a partial solution to reducing abortions?
This is the problem I, and I think a decent portion of my rational, un-brainwashed, catholic peers feel. We have no political home. And so, as a defense mechanism we either just don't care, or we try to rationalize why one party is better than the other. Let me say this though: if there is ever a "pro-life" democrat (and mind you this includes: war, abortion, marriage, death penalty, euthanasia, etc.), they would most likely have my vote.
Let me just give a couple more reasons about why I hate politics (and excuse me for my rant). I have seldom had a good discussion or experience with politics. In fact, I find it to be one of the most irrational, stubborn, biased, and divisive topics I know. Most people who claim to be from one party or another do it for one or two issues and don't actually know what they're party fully believes. Political parties become more like a label and status symbol then they do for any platform for discussion about a better country. If you can rationally think about what you believe, what you, the country, and the poor and vulnerable truly NEED, can get your head out of your butt, and take everything you hear from news channels with a grain of salt, and still say you're from one party or another, then more power to you. However, if you think that being either republican or democrat makes you more or less American, please don't even bother discussing politics with me.
There is a movement among my generation of devoted Catholics to move towards the conservative and traditional aspects of the faith, perhaps in response to the (some would say) abusive implementations of Vatican II. However, that's not the point of this post. Rather, it is a platform for me to stage the conundrum my generation faces against the rising liberalism of the western world.
First, let me say this: I am not educated in politics, I understand very little of it, and for the most part I'm relatively apathetic about it. So if I say anything that objectively untrue, please feel free to logically and reasonably correct me with evidence. However, if you care to spout partisan bias based off of something you hear from one of your catered news shows, please don't bother.
OK. So why do I hate politics? Quite simply, I view politics as a lose-lose situation. The only reason I even vote is because its my obligation to do so as a responsible citizen and Catholic. I hate doing it because there is NO mainstream political party or movement that correctly lines up with traditional Catholic views. No matter who you vote for, the person you vote for will be against something in the Church.
I firmly believe that, from a Catholic (and hopefully mainstream Christian) perspective, we should be voting for "socially conservative--financially liberal" candidates. This ensures that our culture is held accountable to live moral lives while providing for the poor and vulnerable. It is the best balance between Social Justice and virtuous internal and family lives. Now, "liberals", which fall mostly under the term "democrats" are obviously liberal on both axes, while "conservative" "republicans" are conservative (again obviously). So the problem, in theory, is that we can either vote on fiscal matters and go democrat, or vote on social matters and go republican. Still there are problems with this... many young Catholics have been brought up to think that voting democrat is near evil, and that democratic fiscal views are socialist, communist (yes there IS a difference), or at the very least want to take away what people earn. Additionally, we've basically been told to "pro-life" (another term I loathe), and thus "socially" is the only way to vote. The problem is, and let me try to be succinct in this, Republicans don't have a consistent pro-life platform either, and economic and educational status has at least a correlation with the likely-hood of getting an abortion. Could the economy be at least a partial solution to reducing abortions?
This is the problem I, and I think a decent portion of my rational, un-brainwashed, catholic peers feel. We have no political home. And so, as a defense mechanism we either just don't care, or we try to rationalize why one party is better than the other. Let me say this though: if there is ever a "pro-life" democrat (and mind you this includes: war, abortion, marriage, death penalty, euthanasia, etc.), they would most likely have my vote.
Let me just give a couple more reasons about why I hate politics (and excuse me for my rant). I have seldom had a good discussion or experience with politics. In fact, I find it to be one of the most irrational, stubborn, biased, and divisive topics I know. Most people who claim to be from one party or another do it for one or two issues and don't actually know what they're party fully believes. Political parties become more like a label and status symbol then they do for any platform for discussion about a better country. If you can rationally think about what you believe, what you, the country, and the poor and vulnerable truly NEED, can get your head out of your butt, and take everything you hear from news channels with a grain of salt, and still say you're from one party or another, then more power to you. However, if you think that being either republican or democrat makes you more or less American, please don't even bother discussing politics with me.
Monday, January 9, 2012
What Makes Love Work?
I've been thinking quite a bit lately about what makes Emily (my fiance') and mine's relationship so good. Don't get me wrong, we definitely have our problems in our relationship, but there is a solidness and security there that I don't seem to see in many relationships, even some marriages. Over the 15+ month's we've been dating we've seen good (and bad) relationships crumble or go through some serious tribulation. We've had our problems too, the first 6 months was a constant struggle and there were times when we both thought about calling it off (her more often then me though ;-)). Still, we're now at the point of planning the wedding, so we must be doing something right. Now, I will be the first to admit that the primary reason we are together is through the grace of God. It if wasn't for Him helping us through some difficult situations, and Him wanting us to be together, we would have broken up a while ago. However, after thinking about it for a while I've come up with the 3 basic elements that makes our relationship one of the most solid I know. I think any relationship that has these three, as well as God's help (which is the most essential), can be a good and secure relationship.
1) Commitment: If you think love and relationships are supposed to be easy, I suggest you re-examine the state of marriage in this country. Love, marriage, and relationships of all kinds will be the hardest things you do in your entire life. This is why love is not about feeling, but about commitment. Emily and I CHOOSE to be with each other no matter what. Our confidence in this decision is held strong by our prayers and the numerous signs that God has given us to be together. I'll admit, there are times when I just need my space from her, when we fight and get angry, or when our "feelings of closeness" aren't so present. That doesn't matter, because we know we will whether any storm because we are each others' vocation. Commitment must be the building block of any relationship, otherwise it will crumble.
2) Communication: This is another obvious relational pillar that people, quite frankly, tend to suck at. Communication must be open, honest, respectful, and consistent. I worry when some couples tell me that they never fight... fighting is what healthy couples do! IF they do it in the right way. When you have a problem it is important to tell your partner about it so that both your needs can be met. However, do it at an appropriate time. When discussing or arguing, don't use negative tactics such as name calling, score keeping, or generalizing. You can find tips on these all over the net, so if you have problems with healthy arguing, I suggest you look up some advice, or get a hold of me and I'll help you. Some couples are afraid to talk about problems because they are afraid that a fight could get ugly and end the relationship, or they just don't like confrontation. Well, this is where the commitment comes in--if you know a fight won't break you up, then you can have it and still feel secure. I could go on and on with this paragraph, but because you can find this info everywhere, I'll cut it off here.
3) Intimacy: This is the element that everyone thinks they do great at but know one really knows how and thus people end up in unloving marriages. Put simply, intimacy is a mutual feeling of love between two partners. Yes, this is the FEELING part. However, its not just about sex! Sex can be without intimacy if you are using the other person, and a lack of at least occasional intimacy can break any committed bond. You must show and communicate your feelings of love for each other. This is tricky, since each person speaks a different love language. In other words, each person expresses and receives love in a different way. If you feel you are not receiving love you cannot give love. It's a very delicate circle, but someone has to start it. Gary Chapman writes a great book on this called The 5 Love Languages--check it out if you or your partner are feeling unloved, or if you just want to learn how to love better. The movie "Fireproof" also has some very good examples of this principle.
Every relationship has it's weaknesses, struggles, and strengths. It's primarily through the Grace of God that relationships work out, and some, quite frankly shouldn't last. I don't have all the answers, but for some reason my relationship has lasted, and will continue to last, and I believe it is for these three reasons. Please, if you are in a relationship that is struggling, examine which area(s) need work and talk about it as a couple. If you have good friends or parents who have beautiful relationships, ask them for advice and help as well. Good relationships don't flower in a dark closet, they are meant to be shared and thrive in a Garden of Relationships. Cheesy I know, but its true. A private relationship is a dead one.
Happy Loving
1) Commitment: If you think love and relationships are supposed to be easy, I suggest you re-examine the state of marriage in this country. Love, marriage, and relationships of all kinds will be the hardest things you do in your entire life. This is why love is not about feeling, but about commitment. Emily and I CHOOSE to be with each other no matter what. Our confidence in this decision is held strong by our prayers and the numerous signs that God has given us to be together. I'll admit, there are times when I just need my space from her, when we fight and get angry, or when our "feelings of closeness" aren't so present. That doesn't matter, because we know we will whether any storm because we are each others' vocation. Commitment must be the building block of any relationship, otherwise it will crumble.
2) Communication: This is another obvious relational pillar that people, quite frankly, tend to suck at. Communication must be open, honest, respectful, and consistent. I worry when some couples tell me that they never fight... fighting is what healthy couples do! IF they do it in the right way. When you have a problem it is important to tell your partner about it so that both your needs can be met. However, do it at an appropriate time. When discussing or arguing, don't use negative tactics such as name calling, score keeping, or generalizing. You can find tips on these all over the net, so if you have problems with healthy arguing, I suggest you look up some advice, or get a hold of me and I'll help you. Some couples are afraid to talk about problems because they are afraid that a fight could get ugly and end the relationship, or they just don't like confrontation. Well, this is where the commitment comes in--if you know a fight won't break you up, then you can have it and still feel secure. I could go on and on with this paragraph, but because you can find this info everywhere, I'll cut it off here.
3) Intimacy: This is the element that everyone thinks they do great at but know one really knows how and thus people end up in unloving marriages. Put simply, intimacy is a mutual feeling of love between two partners. Yes, this is the FEELING part. However, its not just about sex! Sex can be without intimacy if you are using the other person, and a lack of at least occasional intimacy can break any committed bond. You must show and communicate your feelings of love for each other. This is tricky, since each person speaks a different love language. In other words, each person expresses and receives love in a different way. If you feel you are not receiving love you cannot give love. It's a very delicate circle, but someone has to start it. Gary Chapman writes a great book on this called The 5 Love Languages--check it out if you or your partner are feeling unloved, or if you just want to learn how to love better. The movie "Fireproof" also has some very good examples of this principle.
Every relationship has it's weaknesses, struggles, and strengths. It's primarily through the Grace of God that relationships work out, and some, quite frankly shouldn't last. I don't have all the answers, but for some reason my relationship has lasted, and will continue to last, and I believe it is for these three reasons. Please, if you are in a relationship that is struggling, examine which area(s) need work and talk about it as a couple. If you have good friends or parents who have beautiful relationships, ask them for advice and help as well. Good relationships don't flower in a dark closet, they are meant to be shared and thrive in a Garden of Relationships. Cheesy I know, but its true. A private relationship is a dead one.
Happy Loving
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Whether "Cliques" are Opposed to Christian Charity
I think this is an especially relative question... should devout Christians belong to a group, in an exclusive nature, and decline interaction with "lesser" or non-believers? This question is raised constantly in Christian circles, especially among teens and young adults, and on college campuses. Should we ignore those who could lead us to sin or who aren't as holy as we... or should we invite all manner of sinners into our midst in an attempt for conversion? What's more Charitable? Most would say that exclusiveness is not loving, and that would should welcome every type of person into our groups to best love them. Let's examine the question further.
For the purpose of this post, the definition of clique will be, an exclusive group of people with shared interests who spend time together.
Now let me say this first, group-forming and cliques are part of the psyche from the human condition. Because we have an innate need to belong, we naturally form groups to fulfill that need, and thus we form "out-groups" to distinguish what we "are not". However, just because we have a disposition to something does not mean its automatically alright.
Now for the issue at hand--as Christians, can we form exclusive groups and still be charitable? Well first, lets look at what Charity is.
Another word for Charity is love, we know that God is love, and that Jesus told us to not only love God with all our being, but also to love our neighbors as ourselves. Aquinas states that love is "benevolence", or willing the good of the other person. Basically this means that to love another person we must want them to be with God, to love ourselves we must wish to get to heaven, and to love God we must want to do his will.
Now we know we must love God with all our being, so it is him that we should love first and foremost. We then must love ourselves, and then others, for we cannot give what we do not have, and so to be charitable to others we must abide in charity to ourselves. This, above all, means avoiding sin, for it is in sin that we are separated from God and reject His Charity. In avoiding sin, we must also be careful not to allow others to lead us to sin, but also must not condone or support the sinful lives of others. If we are to love our neighbor, we must be his keeper.
Further, each person as a varying degree of strength in God, some are strong and others are week, and each person has particular areas of sin that we fall into habitually. If we are expected to help others we must be strong and not fall into sin ourselves, and thus if a person is going to lead you to sin, how can you help them? Yes, Jesus ate with sinners, but in his perfection he need not worry about falling into the sinful acts of those he fell around, nor did he partake in sinful acts as a means for their conversion.
So here it is... it is from this knowledge that I conclude that certain Christian Cliques are not actually (inherently) contrary to Christian Charity, but rather may help to guard it. Sadly there are some people who, for our own well being, we just shouldn't associate with. If someone will lead you to sin, away from God and His charity, you will no be able love them fully while living in that sin, and so to preserve the love for yourself and the love of God, you can "love them from a distance" ie, pray for their conversion and happiness. But the will of God and your purity must come first.
Now, some people are strong in faith or have a particular resistance to certain vices. If this is the case than you should prudently discern if you are called to evangelize to a group or person in that they may be converted. You should only do this if you are strong enough to resist this sin.
Finally, Cliques can be misused. When used as a means of judgment or self-edification they not only hinder charity on all three accounts, but damage the charity of others as they grow contempt for the Church. If an individual is in need of guidance and fellowship, and your "clique" is solid enough to encourage them in that way without falling itself, the charitable thing to do is to invite them into your group.
Consider the groups you are part of, why you are part of them, and if they are exclusive to the detriment or support of Christian Charity.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Reflections on the Historical Jesus
Recently, I was asked a question about my thoughts on the "Historical Jesus"... ie searching for those words and acts that Christ ACTUALLY said and did. I'll admit that, at the time the question was asked, I had had very little exposure to what the Historical Jesus actually was. Basically, I lumped every analysis of the "Real Christ" as falling under John Dominic Crossan's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" and the subsequent "Jesus Seminar". For the record, even after brief subsequent study on the historical Jesus, I still think the work of Crossan and the Jesus seminar is inspired by Satan... but more on that later.
For my Eucharist class I was required to read an article (The Eucharist at the Last Supper: Did it really happen? Theology Digest 42:4, Winter 1995) by Roman Catholic Historical Jesus scholar John Meier. I'll admit, Meier has begun to change my view on Historical Jesus, and has shown me the value the paradigm has in answering certain theological questions and gaining a deeper understanding and love for the person of Christ and Sacred Scripture.
Meier starts off by saying that, while his book A Marginal Jew is often "yoked" with the Jesus seminar, he nevertheless disagrees with Crossan on key issues of Catholicism, for instance... whether or not the Last Supper actually happened. Meier also points out the value of knowing the historical Jesus in reaction to fundamentalist's literal readings.
Without giving away the whole article, or just quoting applicable one-liners from Meier, I'll just give you my general assessment:
Theology is faith seeking understanding, and faith is also rooted in the intellect, which requires some element of reason to truly assent to God. It is for this reason that the Church has always upheld faith AND reason as essential to true belief in God. While different believers are responsible for various levels of understanding concerning faith, it is important for theologians, teachers, and priests to have a deep wisdom and understanding of theological knowledge in order to defend the Truth and help uphold the faith of others.
The Historical Jesus, and historical criticism in general, when applied correctly, in respect to tradition, right reason and intent, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can be a wonderful tool and paradigm in gaining a deeper understanding of the Gospel and the doctrines of our faith. It is for example, in learning the formula that Christ used during the last supper we can begin to see, as Meier says that,
"...what the hallowed bread and wine first of all mediate or communicate is not a static thing but a dynamic reality, the whole saving event of Jesus' death and ultimate vindication" (350).
It is through such study that we begin to see our doctrines in new and beautiful ways, as they were handed to us by Christ himself.
However, this paradigm is not for everyone, for those who are not firm in their faith, sound of reason, or guided by the Holy Spirit, may fall into serious and grave error such as that of the Jesus Seminar who has concluded that, "Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[3][4][5]" I'll let you figure out exactly that is not in accord with the core of Christian belief.
So, when we aim to de-mythologize and legalize the words of Christ, we can fall into serious error. But for those of us who approach this aspect of historical criticism with the intent of greater understanding and in respect to already established doctrines of the Church, we can come to a deeper faith.
So my brethren, happy (and appropriate) "Questing".
For my Eucharist class I was required to read an article (The Eucharist at the Last Supper: Did it really happen? Theology Digest 42:4, Winter 1995) by Roman Catholic Historical Jesus scholar John Meier. I'll admit, Meier has begun to change my view on Historical Jesus, and has shown me the value the paradigm has in answering certain theological questions and gaining a deeper understanding and love for the person of Christ and Sacred Scripture.
Meier starts off by saying that, while his book A Marginal Jew is often "yoked" with the Jesus seminar, he nevertheless disagrees with Crossan on key issues of Catholicism, for instance... whether or not the Last Supper actually happened. Meier also points out the value of knowing the historical Jesus in reaction to fundamentalist's literal readings.
Without giving away the whole article, or just quoting applicable one-liners from Meier, I'll just give you my general assessment:
Theology is faith seeking understanding, and faith is also rooted in the intellect, which requires some element of reason to truly assent to God. It is for this reason that the Church has always upheld faith AND reason as essential to true belief in God. While different believers are responsible for various levels of understanding concerning faith, it is important for theologians, teachers, and priests to have a deep wisdom and understanding of theological knowledge in order to defend the Truth and help uphold the faith of others.
The Historical Jesus, and historical criticism in general, when applied correctly, in respect to tradition, right reason and intent, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can be a wonderful tool and paradigm in gaining a deeper understanding of the Gospel and the doctrines of our faith. It is for example, in learning the formula that Christ used during the last supper we can begin to see, as Meier says that,
"...what the hallowed bread and wine first of all mediate or communicate is not a static thing but a dynamic reality, the whole saving event of Jesus' death and ultimate vindication" (350).
It is through such study that we begin to see our doctrines in new and beautiful ways, as they were handed to us by Christ himself.
However, this paradigm is not for everyone, for those who are not firm in their faith, sound of reason, or guided by the Holy Spirit, may fall into serious and grave error such as that of the Jesus Seminar who has concluded that, "Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[3][4][5]" I'll let you figure out exactly that is not in accord with the core of Christian belief.
So, when we aim to de-mythologize and legalize the words of Christ, we can fall into serious error. But for those of us who approach this aspect of historical criticism with the intent of greater understanding and in respect to already established doctrines of the Church, we can come to a deeper faith.
So my brethren, happy (and appropriate) "Questing".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)