|
"...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works." |
Fowler issued his cookie cutter apology today, citing his comments as being a "satrical comment" on those of the late Rev Falwell's concerning God & 9/11. So of course, it is ultimately the Christian community's fault.
Anyway.. For those who don't remember, Falwell basically said that 9/11 was God's punishment on the U.S. for our pursuing civil rights for homesexuals, not outlawing abortion, and our seeming general indifference to immoral and atheistic living. To the extent that is true is a debate for another day.
In any case, Rev Falwell was incorrect both in his original statement and in his apology (both of which can be read above). In his apology, Rev Falwell said, "I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812."
Our relationship with God is no longer in a state of The Law of the Old Testament, but the Gospel of the New Testament. Statements like the above have caused Christians such as myself (from as far back as Martin Luther) to be tripped up spiritually. Words such as those do not represent what it is to be a follower of Christ.
Although we deserve it, God does not punish. He does not bring evil or suffering, whether it be terrorist attacks or natural disasters. In Hosea 6:6 God says, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice"; and later, Paul writes to the Thessalonian church in the 9th verse of the 5th chapter of his first letter there, "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to receive salvation though our Lord Jesus Christ."
Certainly He disciplines and rebukes through His Word (see Hebrews 12) in a way that is revealed by the verses in this post (and many others); although He has given us the free will to walk with or apart from Him, yet His love never wanes in spite of our failures. And when we find ourselves outside of that "veil of protection", exposed to the evil that would destroy us, it is not by God's desire or will.
The blame is ours through bad choices, faithlesssness, or allowing evil to exploit our natures. That is the meaning of Proverbs 14:23 (and similar verrses). Also remember that God did not create us for death, but this is what Adam and Eve chose for themselves and their descendents. (And immediately thereafter, God promised us salvation through His son.)
Still, despite our flawed humanity, the veil remains (see Joshua 1:5).
9/11 was organised and executed by grossly misguided and evil souls; it was successful largely due to the immorality of a U.S. President, and the breakdown of communication between intelligence agencies due to human arrogance and pride.
To say that God caused or wanted 9/11--or any other terrorist attack upon innocents--and/or the suffering that resulted from it, is a statement of ignorance, misunderstanding, or slander against our Creator.
If one is to know God, he must seek God through His Word. Thus will we know to whom we should hearken.
Kas and I don't generally post or acknowledge much when it comes to articles on Biblical prophecy being fulfilled in the current age. Most of the time it's just some person trying to get publicity for themselves. But this article published today at WorldNetDaily.com is one we will call attention to as it concerns upcoming lunar and solar eclipses and how they may be harbingers to some thing big on the horizon.
We like that the article consciously states that it is merely serving as a sentry to Christian faith. Nothing more.
Liberals pride themselves on supposedly giving voice to the poor, the down-trodden, the minority, the starving, the sick, the oppressed, the suffering...
If you believe that load of crock here are two stories for you.
March 31, 2008
The Washington Post: Gore launches ambitious [$300 Million] campaign on climate
April 7, 2008
Reuters: Key scientist sure "God particle" will be found soon
The Times (UK): At 78, scientist hopes for proof soon that he was right about the Universe
$300 million in advertising to convince mankind we are able to control nature...
$2.36 billion for an "atom smasher" to attempt to prove that God doesn't exist so that atheists can sleep better at night, and so that a scientist can win a medal...
Don't tell me that liberals care about this world's starving and destitute when they support these kinds of selfish money-burning projects and scams. Make no mistake: a liberal's only interest is their vanity and their pursuit to be free from moral responsibility.
Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
If there is one sentiment that Christmas should awaken in our hearts, it is the sense of wonder. In the strictest sense of an overworked word, Christmas is indeed something wonderful. It brings the wonder of the incarnation. It shows how "great is the mystery of godliness: God is manifest in the flesh." In our day we have largely lost this sense of wonder. People, unwilling to live by faith, demand proof. They pride themselves on being realists.
But Christmas is a festival of wonder. Its glory lies in the very fact that it surpasses the range of human knowledge, that it transcends the realm of human experience. Its appeal is to faith.
For Christmas shows us a mystery—the mystery of God becoming man; of divinity in humanity; of eternity linked with time. But this mystery is, at the same time, intensely real. In fact, that is just why it is such a wonder! Christmas is no children’s tale. It is historic truth. Indeed all history can be read correctly only in the light of Christmas, which shows that human history has a divine purpose and an eternal destiny. In the wonder of Christmas all the ages converge. On this day God was manifest in the flesh.
-Thomas Coates, From Daily Devotions
Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, gave an inspiring speech on religion and American culture while on his Presidential campaign trail. It is rare that we hear such words in current American politics, and from a high-profile Presidential candidate no less. Even though I am a (Lutheran) Christian and have not yet chosen to support a specific candidate for the Republican nomination, I am posting this speech in its entirety on my weblog because it is informative, heartfelt, and true insight into the role religion should play in the governance of a nation (and the role Christianity has played in the governance of ours).
You can also view the speech via Governor Romney's website (it runs about twelve minutes).
I also encourage you to read Rush Limbaugh's follow-up commentary to the speech, which is just as informative and inspiring.
I generally do not support activism when it comes to literature. I admonished parts of the Christian community for their extremist stand on the Harry Potter series, and I urged clear-thinking when it came to Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. I am a firm believer that if you raise a child strongly rooted in the Christian faith, then they will be able to read books like Harry Potter and discern the many positive elements from those elements that are better left to the fictional world (using magic and all that). But the controversy surrounding Pullman's HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy is very different.
I quoted a Marine about his experiences post-Nagasaki. And yet the dropping of the A-Bomb is a tough question to ponder in the mind of a Christian.
I am really REALLY done with the blaming of video games whenever a random act of violence happens. Millions of people play video games, yet there aren't millions of random acts of violence being reported every day.
I would love to blame the media and liberalism. Afterall they preach hatred for American culture, loathing for the rich, and contempt for the religious. But ultimately I can't because the media only speaks to you if you choose to let them.
Blaming video games for violence is absolutely lame and completely devoid of logic, just like blaming gun control, the media, movies, war, whatever. This tragedy at Virginia Tech is about personal responsibility. When we screw up the blame lies within a very small circle: ourselves--being our own inner motivations.
UPDATE: 4.26
Here's a good example of somone (in this case an LA Times columnist) making a decision he knows to be abnormal (aka "wrong"), but needing to find reasons (aka "blame") to be right:
Recent studies have shown that such physiological factors as genetics and hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy can significantly affect how our brains are "wired" at birth.
So (as usual) it is ultimately the fault of God (or science if you're an atheist) that this guy has felt compelled to be a girl. God somehow got it wrong. You know, if this person had written a simple paragraph for his column that read "I was Mike, now I am Christine. I have decided to be a woman because being a man sucks." I at least would have given the person the props for having integrity. But why print about it at all? Gays and transsexuals are constanty insisting that they are hated and persecuted for their private lifestyle. Well if it's their private lifestyle then keep it private! No, these people print it because they want persecution and they want sympathy. But when someone goes public with something like this they must be rebuked publicly lest he (perhaps unwittingly) leads someone else down his errant path.
When faced with this kind of decision we must understand just how badly we must fight our inner desires to replace God with ourselves. It is amazing how much we would rather choose to kick our own mental asses and spend thousands of dollars on unnecessary science than to simply accept God's will in our lives. And when we go public with a decision (or an act) of this nature we are even more accountable to God than if we would have kept our sin between God and ourselves.
There is a comment posted to the above article that says this:
Christians--always the first to pass judgment. I'm a Christian and I pass none, because there's none to be passed. You are an extraordinary human being, Christine. Don't ever forget it.
This is what I am talking about. This is an example of someone giving the Gospel when the sinner first needs the Law. The Law shows us our sin; the Gospel washes it away. But too many Christians want to make peace at the expense of accepting another person's sin. This is not the kind of peace Christ preaches. The peace he speaks of is the peace of the heart--the peace of knowing that God forgives anything and everything. But this can only be done when we first recognise that we have sinned against Him. And we Christians must ask for the strength to rebuke should He present us with the situation when it is required--whether it be a transsexual or a troubled mind looking to kill innocent people. I pray that Holy strength finds someone when I am in need of rebuke. My soul depends on it.
Martin Luther's Easter sermons are among some of his most remembered and quoted writings. Here we have part one of a sermon that he preached in 1525 based on Luke 24. The sermon speaks of how Christ brings the truth and joy of His resurrection to his own unbelieving disciples, whether they be from the First Century or the Twenty-First Century:
...But the special purpose of [Luke 24] is to show us how weak in faith the disciples were, and how Christ in his kingdom manifests himself to such persons of weak faith, and how he deals with them. For we see from the whole story of Christ's resurrection, as recorded in the Gospels, how the Apostles, and all the other disciples after them, were so weak in their faith in this doctrine, even to the time of his ascension, that he had to upbraid them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen, Mk 16, 14. They manifested this weakness, though he had often told them from the Scriptures that he must be crucified and rise again on the third day, etc.
...From this we learn, in the first place, that even in those who have become true Christians, weakness and frailties remain, especially in the deeper matters of doctrine and faith, they being unable to understand them or to grasp them as firmly and strongly as they ought. For faith is not so light or easy a matter as ignorant and inexperienced people fancy, and as our coarse blockheads, the popish dunces, pretend, who believe that faith is no more than to have heard the history and to know it. Having heard or read just once what the Gospel tells of Christ, these people fancy that they have fully understood and believed it, and henceforth need no longer to learn and believe it....
Therefore we should follow [the disciples'] example, and gladly hear the Word of God, without growing weary. For this is not only a needful practice for the strong and for the weak, for the wise and for the unwise, by which a knowledge of everything we need unto salvation is given-- such study can never exhaust it--but it is also the punishment through which God wishes to work within our hearts, to give faith and the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says in Rom 10, 17: "Belief cometh by hearing the Word of God." If man studies earnestly, even though the heart be cold and unwilling at first, if he only continues in the work, it will not be in vain, and the effect will be produced that the unwise and erring will be brought in and made better, the weak will be strengthened, and at last the heart will be kindled and enlightened, so that Christ is better understood and known from the Scriptures.
...
[The Scriptures] can only be understood when the Holy Ghost accompanies them, and preaches and reveals them unto those who believe with singleness of heart and abide in them. Then they begin to taste the sweet savor, and receive spiritual nourishment, so that they must say: This will do it, this will enlighten the heart and set it aflame.
You can read the full sermon here.
On this day God, who manifested Himself into the very flesh He used to create man at the genesis of the world, gave Himself up in a perfect sacrifice so that Satan Lucifer could not win the final battle of the great war between Heaven and hell.
Whether you believe in Him or not, God died so that you might live.
What a miraculous and beautiful day.
If you have never read the best-selling book by Paul Maier, A Skeleton in God's Closet, it is a story in the guise of a Dan Brown thriller that puts forth this scenario: What would happen if the bones of Jesus Christ were found?
An intruguing question that a new BBC documentary is now actually trying to bring to claim is no longer fiction. Apparently the name of Jesus has been found on a first-century ostuary. Other names on the ancient coffin include the children and what is believed the wife of this Jesus--you guessed it Maria, which the documentary's producers and scholar's are quickly claiming is "Mary"...or Mary Magdalene.
I am a Christian. I make no secret of this fact and I make no secret that I do everything I can to promote the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ in every aspect of my life and at every oppurtunity. I guess this makes me biased when it comes to critiquing this kind of archaeology. The problem I have is that I (and many others like me) am thus accused of having an agenda, as if the non-Christian producers and scholars and scientists and politicians and religious leaders (etc etc) do not. Some of these can even be catergorised as actively anti-Christian, such as the producer of this "Jesus" documentary, the Hollywood director, James Cameron (Terminator series, Titanic).
I don't mind that Cameron and his army of anti-Christian professionals have an agenda to disprove or discredit even the most sacred of Christian beliefs. I do mind that they are spineless enough to promote their agenda to the masses as "objective scholarship and science".
Peacemakers, Christ says.
Peacemakers.
Making anything requires effort and sacrifice and wisdom. Pacifists and war-mongers both consider themselves peacemakers and neither are. To make peace sometimes war must be made. But a war that is made with no diplomatic attempt or desired end is also not Christ-like.
In recent years, President Bush has exemplified a peacemaker as Christ suggested from his sermon. In Iraq and Afghanistan, he made war to promote peace. In North Korea he has chosen the side of diplomacy. In the brutal American political wars he chooses diplomacy wherever he can--almost too much for this conservative.
So am I saying that Christ promoted war as a part of peace?
First remember that Christ is one-third the God we see so much in the Old Testament. I AM made war often to establish (or humble) His people Israel. Yet when he became Christ he would not raise up in revolution against Rome.
And then there is that invisible war--the ultimate of all armed conflicts where the stakes are the highest: the Human soul.
I do not accept the war-monger as a peacekeeper because death and carnage should not be the purpose of life.
But the pacifist is also grossly misguided; a soul always at peace is a soul never prepared to fight. Contrasted to the object in motion staying in motion, a soul at rest remains passive and wholly vulnerable to the object in motion. And if that soul is Christian what happens when it is attacked by the invisible enemies of despair or hate? What happens when a physical mind corrupted by these forces attacks fellow physical minds?
"A time of war, and a time of peace." The famous song performed by The Byrds? The song is from God--Ecclesiastes 3 to be exact. Later Christ preached it as one part of "blessed are the peacemakers".
That we need to war at all goes back to the First Sin when Adam and Eve destroyed God's intended eternal peace for this world.
It is our duty to employ both as part of our role as peacemakers on this world.
But as always, Christ is more speaking to our spirtual roles of peacemaking: blessed are those of us that help still the spirtual waters of the soul. That is the peace of importance to God, the peace "that surpasses all understanding".
How much war would there be if the soul were at peace?
"And while I believe in God I have no use for organized religion," I read in Stephen King's On Writing.
It does not matter if it is a high profile fiction authour, a learned college professor, or a young "skull of mush", this is the montra of the Modern World--and many can't even get "And while I believe in God" over their lips.
Where this comes from is simple: people just refuse to yield to any kind of authority anymore, and especially Divine Authority. And organized religion (aka the Church) is always here to remind us that we are NOT the final authority when choosing our convictions, morals, and principles.
Its always incredible to me that people actually think that they can somehow circum-navigate God's authority, and thus His Word in the Bible, simply by saying "Nah" to going to Church. It is just like Adam and Eve who really thought that they could hide from God in the bushes: as long as we jettison the Church we can freely interpret the Bible any way we choose without God ever knowing.
This is wrong, and ultimately spirtual suicide. Unlike William Goldman's edition of The Princess Bride, you cannot edit the Bible into your own personal "Good Parts Version". When we stand before the Judgment Seat He will know whether we accepted his Authority through His Word or not. And one way or another we will take responsibility for this decision.
Perhaps His Question will come in the form of, "If my Word was not sufficient for you, why should my gift of Eternal Life be any more sufficient?" What will you say to this question?
"It was too hard"
"It was unfair"
"I was too weak"
"I didn't know"
"I'm sorry"
I do not know how God will respond to these--I have a fairly good guess. What I do know with 100% certainty is that the question will not even be put to you if you accept the Bible is as God's Word and Autority on your Life. Then you will have a use for "Organized Religion", and may further find that the fellowship and assurance of God's Grace to the faithful that "Organized Religion" offers is more than worth the yielding of one's human pride.
I have never understood the minute fraction-ing of Christ's Church. When Martin Luther began the Reformation, at the very worst he might have envisioned A FEW broken pieces. But these days, Chrisitianity more closely resembles spiderweb cracks in a car window. Before we get into that, here are the major parts of our "broken window", firmly established and unchanged since the 16th century (NOTE: ALL groups listed here are of one mind in terms of the authority of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and the belief that this Christian Faith is the One True Faith--this is a "Chrisitian"):
Roman Catholics: the Second Christian Church Body of world history, and (still) the largest; roots extend all the way back to the Roman Emperor Constantine; their leader-the Pope, their Capital-the Vatican, and their main confessions-that Grace ultimately extends from Christ to the Pope (who bestows the gift at his will to Christians).. and also that Grace must be earned through actions and deeds (such as tithing to the Church) aka "Grace through Works".
The Orthodox Church: in my opinion the First Christian Church Body since it geographically contains many of the locations of the first Christian churches mentioned in the Epistle portion of the New Testament; Orthodox Christianity is pretty close to Roman Catholicism in many of its traditions, but more Protestant in its Biblical Confessions; still, Orthodox Christians are easily distinguishable because the culture and geography associated with the church body is exclusively Eastern European (and Russia); basically we're looking at Eastern Christendom here.
Christian Jews: not too widespread, but there is a decent amount of practicing Jews who accept Christ as the Messiah; if we could know what is in God's head, of all the Christian Church bodies, the Christian Jew may be the closest to what He was hoping would come from the ministry of his son, Jesus--on the other hand, God may have wanted the Jewish traditions officially put out to pasture with His Son as the New Covenant; anyway, a Jewish Christian is a pretty distinct (and interesting) part of traditional Christianity and they do have their own organized Church.
Anglicans: again, there's a distinct history here; Henry VIII was more Roman Catholic than Protestant, but Rome wouldn't anull his marraige so he formed his own "Vatican". Back then, The Church of England did not extend outside of English borders, and, except for the politics, the COE was a Biblically sound Christian Church body. So if you were English, you were Anglican, otherwise you were non-Anglican--these days, the COE is worldwide and confessionally a Protestant church body.
Protestants: if terms like "Holy See", "Vatican", "Rosary", "Saint [insert one of several hundred non-Biblical names here]", "private confession", "the Blessed Virgin Mary" are not ALL part of your daily Christian life or worship OR you do not fit in one of the above groups, then you are a "Protestant" Christian; there's a deep history separating Roman Catholics from Protestantism, starting with the Reformation; the "Protestants" of Luther's day were more accurately (or more simply) Reformed Catholics, a term I am quite sure Luther would have preferred over "Protestant" or "Lutheran"; in any case, the two primary doctrinal distinctions between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant Christian is the non-recognition (on the Protestant side) of the Pope's authority (specifically his role in saving grace) and the Protestant doctrine of "Grace through Faith" (which is exact opposite of the Vatican's "Grace through Works").
The maddening problem comes in distinguishing Protestant from Protestant.
Lutheran-Methodist-Presbyrtarian-Congregationalist-Episcopal-Adventist-Baptist-Pentecostal... it's a nightmare. Each Protestant denomination is bit different from the other. So who's way of worship is right? Why do there have to be so many in the first place? And the questions go on! I could sit here and type for weeks answering all the discrepencies and nuances of the current Protesant group of churches. So instead I'll answer the question this way.
If I had my way, I would organize an International Church Body called the Church of the New Covenant. To be part of this organization, a denomination would 1) need to yield to the full authority of the Bible and the Gospel of Christ, teaching "Grace through Faith" (or Sola Gratia) 2) accept the original church confessions and creeds formed at the Council of Niceae 3) adopt Luther's 95 Theses (and other writings) as the Church Body's fundamental base of conscience 4) discontinue use of all labels and titles save for the "CNC" and 5) form and maintain a democratic organization of officers complete with constitution.
Any denomination not in the CNC would be termed "Protestant" by the CNC and remain to be governed to their own ends. BUT the CNC would make documents available pointing out the differences (with Biblical references) between the CNC and the Protestant denominations. Jewish Christians, The Church of England, the Lutheran-Church Missouri Synod (and its affiliates), The Orthodox Christian Church, and any other churches who have separated from their original organisations due to liberal interpretations of the Bible of those organisations would be personally invited to join the CNC.
The second order of business would be to encourage any other organisation (or church considering a separation from their current organisation due to liberal interpretations of the Bible) to submit an application for membership in the CNC.
Specific Issues Would be Addressed in this way and Broadcast Publicly as Official Stances of the CNC:
I know there are other issues, but the above are a good place to start, and the only way to begin to fix the confusion.
Full of Grace and Truth
(delivered 25 December 2006 by Dr NT Wright, Bishop of Durham)
Here an excerpt (the full sermon can be read on his website):
"The great revolution of thought which happened in Europe over three centuries ago, associated with Descartes in particular, was the attempt to grasp truth as it were from scratch: by doubting everything, we would see what we could be sure of and build out from there. We would know the facts, and the facts would set us free – free from God, free from any responsibility except to our own self-interest.
...
But if the world has tried to have truth without grace, the church has often been tempted towards grace without truth – as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, ‘cheap grace’. God has become a benevolent old softie, ready to tolerate everything, to include everyone, to throw away all those unpleasant old moral standards and say it’s all right, do your own thing, if it feels good it must be OK. And once again the results are all around – both in the anti-moralism of the arch-liberals and the anti-authoritarianism of today’s new conservatives, who don’t realise that they are simply producing an ecclesiological parody of the do-it-yourself morality they so detest. But no: grace and truth must meet together; if it really is grace, it really must produce truth, a rich, deep personal, moral and ecclesial integrity which is deeply true to the created order and to its recreation in Christ, to the deep structures of God’s wise and loving ordering of his world and of us human beings. Cheap grace – assuming, in whichever direction, that God is on your side because your agenda seems to urgent, so obviously right, and not troubling to ask the hard questions – is to genuine grace as ‘facts’ are to ‘truth’: a late modern parody to be named and shamed and rejected in the name of the Christmas message, of the grace and truth which we find in the baby in the manger."
The Wonder of Christmas
(from The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod)
Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)
Mel Gibson conducted an interview with Diane Sawyer with the intent to repair what he believes to be a damaged reputation after his drunken arrest incident. We all know what he said, and we know even more how much he has apologized. But the critics and Jewish community continue to say "It's not enough".
Not enough. When did humans decide it was their right to decide what is enough and what isn't. When is it enough to accept an apology and move on? When our tattered prides are mended? When the offender has sunk his reputation into depths he cannot escape? Maybe after the situation is large enough so that all the talking heads can have their gospel say ala the parable of the pharisee and the sinner (Luke 18:9)?
I always told people that the God of the Christians and Jews is the same God. After reading the article about Gibson's interview. I officially recant this belief. Apparently the god of Jewish faith teaches that we each have the right to decide when we think someone is sorry enough to be worthy of our forgiveness. But the Word of God (aka The Bible) is rife with examples of God telling us to forgive our brothers and let it go. I should not have to remind the Jews how many time their Biblical ancestors said stupid things to God and about God. And how many apologies did it take for the nation to receive God's forgiveness?
"The blame was cast on the drinking and not really what he thinks and feels," says Rabbi Mark Diamond. "I think he has a long way to go in accepting responsibility and confronting the disease of alcoholism." Seems to me that it's not Gibson who needs to come to grips with what he thinks and feels, it's everyone else. It also seems to me that the Jewish community ought to be focusing on real anti-Semitic problems e.g. the United Nations and Iran.
The circle has got to be one of the most oft-used shapes in humanity and no religion--alive or dead--can claim exclusivity to it.
To the Christian, the circle has always represented God--perfect and eternal. Aside from that, the circle pretty can represent anything eternal. The gold band in Luther's seal (see below), for example, symbolises Heaven and thus eternal life.
The Da Vinci Code draws further attention the apparent uniqueness of the Templar churches due to their circular layouts. Building on the foundations of "the circle religion" that is ancient feminine paganism, the story connects the Templars to paganism. A more practical purpose may be that the Templars built their churches to resemble their Jerusalem surroundings. Or to serve as a kind of business advertising.
There are also interesting theories that the Templars may have been adept in geometry and science, and built their churches circular as a kind of calendar. Templar churches in Scandinavia offer several clues in support of these theories. (However, I do not subscribe to follow-up theories connecting the Templars advanced scientific knowledge--if they had any--to non-Christian symbolism or practices, or to the Masons.)
In The Da Vinci Code the rose plays a prominent role in the story's line-up of "sacred feminine" and pagan symbols tied to the Holy Grail. But the rose is just as strong in Christian symbology, and its inclusion in churches should not be viewed as unusual.
First, one of Jesus' Messianic titles is "The Rose of Sharon", which is an actual flower found in Palestine's green valleys (and referenced in the Old Testament book, Song of Solomon 2:1). This rose (or lily) has puzzled scientists and scholars alike. You can view the parrallels of this enigmatic rose with the person of Christ at this very interesting website.
Second, the rose is prominent in the seal of Reformation founder, Martin Luther (and thus throughout Lutheran symbology). This seal has come to represent the Protestant movement started by Luther and could have been a way for a church to mark itself as being of that line of thinking.
Alright. The claim is that the figure to Christ's right is none other Mary Magdalene, Faithful Disciple. Furthermore, Da Vinci supposedly put her in the picture in support of the secret knowledge that Jesus and Mary were a married couple, or at the very least, "an item". The Church, in order to cover this up, instead labeled the figure to Jesus' right as an effeminite St. John, the Gospel writer.
Historical Background
- Leonardo Da Vinci was a man of extraordinary talent and intelligence. Not many historical figures can claim being a labeled a genius in both art and science by posterity. In fact, I can't even think of one. His love of art and science also put him at serious odds with the Church, who he didn't think much of anyway.
- The Catholic Church in the 15th century is a firmly masculine organisation. The Catholic Church is as arrogant as ever. And the Catholic Church is as corrupt as ever.
My Thougts
Fine. The figure could be a woman.
Fine. The figure could be Mary Magdalene.
Fine. I'll even buy the letter "v" possibly being in the painting as a nod to Da Vinci's feminism.
Am I supposed to be upset about all this by now...?
The Last Supper is a painting by the hand of a man who at the very least enjoyed pressing the Church's buttons and at best had a full fledged agenda. For me, if it is true that he painted Mary to stick it to the Church, then I'm disappointed that Da Vinci lacked the integrity to paint what he was being paid for and leave it at that (since there was no saying "no" to Rome back then). At the very worst, the painting drops some places down on my list of respected Christian art because its historical accuracy is in question. But beyond that, it doesn't bother me in the least that she may be the one in the painting (or with Jesus in any other pieces of art). Mary Magdalene was just as important a disciple as John the Apostle and let's move on.
I'll also add this: If the Church commissioned a painter who already gave them a piece they weren't at all happy with (Madonna of the Rocks), what are they doing commissioning him again? Especially someone with the wit of Da Vinci? The Church got what it should have expected.
Also, accepting that the figure may indeed be Mary Magdalene, the fact that the Church covered up the figure's identity is hardly reeking of conspiracy. As mentioned, the Church--heck society--was completely dominated by men. And on top of that, Mary had been labeled a prostitute and thus "a most disgusting sinner". Of course they would have covered up the identity!
So the story The Last Supper tells us is one of complete arrognace, stupidity, greed, obsession, vanity, prejudice and slander on the part of Rome. The Catholic Church's non-Biblical rejection of "the woman" is the reason for all this controversy we have now with The Da Vinci Code. And not just the book, but also the modern day sexual scandals. Wherever the Church got the idea of absolute chastity for its priests and church workers, they did not get it from the Bible. But of course, they had the luxury of illiterate believers. The whole theological history of the Papacy is a tragedy, for Christians and non-Christians alike.
And Leonardo was no fool. He knew where to hit the Church where it hurts. I might even believe that, in his genius, he knew the result of the Church's incompetance would reverberate for centuries to come. And it has.
The Verdict
No conspiracy here. Just the typical The Vatican versus The Renaissance battle. The real loser here is Da Vinci, who cannot defend his work. If you're a Gnostic or someone who believes in the "divine feminine" well then my guess is that Leonardo is easily one of your patron saints. But in the end, it's a painting and it can be interpreted to mean (and now depict) just about anything the human mind wants it to. That is the double-edged sword that is art.
It is my intention to explore selected symbology found in The Da Vinci Code offering a Christian perspective. The novel gives a feeling that its interpretation of Christian symbology is "finally the real interpretation" behind Christian symbology and its motives. There is more to Christian symbology than the average person may be aware of.
My intention is NOT to prove or disprove the novel's interpretations. But I feel this journey is necessary given the first page of the book that so bluntly (and falsely) states that everything within its pages is fact. There is much beyond the codes and symbols used in the book that is not historically or Biblically accurate, and I will leave these to the numerous Christian-written books already available (such as the one written by Dr. Paul L Maier).
In the end, symbols are symbols. And where the Christian faith seperate itself from the rest of the world's religions (and even Catholic theology and tradition) is that eternal salvation does not lie in human interpretations, but in the Truth of God's Word as written in The Bible and the death and resurrection of Christ. These are real actions and moments in history, not symbols or allegory.
From "The Easter Vocation" delivered by the Bishop of Durham, Dr. N.T. Wright (at Durham Cathedral, England):
What is far more urgent and important than questions of one’s own ultimate destiny, is to say, as all the evangelists do, four things. First, Jesus really is alive again. Second, therefore he really is the Messiah, the world’s true Lord. Third, therefore God’s new creation has begun. And, fourth – and this is the sharp edge of it all – therefore you have an urgent and important job to do, and a new identity to do it with. The whole thrust of this long Easter morning story is to take us, through the person and the eyes of Mary Magdalene, to the heart of the earliest Easter message: Jesus is raised, therefore the world is a different place, and we are called, as witnesses to the resurrection, to announce it, to make it happen, and to find ourselves remade in the process.
From "The Unknown God" delivered by Rev. Dr. Ken Klaus (via The Lutheran Hour):
[I]t's unassailable, impregnable, irrefutable proof that what I am saying is true. I point to that which has been, and always will be, the factual foundation for the faith for all who would be saved: Jesus Christ has come forth from his grave. Doubters and deniers, skeptics and scoffers of every age must deal with this truth: Jesus Christ has physically, visibly, eternally risen from the dead. ...
But know this: your sneer does not put Christ back into His tomb; your smirk does not deny His physical resurrection; your scoffing does not rob believers of their living Lord; and your condescending smile will not stop Him from returning on Judgment Day. To you I say: Take a look. Today, while God gives you the time, while you are able, take a serious look into Jesus' empty tomb. I challenge you to stop smirking and with an open mind investigate Christianity's claim of the resurrection. If you are right and end up being completely convinced of the rightness of your position, fine. You have lost nothing but some time. But, if Scripture is right and Jesus has risen from the grave, then you will have been given the Savior and the salvation He has won.
Following up on this Judas manuscript "discovery", I found this excellent transcript of a lecture given by Anglican Bishop and accalimed Bible scholar, N.T. Wright: "Decoding The Da Vinci Code". It delves into the fog created by The Da Vinci Code, and with the hype machine for the movie in full hum it is certainly relevant.
More importantly, it provides an excellent definition of Gnosticism and the impact the religion is having eighteen centuries later both on the world and Biblical Christianity. Here is an excerpt:
"Neo-Gnosticism is the philosophy that invites you to search deep inside yourself and discover some exciting things by which you must then live. It is the philosophy which declares that the only real moral imperative is that you should then be true to what you find when you engage in that deep inward search. But this is not a religion of redemption. It is not at all a Jewish vision of the covenant God who sets free the helpless slaves. It appeals, on the contrary, to the pride that says “I’m really quite an exciting person, deep down, whatever I may look like outwardly” — the theme of half the cheap movies and novels in today’s world. It appeals to the stimulus of that ever-deeper navel-gazing (“finding out who I really am”) which is the subject of a million self-help books, and the home-made validation of a thousand ethical confusions. It corresponds, in other words, to what a great many people in our world want to believe and want to do, rather than to the hard and bracing challenge of the very Jewish gospel of Jesus. It appears to legitimate precisely that sort of religion which a large swathe of America and a fair chunk of Europe yearns for: a free-for-all, do-it-yourself spirituality, with a strong though ineffective agenda of social protest against the powers that be, and an I'm-OK-you're-OK attitude on all matters religious and ethical. At least, with one exception: You can have any sort of spirituality you like (Zen, labyrinths, Tai Chi) as long as it isn’t orthodox Christianity."
I further invite you to check out the other lectures he gave at Seattle Pacific University.
As a Christian, the finding of a "new gospel" isn't necessarily a reason to flinch. But when the USA Today misleadingly touts the headline "Long-lost gospel of Judas recasts 'traitor'" all over the internet (along with the rest of their media colleagues and similar headlines in major international publications) and National Geographic treats the find like that of the Rosetta Stone or King Tut, then as a Christian I must act.
First, a piece of quick historical background concerning this manuscript. It is considered a "gnostic gospel". A gospel of this genre has significantly more mysticism to it than you would ever find in a Biblical gospel, or any of the Biblical books. They focus on the salvation through one's secret knowledge rather than on the death and Resurrection of Jesus. Gnostic gospels, interestingly enough, also offer convenient or relative viewpoints of the events surrounding Jesus' life and ministry.
For instance, Judas is cast as a villain. Here we have a gospel that not only makes him a hero, but a misunderstood and learned hero--and the media is viewing him as such. In another popular gnostic gospel, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, we have a supposed account of Jesus from the view of the New Testament's second most influential women. Very encouraging for the modern world where feminism runs rampant in the public sector.
Unlike Judaism or Islam or the religions of the Orient, Biblical Christianity does not have sacred mystic texts that allow for a higher path to Heaven. As you will read from the articles I have posted at the end of this, there were early religious sects who considered themselves "Christian" and subscribed to gnosticism. These sects are not unlike the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses of today, or the Cathars of medieval France, or the Celtic Druids of the ancient world.
This should all be kept in mind as we are bombarded by the scholarship surrounding this newly discovered manuscript. And as Professor Bainbridge aludes to in his short (but informative) weblog, it's inetersting how this is coming out now, the weekend before Easter and a little over a month before The Da Vinci Code hits theatres worldwide.
As I'm sure you have read the AP articles and will watch the National Geographic specials, I encourage you to also read the following articles.
Expert Doubts Gospel Of Judas
by Richard N Ostling (AP), with James M Robinson, Professor Emeritus (Claremont)
'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication
by Bruce Chilton (NY Sun)
The Gospel of Judas: Peddling Gnosticism
by Stephen Bainbridge, Professor of Law (UCLA)
Thanks to the speaking event with professor and authour, Alan Jacobs, that I heard on BookTV this weekend, I have found myself immersing in the writings of C.S. Lewis. After reading excerpts so far from his The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, and Miracles, I have happily found that my personal reflections concerning Chrisitianity are very close to his own (with our only differenece being that he was an atheistic convert and I have been a Christian all of life).
One thought that I find still very relative to our current intellectual society concerns the oft-stated comment that many make concerning Jesus' divinty. It usually goes something like this: "Jesus was a great teacher in history, perhaps even the best. However, he cannot have been the Son of God or done any of the miraculous things depicted in the Bible. He was a good man, a model for our times. Nothing else."
Lewis answers this claim in Book Two of Mere Christianity thusly:
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 and 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.
This interview with Alan Jacobs, a professor of English at Wheaton College and authour of the recent biographical work, The Narnian: C.S. Lewis and the Culture Wars, is a fascinating read.. if only because it was conducted by PBS (for their "The Jesus Factor" program).
It is thoroughly entertaining to see a liberal journalist wrestling with how someone can call themselves "intellectual" and "a Christian" in the same breath. And worse yet (for him) that Professor Jacobs actually makes complete and intellectual *gasp* sense.
Here is an excerpt from the interview, which you can read in its entirety on PBS's website. In this excerpt, Professor Jacobs is being asked (a second time) about the truth of the Bible...
… I'll ask it to you a different way. What I think is really curious is that I think one of the stereotypes about evangelicals is that evangelicals just accept the Bible as truth, and there's no sort of questioning. There's no wrestling that's going on. You're blindly accepting this as truth. You know God is speaking through this book to you. It just seems very simple, and especially the way that reporters talk about it usually is very simple. Talk to me about that intellectual process, and why it might just be really appropriate that someone like you would believe in the Bible.
… It seems to me that the people who are really wrestling with Scripture are the ones who are taking its authority seriously. After all, if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, if you believe that these are just historic documents with no particular claim on you or on anybody else, that doesn't lead you to wrestle with anything. You can just dismiss anything in it that you see that strikes you as being alien or that makes you uncomfortable or that you feel that you can't endorse.
So it's quite easy to read a passage of Scripture, decide that it's not something that you buy into, and then put it aside, unless you have a commitment to the authority of that text. If you have that commitment, it actually pressures you. It puts the screws to you. It makes it very hard for you to have a simple response to it.
Jesus talks to a man who is always referred to in the biblical literature as the rich, young ruler. He tells him, "OK, if you want what I'm giving, if you want the kind of life that I have to offer, then take everything that you have, sell it and give it to the poor." And this young man walks away sad, because he had great wealth.
I read that passage, and I have to struggle with that, because I'm thinking, "What is this passage demanding of me?" It says something to me, because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that he is my Lord and my Savior. He says something like this. I have to ask myself, "What does it mean for me?" So far, I haven't decided that it means that I have to sell everything I have and give it to the poor, but maybe that's because I'm an inauthentic or disobedient Christian. Maybe I'm not taking my beliefs seriously enough.
So I can say this is the word of God for me. But that that's only the beginning of my problems. That actually doesn't solve problems. That creates a whole set of problems, because I have to work very hard to try to figure out what sort of demand this text is making upon me.
Here's a quote from a reviewer reviewing the book, God and George W Bush:
All in all, I think the Author achieves what he sets out to do, however I disagree with his premise because if GOD was truly the guiding hand in Bush's life as the President, I just don't think the big guy would've been any part of so many stupid decisions, after all we are talking about God here, so I say no way, the President made those stupid choices ALL ON HIS OWN. God is never part of war or killing, in the book I read that doesn't happen because he doesn't Ever condone that kind of thing under ANY circumstances.
This is not true. God is never a part of war? How about when he stopped the sun so that Joshua could fully defeat the Amorites at Gibeon (Joshua 10). God is never a part of killing? Have we forgotten the final plague on Egypt's first-born?
In the eyes of the 21st century, I suppose it seems I am on dangerous ground. But I assure you that I am not condoning the kind of warfare such as the Romans used, or the kind that extremist Muslims currently wage on the Free World.
God is not on the side of the conqueror or the mass terrorizor or the tyrant. It is never correct to say "God is on America's side" in the sense of patriotic zeal. God is not on the side of any nation, but on the side of Right. Thus the war that America and Britain wages on Al-qaeda and similar nests of evil is a Right war. We are not seeking to conquer nations, but to restore them to their God-given freedoms. When war breaks out because a people is defenseless or honour is attacked, we can be sure that God is with those soldiers.
When Crusaders marched to the Holy Land to reclaim Jerusalem, were they wrong? No! The mission was just and many took up this mission with purity of heart and love of God. But many of the leaders and men had evil intent in their hearts, and their thoughts were of murder, greed, wealth, and power. And so the Crusades failed because God's glory was not the true focus of the majority.
This world is God's world. It is His to do with as He pleases. We--the Right--can go forth in war in His name, but must do so with clarity of mind, wisdom, honour, Faith... and for His glory and purpose if we are to emerge Victorious.
Two of the most profound examples of how God replies to our cries for help are in the 50's-era epics, Ben-Hur and Quo Vadis.
Exhausted... Suffering... Thirsty... Charlton Heston's "Judah Ben-Hur" asks for God's help. In Qou Vadis, hundreds of Christians are rounded up and massacred by Nero in the arena.
Jesus comes (personally in Ben-Hur and through the presence of Peter in Quo Vadis). Does he free Judah from his bondage? Does he smite the Romans where they stand? No. But he does offer Judah the strength he needs to endure his hardship--one that will last for over three years. And my fellow Christians still die, but with outward courage and dignity.
Too often we expect God to eliminate our problems, by our schedule. And when He doesn't, we turn on Him in anger and respond with spite. We would do well to remember Judah's response to his Saviour's simple aid as well as the rousing chorus of the doomed faithful.
A gentle acknowledgment. A soft prayer. God's presence will always be there and is always sufficient.
How do we know we will be rewarded for our Faith? Judah survived to see God's justice. And Rome turned her face to Heaven.
Hey all! Remember, I'm always here, just haven't been posting for various reasons. The mental smell of freshly cut grass on a baseball field does wonders for chasing away the horrible Winter Dementors...
...but not the anti-Christian propagandists.
Short and sweet: Another Templar book has hit you local B&N/Borders front store displays. This one is called The Templar Legacy. But it may as well be called The Last Templar (which came out barely a month before), which itself may as well be a Da Vinci Code spinoff. The book has got the same secret agent put hot on the trail of discovering the Templar Order's great secrets... or in the case of all these books, that the Templars always knew that the Resurrection never existed. :yawn:
Three books in such rapid succession. And one dream in all of them: that Christianity is a hoax. Why destroy the Christian Faith? Is is really so unbearable that we need to it needs stamping out like a pest? Is it really the desire of the world to kill the message of Hope and Everlasting Life?
In the secular mind: Of course it is.
These were inspired by Steve's posted comments in Pt. I:
...Faith is a "knowing". That's why a supportive Biblical scholarship and archaeological record ultimately are unnecessary. I firmly believe that God will never allow the Bible be outright proven.
...Tradition has a role in Faith, in the sense of the application of Faith to our lives and our relationship with other Christians. But tradition is a double-edged sword.
In the end, the Bible is the Final authority and substantive resource in the life of a Christian. All things are measured by it. This is a difficult concept (for both the Faithful and the Un-) in today's knowledge-hungry, victim-sensed, tangibles-possessive world.
...I agree that institutional Christianity was a necessary influence on Martin Luther from the standpoint that it gave him the contrast he needed to reform the Church.
Luther is a great champion of the need for Christians to put all their stock in Faith and not in organized religion.
Luther loathed the thought of a seperate denomination of Christianity. His intention was to reform the Church, not start a new one. Unfortunately, both due to the arrogance and corruption of the Church, and due to man's craving for power, his nightmare was realized right through to the frgamented public face of Christianity we are burdened with today.
However, if the Church had not been given the power of a faithless institutional authority, then the Reformation would never have been necessary to begin with. Nothing has changed much since the 16th century. The Christian leadership isn't nearly as faithless, but we still believe we have to influence the world through politics.
The institution of Christianity (or "organized religion") does play a key role in Faith--for better and for worse. I've delved into its impact on my personal faith, but how does it affect Christianity as a whole? Are Christians defined by our faith or by our instituitions?
Sadly, the latter is the case. It seems that organized religion has done more to distort Christianity in its purist form than help it. Christian bodies are more active than ever on the political landscape and the result has not been kind. While the relationship of Church and State has allowed the latter to manipulate the former, the former is not allowed in any way to manipulate the latter. Thus organized Christianity has gotten what it should have expected (but does not deserve).
The answer to the question from the previous post is Yes, Christianity can (and must) survive without its institutions. Church in its purest form is a gathering of the faithful to gain guidance and strength. There is a reason why Jesus chose so rarely teach to the masses inside of stone buildings. Churches are monuments of man's creation--and thus they are also subtle reminders of our flawed beings that made them. There is certainly nothing wrong with gathering in a church for fellowship, but going to church has become the only accepted time of showing one's Faith. Thus the world is given the impression that it can lock faith away--its disappointing how many Christians are content with this.
Thus our institutions have only made the world more steadfast in its views. Christians are made to hide in their churches while the world goes on living in the public eye. To break this dangerous illusion, Christians must reduce our dependence on our institutions and live our Faith in full view of the world. This does not mean organized public rallies and political platforms.
Jesus accomplished more in his three-year ministry than we have done in the 2000 years since. He was not an organized protestor or an elected political figure. Jesus didn't rely in the organized church and its institutions to encourage Faith. In fact he more often used it as an example of corruption than the Roman government! And he was right, of course. All institutions are led by corruptable man and its bad enough when a secular institution goes astray. But it is many times worse when a religious institution is shown to be corrupted!
That is the meaning of "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." For a Christian, let the government do its thing. Obey the laws and accept the rule of our political leaders--even the "caesars" of our modern day. The day-to-day affairs of state are their responsibility and God will hold them accountable. And additionally, we have got to get ourselves back to Faith and stop fashioning our Churches after the institutions of secular man. Ours is to give God our hearts and lives. A Christian who lives their Faith will unwittingly accomplish more than anything a Church or Papacy can ever hope to achieve.
Christian institutions must be the result of Faith. When we realize this, God's presence can then spread to our secular organizations and governments. To use Star Wars as an example, God is "the Force" and thus a Christian's power lies in allowing God to surround us and penetrate us--to bind the World together. The unfaithful in power have (and will) always fear this.
Steve posted a comment to my last entry and asked this question: Can we have faith without institution?
An excellent question, and one that I actually have been in the middle of finding an answer to. Earlier this year, I approached one of my closest friends and asked why he hadn't been in church lately. After some serious prodding he gave me the answer that he did not feel that having Faith was contingent on attending church regulary. Whoa.
For someone who has missed maybe less than half a year's worth of church services in his entire lifetime, this was not the easiest concept to embrace. Granted, I have never believed that a person gets to Heaven solely based on church attendance (one way or the other), but just outright rejecting church worship... yikes. But at the point of the conversation (in April), it was true that I hadn't been in church much at all since the beginning of 2005. This was mostly because I had moved to a new town, thus making my home church a good 20-25 minutes away. A long haul for someone who has always had problems getting out of bed before 10am.
I say "mostly" because I was also aware of something else in the back of my brain. After 24 years of faithful attendance, my conscience was yearning for a test and some knowledge. The institution of "church" is one that lives partly by family tradition and partly by the church itself. Family traditions are strong, but with the passing of my grandparents and my sister moving to Florida, the Radke Family Traditions have been on a bit of a hiatus.
On the church side, a church only survives as long as there is a membership that attends consistently. For the non-Christians (especially former Catholics) giving money to a church is an especially sore subject. But this paragraph isn't intended to feed those cynical fires. Afterall, there are legitimate bills to be paid and there is also the Pastor and family to provide for. So the church needs money from the faithful. But does this necessarily require attendance. Technically, no. I can mail a check just as easily as I can put it in the offering plate.
I became excited as these thoughts entered my head as I decided that I would willingly allow my attendance to take a vacation. Over this year, I have felt a very intersting sort of freedom, but certianly no lack of Faith. As young Christians, we are often told that Faith is like an ember. As long as it remains part of the fire (or the church), it glows hot.
To an extent, I do believe that is true. Church is definitely a great place to go to keep the embers of Faith stoked and burning. Church is also ideal when it comes time to have a family. Attending church as a family is important in the development of a Child's Faith--not to mention that a church can teach a parent so much about parenting. But as a single Christian, even a soon-to-be-married one, I think it important that I allow the world to engulf me--to see if my Faith can stand on its own against the questions and doubts of both the Faithful and the Un-. I remember having this same feeling as well when I left my private school and entered the public school system. But even knowing some of the BS I went through, I would still make that same decision.
So, as Steve pointed out in his comment, institutions do have their place. I wouldn't deny that. But having been apart from church for the better part of a year now, I can say that institutions aren't as necessary as they would like themselves to be. Think of all the people over history--just regular people like myself--who perhaps couldn't attend church every Sunday because it would mean a day's journey or more. Were they any less Faithful to Christ? In my case, I am a "Missouri-Synod" Lutheran. LCMS Lutherans are very conservative and none of the churches where I live teach and accept the Bible 100% (with no apologies) as an LCMS church does. So for me, a church may as well be a day or more away. But I can't say that my Faith has suffered for it at this juncture. In fact, I daresay it's as strong as ever and I expect it will remain so.
But I think Steve's question begs a deeper answer. As interesting as my personal journies of Faith may be, I think that Mr. E is asking whether there could be Faith at all without an institution. An intersting thought. One that could be extended to "Are institutions--religious or secular--required to be civilised?" ...
Yesterday's ruling concerning the teaching of "Intelligent Design" or Creationism was a serious blow to the Christian religion.
So what.
This ruling provides me another oppurtunity to draw that important distinction between Christiany as "religion" and Christianity as "Faith". The two concepts are not the same. Religion is an organized entity that acts very much like a government unto itself. And like any government, it strives to be on top... the one in power. Really, Christianity as a religion is an ugly concept and puts Christians of Faith in a very difficult position.
We expect government to be just and honourable... to act as an example of how we should interact with this world. But of course, government ultimately fails because it is run by flawed creatures called human beings. So a Christian government is worse because it is expected to act even MORE just and honourable... and to set an even higher example of living. And when it fails (as it did consistently from Charlemagne right through to the fall of the Holy Roman Empire), it does nothing but turn people from Christianity. It makes Christian Faith out to be an enemy when in fact it is meant to be our best friend.
Christianity is not meant to be a religion, and it is not meant to win political victories. It is irrelevant to me as a Christian whether or not Creationism can be taught in a public classroom. Would it be nice? Sure! But not in the sense of conversion.
I skimmed an article printed in Harpers magazine titled "Jesus without Miracles" (or something to that effect). I knew what I was in for when I read the article, but I decided to anyway. It was actually quite inormative (historically), talking about Thomas Jefferson's reasons for his version of the Bible.
The authour eventually got into the "Gospel of Thomas". It's a controversial document to say the least whose authenticity is questioned by conservative scholars, but (of course) is given full sympathy by the liberal ones. The authour is a laymen, like the rest of us, and comes out on the side of the liberal scholars (not surprisingly). But why? Because the "Gospel" provides him with a liberal interpretation of Jesus...one he can accept (those are pretty much his words).
And thus the authour provides our secular creed in a nutshell: In the end, Man writes his own destiny, decides which beliefs justifies his lifestyle at that moment. We have too much fear to strive for a moral high ground that we cannot set ourselves. That way we can't fail. In our self-absorbed minds, we are our best line of defense. The saying these days now goes "When the going gets tough, draw a new line."
Yes, God has granted us free will to do all this. We all possess Free Will, but many do not understand it. The second step to understanding Free Will is to accept that it does not give us the right to be God.
When a parent tells a child that he or she may have a relationship with the opposite gender, we expect that child to remain within the confines of mature behaviour for that age. And if those confines are breached, the child knows that he or she can expect those confines to be restricted. Why? Because the child took advantage of the Free Will he or she was given.
So then we should expect no different from God.
"But I don't believe in God."
That is the first step.
It's been a week since the passing of Eddie Guerrero. I wanted to have this week to reflect on Eddie's impact on my faith as a Christian as well as my love of wrestling.
As a Chrsitian, I was comforted to read Chris Jericho's poignant comments that were posted on WWE.com. I am glad that I will have the chance to see Eddie Guerrero in Heaven when God calls me home. Eddie's life is also a testament to God's perfect justice and mercy. At some point during Eddie's car accident in '97, I see God and Eddie coming to an understanding. God allowed Eddie to return to this Earth to make a difference.. to get his life back on track.
Eddie's success in the WWE put his faith and his heroism in a place for many thousands of fans to see and learn from. When Eddie had accomplished this to God's deemed fulfillment, God brought Eddie home to heaven. Those of us left here must continue to remain faithful so that we can join Eddie in that same paradise.
As a wrestling fan, Eddie Guerrero arrived in the WWE when I was still focused on rediscovering my love of professional wrestling. While I was busy following the past of Bret Hart, the present of Stone Cold, and the future of Kurt Angle, I do remeber marveling at some of Eddie's matches. I didn't like his inital character much. It wasn't until Eddie seperated from the Chyna and The Radicalz that I think he truly built up his own niche. Over the last two years or so, I appreciated more and more Eddie's gifts as a performer (even against Kurt), and I truly enjoyed watching him wrestle. Eddie was one of the wrestlers who brought my fiance into wrestling. His feud with JBL was one of our favorites of this decade, and it will certainly be remembered for years to come.
All in all, Eddie's performances in the ring can be likened to wine. When you're young, you have no pallette, and one wine is as good as the next. But drink wine for five years, and you begin to discern each wines uniqueness and value in the whole spectrum. So it was with my appreciation for Eddie's wrestling talent and skill. I just wish I had had more time to savor his performances. Who doesn't. At the very least, I will be able to go back and watch previous matches with a more mature wrestling pallette.
Eddie is a monument to personal responsibility as well as second chances. Whether in Faith in the ring, Eddie Guerrero will remain one of our biggest and most heroic inspirations.
The July/August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review includes a fascinating article about the whereabouts of the Temple Menorah, a Biblical relic housed in the Great Temple of Jerusalem built by King Herod and believed stolen by the Roman Empire during the sacking of Jersusalem in 70 A.D.
According to the article, Jewish religious leaders believe that this priceless artifact is being held hostage by the Catholic Church, and is somewhere in the bowels of the Vatican. The Holy Roman Church (of course) insists that they hold no such relic, and in other articles the Vatican calls laughable any theory that says they have secret chambers full of treasure from antiquity. Sure...and there are no nuclear weapons active either in the U.S. or Russia (wink).
There is of course, much more under the surface of this issue than just the return of a pricless Hebrew artifact. In fact, at the heart of the Menorah debate is only one issue: anti-Semitism. Now here's something that I've not often understood as a Christian.
First, any Christian that proceeds to blame the Jewish people for the death of Christ, is in serious need of review of the Gospels. For any Christians who harbor anti-Semitism for this reason and may be reading this, check out the oft quoted John 3 and understand that the Jews, Judas, and Rome were simply actors in a passion play long planned by the Lord God himself. Our sin is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. God allowed his son to be the ultimate sacarifice because that is how it had to be. Add the presence of the Triune God and you will fully see the poeticism and awesomeness of this self-sacrfice.
On the Jewish side of this issue, is perhaps many things. The first that the Jews of old believed God to be theirs and no one else's. Also, the Jewish people of Biblical times sorely wanted a warrior-king, such as David or even Saul.. someone who could give the world their due and fully establish God as a ruling force to be reckoned with, with the Tribes of Judah his swordarm. Under more peaceful times, perhaps the Jewish relgious leaders would have accepted Jesus. But if faith in Christ were that easy, then the world wouldn't have endured the likes of the Crusades, and the Eastern lands would have had no need for Confucious or Buddha.
I have several very good Jewish friends. Spritually, I see them as distant cousins--of the same seed, but in the end different trees. It is my hope that they and the rest of the Jewish people will embrace the truth of Jesus Christ. I say this not arrogantly, but with deep love and respect. For the Jewish traditions are a part of Christian heritage, and their Old Testament is the same as the Old Testament I own in my Bible.
Anti-Semitism is nothing more than a great misuderstanding between misguided Christians and mistaken Jews. No Christian or Jew should look upon the other with jealousy, hatred, or shame. Instead, we Christians need to bring the assurance of Christ as the Promised Messiah to the Jewish faithful. And the Jewish people need to impress upon Christians the importance of their Hebrew roots. Perhaps this process can be started by Catholic Church returning to Israel the Menorah and any other artifacts that belong to the Jewish community. Afterall, what does it matter if artifacts of God reside in Rome or Jerusalem?
There is such an uproar amongst my fellow Christians about the fictional thriller, The Da Vinci Code. Why?
I haven't yet read the book (or its companion, Angels & Demons), but both are next on my list. I am quite excited to read the books. As a starving Indiana Jones fan, I'm looking for just about anything at this point to appease my appetite of old myths, legends, and Christian lore running amock in the 21st century.
But back to the issue at hand. Many Christian church bodies--mostly Catholic I might add--have urged fellow Christians to not buy the book in outrage. Why? The book is clearly marked as fiction. Granted, the book does shine light on the historical theory that there is a bloodline of Christ that began with Mary Magdalene. As a student of history and legend, I am quite familiar with this laughable idea. But I mean, why are we Christians angry and shocked? Why are we making such a big deal of it?
This is not the first (nor the last) of the proposterous theories the world has concocted in this Second Age of Enlighenment. They don't believe in the risen Christ, so they need something to fill that void with something. In the end, their answers to "Who was Jesus?" require as much Faith as our beliefs. They can no more prove Mary and Jesus were married than we can prove the Resurrection.. and that's fine! Because when it comes down to a battle of Faith, we win! I mean, we're down the stretch before they're even out of the gate simply because we don't preface our spirtual questions with "Who was Jesus?" Our questions begin with "Who is Jesus?"
The Catholic (and any other) church banning these books is a serious blunder. All it does is give people more ammunition for their arguments that Christians are all about telling people what to do yadda yadda yadda. God gives every human being the freedom to make their own choices. That is how much he loves his Creation. And as Christians, we need to let everyone around us continue to have that freedom.
I am going to read this book. Partly because as a writer I want to learn from this guy's technique, and partly because I am curious just what this book is saying and how it tests my Christian Faith. I urge my fellow Christians to also read this book, if they enjoy this kind of fiction. With this book's popularity, once again Christ is the center of discussion and we need to be prepared for the questions we will get.
This book provides an amazing oppurtunity to witness to those around us! How many of us would love to talk about Christ, but shy away because we don't know where to start. Well here we go! Here's a chance where we can talk about Jesus without getting "religious" on unwitting people.
