Colborne's Pilgrim Journal

Why Catholics Are Right: What to do with Mary?

2012-02-08T05:36:00.002-07:00

The Roman Catholic Church embraces a number of doctrines that non-Catholic churches reject, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the focus of several:

The immaculate conception, which is often confused with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (that Jesus was conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, without any human father), is central. While virtually all Christian Churches believe in the Virgin Birth, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the Immaculate Conception.

This doctrine teaches that when Mary was conceived in her mother, by the normal process of conception, she was preserved from any stain of original sin. Coren defends this doctrine with the traditional defence that the mother of God must be absolutely pure, since it is absurd to imagine that God would enter the world through a soiled vessel. Considering, however, that he entered a sinful world, was laid in a manger, ate with sinners, touched lepers, and died on a cross between two thieves, it seems a bit presumptuous to imagine that we have any idea what’s too absurd for God to do. But again, the consequences of the doctrine, more than the doctrine itself, are the real concern.

When they set Mary apart from all other human beings at conception, the Catholic Church starts down a road that leads to a veneration of Mary that most non-Catholics would regard as excessive. As part of her preservation from sin, Mary is imagined to have lived a sinless life. And she has, thus, become a super-saint: the “Queen of Angels and Saints”, the “Mother of the Church”, the “Mediatrix (feminine form of mediator) of all Graces”.

When, in the 1960s, Mary was officially declared to be “The Mother of the Church”, I pointed out to one of the Catholic priests who taught me in high school that, since the Church is the Bride of Christ, this was a potentially embarrassing situation. He was not amused, but I was not, as he insisted, just trying to be funny. I was, in my adolescent way, pointing out that we can get carried away with veneration. And, when we do, the ridiculous is apt to run over the sublime.

The perpetual virginity of Mary (that Mary was not only a virgin when Jesus was born, but remained one all her life), Coren insists, goes back to ancient, non-biblical tradition. According to this tradition, Mary had taken a vow of celibacy, and Joseph, who was a widower with children, took on the task of caring for her and Jesus, but was never her husband in the full sense. This explains why Joseph is often depicted as an old man in Catholic art. It also, according to Coren, explains the biblical references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters (Mark 3:31, 6:3; John 2:12 ) and why Jesus, as he was dying, commended her to the care of John (John 19:26-27), though what had become of her supposed stepchildren is not explained.

Non-Catholics dismiss this doctrine as unbiblical and superfluous, but the objection goes deeper than that. In the Bible, virginity is valued prior to marriage, and celibacy outside of marriage, but neither are valued in and of themselves, and sex within marriage is celebrated. But, in the Catholic Church, virginity and celibacy are given preferential status, resulting in the requirement of celibacy for priests and nuns. This results in sexual intercourse being seen as, though not sinful per se, spiritually compromised. This attitude, I believe, has led to an unhealthy, and unbiblical focus on sex in Catholic teaching.

The practice of praying to saints, including Mary of course, Coren defends as an extension of the universal Christian practice of intercessory prayer. All Christians ask others to pray for them, why not those who have died and are, therefore, closer to God than anyone on earth? This is a helpful explanation of the Catholic practice in that it puts it in a context that non-Catholics can understand, and clarifies that “praying to saints” is not worship. I have often used this explanation myself when discussing Catholic practices with my Baptist friends, but I also point out that non-Catholics follow a solid biblical principle of “not talking to dead people”. We discourage praying to saints, not because it’s idolatry, but because it’s a distraction. God, through Christ, is the focus of our prayers, though I wouldn’t make too much of the matter.

Most Evangelical pastors I know would readily admit that we have tended to ignore Mary. This has been a reaction to the Catholic Church and what we would perceive as an unhealthy focus on her. But it’s one thing to admit a problem, and another thing to fix it. What to do with Mary? Indeed.

Next: Marriage and Life

Why Catholics Are Right: The Question of Authority

2012-02-01T17:57:00.025-07:00

One of the central doctrines of the Reformation is “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). It means that only the Bible, not any pope, bishop, priest, preacher or teacher, is given final authority. Accordingly, the Church has authority to teach only what is taught in Scripture, or is a strict and simple logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. The Catholic Church does accept the authority of Scripture, but not Scripture alone. It believes Church tradition, as mediated through the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Bishops and Pope) is also authoritative.

Coren’s argument is primarily the traditional one. The Church (the Old Testament people of God, and the Catholic Church of the New Testament) existed before the Bible and, in fact, it was through this Church that the Bible came into being. Therefore, it makes no sense to place the authority of the Bible above that of the church. Interesting point, both logical and defensible. He also points out that non-Catholics are divided into a multitude of competing denominations, while the Catholic Church has remained united. This point is somewhat less convincing as he also complains throughout the book about the many “so-called Catholic” factions and individuals who cause division by promoting heretical teaching within the church. Unity, for all of us, is a transient thing, a moving target, an ethereal goal.

Everyone agrees, of course that the Bible is, in a sense, a product of the Church, and is best understood within the Church community. But the fact is, the church is not, and, arguably, has never been a monolithic institution with a unified magisterium and one body of tradition. There may certainly be truths in extra-biblical Church tradition, but for about seventeen centuries the Bible has been the only body of teaching we all agree on, and even there the Catholic Church embraces several books as scripture that others reject. Authority, like unity, is a tricky thing, has always been, and will surely continue to be.

As a result of this division concerning authority, we find the Catholic Church embraces several doctrines and practices that non-Catholic churches reject. Most non-Catholic Christians would see these as peripheral matters, but they do constitute a series of stumbling-blocks that make working together more like running a three legged race than competing as a pairs figure-skating team. A few such doctrines are listed below:

Transubstantiation – This is the belief that, at the words of consecration, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, though all of the appearances of bread and wine remain. Protestants generally regard the bread and wine of Communion as metaphorically or symbolically the body and blood of Christ. One might be forgiven for not appreciating the significance of the theological distinction, but it’s the practical consequences that are problematic.

It is commonly and erroneously alleged that Catholics worship saints and statues; they do not. But the bread of Communion has become an object of worship in the Catholic Church. It is invested with power, paraded in the streets, and when Catholics genuflect (go down on one knee) as they move about the church sanctuary, it is done in worship of Christ in the bread on the altar. Protestants generally consider these pagan and offensive practices.

This doctrine also results in a very practical division of the Church. Those who do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation are not welcome to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, and Communion services conducted by pastors who are not Catholic priests are considered empty gestures as compared the Catholic real thing. None of this is done to be mean. It’s just a consequence of disagreement.

The infallibility of the Pope – This is not, as some have imagined, that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that there have been bad Popes who made awful mistakes, indeed, who sinned terribly. What Papal Infallibility means is that, when he speaks ex cathedra (in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians), declaring that a doctrine on faith or morals is to be believed by the whole Church, God will preserve him from error.

Coren argues that, though it was infallibly proclaimed as late as 1870, it has been believed from at least the third century. He cites considerable evidence for this, but all it really indicates is that bad ideas have been around forever.

Besides being unbiblical, infallibility, whether of popes, preachers, teachers, or the bible itself, is nothing but a problem. It never really settles a disagreement, except for those who are lazy or have never discovered the joy of arguing. And, by making dissent on a particular matter an offence, it vilifies dissenters, and kills what otherwise might be a very constructive discussion. And, besides all this, it makes it virtually impossible to admit a mistake. It’s a bit like driving a car with no reverse gear. Cars are all about moving forward of course, but sometimes even that requires a little backing up.

Next: a few other distinctively Catholic doctrines

Why Catholics Are Right: It’s hard to work with people who must aways be right.

2012-01-28T16:42:00.001-07:00

At the beginning of chapter three, page 101, Michael Coren quotes Fulton J. Sheen (Roman Catholic Archbishop and TV preacher of the 1950s and 60s) as having said, “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church,....” I remember Bishop Sheen positively, and I also remember my father using that quotation. It’s a fine quote inasmuch as it makes the point that a good deal of what people hate about the Church is based on misunderstanding. But it’s also hopelessly arrogant and naive in that it dismisses virtually all criticism as ignorance. To know us is to love us, it says, so just get to know us. It is a helpful way, however, to begin an explanation of what the Church really is. There’s more than enough misunderstanding to go around.

The classical Roman Catholic Church perceives itself to be the “True Church”. Modern Catholics don’t generally talk this way, but it’s still the fundamental disagreement between Catholics and other Christians. The Catholic Church believes itself to be The Church that Christ established two-thousand years ago. Their scripture text is Matthew 16:13-19.

One day Jesus was speaking with his disciples at a place called Caesarea Philippi when he asked them, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." And then he asked them "Who do you say I am?" And Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ , the Son of the living God."

At this point Jesus made the declaration that has caused so much disagreement over the centuries. “...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." I wonder if he ever wishes he could get a do-over?

Coren explains that, since the name Peter means rock, Jesus is obviously saying that he (Peter) is the foundation of the Church, establishing him as the first Pope, initiating an unbroken succession of Popes (266 from 32 A.D. to the present), and guaranteeing the infallibility of the Pope, albeit limited to what is declared as an infallible teaching of the Church. – I repeat, this is the sort of thing we don’t hear much anymore, and I think we can see why. It’s a lot to hang on a half dozen verses of scripture.

Protestants, as you might expect, disagree. The foundation of the church is Jesus, not a Pope. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:11) Peter’s name does mean rock, and we all love a good pun, but surely the rock Jesus refers to is not Peter, but Peter’s declaration "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

In Protestant, and particularly Evangelical thinking, the church is not an institution, but a movement. It does not depend on any individual or an unbroken succession of Popes, but on the commitment of a community of believers to Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). It is composed of all believers who share Peter’s conviction about Jesus, regardless of denomination or points of disagreement. Being human, it is not infallible, though it is continually led to seek forgiveness and renewal. And, on the whole, it has survived pretty well.

For the most part Protestants and Catholics get along these days. But the Catholic notion that they constitute the “One True Church” is a continuing source of mild irritation. It results in our Catholic brothers and sister excluding us from sharing in Communion, while most Protestant churches feel free to include them. It also leads to the insistence that children of Catholic/non-Catholic marriages be raised Catholic, and numerous other points of discomfort. In fairness, it should be noted that many Catholics are uncomfortable with this notion, but they are as stuck with it as we are.

It is an important point to keep in mind, however, as we continue to explore Why Catholics Are (so fixated on being) Right. So Coren has done us all a service by bringing it up again, and we will see that it explains a lot of things.

Why Catholics Are Right: Love is always having to say you’re sorry.

2012-01-24T07:47:00.002-07:00

In the section of his book called Catholics and History, Coren comments on a number of historical epochs; the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust among them. He’s willing to admit that there have been evils done in the name of Christ and the Church, and that the Church has sometimes shared the limited perspectives of its historical period, but he questions the competence and integrity of most of the historically based criticism. It has been said that those who don’t read newspapers are uninformed, and those who do are misinformed. The same, apparently, can be said of those who do and do not read history.

As Coren suggests, history is far more complex than is generally appreciated. The Crusades, for example, happened over a period of a couple of centuries (1096 – 1272) but were really part of an extended period of resistance to Muslim expansion in the Middle East and Europe that had been going on for centuries and continued well into the 1500s. They were not a simple matter of the kings of Europe, at the request of the Pope, descending on the Holy Land to attack peaceful, unsuspecting Muslims for not being Christians, and to loot, plunder, rape and kill, in search of the cup that Jesus drank from at the Last Supper. Coren admits that “They were not the proudest moment of Christian history...” and that “Most Catholics feel shame for what happened and apologize for wrongs that occurred,...”.

The Inquisition, often referred to as the Spanish Inquisition, is likewise complex according to Coren; neither local enough to be Spanish, nor unified enough to be seen as an organized campaign. Here again he has a point. Both more and less was going on than we often imagine. Fewer people died than we are sometimes led to believe, and most were executed by secular authorities rather than the Church.

Though there is a useful corrective here, it seems to me that much of what Coren is on about is beside the point. From a modern perspective, the Church had become too caught up in nation building and the controlling of people’s lives. It was wielding military power and directing affairs of state, and the concern expressed in the anti-Catholic rhetoric is that the Church has not really learned the lessons of history and, so, is apt to repeat them if given half a chance. And Coren’s defence of the church in these matters only gives credence to these concerns. In the matter of the Holocaust, however, we find a deliciously ironic twist. The Church is condemned, not so much for its involvement, but for its supposed failure to become involved.

Here Coren mounts a vigorous defence of the Church, and particularly of Pope Pius XII. It is a section well worth reading, particularly for those who have become convinced of Papal and Church complicity in, or indifference to the Holocaust. Coren builds a solid case for the Church’s steadfast opposition to Nazism beginning well before 1939, and its active involvement in sheltering Jews from persecution throughout the war. Many thousands, he claims, were sheltered in convents and monasteries throughout German occupied territories, between 4,000 and 7,000 in the Vatican itself, and about 3,000 in the Pope’s summer residence. It can be argued, of course, that there were times when the Church should have spoke out more forcefully and publicly, or should have done more, but this is hardly a picture of complicity or indifference.

Coren’s problem is that, as a loyal Catholic, he finds it very difficult to simply admit that the Church has been wrong at many points throughout its 2,000 year history. For him the Church is a divine institution, somehow situated above the fray. Catholic people, organizations, even Popes, may sin, but not the Church.

At this point I’m glad to be a Baptist and part of a Church that has no association with infallibility at any point. The “Mystical Body” (the Church in the abstract) may be somehow whole and unsullied, but, as a human institution, it is flawed like all things human. It’s better than its enemies claim, worse than it imagines itself to be, and the best we can hope is that it will keep on trying to get it right. And that, I suppose, is love; just forgiving, being forgiven, and trying to do as well, or better in future.

WHAT AN UNGODLY MESS!

2012-01-21T08:12:00.008-07:00

In the introduction to his book, Why Catholics Are Right, Michael Coren tells us some relevant things about himself: he was not raised a Roman Catholic, but became one in this twenties; his father was a secular Jew and, while he has lost work opportunities because of his Catholic stance, his Jewishness has been modestly beneficial in terms of his career. But the intro is largely a complaint about anti-Catholicism in the modern world. The world, he says, is intolerant of Catholics, not because of their views as much as the practical implications of the things the Church holds to be true. That Jesus was born of a virgin, or that he is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, no one cares at all. But “No” to abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, etc., is the unpardonable sin.

That the Church is vilified and misrepresented because of the moral implications of its teachings, is the main thrust of the book and, on the surface at least, this seems a plausible claim. As a pastor I rarely suffered rejection or criticism for any opinion I held, but to question someone’s behaviour was very risky indeed. Freedom to think what you please, no matter how eccentric, is an article of faith in the modern world. But the N-word is unacceptable. And the N-word is NO.

The Abuse Scandal is the subject of chapter one and, predictably, Coren defends the Church. But though he tries to explain, he never explains away; though he seeks to understand, he never excuses; though he attempts to put things in context, he never justifies or minimizes. This is one of the strongest chapters in the book, and it has caused me to reconsider some of my impressions of this tragedy.

Just for the sake of accuracy, he points out that:

1. The abuse in question was seldom, strictly speaking, child abuse or paedophilia (sexual assault of prepubescent children), but generally abuse of sexually developed, under age, emotionally and physically vulnerable boys. These are horrible crimes, he insists, but not the even more sensational, and more alliterative acts of “paedophile priests”.

2. The rates of abuse were no higher, and often lower, than those we find in other churches, schools, sports leagues, etc. This is not to lessen the horror of the crimes by claiming that the numbers were small, or others were also guilty, but it does suggest that this was not a “Catholic” problem per se. Fair point.

He insists that, in the context of the period, the church followed the advice given by most psychologists; that the offender be moved to break the cycle, and given counselling. And he suggests that, at that time, it was felt that these abusers were curable. I’d want to consider these claims further, though I do think we have a tendency to unfairly judge previous generations by the standards of present-day knowledge, attitudes and sensibilities.

And, finally, Coren insists, with the support of considerable evidence, that, far from denying responsibility for these crimes, the Church (the Pope in particular) has been utterly penitent and forthcoming. He cites a number of papal addresses and letters, and the testimony of many commentators, some of whom are generally unsympathetic to the Church.

Multigenerational mega-scandals are always fiendishly complex, and when the lawyers show up things become even more complicated. I, therefore, claim no definitive understanding of this horrifying mess. But I would vehemently disagree with Coren on one point. He maintains that the Church’s insistence on priestly celibacy is irrelevant to a discussion of this matter. While celibate individuals may be no more likely than others to commit acts of sexual abuse, my concern is with process of handling the situation.

As I’ve said previously, a celibate clergy is an “old-boys network” writ large, and, for these men, “Mother Church” is the closest thing they have to family. Does it make any sense at all to suggest that the structure of the institution that oversaw the sex abuse scandal had no impact on the development of this tragedy? Women (wives in particular) have a huge impact on men, especially on male group-thinking. Family and children are also great normalizing influences. It is hard for me to imagine that these men would have dealt with these matters in the same way if, at the end of the day, they had been fathers, going home to children, and sharing their concerns with mothers.

While celibacy is a normal, natural state for individual human beings – we all start out that way – the requirement of clergy celibacy makes the Roman Catholic Church unique among the major institutions of the modern world. Coren argues that, though it was codified as late as the eleventh century, it is an ancient expectation, and flows from a desire to commit fully to the cause of Christ. This may be so, but it is unbiblical, and the unintended consequences, not of individual celibacy, but of the requirement that all clergy be celibate, are immense. This is a tragedy for the Church and, sadly, I agree with Michael Coren that it is not something that is going to change soon.

I’m an ex-Catholic, so, why do I care?

2012-01-18T14:37:00.005-07:00

As I begin to focus on Michael Coren’s book, Why Catholics are Right, I feel the need to reflect a bit on why I care about the topic at all. Some of you are aware that I’m an ex-Catholic, but how that affects my feelings about, and relationship to Catholicism is not as obvious as some might imagine.

Some ex-Catholics are enemies of the Church and can’t say anything bad enough about it. I’ve met lots of these. Often when ex-Catholics discover that I too am an XC they dump a load of anti-Catholic vitriol assuming I will share their feelings. I am sympathetic, and I try to be empathetic, but I’m not one of those. Some XCs, on the other hand, feel cut off from the Church and pine for what they’ve lost, I’m not one of those either. Some have cultivated a cynical edge, others a cool indifference, others a romanticized idealism; not I.

The stories are many and varied, even among my own siblings, so I hope some of you XCs out there will be moved to share some of your thoughts. Perhaps even some members of my family will chime in. And, of course, everyone is always welcome to wade in regardless. So, here’s my reflection on my ex-Catholicism.

The Brits of the 18^th century didn’t wander all over the world because they were unhappy being British; they were crazy about being British. But anyone who’s lived on English “cuisine” for a while knows exactly what was going on. They were trying to find something good to eat. In fact, when they ran across good food they didn’t even have a word for it, and had to borrow one from the French. And then, one day, they woke up to discover they’d become Canucks or Yanks or Aussies or Kiwis, and that was that.

A similar thing happened with me and the Catholic Church. I didn’t leave the Church because I was unhappy; I loved being Catholic, and didn’t really mean to leave at all. I just found as my faith developed, I began to hunger for a kind of food we didn’t seem to have. I asked questions – simple, teenage-type questions – that no one was willing or able to answer, and wandered off to find answers elsewhere. And then one day I woke up and discovered I was a Baptist. Someone once said that a French Canadian is a Frenchman who knows what side of the Atlantic his bread is buttered on. Well, I'm a Catholic who discovered buttered bread, got invited to lunch, and never went home.

All this to say, I’m sincerely delighted to read a defence of the Roman Catholic Church. She’s an arrogant old girl, way too stuck on herself, and far too hung up on always being right. She’s condescending, pedantic, and overly impressed with her family tree. Over the centuries she’s done some bad things, but a lot of good things too. And she’s been knocked around a fair bit in recent years for both the good and bad, and for a lot of other things that she may not have done, or at least that have never been proven. Michael Coren spoke up last year in her defence, and I’m glad he did. ‘Bout time someone did.

The truth is I love the Catholic Church, and when I go home for a visit I’m reminded of why I do. But I’m also reminded of why I don’t live there anymore. The fundamental things I believe as a follower of Jesus I learned there. But I also learned a lot of nonsense. The same, of course, can be said about any good home. I suppose it’s one of the reasons we leave home, and keep leaving every time we go back.

Before we take up the subject of the Abuse Scandal in the next blog post, you might like to get a bit if a feeling for the man. Check out Michael Coren on Agenda, with Steve Paikin.

Could it be someone doesn't really want these folks?

2012-01-14T22:34:00.002-07:00

Early in December Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced “Starting today, any individual will have to show his or her face when taking the oath of citizenship. Allowing a group to hide their faces while they are becoming members of our community”, he explained, “is counter to Canada’s commitment to openness, equality and social cohesion.” And he further noted that he had heard complaints from citizenship judges, MPs and others who’ve participated in citizenship ceremonies who have argued it’s hard to tell whether veiled individuals are actually reciting the oath.

It seems obvious that this new rule is directed at the tiny population of Muslim women who wear the niqab or burka. What other “group” is there that might wish to “hide” their faces in citizenship court? And it seems equally apparent that Kenny is dancing around the problem of specifically referring to this group because to do so would be discriminatory. This lack of frankness and thoughtful discussion is troubling.

I, like many others, have concerns about the niqab and burka. Fears that it’s confining and potentially abusive of women seem reasonable, as do occasional security concerns. It seems sensible to prohibit a burka clad woman from driving, due to concerns about impaired vision, or for security personnel to focus on people who conceal their faces. But it’s important that we be frank and honest if we are to negotiate these matters in good faith.

If someone wishes to take an oath with a covered face, what exactly is the concern? Knowing who they are? Surely there are many ways to certify identity. Knowing if they are actually speaking? Seems to me we could listen. And, come to think of it, is it strictly necessary that an oath be vocalized? Has there ever been a concern in citizenship court that someone might just be mouthing the words? And, would it matter if they were? Can stroke victims who cannot speak become a Canadian citizens? Surely they can, as there are lots of ways to indicate the affirmation of an oath. Wouldn’t participating in the ceremony itself, and signing whatever it is they sign, be sufficient? Then again, maybe new citizens don’t sign anything. Then again, maybe they should.

A while back the concern was people voting with their faces covered, even though we allow Canadian citizens to vote by mail. Then it was accessing government services with their faces covered, though our government encourages thousands each year to apply for Employment Insurance Benefits and Canada Pension on line.

If we wish to accommodate people, we find ways to do so. If we do not wish to accommodate people, we don’t. But it is disrespectful and hurtful to justify ourselves by suggesting that there are problems where there are none.

Just think of the possibilities.

2012-01-13T06:50:00.003-07:00

Further to yesterday’s blog post:

I notice in a news story this morning that the government is refusing to recognize foreign civil partnerships. Well, not really. They are actually refusing to grant a divorce to a same-sex couple – one partner is a Canadian citizen – who have never been married in Canada or anywhere. They have a same-sex civil partnership registered in the UK, but the Canadian government is suggesting that this is not the equivalent of a marriage in Canada.

Caution!!!

If this argument sounds even vaguely plausible to you, you need to do something about your latent homophobic tendency. This is how it all begins.

Come to think of it, if marriage is a basic human right, surely divorce must be too. So, why should someone be denied a divorce just because they’re not married? I mean, what of those poor people who have been denied the right to marry just because they found no one who was willing to marry them? Are they to be condemned, through no fault of their own, to a life of divorcelessness as well as singleness? And what of the unmarried person who longs to be a widow or a widower? I’m sure there are more married folks in that category than we might like to think. Why should one have to be married to be eligible for the benefits of widowdom: pensions, EI survivor benefits, the right to remarry or not remarry (even in the Catholic church)?

Eventually, of course, as the old song warns us, people will start becoming their own grandfathers. But just what exactly is wrong with that? Isn’t having a grandfather a basic human right? And, if so, surely being a grandfather, regardless of gender I might add, is a basic human right too. And why, in a free and democratic society, should I be denied the right become my own grandfather? Who else knows or loves me better than I do?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think we see a pattern here. This government is using the law to resist the Enlightenment, and to delay the full flowering of human dignity.

Why is our government dragging its feet?

I actually did see this one coming.

2012-01-12T22:54:00.002-07:00

Two elderly woman were chatting after church one Sunday:

“Mabel, what do you think about this same-sex marriage issue?”

“Oh Harriet”, came the exasperated reply. “I’m so fed up with it I could scream. It’s all my husband ever talks about.”

“Mine too.”, the other sighed. “Same-sex marriage this, and same-sex marriage that. After 53 years with the same woman, what does he expect?”

Hey folks, are we really up for this? Looks like we’re into another round of wrangling over same-sex marriage, actually same-sex divorce. A lesbian couple from Florida and the United Kingdom, who came to Canada and got married in 2005, are now seeking a divorce here. And, surprise, surprise, their application is proving more complicated than was anticipated. Seems there’s a one year residency requirement for divorce in Canada. Who knew?

And why would you know? Though destination weddings are all the rage now, people still tend to get divorced where they live. But, if where you live doesn’t recognize your marriage, you need to go back to the place that does. Oops! It’s the law of unintended consequences. Whenever you make a change, especially a big change, some things you hadn’t considered will occur. This results in a process of ironing out kinks, which produces more changes, more consequences, and more ironing. The term for this is “government” or “the decline of civilization”.

But there’s a further complication. Some lawyers have questioned whether these marriages were actually valid in the first place. A government document in the case argues, "in order for a marriage to be legally valid under Canadian law, the parties to the marriage must satisfy both the requirements of the place where the marriage is celebrated... and the requirements of the law of domicile of the couple with regard to their legal capacity to marry one another." From what I can understand, they seem to be suggesting that there is an international convention that prohibits a country from marrying people from another jurisdiction, if they could not be married in said jurisdiction. But all this is lawyers talking to lawyers, and they will eventually sort it out, and collect some handsome fees in the process.

Another scrap to feed the voracious 24 hour news cycle. And another opportunity to listen to the opposing sides characterizing each other as degenerates and homophobes.

But it does further my conviction that it’s time for governments to consider getting out of the marriage business all together. Why do they care who’s married to whom? If there are dependency relationships: spouses, parents and children, dependent friends, whatever, they may need to acknowledge them somehow, but marriage is getting far too tangled and confused. Why not let faith communities and families worry about these things? Governments only make things more complex.

Well, no one's all wrong, all the time.

2012-01-10T07:16:00.005-07:00

I read a very interesting book over Christmas called Why Catholics Are Right. It’s written by Michael Coren and, yes, the title is a bit off-putting. But, a title’s there to get your attention, and it got mine. And Coren does think Catholics are right about almost everything. He’s a rare bird these days, even among Catholics. But in spite of its title and narrow point of view it is, as I say, a very interesting book: readable, well argued, never boring. And, given the title, it is surprisingly gracious, and never gratuitously offensive.

One reason I enjoyed the book is that, as a Catholic, I was raised on his arguments. It’s fun to hear them all again, remember how I used them myself, and how I eventually came to reject many of them. They’re good arguments, well reasoned and intricately honed over decades, even centuries of debate. But, as my perspective changed, I found that, good and interesting as they were, they became irrelevant.

For example, Coren’s defence of an all male, celibate priesthood is based on the fact that the Old Testament priesthood was all male, and that they were required to abstain from sexual intercourse during their term of duty in the temple. Thus, he points out, in the biblical tradition priests must be male, and since Catholic priests are always on duty, they must always abstain. This presupposes, of course, that Christ ordained men to carry on the Old Testament office of priest, but, being an Evangelical, I no longer believe this.

Evangelicals embrace the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which maintains that Christ’s priesthood is one of the things he shares with all of us. “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,...” Interesting that it was Peter (according to Coren "the first Pope") who said that, in 1 Peter 2:9. If this is true the pastor of a Catholic church is, indeed, a “priest”, but only by virtue of the fact that all believers are priests. And it means that we have always had male and female priests, married and unmarried.

Coren further argues that there are practical reasons for priestly celibacy, and I fear these arguments are more to the point. As he suggests, it is theoretically easier for the church to direct the lives of unmarried men, less expensive to support a man with no family, and easier for the church to accumulate and manage property when the clergy have no families to bequeath it to. But besides being a bit too self-serving for comfort, these arguments ignore a number of very serious concerns:

1. What is the ultimate cost of rejecting for pastoral ministry all men who need a sexual partner? (Surely the vast majority of men.)

2. What of the problems of dealing with men who, after they are ordained, realize that they need to be married?

3. What about the consequences of creating an entire clergy structure composed of men who have neither wife nor children? (I believe the consequences of this include, among other things: an unbalanced and unnatural leadership structure; some very unhealthy attitudes toward marriage, sex and family; and an old-boy’s network like few institutions have ever known.)

4. What, finally, of Paul’s vehement condemnation of those who “forbid people to marry”? He says such people are “hypocritical liars” who “abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons”. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

In the next while I’ll say more about these things, and about other things Coren says concerning: the recent abuse scandals, the Church and science, life issues (abortion, birth control, euthanasia), homosexuality and marriage, the wealth of the church, etc. In the meantime, however, if you’ve ever wondered what the Roman Catholic church is all about, and why Catholics do, think and say the things they do, think and say, give it a read. I got my copy from the North Bay Public Library and it's in all the bookstores, so you can probably find a copy somewhere.

A bright light also casts shadows

2012-01-06T08:04:00.001-07:00

I’ve always been intrigued by the interplay of darkness and light in the Christmas story. While Jesus is born amid the rejoicing of angels, shepherds and magi; King Herod responds with fear and hostility, killing defenceless children, and forcing Joseph and Mary, with the newborn Saviour, to flee Judea and take refuge in Egypt. And, even before Herod shows up, God’s gift to the world is laid in a manger because there is no room in Bethlehem’s inns.

Today, January 6^th, is the Feast of the Epiphany. The word is from Greek epiphaneia, which means "manifestation". In this context it refers to the coming of the Magi and the first manifestation of God in Christ to the Gentiles. But even in this idyllic story there is an unsettling ambiguity; the gifts the magi bring. Gold is valuable for obvious reasons, and frankincense is an incense used in prayer and meditation, but myrrh is a resin used chiefly for embalming. This hint of foreboding is the subject of the fourth verse of the carol We Three Kings:

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume

Breathes of life of gathering gloom

Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying

Sealed in the stone-cold tomb

Some have imagined that the promise of the manifestation of God is a promise of pure, heavenly bliss. – Karl Marx so imagined and, thus, condemned religion as an opiate designed to placate the oppressed and subvert the Revolution. – But the story of Jesus is not so naive or sentimental, and neither is the response of the church to the story. For example, the day after Christmas (Boxing Day) has become, in our consumer culture, the culmination of “Consumerfest”, better known as “The Holiday Season”. But in the church calendar it is the Feast of the first Christian martyr, Saint Stephen, and an occasion for the wealthy to share with the poor (see previous post, Jan. 3).

And the story of the coming of the Magi, with its Myrrh, King Herod, slaughtered children, and refugee family, is a reminder in the midst of the celebration that there are forces in the world that do not welcome the arrival of the Prince of Peace. With the Magi, shepherds and angels, we raise a hymn of praise; there are some, however, who are going to raise hell.

THE VERY NATURE OF A SERVANT

2012-01-03T08:21:00.000-07:00

One of my mother’s favourite Christmas carols was Good King Wenceslas. When I was a kid I thought this was kinda weird, but as I got older I learned more about my mother and the song, and it made a little more sense. These days a lot of the things my mother liked and did seem to me, if not wonderful, at least a little less weird. Can’t help but wonder if my kids are going through the same experience re me, but I’m afraid to ask.

The song, written by John Mason Neale in 1853, recalls a legend about a good, tenth century King (actually a Duke) of Bohemia (modern Czech Republic). On the feast day of Saint Stephen, which is the day after Christmas, this man of privilege goes out with one of his servants into the bitter cold and snow. He leaves the warmth of his palace, not to snap up a Boxing Day bargain, but to take food and fuel to a peasant who is in need. It’s a beautiful story of a greatly advantaged man who, like Saint Nicholas, used his advantages to bless the disadvantaged.

Wenceslas was only 28 when he was assassinated in the year 935, but his short life of selfless piety had made quite an impression. He was revered and venerated, and eventually declared a Saint, which is to say an example for all of us. We all have advantages, and the spirit of Christmas is the spirit of Christ, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,... (Philippians 2:6-7).

Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath'ring winter fuel

"Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know'st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?"
"Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes' fountain."

"Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear them thither."
Page and monarch forth they went
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind's wild lament
And the bitter weather

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how,
I can go no longer."
"Mark my footsteps, my good page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly."

In his master's steps he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing

My Mom died several years ago, but her influence endures. This weird little carol is growing on me.

Good King Wenceslas

Irish Rovers

Westminster Abbey Choir

AS WE BEGIN ANOTHER TRIP AROUND THE SUN...

2012-01-01T05:08:00.004-07:00

Wow, it’s January One^th again, the beginning of a whole new year. Of course all it means is flipping one digit, but we all do it together and it makes us think about what happened during the past year and what might happen during the next; sort of a universal birthday. For some, birthdays are not a happy analogy, but at the very least they mean you made it through another year. Some folks didn’t make it through last year, so I think we have every reason to celebrate the simple fact that we are experiencing the first day of 2012.

On the downside, however, they tell me the world’s going to end this year. As noted in the previous paragraph, for some it will, but this more general apocalyptic vision is based on the notion that the Mayan calendar runs out on December 21. Of course this is bad news for everyone who’s sill on the old Mayan calendar, but it’s not the end of the world. There must be a free download somewhere out there. But there’s also the fact that, on this date, the earth, the sun, and the centre of our galaxy will be exactly aligned. NASA says this happens every year in late December, while the current soothsayers figure it only happens every 26,000 years. But the way I see it, regardless who you believe, we’ve been through all this before and we’re still here. I think we can all plan to celebrate Christmas again this year.

And did you know...

The Scots used to have a custom of paying all their debts by December 31 to avoid carrying them into the new year. Great idea, but all they got for this is mocked and ridiculed for being cheap. It’s nice when people pay their debts, but better when they owe you money and pay the minimum plus an exorbitant rate of interest. But, not to worry, this Scottish custom isn’t coming back any time soon, even among the Scots.

And the Scots (specifically Robert Burns in 1796) also came up with "Auld Lang Syne", a song everyone sings and no one really understands. It seems, however, to have something to do with remembering people fondly so I’m in favour. And it was the Canadian dance band, Guy Lombardo and His Royal Canadians, who made the song a New Year’s tradition throughout the world. Beauty eh?

And the Scots also had a tradition they called “first footing” where they would go out and call on all their neighbours immediately after midnight. Unfortunately it fell out of favour in most Scottish communities because so few people were home.

Hope you’re having a great year so far. If you meet and Scots along the way give ’em a hug. Three good New Year’s ideas out of that little nation ain’t bad, even if one’s unintelligible and the other two are impractical.

As we get closer to December 21 and the next episode of There’s No Tomorrow I’m sure we’ll all have more to say. In the meantime, if you run across any ancient Mayans, tell ’em “Thanks for nothin’”.

H a p p y N e w Y e a r ! ! !

“Merry Christmas”, “Seasons Greetings” or just pay for your stuff and keep the line moving?

2011-12-27T07:09:00.008-07:00

One of the things I love most about this country is that, over my lifetime, we have become an increasingly multicultural society. Gone are the days when I could imagine that I could imagine an “average Canadian”. And the other day I was delighted to hear someone list Swedish meatballs among their favourite Canadian foods. But it’s a good wind that blows no ill and, on Christmas Eve, I had occasion to witness another episode of the annual Holiday Season drama “What to say? What to say?”.

Now I know some of my fellow Christians take this matter very seriously, as do some of my non Christian friends. The former suspect that “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings” are sinister plots to do away with Christianity, while the latter believe “Merry Christmas” is a deliberate or, at best, ignorant insult to all those who don’t celebrate Christmas. Personally, however, I think the whole debate is a bass ackwards approach to a problem that shouldn’t be a problem at all in a multicultural world.

In twenty-first century Canada there’s a whole host of festivals being celebrated toward the end of the calendar year: Bodhi Day (Buddhist), Winter Solstice (various ethnic and religious), Dōngzhì Festival (Chinese), Diwali (Hindu), Kwanzaa (African American), Christmas (Christian and post Christian), Pancha Ganapati (Hindu), Hanukkah (Jewish), Yalda (Persian). And if there are any ancient Romans among us they will be enjoying Saturnalia.

Of course we can opt to withdraw, as we often do in awkward social situations, but why light our lamps and put them under bowls, when we could put them on stands and give light to everyone in the house? (Matt 5:15) In other words, wouldn’t it be nice if we encouraged everyone to step up and share what they have with everyone else?

When I say “Merry Christmas” I need not assume the person I’m addressing is a Christian or of “Christian Heritage”, or even that they’re celebrating Christmas. I can simply be being inclusive, extending to them some of the joy that I’m experiencing. If a Jew were to wish me “Happy Hanukkah”, I need not be offended or feel he or she has failed to recognize my non Jewishness. I can, instead, be honoured to have been included in their festivities. And, even though I am obviously not of African descent, the same would apply to the African American who wished me a “Joyous Kwanzaa”.

What’s the point of being a multicultural nation if we keep it all to ourselves, or make it all so generic that it means nothing to anyone, or even everything to everyone? And just imagine living in a place where a common reply to “Merry Christmas” might be “Season’s Greetings”, “Happy Hanukkah”, “Good Diwali” or “Have a fun Yalda”, with no one taking any offence at all. I’m not trying to start an argument. It’s just a thought. So...

“Merry Christmas and Happy New Year”

because it’s Christmas and New Year to me.

What’s it to you?

CHRISTMAS IN A BOX

2011-12-25T04:31:00.008-07:00

As my Advent Blog draws to a close each year I try to find some little gift to share on Christmas day. This year, however, I was getting a bit concerned because I couldn’t come up with anything. Then, on the 23^rd, I opened up an email from my brother in Edmonton, who is the Capilano Mall Santa and, in my opinion, the best Santa south of the Arctic Circle. There I found a poem and picture that have now become my Christmas gift for 2011.

Christmas has a way of stirring up visions from our past. The memories may be positive or negative, and are often a bitter/sweet, melancholy mix. Steve’s poem says it all. He may stir up memories for you as he did for me. Hope he does.

Plastic Santa

by Steve Colborne

With trimming on the Christmas tree and candles burning bright,

a pine bough wreath upon the door, yet something wasn't right.

I wasn't sure what I had missed, it seemed a vital part

cause nothing that I'd done, so far, put Christmas in my heart.

I'd been through all the motions that I went through every year

and why the thrill eluded me this year just wasn't clear.

So I put the thought behind me and continued with my task

of sifting through the storage room and adding to the trash.

When I came upon a dusty box marked `CHRISTMAS' on the side.

I brushed it off and looked to see what treasures it might hide.

There beneath a news print shroud a vision from my past.

A flood of childhood memories came furious and fast.

My eyes welled up, my vision blurred, I paused to catch my breath.

The feelings that came over me I'll carry to my death.

It's just a plastic Santa and it's just his face at that.

With beard and hair of faded white, dull red his cheeks and hat.

And tiny lights that, when plugged in, alight his smiling face.

At Christmas in my childhood years he always had his place.

His eyes that once did sparkle so have faded with the years.

His paint has dulled, worn bare in spots, a crack

runs through his beard.

And thus he hangs upon my door to greet our friends and kin,

but most of them would never know, until they venture in,

and greeted there with open arms and maybe share a tear

how much that plastic Santa has affected me this year.

Merry Christmas, God bless, and thanks for sharing the Advent Season this year.

A STORY THAT BELONGS TO EVERYONE

2011-12-21T04:32:00.010-07:00

Fourth week of Advent (Wednesday)

Luke 2:4-7 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, ... While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

My grandmother used to say of a story “If it isn’t worth exaggerating it isn’t worth telling.” I’m not sure “exaggerating” is the word I’d use, but I do think she was onto something. A good story begs for added detail. It catches us up and draws us in, and we drag in all sorts of things without even noticing we’re doing it. The story of that first Christmas is a good story, well worth telling. And it has, consequently, drawn in millions of people through the years, who have, in turn, added plenty.

The manger has morphed into a stable with sheep, an ox, an ass, and even halos, background music, a shining star overhead, and a little drummer boy. In some versions the animals talk. In a few ancient versions even the baby talks.
“No room for them in the inn” has become an uncaring, nasty innkeeper who slams the door on a desperate young couple, or a caring, kindly one who leads the expectant mother and her husband to a meagre place of shelter.
Magi, who brought three gifts at some later time, have blossomed into three kings, each from a different race or ethnic group, with a caravan of camels and servants, all crammed into this little stable scene.
And even Mary’s donkey is an added detail.

And what we couldn’t add to the story, we’ve added to the feast: holly, ivy, mistletoe, Yule logs, wreaths, Christmas trees, coloured lights, candy canes, songs and stories, plumb pudding, nuts, egg-nog, gifts and stockings, pageants, reindeer-powered flying-sleighs, elves and Santa.

The purists shake their heads and grumble about commercialism and pagan influence, and worry that Jesus is being lost in all of this. But Jesus can take care of himself, so all that does is add a note of discord to the festivities.

Christmas isn’t transported, but translated everywhere it goes. And, being the feast of the incarnation, it’s quite appropriate that this is so. When “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14) it was first century Jewish flesh, in a first century Jewish world. And everywhere he goes he is indigenous.

When we first meet Jesus he looks rather like us, or at least like someone we might want to become. And as we become more like him we find he looks rather like others. We begin to see his face in boy and girl faces; black, brown, yellow and white faces; rich, poor, young and old faces; in the faces of innocent victims and even of guilty offenders. Why, we actually begin to see his face in flowers and lakes, earth and sky; in all of creation.

This is the incarnation. God enters his world at any point in time and space; from there he touches everything.

Some Children See Him – James Taylor

(See you Sunday.)

ALL TRUTH HAS PREDICTIVE POWER

2011-12-18T03:49:00.017-07:00

Fourth week of Advent (Sunday)

Matthew 1:18-25 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" which means, "God with us."

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

As Matthew sets out his account of the story of Jesus he is particularly concerned with the fulfilment of prophecy. Twelve times (1:22; 2:5; 2:15; 2:17; 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 12:39; 13:35; 21:4, 27:9) he indicates that an action or event took place in fulfilment of a specific prophetic teaching. It is often assumed, therefore, that he is trying to “prove” what he is claiming about Jesus by showing that the events of his life had been “predicted” hundreds of years before. I believe this is a naive assumption, and that the passage before us is an excellent illustration of what Matthew is really trying to do.

1. Matthew does not see prophecy as prediction of future events, nor the fulfilment of prophecy as precise correspondence between what was said by a prophet and what has taken place. If he had he would surely not have pointed out that Joseph gave the child the name Jesus, while the prophecy states, “...they will call him Immanuel". These two names are as different as David and John. Clearly Matthew is not focused on the details of a prediction.

2. We can be confident that Matthew, who clearly knows his scriptures, is well aware that the prophecy he is referring to (Isaiah 7:14) was a sign given to Ahaz, a King of Israel, hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and that the sign, if it truly was a sign to Ahaz, must have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s day. Isaiah was not talking about a virgin birth – Matthew is not claiming that Jesus is Virgin Birth #2 – but about a virgin who will become pregnant in the usual way, give birth to a son, and name her child Immanuel (God with us). Isaiah’s point is that this child’s name is a reproach to the king. While the King is abandoning his faith in God, in favour of a precarious alliance with other kings, this young girl in his kingdom is so filled with faith that she will actually name her child “God with us”.

3. Though Matthew clearly believes in the literal virgin birth of Jesus, he is not so naive as to imagine he can “prove” the virgin birth. Mary is the only one who can know such a thing, so, apart from her, there are no human witnesses to her virginity. And it is interesting that the birth narratives of Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, tell of only one person, other than Mary, who believed in the virgin birth. Joseph believed, but not because of a prophecy, or even because he took Mary’s word for it. He believed because he was told by an angel.

Matthew and the New Testament writers were not naive about these things. They all knew that no one can believe in the virgin birth unless they already believe that Jesus is who they claim he is, literally “God with us”. And that that belief is founded on the resurrection, which is supported by the witness of many who experienced Jesus alive after his death.

So, what is Matthew doing in this passage?

Matthew is dealing with an obvious objection. If God had actually entered the world in human form, he’d have come, not to a family of nobodies in the little town of Bethlehem, but in a mind-numbing display of glory, to a royalty family in Rome, or least in Jerusalem.

Matthew is pointing out that God’s coming in Jesus, though unique, is consistent with the way he has always come to his people. He came to an obscure, nomadic tribal chieftain (Abraham); an unknown, inarticulate shepherd (Moses); another unimpressive little shepherd (David); and, specifically, to a humble child in Ahaz’s kingdom who, because God was with her, had more faith than even the king.

True prophecy has predictive power, not because it is prophecy, but because it is true, and all truth has predictive power. Advent, like prophecy, is about looking at what God is doing, and what God has done, as the best indicator of what he will do. In the mundane, simple lives of his humble people God has been faithful, is faithful, will be faithful. This is the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of Advent.

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may hear His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

How has God met you in the past? How is he meeting you today? What does this suggest about your future?

(See you Wednesday.)

THE LIGHT

2011-12-14T04:18:00.011-07:00

Third week of Advent (Wednesday)

John 1:9-13 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

As we prepare for Christmas, our Jewish friends, who are truly our spiritual cousins, are preparing to celebrate Hanukkah (December 20 -28 this year), a feast referred to in the New Testament as the Feast of Lights (John 10:22). It originated in what Christians call the Intertestamental Period, the interlude of about 430 years between the end of the Hebrew Bible (Malachi 4:6) and the beginning of the Christian New Testament (Matthew 1:1).

After the Jews returned from Babylon (about 520 BC) Israel remained under foreign domination: Persian, Greek, Egyptian and finally Roman. And the nation was destroyed utterly by the Romans about 70 AD. So, from the Babylonian conquest in 587 BC, to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a period of about 2500 years, there was no independent Jewish nation. That is, with the exception of a very brief period in the second century BC, when, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, they threw off their foreign oppressors.

During this time of freedom they rededicated the Temple, which had been deliberately desecrated by the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:57-67). According to the tradition, when they prepared to light the lamp that burns continuously in the Temple they had enough oil for only one day. They lit the lamp anyway and, miraculously, it burned for eight days by which time they had been able to procure more pure, undesecrated oil.

The Feast of Hanukkah or Lights, commemorates the eight day miracle that initiated this tiny flash of liberation in an otherwise dark and oppressive time. It is a celebration of freedom, perseverance, and the faithfulness of God and his people. It reiterates the promise of light in the darkness of our lives and, though it is only accidentally associated with Christmas, it is a wonderful companion feast to the celebration of the coming of Christ who is Emmanuel (God with us).

In the Gospel of John Jesus declares "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12). And in Matthew’s Gospel he tells his disciples "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.” (Matt 5:14)

Both Hanukkah and Christmas come in the dark of winter. – My apologies to our friends in the southern hemisphere, but both Judaism and Christianity grew up north of the equator. – These feasts exist to shed a little light in the darkness of our world, and we in turn share this light with the world at large. For it is the nature of light to flow outward from its source and reflect everywhere. If it blesses anyone, it blesses everyone.

So, let’s lighten up as the nights grow longer. Light a candle in the window, illuminate a tree, string lights on the front of your home, hang them in the streets and in the malls. We can even light up a reindeer’s nose for the sake of all the little children in the world. It’s Hanukkah, it’s Christmas, the promise of light and life.

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth "

Though she doesn’t include this verse, nobody sings Silent Night quite like Mahalia Jackson. Enjoy!

(See you Sunday.)

A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

2011-12-11T04:37:00.010-07:00

Third week of Advent (Sunday)

Physicists, today, build multi-billion dollar particle accelerators in search of what they call a “unified theory”, i.e., a simple, mathematically expressible hypothesis, that will explain everything: how the universe came into being, and how it continues to be. It’s a great endeavour and, though I don’t pretend to understand it, I expect it will produce practical technological benefits; these things usually do. But, in reality, it’s simply a continuation of the age old human project of understanding. For some reason human beings have always suspected that there is some “one thing” at the root of everything, that ties reality together and makes sense of it all. And we want to know that “thing”.

But even a theoretical mathematician like Stephen Hawking admits that this project will not provide a final, satisfying answer. “Even if there is only one possible unified theory,” he writes, “it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” (A Brief History of Time)

John 1:1-9 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. (Emphasis mine.)

John begins his gospel with a poetic prologue in which he sets out the essence of the story he is about to tell. This prologue is his “unified theory”.

All Jews knew that “In the beginning” God brought everything into being by his Word (Genesis 1). So it is, of course, God’s Word that created and sustains the universe. But John insists that this Word also unifies everything, including all human beings. And, furthermore, that this Word is light and life, not just for a few enlightened ones, or those of the Old Testament faith, or even the followers of Jesus. This is “the true light that gives light to everyone”.

This “unified theory” didn’t produce any immediate technological breakthroughs that I’m aware of, but it did produce some startling philosophical and ethical insights. Paul, for example, can say “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) This kind of thinking has huge implication that are still being worked out in our world today. And, in light of this teaching, St Francis of Assisi can even speak of “Brother Sun and Sister Moon”. Imagine the implications of that.

So, as we celebrate the coming of Christ, we celebrate that one mysterious something, or someone, who ties it all together.

But you may ask me, “Can you prove this unified theory?”. Of course I can, the same way the physicists will prove theirs, with the ultimate test question “Does it work?” The application is, admittedly, a bit tricky, but after a lifetime of experience I am personally convinced that, when applied properly, it does.

One Light, One Sun – Raffi

(Raffi is a wonderful children’s entertainer. I’m rediscovering him with my grandchildren. Be sure click on this link, especially if you don’t know his work. You’ll love it.)

WHOSE BIRTHDAY IS IT... REALLY?

2011-12-07T12:07:00.005-07:00

Second week of Advent (Wednesday)

Mark 1:1-8 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

"I will send my messenger ahead of you,

who will prepare your way"—

"a voice of one calling in the desert,

'Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for him.'"

And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

John the Baptist is the last prophet of the Old Testament; the first of the New. He marks a transition for all who are ready to be done with their old lives and enter into something better. He comes with a symbolic ritual, immersing in the waters of the Jordan, the river that marked the ancient boundary between the wilderness, where the people had wandered for forty years (a traditional lifetime), and the Land of Promise that would be their inheritance forever. John is a wild man. He’s independent, dressing simply and eating only what the land will afford him. And, because of this independence, he is free to stand against the community: political, commercial, cultural and religious.

Faith needs people like John, who will stand against the domesticating influence of religion. Without prophets our spiritual lives grow stale and predictable. Our life of faith inexorably degenerates into a life of church: a stupefying procession of services, sermons, mumbled prayers and responses, potluck suppers, feast and fast days, bible verses, theological distinctions, sentimental memories. And the faith community becomes a little club, a memorial society, a bulwark against the juggernaut of change.

But, every now and then, God sends a Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, John the Baptist, Teresa of Avila, Martin Luther, Dorothy Day or Martin Luther King among the sheep. These are God’s border collies. They startle us, unsettle us, and generally shake us out of our pastoral complacency. And they remind us that we are not our own; we belong to a shepherd whose will is not our will, whose purposes we serve.

The prophets bring new insight and open up new possibilities, but, in the end, it is the shepherd who loves and leads the sheep. John the Baptist immerses in water, Martin Luther in reformation, Dorothy Day in social justice, Martin Luther King in racial equality. But there is one who immerses in the Holy Spirit, who changes us from the inside, who makes us new.

We celebrate the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem because, in Jesus, there is the possibility of a new birth for everyone.

O Little Town of Bethlehem

O holy Child of Bethlehem, descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in, be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us, our Lord Emmanuel!

Philip Brooks - 1868

If you are reborn this Christmas, how might you be different?

(See you next Wednesday.)