In the pre-Vatican II Church, this tremendous solidity was reflected in all the various facets of Catholic worship and life. There was absolutely no doubt, for instance, that the traditional Latin Mass was wholly intent on worshipping the majesty of God and of accomplishing that filial submission of mind and heart of all those who assisted at Mass to the total sovereignty of God over all things human.
The Latin language, the direction the altar faced, the beauty of sacred vessels, statuary, stained-glass windows, all aspects of the architecture, and the sacred music – all these things spoke of worship centered upon the Infinite, Immutable Being of God. And, of course, the prayers of the Old Mass embodied this worship to the utmost.
The very fact that the priest and servers knelt at the foot of the steps and prayed Psalm 42 and the Confiteor before they dared ascend to the altar, profoundly revealed this basic orientation of our faith and worship.
The same may be said for all standard materials used to teach the Faith. Catechisms such as the Baltimore catechism in the U.S. or the Penny catechism in the UK were almost like small compendiums of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, deeply reflecting the principles of our faith found in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas.
All of this solidity largely disappeared after Vatican Council II. It was widely declared that Triumphalism was something that only belonged to the Pharisaical past, and that the path to the future lay in something called aggiornamento – which roughly translated means “openness to the world.” This, despite the fact that Holy Scripture issues a dire warning precisely against any such “openness” to, or friendship with, the world.
In the Epistle of St. James, we read: “Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever, therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.” (James 4:4).
Read the article (PDF file)
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Biggest Attack On The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is beyond me how the first five words of the amendment take precedence over “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” regarding religion. By stopping me from putting up a nativity on public land IS prohibition so long as any other item that is of personal belief i.e. global warming is permitted. Actually, I believe this twisted view has it’s roots in prohibited speech called politically correct.
Webster’s College Bound Dictionary (1956 edition), religion was defined as, “anything a man places his faith in, believes in, and adheres to.” A belief in God was the example. From this we had the phrase, “he is very religious about his job”.
Religion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.[1]
[I]n the frame of western religious thought,[3] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[4] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.
Sacred-profane dichotomy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about Émile Durkheim’s identified central characteristic of religion. For The Sacred and Profane by The Smashing Pumpkins, see Machina/The Machines of God.
French sociologist Émile Durkheim considered the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[1] In Durkheim’s theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the dichotomy sacred/profane was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.[2]
Criticism
Durkheim’s claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions/cults has been criticized by scholars like British anthropologist Jack Goody.[3] Goody also noted that many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion.[4]
Some Eastern religions like Buddhism disapprove of cultivating dualism, even between the sacred and the profane. A disciple is first asked to cultivate "a good mind".[citation needed] In the intermediate stage, the disciple is asked to "break through the good mind" (i.e., stop distinguishing between the sacred and the profane).[citation needed] In the final stage of learning, the monk lets go of all conceptualizations of good and bad or sacred and profane.[citation needed] This is called the final good, and can thus said to be simply a different definition of good and evil, rather than truly forbidding or throwing away the concept.
This brings to the end that secularism, global warming, socialism, and any other belief that is considered to be a truth is religious, and a religion. They are most certainly sacred, as the practitioners of the same are willing to sacrifice all of western civilization in the practice of this belief system.
Therefore, to claim there is a freedom “from” religion is an oxymoron. What we have is religious people forcing their beliefs upon us, and declare them as some kind of truth, therefore the “debate is over” and political correctness comes into play.
Political correctness (noun) and politically correct (adjective) (PC) are the terms applied to language, ideas, policies, and behaviour meant to enforce ideologic conformity to an orthodox authority. The usages are principally pejorative — ridiculing the “unquestionable authority” of the orthodoxy and the authority figure. The adjectival term politically incorrect denotes language and ideas, unconstrained by orthodoxy, that might offend the orthodox PC folk. The usage controversy lies in the implicitly negative connotation of political correctness, while politically incorrect implicitly connotes a positive self-description, e.g. Bill Maher, host of the US television political discussion programme Politically Incorrect (1993–96, 1997–2002). [1][2] – Wikipedia
“[T]erms applied to language, ideas, policies, and behaviour meant to enforce ideologic conformity to an orthodox authority figure.”
Political correctness is nothing more than the liberals refusal to debate an issue therefore marking it out of bounds. They have no defense for their reason of though, therefore they quail the subject with ridicule declaring it to be “politically incorrect” thereby, out of bounds. By forcing this opinion upon the news media and/or the pubic it is an outright form of censorship and infringement upon the First Amendment plain and simple.
It is of and oddity to me that the ACLU has never once went to court to protect the First Amendment regarding this issue, but, on the contrary, they have done the exact opposite.
Whereas, it would be safe to say, they are not in all reality a guardian of the First Amendment, or and advocate of the same. They are in fact, active in censorship by disqualifying their religious beliefs as being what it is, a religion, while claiming freedom “from” religion, they are tentatively and actively forcing their religious beliefs upon the rest of society. The exact thing the First Amendment is there to protect us from.
Fact: If one has any belief, the same has a religion, or religious belief. Therefore, freedom “from” religion is a complete impossibility, that is, unless the individual is brain dead.
Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery.
That’s the view from here,
Duane
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Next "New" Move?
Truth Matters Newsletters – June 2006 – Vol. 11 Issue 6 – “The Next “New” Move? By Robert S. Liichow
Discernment Ministries International The Next “New” Move?In the May issue of Truth Matters I took the readers through a brief look at what happened to the leaders of the last revival referred to as “The Toronto Blessing” or “The Pensacola Outpouring.” I also stressed the reality of how most sign-gift believers and Pentecostal people are on a continual pilgrimage seeking to become a part of the current move of the holy Spirit.
Once the last so-called revival (Holy Laughter/Sign & Wonders) died out and most of the initial leaders either got booted out of their pulpits or left when the people and money dried up. This left millions of people wondering “what is the next move of the Spirit?” I felt like screaming “EUREKA I’VE FOUND IT”! In the June 2006 issue of Charisma magazine, I believe I have discovered what some “big hitters” are calling the next movement which they claim redefines what Church is. The tag line of the article reads as follows:
“Who said Christians have to meet in a traditional building with a pulpit? Innovative Christians today are Redefining Church.”
On page 32 of Charisma it reads, “God is Out of the Box,” introducing this new and exciting ministry trend simply called the house church. Basically what this means is that certain people, usually disillusioned with their former congregational life and their position in it, have left the traditional church and banded together in small groups that meet in homes. Let me cite from the beginning of the article:
Not everyone at her home church follows Christ, including her husband, a disillusioned former church member….who accepted Christ in 1978, but quickly faded away from a church she found cold and formal….’I didn’t want to participate in what I saw going on in the name of Christ, ‘ Weger says of her shunning of traditional congregations for more than 25 years. (1)
It is immediately evident that Weger’s initial concept of the Church was faulty. It is not about her it is about the worship of Jesus! It is obvious from the following statement that in her mind her needs were not being met.
Years ago when Weger was hurting and collapsed in tears at her old church, she says several leaders walked by without speaking [to her]. (2)
Understand that Weger is a sign-fit person, so the church she attended years ago was undoubtedly a charismatic congregation where, and I speak from personal patoral experience, it was not at all an uncommon sight to see people weeping before, during and after services. Did these “several” leaders even see her? Were they involved in a discussion among themselves as they passed? Was weeping a common occurrence in that congregation? Did she follow up this possible slight by going to any of these leaders and ask for an explanation, telling them that they had offended her?
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Matthew 18:15
I am sure that she did not, she simply took the offense as a sign that her church was cold formal and uncaring. Like many little kids, she took her “ball and went home and started her own church. How do I know this is what happened? To begin with she does not share in the article that she followed the simple biblical pattern for conflict resolution. Secondly, in my varied positions of over twenty three years in congregational leadership I have yet to see but a handful of Christians enact the Matthew 18:15 principle. It is easier to run to the pastor and “tattle” on someone who has seemingly wronged you, or tell a “prayer partner” which somehow sanctifies the gossip.
Allow Me to Digress A momentI am off topic here but this is vitally important to all our spiritual lives. When you have been offended by someone then in obedience to Christ’s own command go to that person first. Nine times out of ten you will learn that the person who “hurt” you was not even aware that her or she did do. Often you will learn that it was not their intention to hurt you (I know from some comments on sermons I’ve delivered). In fact, you may even discover that you were wrong in feeling hurt in the first place and that it is you who ought to be asking forgiveness from the one you are addressing. Or, if the person was indeed in the wrong then he or she should say they are sorry and ask your forgiveness. If this does not happen then our Master lays out the next steps to be taken. For the life of me I do not know why people do not follow this simple commandment. At least 90% of the problems within the life of any congregation would be squelched if this was followed. Instead people go to others first, then like the old telephone game by the time the message reaches the accused offending party it is totally overblown. What is the result of such behavior?
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God: lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled: Hebrews 12:15
People get offended and simply ignore or refuse to work with the “accused” in community life. (3) More times than not people leave that congregation and take their unhealed wounds to another place of worship and often cause problems in the new congregation due to past unresolved issues.
End of DigressionWeger is totally against traditional churches and seems to have a low opinion of those who still remain “in the box.”
Ironically, today Wegr says the hardest people to discuss Jesus’ love with are traditional church members. (4)
Obviously not everyone who attends Church is a genuine Christian, yet the Bible clearly states the following:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14
She gives no further clarification of her statement, but she is implying that either non-Christians or the new breed of house church folk are easier to discuss the love of Christ with! Non-Christians cannot understand biblical truth, so how can Christians be harder to talk to about the One who saved them? As for me, this certainly has not been my experience in talking about Jesus to my brothers and sisters.
Grandiose claims are being made for these small independent house churches. The Charisma article goes as far to declare it as an actual movement called the “house-church movement” (as if we need another movement). Here is the next tag line for the article:
“The Revolution now upon us is a complete paradigm shift, taking us back to the time of Christ. It is going to be a lot bigger than the Reformation” James Rutz, author of Megashift
Oh really? Casting off all traditional orthodox structure, having no biblically trained pastors and sitting around in small disaffected groups singing Kumbaya is going to be bigger than the Evangelical Reformation? I sincerely doubt it, Charisma magazine doesn’t:
Judging by the house-church movement that is exploding across North America, Weger’s story can be repeated millions of times. (5)
What is the basis for the claim of “millions” of house-church groups in America today? Enter “big hitter” number one, George Barna. Mr. Barna is best known for his poll taking and statistical data is the source for deeming this an “exploding” movement:
Christian demographer George Barna estimates 8 percent to 9 percent of adults in the United States—22 million to 24 million people—are now involved in some form of house church. (6)
Anyone who has ever taken a class on statistics knows how inaccurate the results can be. I’m willing to wager that no one reading this newsletter was polled. I know we were not asked. I wonder where he gets his data, or is it as he says an “estimate.” It should come as no surprise that Mr. Barna himself has left traditional Christianity and is part of this so-called house-church movement.
In the minds of these people they see the Church as a failure. A common expression I used to hear is “it isn’t working anymore,” the “it” being the Church. Whenever you hear comments like that, or, “we need to do things a new way,” don’t blithely accept those comments. Instead, challenge them. Ask the individual to define what is not working? How do you measure success? I know in America success means bigger numbers and better stuff, we often call that growth. There is a HUGE difference between numerical and spiritual growth my brothers and sisters. What is the “new way?” Is the role of the Church to conform to a fallen society’s ever-changing mode (what I call dumbing-down) or are we called to be salt (see Matt 5:13) and light (see Matt. 5:14) and by God’s grace change society?
The next “big hitter” who surely recognizes a move of the Holy Spirit when he sees it is John Arnott:
…John Arnott, former senior pastor of Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship says, If we are going to reach the world for Jesus, we need a completely new model of ‘doing church,’ Arnott wrote in the most recent issue of House2House magazine. (7)
Arnott must one day stand before God and give account for facilitating the deception of millions of people who flocked to TACF to obtain the “new wine” that was allegedly being poured out. When the wine stopped flowing, it seems that Mr. Arnott had to get going…somewhere else. Now he is an advocate for the house-church movement. I guess he can only find a handful of people willing to follow him at this point.
Another significant player in this latest fad is Neil Cole, a church planter for the Grace Brethren denomination. He has started at least 700 of these house-churches.
After leaving his traditional pulpit seven years ago to launch a church in a coffeehouse, Cole says the network that sprang up from that effort soon led to Christians meeting every day of the week in Long Beach. (8)
Latte and a lectionary (opps, they don’t know what one is), or how about espresso and a short exhortation, maybe some java and jubilation? Cole goes on to reveal his heart in the following statement:
I think the most significant breakthrough is the concept that Christians can hear and obey God without an established leader telling them what to do…We have removed a lot of filters between God’s people and God’s voice. (9)
God speaks to us only through His Word, and so it is true that all Christians can “hear” God through His Word and without a doubt all Christians should obey what God says in His Word. The great danger I see in this movement is that of the blind leading the blind. There are rules for interpreting the Bible, it is called hermeneutics.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20
Faulty biblical interpretation has led to the creation of every Bible-based cult, sect and aberrant group in the world. All of the heresies today, all of the biblical errors being taught and all of the false practices stem from an initial improper interpretation of the scriptures.
What filters have been removed? I assume the role of an educated pastor and biblically trained elders. In Cole’s mind what is keeping God’s people from true communion with God is the leadership He Himself has ordained. The sad reality is that Christian people still have to deal with their own sinful flesh and this flesh abhors being told what to do by anybody, including God. Just tell your teenager to please clean up his or her bedroom! It is so much easier when we do not really have any authority over us to listen to and obey. So the house-church movement is very appealing to people who want no one to have any spiritual oversight in their lives. Yet God’s Word says:
Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17
Yes I know there are limits to our obedience; we obey our leaders inasmuch as they are preaching the true Gospel. That is a given. But recognize that we are to obey and we are to submit ourselves to pastoral leadership. This is not the case in the house-church movement because they have no recognized leaders per se. These house-church groups say they are based on Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14:26:
Felicity says the typical format in their network in an Acts 2 style of fellowship–breaking of bread, prayer and praise and worship…Many house-churches offer women an opportunity for full participation in congregational life. (10)
Acts 2 is indeed a historical reality, but nowhere are we told that it is the pattern for how church is to be done. To begin with in Acts 2 the original (genuine) Apostles were the leaders. Those who were converted came and listened to their teachings (maybe Cole would consider them a filter between God and His people). It was a time of “come as you are an say what you will.” The Apostles taught and made disciples educating them doctrinally. They were raising up leaders to go and lead others in the true Christian faith. Another group in Canada says:
We try to [follow] 1 Corinthians 14:26, which says everyone brings a word [or] prophecy, says Zdero, who wrote a book on the global house-church movement two years ago. ‘Our house-church meetings are like spiritual potlucks, where everyone brings something. (11)
On the surface, apart from the context of 1 Cor. 14 Zdero would seem to be following a biblical pattern for how a church service is to be run. The Apostle Paul is addressing the abuses and carnality of the Corinthians and how their “services” had devolved into self-edification versus the building up of all the people. Naturally both Dale and Zdero do not mention Paul’s admonition in the same letter in which he commends the women to be silent (see 1 Cor. 14:34)!
I have been apart of countless home Bible studies, which in general were great times of fellowship. I have also seen what happens without properly educated leaders and everyone brings out their own subjective interpretation of a text, or shares a dream they think God gave them, or utters an alleged word of prophecy from the Lord. It is nothing but chaos, which is why the Apostle Paul was teaching them on how to bridle in some excess enthusiasm.
As with all excesses the first thing to get tossed aside is the objective truths of the Bible. “Doctrine divides” has long been the cry of the charismatic movement. To which I have responded ‘you bet your sweet bippy it does it is supposed to!” According to Cole he is seeing a melding of various Protestant and charismatic people within house-churches:
He says he has never seen such a strong blending of multiple backgrounds in advancing God’s kingdom. Despite often being divided in the past, both groups must bring their strengths and weaknesses to the table in the house-church movement and acknowledge that their agreements are more important then their issues, Cole says. (12)
In other words, doctrinal issues are divisive and thus doctrinal truth which separates people is deemed unimportant. What is deemed more important than doctrinal truth is whatever can be agreed upon by the diverse group. Ergo, subjective group-think replaces doctrinal foundations. The following adage is true for the house church movement—”If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.” In these groups there can be no agreement on the meaning or method of water baptism, there cannot be agreement on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. What can they agree about? Even something as seemingly simple as “we believe Jesus Christ is Lord” is fraught with thunderous doctrinal implications. A Modalist heretic, like T.D. Jakes will declare Jesus is Lord, but does not acknowledge the reality of the Trinity. Even simple statements of belief have at their core doctrinal significance. On the other hand if one is willing to never dig deeper beyond the “God-talk” and get to the meaning and import of the statements made, then one can be happy in such a group. I will coin a new term:
“SHALLOWNESS SELLS © ”How did this movement start to get traction? That depends on who you ask. I believe the independent spirit and anti-denominational teachings fostered by the Latter Rain movement of the 1940’s had a great deal to do with it. I also believe the lack of feeling connected in the mega-churches led many people to feel like nothing more than a number. Out of 30,000+ members, how many does Joel Osteen know personally? Even in a congregation of 1,000 how many people can actually get time to talk to their pastor? These huge mega-churches try to meet the need of feeling personally connected by having home groups. These home groups undoubtedly led many of the leaders to think “humm, I can do this on my own, apart from the mother church.” Thus man’s natural fallen tendency towards independence and the lack of a true sense of belonging hae gone a long way in forging this house-church movement.
Ken Walker, author of the Charisma article is honest enough to expose the most dangerous inherent weakness within this movement; one that I believe in the long run will send these people back to the stability of traditional orthodox Christianity. Here Walker quotes Jacobsen who supports this movement with reservations:
Likewise, one glaring weakness of house churches is that many are governed by authoritarian leaders. Often there are leaders who couldn’t ‘cut it’ in a traditional church, so they form a group to follow in a smaller setting, Jacobsen says. (14)
Regardless of the setting, someone will rise to leadership. As Walker astutely points out often these leaders were deemed unfit to lead within an orthodox setting. Jacobsen further states:
I would say a lot of house-churches are incredibly unhealthy. They’re led by people who have their ego all twisted up. If it’s manipulative, the smaller the environment the more dangerous it is. (15)
A tremendous amount of spiritual abuse can and does occur in these small group settings. People who join come with the attitude that the traditional church has failed and can easily be led into a “siege” mentality where ‘their little group’ are the only true Christians. Kreider, another semi-proponent of house-churches admits the following:
In the past, Kreider says, house church movement is reactionary towards the traditional orthodox Christian Church. These groups are most often formed by wounded and hurt people who are dysfunctional to some degree. The depth of their dysfunction will determine the level of control or spiritual abuse within their group. Isolated? Without doubt, there is no one to appeal to beyond the little house-church and its members. This movement is based totally on being independent from organized historic Christianity. That is their whole intention, to do their own thing, in their own way without having to submit to any spiritual authority. Heresy? Well technically heresy really deals with Christology, its more accurate to say faulty biblical interpretation and false doctrines of one sort or another will abound in these groups, since everyone can share their own understanding of the biblical texts.
Discernment Ministries International encounters many Christians who have been sexually abused by church leaders, others who’ve been taken advantage of financially and others who are simply disgusted with the foolishness they heard being taught and practiced. These people have told us that they no longer attend any church and are not planning to go back. They explain that they love Jesus Christ, read His Word, pray and support mission outreaches (like DMI in some cases).
Brothers and sisters if there was ever anyone who had more than enough reasons to throw up his hands and walk away from the “church” it would be me. I can fully empathize with those who have been deeply wounded. I even support taking some time away from church to allow the Holy Spirit to work through God’s Word to begin the healing process, but that process will never come to completion until you get connected back into a solid biblically based congregation.
Staying away from congregational life is simply burying your God-given talents that God gave you to bless your brothers and sisters; not to mention the rich blessings that come from receiving the unique fragrance of Christ that all His sheep emanate.
Let me close by saying there is no perfect church in this life. Some are much better than others and I urge anyone who does not have a local church to not give up. Begin to visit congregations, ask the leaders hard questions, talk to the members and see what (if anything) the Lord is doing in their midst. I am so glad that we did not give up on the church and are happily ensconced in a Traditional confessional Evangelical congregation. Is it a perfect church? Nope. But the people are sincere, the doctrine and practice is as biblical as it gets and our leaders are men of integrity. God ordained the creation of the Church, Jesus is still the Head of the Body of Christ and the Spirit of grace is still working through the proclamation of the Gospel (from pulpits) and sacraments.
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhort one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10:24-25 ♦
Copyright © Robert S. Liichow
End Notes:
1. Charisma, God is Out of the Box, June 2006, p. 53. Underlining and bold type aded for emphasis.
2. Ibid
3. In one church I was preaching at one women fell out with another sister, both of whom headed committees and neither one spoke to one another for over a year. Yet they came to church regularly, served on their committees which ceased to work together as they previously had done. In short, it was a very ugly mess.
4. Charisma, God is Out of the Box, 2006, p. 53. Underlining and bold type added for emphasis.
5. Ibid p. 54 Underlining added.
6. Ibid. p. 54 Underlining added.
7. Ibid. p. 54
8. Ibid. p. 54 Underlining added.
9. Ibid p. 54 Underlining added.
10. Ibid p. 56 Felicity is “Felicity Dale” a wife of a house-church group in England and author of several books on this topic.
11. Ibid. p. 56
12. Ibid p. 58. Underlining added.
13. The problem with the home group/mini-churches is that they are run by lay people with little to no theological training. They did have a spirit of hospitality which I applaud. At the mega-church my family attended the home groups were organized around felt-needs. There were really no “restrictions” on what group members attended. When a member had a problem or issue they were in theory to go to their home group leader for help since they would probably not get a meeting with one of the several pastors on staff. That’s fine if your home group leader had the capacity to help. In our experience we noted that problems cropped up occasionally when a group would veer off course and teach things our church did not agree with. Each group had more or less autonomy in what they studied. It might have been more effective if these groups simply all focused on the prior sermon and how to apply it to their lives.
14. Charisma, God is Out of the Box, June 2006. P. 60. Underlining and bold type added for emphasis
15. Ibid. p. 60
16. Ibid. p.60 Underlining added.
Are you a David in the Goliath world?
Yesterday I was reading Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic weekly newspaper, and ran across an article about a Catholic college that is being sued for following the teachings of the Catholic Faith. The article made me stop and thing, to reflect upon my faith and what it means to me. I am not going to go in to the details of the article here for you, if you want to know more about it read my STATIC Youth blog, there is a link to the article there.
But in the article the president of the college made the statement that he would rather see it close than to not follow the teachings of the Church. That statement really struck me. Be you Catholic or anti-Catholic that statement is a powerful statement to his and the colleges commitment to the faith. How many of us would be willing to say I would rather lose my job than to bend my morals? How many of us can truly say that the teachings of our faith are more important than my job…
Now the college is still there and only time will tell if he follows through on his statement of faith. Will he close the college if he is forced to change the policies of the college? And if so is he truly serving the Church or his own self interest, only God will know the answer to that question. But the debate surrounding this should be fun to follow. And in the end I pray that the college wins.
But back to the question, are you strong enough in your faith to take such a stand, to me it is a modern day form of persecution of the catholic faith and the college is the David with the Law being Goliath. The fight has started and little David is holding his own, but for how long?
We all are David’s in a world full of Goliath’s, are we willing to take up our stones in the battle with the giants of this world, is our faith important enough to us to fight the Goliath of secularism? Are we strong enough to fight off the armies of political forces intent on watering down the faith to make it less Catholic and more politically correct, more worldly and less Godly.
Can you say that your faith is strong enough to handle the on slot of attacks. Most of us avoid conflicts at all cost, we will walk across the street or forgo a gathering to make sure we avoid the argument or conflict. How many of us are willing to stand tall for our faith? How many of us are willing to take a stand and allow it to go were it will go, and willing be take were it leads?
just a question, I am not sure were I stand on this, I pray that I have the courage to take a stand for the faith, but truth be told, I don’t know, I have yet to be truly challenged.
In my pursuit to always improving myself, this is a issue of some importance. Will I stand the test of time, will I be able to stand tall when the world is coming at me, or will I crumble and fall, will I fail when the winds blow hard and rattle the foundation I have created? And the same holds true for my faith, faced with my Goliath, will my David prevail? Can I win the battle?
Paul
Freedom & Pain
It sucks to admit you have failed
when one is a perfectionist it is even worse
when one is a clergy person and the failure is 20 years of marriage
the pain can be almost unbearable
but the greater pain is stuffing it down
holding it in
pretending
like you are still in love
like nothing is wrong
like your family is the perfect family
except it’s not
and you know
and you suspect that others know
even though you hide it so fucking well
But,
then you are sick of holding it in
sick of lying
sick of pretending, putting on false pretenses
and you finally talk
and you cry
because 20 years is a long time
and this is sure to fuck up your kids
the kids you loved too much and ruined your marraige over in the first place
and everything becomes a last
and there is a certain freedom in making the decision
in letting go
in being real
So…
the future looks bleak
and bright
hopeless
and hopeful
freedom & pain
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Did You Make It?
I got a little reminder about why I write nonfiction today at Aaron’s football jamboree.
This is his first year out for football, so I was interested in getting to know the rest of the parents. I was standing on the sidelines watching the drills. One of the boys on the team hollered to the man standing next to me about what he had brought for the team’s snack. The man hollered back something about having picked up a twelve pack of something from the local warehouse store and his boy beamed. I was so amused by this exchange: the importance of the snack, the boy’s earnest query, Dad’s dutiful reply. I stopped taking photographs and grinned at the man.
I pointed out my son, and we struck up a conversation.
When I asked him what grade and school his son attended, he told me the boy had recently switched to a new school and was doing poorly. I told him I had had the same experience myself, switching to a new school.
The man surprised me by asking, “Did you make it?”
By this I understood him to mean, did you make it to graduation, are you a high school graduate, which I am not. I am embarrassed to say that I came this >< close to lying to the man. I felt a huge wave of shame roll over me–Mr. Memoir, a guy who has written about being a divorcee, an absentee father, shooting IV drugs, and even being homeless. There is just something intimidating about being asked something like this point blank in a conversation. I really wasn’t sure what to say. I started to bluster, but then I finally just smiled and said, “Nah–not really.”
This man grinned and said, “Me either.”
We had a good chuckle. I didn’t get his name, but I connected with this man in a way I would not have had I gone on about my time in college, the military, or even getting my GED.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Plato's Cave, the mind, guilt, and innocence
The mind of Plato’s Cave, having accumulated shadows of ‘shadows of shadows’, lives in darkness. The darkness, which is the involuntary reflexive expression of “re-cognition”, prevents seeing.
A mind that does not accumulate shadows is a mind that cannot pre-meditate. A mind that does not premeditate is a mind that is much more than ‘not guilty’. A mind that does not premeditate is a mind that is “innocent”.
The mind of Plato’s Cave, in its unending reactions, behaves mechanically. This mechanical reaction of recognition, creates friction, and dissipates energy. In the darkness and the mechanical process, the mind conjures up more shadows. The complexity and disintegration grow and the mind decays.
The innocent mind is whole, acts wholly, and is ‘holy’. This mind is not put together nor is it man made.
The mind of Plato’s Cave forever repeats and operates within its frontiers. This mind does not look, it “looks for”. It can never see and only re-cognizes what it already knows.
In this repetition, there is never anything new.
The innocent mind, not being mechanical, never dissipates energy. The innocent mind does more than re-generate and re-create. There is no “re” in the innocent mind. There is no “again” in the innocent mind. The innocent mind “generates” and “creates”.
The mind of Plato’s Cave is always “the again”. This mind ages and is old.
The innocent mind does not age and is therefore forever new. This is creation.
*
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)