Is the Camel Coming into the Tent?

Many in the pro-life movement have claimed for years that when abortion is legal, it would be the first step toward a total disregard for human life. This argument has been poo-poo'd by the pro-abortion folks, but the creeping reality of euthanasia is making its presence felt in most of the west including the United States. Most pro-life folks believe that if you can terminate life at one end of the spectrum, it's only a matter of time before you can terminate on the other.

Here's an article that appeared this morning on Townhall.com that will enlighten you on the nature of the pro-death movement that hides its desire for death behind such euphemisms as "pro-choice" and "quality of life."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2008/05/26/encouraging_death

Invoking the Name of God

Actually this post has nothing to do with theology. It could also be titled, "Why airline pilots make the big bucks." I think anyone on any of these planes would have called out to God on any of these landings.

Here's the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4RdxU-0W-RE

Water, Water Everywhere!!!

Recently, the folks over at Stoplight produced a new short on H2O. Now, what can be more harmless and noncontroversial than water? By the way, Stuart Shepard seems to confuse Helium and Hydrogen, but don't worry about it. Just check out the link below.


http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000007448.cfm

Where Catholic Liberals Go to Die!

One of the most hideously liberal organizations that had its birth in the morass of post-Vatican II Christianity is the "Call to Action" movement. To the best of my knowledge the "Call to Action" crowd never accomplished much of anything other than to question any teaching that Catholics or, for that matter, most Christians hold dear.

Now many of them are aging and not particularly gracefully. Here's a closing liturgy from the Southern California chapter of "Call to Action" that I think pretty fairly summarizes the whole movement. Sadly, there are many Episcopalians who might witness this "liturgy" and decide that this should become normative for them.

The link follows. However, I wouldn't suggest watching this right after a meal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY

Now, if that's not enough, here's a "Mass" celebrated by Roman Catholic womenpriests(yes, that's the name of the organization). This "Mass" was also celebrated at "Call to Action".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfKSfJ9cLwY

More Poems? You Must Be Kidding?

No, I'm not kidding. For some reason that I don't quite understand, I'm feeling compelled to post some of my favorite poems, all of which are in the public domain.

Jekyll Island is one of Georgia's Golden Isles, along with St. Simon's Island, Sea Island, Colonel's Island, and Cumberland Island. Jekyll is nine miles long and - at most - half a mile wide, separated from Brunswick, the closest town, by a 12-mile causeway that cuts through the "Marshes of Glynn." My grandmother was the second person to move to Jekyll Island when it first opened as a state park in the late 1950s and my sisters and I would spend the bulk of our summers there.

Probably no place on earth is as beautiful to me as the marshlands of Glynn County, Georgia. Sidney Lanier seemed to feel the same way. Here's one of his greatest works, "The Marshes of Glynn."

---

The Marshes of Glynn
by Sidney Lanier

Glooms of the live-oaks, beautiful-braided and woven
With intricate shades of the vines that myriad-cloven
Clamber the forks of the multiform boughs,—
Emerald twilights,—
Virginal shy lights,
Wrought of the leaves to allure to the whisper of vows,
When lovers pace timidly down through the green colonnades
Of the dim sweet woods, of the dear dark woods,
Of the heavenly woods and glades,
That run to the radiant marginal sand-beach within
The wide sea-marshes of Glynn;—

Beautiful glooms, soft dusks in the noonday fire,—
Wildwood privacies, closets of lone desire,
Chamber from chamber parted with wavering arras of leaves,—
Cells for the passionate pleasure of prayer to the soul that grieves,
Pure with a sense of the passing of saints through the wood,
Cool for the dutiful weighing of ill with good;—

O braided dusks of the oak and woven shades of the vine,
While the riotous noonday sun of the June-day long did shine
Ye held me fast in your heart and I held you fast in mine;
But now when the noon is no more, and riot is rest,
And the sun is a-wait at the ponderous gate of the West,
And the slant yellow beam down the wood-aisle doth seem
Like a lane into heaven that leads from a dream,—
Ay, now, when my soul all day hath drunken the soul of the oak,
And my heart is at ease from men, and the wearisome sound of the stroke
Of the scythe of time and trowel of trade is low,
And belief overmasters doubt, and I know that I know,
And my spirit is grown to a lordly great compass within,
That the length and the breadth and the sweep of the marshes of Glynn
Will work me no fear like the fear they have wrought me of yore
When length was fatigue, and when breadth was but bitterness sore,
And when terror and shrinking and dreary unnamable pain
Drew over me out of the merciless miles of the plain,—

Oh, now, unafraid, I am fain to face
The vast sweet visage of space.
To the edge of the wood I am drawn, I am drawn,
Where the gray beach glimmering runs, as a belt of the dawn,
For a mete and a mark
To the forest dark:—
So:
Affable live-oak, leaning low,—
Thus—with your favor—soft, with a reverent hand,
(Not lightly touching your person, Lord of the land!)
Bending your beauty aside, with a step I stand
On the firm-packed sand,
Free
By a world of marsh that borders a world of sea.
Sinuous southward and sinuous northward the shimmering band
Of the sand-beach fastens the fringe of the marsh to the folds of the land.
Inward and outward to northward and southward the beach-lines linger and curl
As a silver-wrought garment that clings to and follows the firm sweet limbs of a girl.
Vanishing, swerving, evermore curving again into sight,
Softly the sand-beach wavers away to a dim gray looping of light.
And what if behind me to westward the wall of the woods stands high?
The world lies east: how ample, the marsh and the sea and the sky!
A league and a league of marsh-grass, waist-high, broad in the blade,
Green, and all of a height, and unflecked with a light or a shade,
Stretch leisurely off, in a pleasant plain,
To the terminal blue of the main.

Oh, what is abroad in the marsh and the terminal sea?
Somehow my soul seems suddenly free
From the weighing of fate and the sad discussion of sin,
By the length and the breadth and the sweep of the marshes of Glynn.

Ye marshes, how candid and simple and nothing-withholding and free
Ye publish yourselves to the sky and offer yourselves to the sea!
Tolerant plains, that suffer the sea and the rains and the sun,
Ye spread and span like the catholic man who hath mightily won
God out of knowledge and good out of infinite pain
And sight out of blindness and purity out of a stain.

As the marsh-hen secretly builds on the watery sod,
Behold I will build me a nest on the greatness of God:
I will fly in the greatness of God as the marsh-hen flies
In the freedom that fills all the space 'twixt the marsh and the skies:
By so many roots as the marsh-grass sends in the sod
I will heartily lay me a-hold on the greatness of God:
Oh, like to the greatness of God is the greatness within
The range of the marshes, the liberal marshes of Glynn.

And the sea lends large, as the marsh: lo, out of his plenty the sea
Pours fast: full soon the time of the flood tide must be:
Look how the grace of the sea doth go
About and about through the intricate channels that flow
Here and there,
Everywhere,
Till his waters have flooded the uttermost creeks and the low-lying lanes,
And the marsh is meshed with a million veins,
That like as with rosy and silvery essences flow
In the rose-and-silver evening glow.
Farewell, my lord Sun!
The creeks overflow: a thousand rivulets run
'Twixt the roots of the sod; the blades of the marsh-grass stir;
Passeth a hurrying sound of wings that westward whirr;
Passeth, and all is still; and the currents cease to run;
And the sea and the marsh are one.

How still the plains of the waters be!
The tide is in his ecstasy;
The tide is at his highest height;
And it is night.

And now from the Vast of the Lord will the waters of sleep
Roll in on the souls of men,
But who will reveal to our waking ken
The forms that swim and the shapes that creep
Under the waters of sleep?
And I would I could know what swimmeth below when the tide comes in
On the length and the breadth of the marvellous marshes of Glynn.

More for the Good of the Service

Here's another short piece from Robert W. Service. Perhaps this is a good response to modern critics:

--

I have no doubt at all the Devil grins,
As seas of ink I spatter.
Ye Gods, forgive my "literary" sins -
The other kind don't matter.

Cremation Question and Answer

Recently, an interested person asked me about the teaching of the Anglican Catholic Church on cremation. After I explained that we were not opposed to cremation provided that ashes were not scattered, I began thinking about the practice of burning our dead.

I suppose my mind wandered a little too far because my attention was drawn to one of my favorite poets, Robert W. Service. Yes, I know that for poetry connoisseurs, Service is considered too banal to be taken seriously, but I love his writing. Yes, I know that as an English major I should have a more sophisticated literary taste, but I don't.

So, here for you cremation junkies is, what I think, is one of the greatest poems ever written.

----

The Cremation of Sam McGee

by Robert W. Service

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.

Now Sam McGee was from Tennessee, where the cotton blooms and blows.
Why he left his home in the South to roam ‘round the Pole, God only knows.
He was always cold, but the land of gold seemed to hold him like a spell;
Though he’d often say in his homely way that “he’d sooner live in hell.”

On a Christmas Day we were mushing our way over the Dawson trail.
Talk of your cold! through the parka’s fold it stabbed like a driven nail.
If our eyes we’d close, then the lashes froze till sometimes we couldn’t see;
It wasn’t much fun, but the only one to whimper was Sam McGee.

And that very night, as we lay packed tight in our robes beneath the snow,
And the dogs were fed, and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel and toe,
He turned to me, and “Cap,” says he, “I’ll cash in this trip, I guess;
And if I do, I’m asking that you won’t refuse my last request.”

Well, he seemed so low that I couldn’t say no; then he says with a sort of moan:
“It’s the cursed cold, and it’s got right hold till I’m chilled clean through to the bone.
Yet ‘taint being dead—it’s my awful dread of the icy grave that pains;
So I want you to swear that, foul or fair, you’ll cremate my last remains.”

A pal’s last need is a thing to heed, so I swore I would not fail;
And we started on at the streak of dawn; but God! he looked ghastly pale.
He crouched on the sleigh, and he raved all day of his home in Tennessee;
And before nightfall a corpse was all that was left of Sam McGee.

There wasn’t a breath in that land of death, and I hurried, horror-driven,
With a corpse half hid that I couldn’t get rid, because of a promise given;
It was lashed to the sleigh, and it seemed to say: “You may tax your brawn and brains,
But you promised true, and it’s up to you to cremate those last remains.”

Now a promise made is a debt unpaid, and the trail has its own stern code.
In the days to come, though my lips were dumb, in my heart how I cursed that load.
In the long, long night, by the lone firelight, while the huskies, round in a ring,
Howled out their woes to the homeless snows—O God! how I loathed the thing.

And every day that quiet clay seemed to heavy and heavier grow;
And on I went, though the dogs were spent and the grub was getting low;
The trail was bad, and I felt half mad, but I swore I would not give in;
And I’d often sing to the hateful thing, and it hearkened with a grin.

Till I came to the marge of Lake Lebarge, and a derelict there lay;
It was jammed in the ice, but I saw in a trice it was called the “Alice May.”
And I looked at it, and I thought a bit, and I looked at my frozen chum;
Then “Here,” said I, with a sudden cry, “is my cre-ma-tor-eum.”

Some planks I tore from the cabin floor, and I lit the boiler fire;
Some coal I found that was lying around, and I heaped the fuel higher;
The flames just soared and the furnace roared—such a blaze you seldom see;
Then I burrowed a hole in the glowing coal, and I stuffed in Sam McGee.

Then I made a hike, for I didn’t like to hear him sizzle so;
And the heavens scowled, and the huskies howled, and the wind began to blow.
It was icy cold, but the hot sweat rolled down my cheeks, and I don’t know why;
And the greasy smoke in an inky cloak went streaking down the sky.

I do not know how long in the snow I wrestled with grisly fear;
But the stars came out and they danced about ere again I ventured near;
I was sick with dread, but I bravely said: “I’ll just take a peep inside.
I guess he’s cooked, and it’s time I looked;” . . . then the door I opened wide.

And there sat Sam, looking cool and calm, in the heart of the furnace roar;
And he wore a smile you could see a mile, and he said: “Please close that door.
It’s fine in here, but I greatly fear you’ll let in the cold and storm—
Since I left Plumtree, down in Tennessee, it’s the first time I’ve been warm.”

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.

Politics as usual? I hope not.

I try to avoid political discourse on this blog (or at least party specific discourse), however I think that most people would not be surprised to know that I'm a pretty conservative fellow. I follow a lot of the blogs, I listen to Rush and Mark Levin, I own most of William F. Buckley, Jr's writings, and I've been a National Review subscriber since I was in my teens.

Now having said all this, let me tell you what is bothering me. Most conservatives (which are mostly Republicans) seem to be convinced that the way to win the November election is to spend most of their time and energy on describing what horrible people their opponents are. In the past few weeks, I've received gobs of e-mails talking about Barack Obama: He's a Muslim, he's not a real Christian, he's a follower of Saul Alinsky, he's a pro-abort, he eats live kittens for breakfast (OK, I made the last one up). I've further received loads of e-mails about Hillary Clinton: She's corrupt, her husband's a serial adulterer (what a surprise), she's a closet communist, she eats live puppies for breakfast (especially since Barack has the kittens). Much the same stuff is being said in some quarters even about John McCain. All of this stuff might be true or it might not. As I see it, the problem is that I don't care if any of it is true and I don't think the majority of the American people do either.

I'll go one step further. I believe that if conservatives think that they can win seats in the House and Senate, or even the White House by simply highlighting their opponents' inadequacies or outright dangerous or stupid views, then conservatives will be huge losers and they will deserve to be.

This country faces tremendous challenges and these challenges will require solutions that are founded in clear, understandable, common-sense policies that are consistent with the foundational principles of our nation. Most Americans can understand that and that, dear reader, is what will win or lose elections. It's easy to call any candidate a name and, even if the name is accurate, nobody cares. What is going to make a difference in 2008 is a calm, measured discussion of the issues that face our nation as we come to the close of the first decade of this new millennium.

I believe that the reason the Republican party is in shambles is because they have gotten fat and lazy, particularly regarding the principles that brought the party to the forefront in the mid-1990s. The party won with a "Contract with America" that promised term limits, fiscal responsibility, lower taxation, and such. In each one of these areas, save taxation, Republicans took their eyes off the ball, becoming enamored with the "inside the beltway" life. It wasn't just that they spent like drunken sailors, it was that they seemed cavalierly out of touch with the needs and problems of the American people, responding only, "But your taxes are lower!!"

I'm not saying raise taxes, God knows I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is: Let's have a conversation about issues and give poor Jeremiah Wright a rest. After all, that guy and those who follow him deserve our pity and prayers, not our rage. Let's talk about the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death. Let's really talk about the problem of what to do with our borders and with the millions of people that have come here illegally. Let's talk about the defense of our nation against Islamic terrorism. Let's talk about our economic standing vis a vis the global economy. Let's talk about how we will solve any one of these or any other issue. But, for God's sake, let's just once see a conservative who will spend his time articulating a positive vision for America, one that secures and holds dear the right of all Americans to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I believe that Americans will support a positive issues-driven campaign in which a candidate clearly states what he or she is FOR. I believe that most Americans (and I) will tend to reject, or at most be lackluster toward a campaign that says, "Vote for me because my opponent is a schmuck."

OK, I've said my piece. Now I will go back to writing about the stuff that interests me. Thanks for putting up with my rant and I'll try not to do it again. At least for the next four years...

Ecological Religion, Part II

Here's a great link from American Thinker on one of the craziest things in the environmental movement: Imagine the world without people! In the eyes of most environmentalists, we are nothing more than a virus on the face of the earth.

Here's the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/earth_first_people_later.html

PS: Why do committed Darwinists work so diligently to protect endangered species?

The Titanic, RIP

Ninety-six years ago, on a crystal clear, bracingly cold night in the north Atlantic, the pride of the modern world, the RMS Titanic, grazed an iceberg and went to the bottom of the sea, killing 1,300 people, many of whom were the pride of American society, many of whom were unknowns who were seeking their fortune in a new world.

The Titanic was believed by many to represent the final triumph of man over nature, it's steel hull reflecting the peak of human perfectibility. Instead, the unsinkable sank and as it descended to the bottom of the sea, the Titanic took with it the hope that man could finally defeat the force of nature.

A young writer named Oscar Bane Keeler, known to his friends as "O.B.", was working for the Kansas City Star. Years later he would move to Atlanta, Georgia, and become a sports writer at The Atlanta Journal. He would become the main sportswriter and chaperone to my grandfather, Bobby Jones, as my grandfather won 13 major golf championships and became the only man in history to win the Grand Slam, all four major championships in the same year. But that was still in the future.

On April 16, 1912, Keeler was in shock at the disaster of the Titanic. Keeler sat down to his typewriter and wrote the following words, that, I believe, best summarize the magnitude the disaster and the triumph of the human heart. He wrote:

The Titanic took 1,300 down!

That was what the broad and heavy black headlines said and it was as if the morning papers came to the waiting doors bearing with them a knot of crepe.

The Titanic took 1,300 down!

There was a sound in the line as of a bell death tolling somewhere - somewhere out on the broad Atlantic, a thousand fathoms above the sodden, twisted wreck of what had been earth's proudest ship.

The Titanic took 1,300 down!

Breakfasts were left untouched after the unfolding paper laid bare the hideous intelligence. There was a hush in the street cars, a suggestive quiet in the subdued greetings at the offices, a dearth of laughter, so that the light unconsciously merry voice of an unthinking child jarred and somehow hurt in the burdened atmosphere of gloom.

The Titanic took 1,300 down!

Under the settled melancholy that terrible line hammered away at the imagination with a ceaseless irritation.

How did they meet it, this fearful thing? What did the men do, called on to face a ghastly death in the cold hours before dawn? Were they calm and steady, or were they a shrieking, merciless mob, fighting for places in the lifeboat? Did they help the women and children to places of safety with cheerful, comforting words that it was only a precaution - that nothing was wrong - as men should who face the end as men? Or was the shame of La Furgoyne on their last moments - the beating off of a woman from the crowded boats, the maniacal rage of fear?

Brief as the last dispatches were, they showed there were heroes on the doomed ship.

The survivors were mostly women and children, the dispatches said.

And there in that single line is as fine an epitaph as could be written for the men passengers and crew who went down with the ship. That line tells of a captain with his first and last thoughts for the passengers in his care, of a crew that made ready the lifeboats with never a hint of delay, and sent them clear of the foundering vessel with business-like precision unshaken by the doom their experienced eyes saw only too well.

That line tells of the manhood of Great Britain and America, almost buried, it seems at times, in the sordid struggle of an unromantic and unheroic age, yet flashing out as brightly at the grim need as ever it shown when knighthood was in flower.

The survivors were mostly women and children!

It is the brightest line of the whole grim story: the stirring martial chord in the terrible dirge beginning:

The Titanic took 1,300 down!

Habemus Papam: Albertus Primus!!

Ever wonder what happens when modern people abandon religion? They create a new one. Witness one Al Gore: A man of such profound religious committment that he thought Job was a book in the New Testament. After the American people decided he needed a job change, he seemed to think that environmental messiah might be right up his alley. So he created the religion of Environmentalism and appointed himself it's "Pope." Here is a brief video from those wonderful people at Stoplight on Pope Albert I's latest attempt to increase regulation, increase taxes and decrease personal liberty all in the name of Gaia, whose "Pope" he is. Enjoy it...at least until the carbon footprint of your computer endangers a snail somewhere.

http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000007000.cfm

Brady & the Bunny

Pa-Pa and Grandson Brady at Easter!!

It Takes 2 to Tango!

Here's a piece from "Stoplight", those wonderful people that gave us the season of "Tossmas" a few months back.

This one deals with the interesting problem of activism and a school's attempt to deal with it.

Here's the link:

http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000006646.cfm

The Creeping Crud of "Mercy Killing"

For years we've heard of the "right of a person to die." This assault on the dignity of human life comes from the mistaken notion that our lives belong to ourselves and not to God. Further, it allows us to be the arbiters of what a "life with dignity" is and what it isn't regardless of the truth that all human life is "dignified" because all men and women live in the image and likeness of God no matter what their condition.

Now come the Europeans, those great arbiters of culture towards which our progressive brethren tell us we should aspire. The latest from Belgium is that teenagers should be allowed the "right to die" just as adults. Belgians currently allow the "right" to anyone who is 18 or older.

Let's recall the slippery slope that has brought us to where we are. First we had the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first 90 days for urgent reasons. Then that right was extended to the entire pregnancy for any reason (with some restrictions in the last trimester). Then we graduated to allowing abortions in which the baby was partially delivered before ending life. In Europe, Belgium in particular, genetic testing is frequently done in utero and babies who are found to be genetically "inferior" are aborted.

On the other end of the life spectrum, we have witnessed the emergence of the mercy killing movement, spearheaded by Dr. Jack Kevorkian which helped people die who had determined that they did not wish to live for one reason or another. This right has been legislatively defined in some jurisdictions but not in others. In Europe, the "right to die" has been more clearly defined in law. This "right" is now being proposed to extend to teenagers.

My point is simple: Once human life is viewed as a biological accident and no longer seen as a gift from almighty God, who lives and who dies becomes a purely arbitrary decision.

My intuition on this tells me that this is nothing more than the logical endpoint of the separation of sexual activity from procreation and the corresponding breakdown of the family structure. I suppose that this would be the subject of another article had Pope Paul VI not covered so brilliantly in Humanae Vitae.

Interestingly, in Belgium it is very difficult to have your dog put to sleep when Fido's quality of life is diminished by age or infirmity. Things are much easier to do to humans than to animals. That kind of tells you a lot about Europe, doesn't it?

Here's the link to the article on teenage mercy killing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/wbelgium126.xml

Here's the link to Humanae Vitae:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Liberation Theology of Any Color is Dangerous Business

Recently, Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has swamped the news. At issue are comments made by the Reverend Wright concerning the United States of America and its alleged corruption. According to the Reverend Wright, the United States is a flawed and evil institution and has been so from its start. Our nation was founded on the backs of an exploited people (the Indians) and maintained through the toil of others so exploited (the black slave population). Anything that can be positively stated about America is poisoned because of the evil manner of the country's founding. Further, this problem cannot be rectified until the oppressors are overthrown, in this case all white people, who share equally in the guilt of those who founded the nation. In fact, some of the Reverend Wright's comments go so far as to impute the guilt of the white man all the way back to the foundations of western civilization.

I'm not going to discuss the implications that this has or may have on the Obama presidential campaign. Further, I don't really want to spend much time on the merit or lack thereof of the Reverend Wright's comments except to say this: They are very consistent with a philosophical and theological construct called "Black Liberation Theology," hereinafter referred to as "BLT."

Wikipedia has a nice summary of BLT. It says, "BLT is theology from the perspective of oppressed people. It seeks to interpret the gospel of Jesus against the backdrop of historical and contemporary racism. The message of BLT is that the African American struggle for liberation is consistent with the gospel--every theological statement must be consistent with, and perpetuate, the goals of liberation.

"This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage—social, political, economic and religious. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination.

"Methodist James Cone is still considered its leading theologian, though now there are many scholars who have contributed a great deal to the field. One of its major concerns is with the historic and present racism in "Western civilizations" (especially within Christendom) and the ways in which Jesus urged his disciples to seek freedom for all people."

BLT's philosophical and theological roots are in Liberation Theology, a theological movement that developed in Latin America and is represented by theologians, Leonardo Boff, Juan Luis Segundo, and Gustavo Guttierez. Politically, it has strong support from Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and others.

Liberation Theology (or LT) was initially developed in the mid-1950s as a way for the Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, to address what were perceived to be injustices within the social order of South America. The liberation theologians began to develop a theology of activism that mandated social change over the internal relationship of the believer to God.

Eventually, LT began to adopt a Hegelian/Marxist world view in which it saw the world divided into two camps, the oppressor and the oppressed. The oppressors were generally white Europeans and the oppressed were indigenous peoples who were held down. As was typical with Marxist theory, many of the oppressed were allowed to rise to a social level where they enjoyed many of the benefits of the oppressors, but lacked the power of the oppressor. We would call this a "middle class" and a Marxist would call it the "bourgeoisie."

LT theologians tried to redefine Christianity to fit this socio-political viewpoint. The Bible became viewed as a book written by men who had defeated and subjugated others. The Bible was the book written by the "winners" at the expense of the "losers." In this context there was little room for "inspiration". The best one could say is that the Bible could best be understood as a reflection of man's understanding of God in the social setting in which he found himself at the time.

The Bible and theology were further influenced by "materialism." In the context of LT, "materialism" refers not to the desire to possess lots and lots of stuff. Rather, it refers to the foundational principle that all that is knowable in the world is in the world of "matter." The supernatural is unknowable to us. Notice how problematic this is to a traditional understanding of theology.

Because of this change to the foundations, LT developed a new theological base. Sin ceased to be primarily something that a person did that was an offense to divine order and became something that was done against the community. Further, sin was seen as an offense that led to the subjugation of another.

The endpoint of theology changed as well. In traditional theology, the end-point is the knowledge and love of God in the life of the believer, ultimately leading him (or her) to heaven. LT holds none of that, adopting the Marxist notion that concepts such as "heaven" and "hell" are created by man to encourage the submission of oppressed people.

As the nature of sin and the endpoint of theology changed, so, too, did the nature of Sacraments. Sacraments did not exist as something given to the Church by almighty God for the purpose of sanctifying the faithful. Sacraments were signs that were developed out of the lived experience of the Church and have been used in the past as means of oppressing the powerless. The LT theologians sought to re-frame the Sacramental theology of the church in a way that brought it into line with this new view of oppressor versus oppressed.

This is, of course, a thumbnail description of liberation theology and it could be argued that I am making a caricature of the movement. Maybe so. However, what I am trying to do in this article is provide a very rudimentary framework for understanding BLT and its theological predecessor LT. Why? Because in the case of the Reverend Wright, I believe it is insufficient to simply decry what he has said. I think it is more important to understand the philosophy on which he bases his comment.

First, the Reverend Wright believes in what is, essentially, a Marxist philosohpy that divides the world into "haves" and "have nots."

Second, he believes that the "haves" will use whatever means are necessary to keep the "have nots" in their place, or allow then enough of the benefits of privileged life to keep them mollified.

Third, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, primarily, a Gospel of social liberation that has been perverted by the "haves."

Fourth, that same Gospel is not a divinely inspired revelation from God Almighty. Instead it is the testimony of those who have power and have won the struggle for control over the early Church.

In short, in following the teachings of BLT, the Reverend Wright is a misguided soul who has sacrificed the Gospel of Christ for a false gospel, a gospel of BLT, a gospel which is founded not on the love of Christ, but is founded on hate and division, power versus powerlessness, "haves" versus "have-nots". It is truly a sad situation and one that deserves the prayers of all Christians.

The Shifting Tide of Modernist Revelation

Recently in a Christian Education class, I commented on the importance of the doctrine that states, "Divine revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle." Roughly, this means that there can be nothing new to the faith following the death of the last apostle. Faith can be clarified and more precisely defined, as the councils of history have attempted to do. What cannot be allowed to happen is a new revelation.

So here come the Modernists who state that God continues to reveal himself in new ways to his people in each generation. What this means is that there is no stable, unchanging core of faith and that faith is a culturally-determined phenomenon. More to the point, it means that faith is something that is man-defined, something we discover anew for ourselves in each generation.

Nowhere has this dangerous notion been more evident than in the discussions surrounding human sexuality. The Christian Tradition from the Bible to the Fathers to today is that the purpose of sexual activity is primarily the begetting of children and is to be exercised within the state of Holy Matrimony. Modern Christian thought has totally stripped human sexuality from its primarily procreative function and made it, primarily, a form of personal expression. This self-expression can be exercised within any life context and in any consensual circumstance. Granting the Modernist premise, then any attempt to stifle sexual expression or restrict, is a serious violation of a person's right to express themselves. A brief glance at the modern world will show the results of this thinking.

What prompted this discussion was a statement by the Brazilian Episcopal Bishops in which they said that Biblical passages against homosexual behavior are not relevant to the modern discussion. The statement is about as clear an example of the intellectual flaw and spiritual disease of Modernism that I've seen in a while and the link for it is here:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7911

The Fourth Sunday in Lent

The Holy Gospel is written in the 6th chapter of Saint John, beginning at the 1st Verse.
Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet. that should come into the world.

-----

Today, on the Fourth Sunday in Lent, we set aside the violet of the season and put on the color Rose. This gentle shade reminds us that we are more than half way through this great season of penance and preparation. In the United Kingdom, today is also Mothering Sunday. Those who live in Great Britain and Ireland observe this day much in the same way that we observe Mother’s Day later in the year.

But Mothering Sunday did not start out as a feast of roses and chocolates, of Hallmark cards and fancy lunches. The origins of Mothering Sunday are tied directly to this Fourth Sunday in Lent.

On this day, we begin with a happy Introit. The original Latin word is laetare and we translate it rejoice. In the middle of our Lenten fast, the church calls us to rejoice with Jerusalem, the mother city, the city which will be the site of our redemption. Jerusalem, the mother city of the Jews, has served as the model for the Church, which is truly our mother. Tomorrow we will return to the pentitential violet. Next Sunday, we will cover our crosses and statues, we will say goodbye to our festive, Glory be to the Father, we will begin our solemn walk with Jesus to the Cross. But today, while our vestments bear the gentle shade of the rose, let’s reflect for awhile on our mother the Church. Let’s look at the characteristics that mother Church shares with mothers everywhere.

The first characteristic is that mothers give life to their children. In a very real way, none of us would be here today without our mothers. For nine months, she carried us and fed us and, eventually, delivered us from the security of the womb into a bright, unknown world. Just as a mother gives life to her children, so the Church gives life to us through the Sacrament of Baptism. In that Sacrament, where water is poured on the head of an infant, or in some cases an adult, we are cleansed from sin and brought into a new life in Christ. We symbolize that new life by clothing the baptized in a white garment, a garment that shows that we are clean and freshly born. Just as a mother gives life to the child, so the Church gives life through Baptism.

Mothers also make sure that their children are fed and that their physical needs for nourishment are attended to. So it is with the Church. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Church provides the Body and Blood of Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine. This gift of the Eucharist satisfies our basic need for food and it stands as a constant reminder of the compassion of Christ who, seeing the multitudes on the mountain, fed them from just a few loaves and a few fish.

But mothers do far more than tend to the physical needs of their young. In addition, mothers also seek to nurture the spirits and minds of their children. They read them stories, they sing songs, they encourage their children when they are low, and they rejoice and play with them when they are happy. And the Church does this, too. We are nurtured by the spiritual grace that we receive from the Sacraments. Every one of the seven sacraments imparts a special grace, a special character upon all of us that gives us strength to stand up against the temptations of the modern world. In addition, like a good mother, the church tends to our minds and makes sure that we have a trustworthy guide through our lives. This is done primarily through the great gift of God’s holy Word, the Bible, and through the doctrine of the church as it has been set out from the beginning of Christianity. In both body and spirit, the Church provides for us her children with Word and Sacrament.

Finally, mothers will protect their children from harm. And so does the Church. After Jesus fed the multitudes in today’s Gospel, he commanded his disciples to go and gather up the fragments, so that nothing be lost. This is what the church does for us today and all days. The Church stands as a witness that all who are claimed by Christ in Baptism, that all who are fed by Christ in the Eucharist, that all of these are precious to the Church and are to be gathered together in love.

Here’s something interesting: Put a group of new mothers in a room and place their infants in another room that is out of sight of the first but within hearing. Let the moms converse and then have one of the babies start to cry. What do you think you will see? You won’t see the moms look amongst themselves to try to figure out whose child is in tears. Instead, the mother of the crying baby will almost instinctively respond to the sound of her child’s voice and she will go to sooth the baby. So it is with us and the Church. The Church, Christ’s body on earth, tends to you and to me in much the same way as the mother of a crying infant.

As we prepare to celebrate the coming feasts of Passiontide and Holy Week, when our Lord endured unspeakable horrors and unbearable torments, let’s today recall the unwavering love of our mother the Church, who calls us all to new life in Baptism, who feeds our bodies and souls in the Sacraments and in the Word, who desires that none us be lost, and who will provide us with a place of joy and refreshment now and for all time for all who believe.

Some Thoughts on the Love of God

About a year ago, I started a subscription to The New Oxford Review. For those who are not familiar with it, the NOR is a monthly magazine created by Anglo-Catholics who later crossed the Tiber and became Romans. The journal has a tongue-in-cheek approach to some of the messes of modern-day Christianity and its writing often crosses the line into being venomous attacks against those with whom it disagrees. In the February issue was an article by Carmelo Fallace that stopped me in my tracks. It was called, “Is God’s Love Unconditional?”

I’ve never really given much thought to that question, presuming always that the answer was, “Of course God loves all people without condition.” Wasn’t this the conclusion of the saints and theologians over the centuries? No, says Fallace, the Bible is quite clear that not only is God’s love conditional, but that those who do not follow God’s law actually earn His displeasure. I had to go back and re-read the thesis to make sure that I had seen it correctly. But there it was, Fallace was asserting that God’s love was something that definitely had conditions attached to it.

He then outlined passage after passage in both the Old and New Testaments in support of the argument. The author highlights example after example of things that God does not love: wickedness, the worship of false gods, the offering of children as sacrifices, lovers of violence, and so on. Fallace’s point is that were God’s love unconditional to those who commit these and other sinful acts, then this would place God in direct contradiction with His justice, which is also an attribute of God, and God cannot have any intrinsic contradiction in His nature. Further, all the covenants of the Bible are conditional, stating what God will do for His people if they adhere to the covenant.

Then I began thinking about some other sources that touched on this theme. The first one was our Lord’s words of institution of the Holy Eucharist. When he took the cup, Jesus said, “This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant which shall be shed for you and for many.” Note carefully that the institution narratives do not say, “It will be shed for you and for all.” The New Testament is quite clear that Christ’s blood is shed for those who accept His sacrifice for their sins and not for all people indiscriminately. St. Paul elaborates the point further when he cautions believers not to receive the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily because to do so is to consume it to their own damnation.

Even modern Scripture scholars have wrestled with the conditional nature of God’s love. Ernst Kaesemann, a German exegete, described the relationship of the person to God in his Commentary on Romans. According to Kaesemann, everybody exists in relationship to God whether they are aware of it or not. Those who believe in Christ and have accepted His offer of salvation live under the “righteousness” of God, while those who do not or have not accepted the offer live under God’s “wrath.” In Kaesemann’s exegesis, righteousness and wrath are two sides of the same coin. To put it crassly, the side of the coin that you see determines where you stand.

Perhaps another example might clarify the point: medieval theologians often defined the love of God as being a “all-consuming fire.” Even the angels who existed closest to God were called the Seraphim, which means “the burning ones.” They were called this because they dwelt so close to the throne of Almighty God that they were literally “on fire” from His love. Hellfire, to these theologians, was the fire of the love of God, only in this case it scorched and tormented those who rejected Him, those who were out of relationship with Him.

I recognize that this is a pretty grizzly concept and it is one that is not likely to earn Christians points in this world of tolerance, or religious “I’m OK, You’re OK” thinking. However, as we celebrate Holy Week this month, as we remember that moment in history when Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose again for us, maybe it’s good to reflect on the fact that God’s love is conditional and that it is conditioned on our acceptance of it. Maybe with this realization, we can approach the mysteries of Holy Week with a new vision, a vision of gratitude for the glorious gifts of God. Maybe we can recommit ourselves to living according to God’s law, to placing ourselves in right relationship with Him.

Fallace concludes the article by reminding us of the words of Pope Benedict XVI. In addressing consecrated religious in the Roman Catholic Church, Benedict “has indicated the proper use of the word ‘unconditional:’ Unconditional love is the relationship we must have toward God -- not God toward us. Furthermore, because He is the Creator and we are the created, we are His servants and He is our Master -- and He owes us nothing.” But for those who accept new life in Christ Jesus, the God who owes us nothing gives us everything.

The Third Sunday in Lent

The Holy Gospel is written in the 11th Chapter of St. Luke, beginning at the 14th Verse.
Jesus was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desola-tion; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beel-zebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

-----

The Third Sunday in Lent finds us almost at the midway point in the preparation for Easter. Most of us have given things up for the season and some of us have taken on new spiritual disciplines. But for all of us, the awareness grows that we are moving toward a significant time, the time in which we recall our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection from the dead. During Lent, there is a tendency to think in terms of the negative, in terms of what we give up, what penance we are willing to endure in order to cleanse our souls. But our Gospel today stands in stark contrast to this negative approach to this season and offers us a model for where our sacrifices and penances should lead us.

Our Gospel selection begins with Jesus’ expulsion of a dumb demon from a man. The Pharisees’ criticize Jesus and say that his ability to expel demons actually occurs because he is in cahoots with the Beelzebub, the prince of demons. Jesus responds with the famous statement that the house divided against itself cannot stand, and that if he were to cast out demons by Beelzebub, then Satan is divided against himself. Then, Jesus turns to the real meat of our passage.

In referring to those who are possessed by demons, he says, “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, that spirit walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto the house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” In this powerful passage, the Church helps us keep our Lenten focus with three very simple cautions concerning our penances.

First, it is important for us to remember that a man’s soul can never be left empty. In our passage, we see that when the demon is thrown out, that the man’s house is swept and clean, but empty. Nothing has replaced the evil that dwelt there. And that is a lesson for us: It is not enough for us to cleanse ourselves of our sins, vices and bad habits. Just ask any recovering alcoholic. Is it enough just to quit drinking? If you don’t replace the drinking behavior with a strong spiritual life and all that comes with it, then your sobriety will probably be fleeting and you may well find yourself in a worse pickle than where you were at the beginning. It is not enough simply to cleanse ourselves from our bad habits, sins, and vices. That is important. But if all we do is rid ourselves of our sinful behavior, then we have an empty spiritual house and we are vulnerable to anyone or anything that decides to take up residence there. The soul of a man or woman which has been cleansed from sin can only be left empty at great risk.

But, with what do we fill our souls? What can we know about religion and our religious disciplines, especially during the season of Lent? Well, and this is our second point, the religion with which we fill our soul cannot be based on negatives. Oh, wait. That’s a negative, too, isn’t it? Well, let’s put it another way. True religion must be geared more toward helping people grow in Christ, rather than simply bludgeoning them with their faults and foibles. A preaching teacher once said that the easiest sermon to preach is the one that tells people about how easy it is to go to Hell. The more difficult task is to tell believers what they can do to get to Heaven. While Jesus does spend time in the Gospels taking people to task, he always balances that with instruction and guidance toward the hope of salvation. He does this because this message of hope, this positive development is not only more useful to men and women, but it is something that you and I both need to hear and long to hear. Yes, our empty houses can only truly be filled with a religion that tells us not only what not to do, but – more importantly – what we are to do.

And what is it that we are to do? This is our third point: We must believe that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose again for our sins. He did this so that we can live forever in the presence of the blessed Trinity. Now think about that for a moment. Left to our own devices, we are separated from God by sin, both the sins of our first parents, Adam and Eve, and also by our own “sins, wickedness, and neglect.” Because of this, we can never hope on our own to ever see the face of almighty God! But, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon himself and died on the cross so that we can be free. Well, if we truly believe that, if deep down in our souls we understand this priceless gift that Jesus has won for us, then we must respond by doing good works. You see, in some ways the Reformers of the 1500s were right. Our good works, our ministry to others, our prayers, our support of our church, these things do not save us of themselves. Rather, our lives are touched by Jesus Christ and radically changed by Him. It is this action of Christ, which leads us to good works that remind us that there is more to life than just what we see in this world. The good deeds that we do further stand as a witness to others that our lives are different, that we have been touched and changed by a loving God, even though we still fall short, we still sin.

And here is our message, here is our lesson as we approach the mid-point of Lent. As our fasting and penances gets harder we recall that we are doing these deeds to remind ourselves that there is more to this life than a clean and empty soul. Our fasting and penance reminds us that there is a life beyond this world. That this life is so special, so beautiful, that we can even put on penitential purple and give up the legitimate cares and pleasures of this life to bear witness to the life to come. As our Lenten observance continues, let us continue to bear witness in our fasting to the Lord who has set us free from the bondage of sin, who has set us free to be His own forever.

Ecumenical Dialogue for Lent?

Check out this series from "what does the prayer really say." It's a billboard dialogue between three churches discussing Ash Wednesday.

Here's the link:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/church-sign-ecumenical-dialogue-for-ash-wednesday/