Advent: Forward and Backward

On Thursday, November 1st, I was driving home from my office in Conyers. Driving leisurely through Old Towne, just as I always do, I realized that something was different from what it was early that morning when I had come to work. The lamp posts had been decorated with green garland and red bows. There were little decorative lights on the trees and on City Hall. Christmas 2007 had begun.

Each year, in thousands of cities big and small, the same ritual plays itself out as the Holiday Season begins. Even though our society makes ever so bold attempts to trivialize and secularize our winter holiday season, the truth is that at this time it is natural to look back to the sacrifices and hardships endured by the pilgrims, to the sacrifice and powerful witness of the Maccabes, to the ultimate sacrifice of God becoming Man in the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We consider these events and recall our own family members, living and dead, and we consider their witness, their sacrifices, both small and great, for their families, for us who have followed them. Yes, despite our society’s best efforts, each year we almost instinctively look back and give thanks for those who have defined us in our families, in our nation, and in our Christian faith.

During this time of reflection, the Church focuses our attention, not on the past, but on a totally new year, as the liturgical year 2008 begins with the First Sunday of Advent. Interestingly, the church year begins not with a glance backward at the manger in Bethlehem, but with a look forward to the Second Coming of Christ in all of its power. The first three weeks of Advent remind the Christian that Christ will come in majesty and power at the end of time to restore all creation into one in Him. This is why we wear violet during this season, the color of kings and the color of penance. We wear violet because we are only too aware of our own unworthiness to stand before the King of all creation and give an account of our lives. We understand only too well that of our own merit we are not worthy for the Lord to come under our roofs. We are all too convinced of our own need for redemption, for a Savior who can save us from our own depravity.

This leads us to the second focus of the Advent Season: The coming of Christ as Man, the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. On about the fourth Sunday of Advent, the church changes the focus from what will come, to the reality of what has already happened in a small out of the way town 2000 years ago. Society wants to reduce the birth of Christ to an event that is marked by love, warmth, and an outpouring of an insipid charity, sort of a prolonged “Dr. Phil” moment of warmth and fuzziness. Others in the world want to see Christmas simply in terms of the economic benefit that derives from the massive sales of toys, jewelry, and foods.

No matter how much the world tries to hide it, the fact of the matter is this: The Nativity of our Lord stands as a witness to God’s enduring love for all of mankind. The Nativity, the very enfleshment of God, stands as a witness to the Devil and his legions that God loves His creation and will sacrifice everything, even His only Son for those whom He has made. He will even become one with them, taking on human flesh, and suffering the most humiliating death in order to free man from his sin. That is what we come to adore. This sacrificial love of God, this enduring love of God, is the true point of Advent and Christmas and is the reason that Christians remember the Incarnation and look forward with trembling and anticipation to Christ’s return.

So this Advent 2008 looks forward and backward, as it does every year. As we proceed to Christmas, let’s remember and give thanks for the love of all who have made sacrifices so that we can worship the God of steadfast love. Let’s remember and give thanks to God for the gift of His Son and let us look forward to his glorious return.

The Sunday next before Advent

The Holy Gospel is written in the 6th chapter of St. John, beginning at the 5th Verse.

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.

---



Beginnings and endings have always been important times. We mark them with rituals and, in the church, set them apart with sacraments. When babies are born we bring them to Church and baptize them, washing them from original sin. When children reach an age of decision, we come again to the Church and, through the imposition of hands by the Bishop and the anointing with the holy oil of Chrism, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation. In fact, all of the Sacraments stand as markers and consecrators of time and our passage through it. Next to the Eucharist, the most prominent markers of the church are baptism, matrimony, and burial. Or, as some clerics call it, “hatch, match, and dispatch.” This desire to mark beginnings and endings has its counterparts in the secular world, as any graduation ceremony will show. Beginnings and endings are indeed important and few times in the Church year show this more than our celebration today on the Sunday Next Before Advent.

The Church Year runs on a different calendar from the secular world. Each liturgical year begins on the First Sunday of Advent. So, next Sunday, December 2, 2007, will actually be the first Sunday of Liturgical Year 2008. On first thought, this seems somewhat odd. Why wouldn’t the two calendars correspond to each other a little better? Maybe this answer will help: Starting the church year almost a month before the secular reminds us that God’s time is not our time. It reminds us that God’s timetable works off a different standard, a standard that is based on the salvation of souls rather than the accomplishments of secular power. Perhaps our task on this day is to take stock of where we are in our Christian journey and see what our Gospel can tell us about the road ahead.

Today, we hear the story of Jesus feeding the multitudes. But this story is different from the others. First of all, it occurs in the Gospel of St. John. All the other stories are found in the first three Gospels, so this marks one of the few occasions that all the Gospels record the same story. Jesus looks up and sees a great multitude before him with no money to buy food for them all. So he takes five barley loaves and two small fish. Following a clearly Eucharistic formula, Jesus blesses and feeds the multitudes taking care to gather up all the crumbs, so that “nothing be lost.” In this story, we learn two simple truths on which we can meditate as one year ends and another begins.

The first truth is this: Christians find their source and summit, their beginning and end in the Eucharist. As Christ gives His Body and Blood to us, we are healed and strengthened for our Christian journey. To a certain extent, then, we are the multitude in this story, hungry and lonely, without provision. We are the multitude that needs the healing bread that only comes from the loving hand of Jesus. We are fed miraculously by what appears to be a small piece of unleavened bread and a cup of wine, but is actually the food and drink of the Angels. We share in the Eucharist, the Great Thanksgiving, where Christ offers Himself to the Father in an unending Sacrifice, and offers Himself to us as the Food of our Salvation. Yes, for us the beginning and end of all things is the Eucharist.

The second truth follows: As Christ fed the multitudes so we, as the Body of Christ, are called to feed the multitudes of our day with the truth that comes only from Jesus Christ. We live in a starving world, a world that can almost seem insane. In our time we are told that there is no such thing as truth, that salvation is a meaningless illusion, and that sin is not something that demands justice but a behavioral condition that can be fixed with the right psychological and sociological solutions. The world in which we live is confused, hungry, and isolated. Our task as Christians is to feed them with the Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation. Our task to is to let the world know that there is a Word of Truth and that Word is Jesus Christ. And as Jesus Christ fed the souls of the early Christians, as He feeds our souls today, so too He will feed the souls of all who will come to Him with outstretched hands, a humble heart, a desire to become new creatures in God.

On this Last Sunday of the year, let’s give thanks for this great gift, this Eucharist, this Thanksgiving. And as we begin the liturgical year 2008, let’s resolve to call all the hungry, all the lonely to the truth that is Jesus Christ, so that no fragment, however small, be lost.

An Interesting New Blog

Well, I've obviously been a poor influence on my daughter, Melanie. She has taken to the blogosphere with her new blog, "Conservative Despite All Odds." Melanie decided to write this after dealing with several situations in her high school that she thought to be a little on the leftist side. Her blog is not for the squeamish. Enjoy!!

Here's the link:

http://conservativedespiteallodds.blogspot.com/

An Atheist in the Woods

My sister in Nashville sent me this story in an e-mail. Considering my recent issues with atheists, I got a kick out of it and thought you might, too.

Have a great Thanksgiving. I'll be away from all computing until Monday, Nov. 26th.

------

An atheist was walking through the woods.

"What majestic trees"!

"What powerful rivers"!

"What beautiful animals"!

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?

"Very Well," said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

A Nice Story about Faith, for a change!

Sorry to have been absent for a few days. Between my practice and church work I've been a little swamped. However, here's a nice story about faith that I want share from our friends at townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillMurchison/2007/11/13/dick_granger_and_the_power_of_belief

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist!

This fall, our Adult Education class at church has studied Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith. Strobel wrote this volume to present Christian doctrines and beliefs that are often stumbling blocks for moderns. I chose this book because I thought that it presented a good alternative to the spate of books written by atheists that have been published recently.

I must confess that I've never really understood atheism. Perhaps it's because I've always been a Christian that the issues which drive people from faith to anti-faith have never been compelling to me. In fact, I've always harbored a radical theory about atheism, a theory that probably would be called intolerant and insensitive by many. I also have no proof for my theory; hence, it may simply be a reflection of my own intellectual bigotry. However, if that be the case, rest assured that I will amend my thinking as soon as I am presented verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Having said all of that, here's the theory, one that I have never shared publicly until now: I believe that most people who claim to be atheists do so because they are engaged in a behavior or behaviors that they know to be sinful and they have no desire to change. In our culture today, most of those behaviors center around the vice of lust, but any of the cardinal vices will do just as well. Okay, I've said it. Call me a bigot if you want, but please, please prove to me the error of my ways.

The atheist, having denied the authority of God, usually in the moral sphere, then has to engage in ever more strange beliefs in order to justify their idea that there is nothing in which to believe. This leads to some pretty unusual and convoluted lines of thought. To my way of thinking, no atheistic theory strains credulity as much as the theory of Darwinian evolution. This theory, which has more twists that a pretzel, has been around for about a century and it has permeated every aspect of our educational system even though the evidence to support it is skimpy at best. A lot of people might debate whether Christianity and evolution are compatible citing Darwin’s own opinion that there was no inherent conflict. However, letters published years after Darwin’s death have revealed that his hope in developing this theory was to eliminate the necessity for God in the creation of the world. That’s a pretty godless position and so I think it’s safe to say that evolution is an atheistic theory from its very origin.

Some Christians, either lacking knowledge of evolution theory or unwilling to be seen as naïve at cocktail parties, frequently attempt to synthesize evolutionary theory with Christianity, a wholly unsatisfactory mix of two absolutely incompatible theories. Acerbic political commentator Ann Coulter puts it well:

“No matter what argument you make against evolution, the response is Well, you know it’s possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Yes, and it’s possible to believe in Spiderman and believe in God, but that doesn’t prove that Spiderman is true.”

Before proceeding, we need to define ever so briefly just what it is we’re talking about when we talk about evolution. Evolution has generally been taught in a couple of ways. There is microevolution which is the theory that over time changes occur within species to help them adapt to their environment. There is a pretty good base evidence to support the notion of microevolution.

Then there is macroevolution which says, in a nutshell, that higher forms of life have evolved over billions and billions of years (to quote the late atheist scientist Carl Sagan) from simpler forms of life, originally single cell organisms. These single cell organisms existed in the primordial stuff of this world and have gradually developed into every form of life that we have today. Let me give you an example of this from my daughter's third grade public school textbook that will help demonstrate the process.

This textbook showed a neat, glossy, three-colored diagram of a single cell, which led to something like a tadpole, which later developed into something that looked like a frog. Later, the frog's nose lengthened and a tail grew, for reasons that have never been clear, and the frog became something that looked like an alligator. Then the alligator apparently decided that it needed to be on land more in order to survive, and so it started walking on earth. But alligators get cold, so it decided that it needed fur. After the fur, it realized that its tail was not as necessary as it used to be, so the tail shortened, along with the nose. Then it needed longer legs in order to run. And then after the Sagan interval (billions and billions of years), it became a dog. (I affectionately call this The Reverse 'Poor Old Lady She Swallowed a Fly' Theory. In fairness, I will also grant that this description is grossly over-simplified.) So life in all of its complexity has emerged totally from this one source, the single cell existing in the swamp of primitive earth, what author Frank Peretti calls, “From Goo to You by way of the Zoo!”

The theory of macroevolution has some serious drawbacks. First, there is no evidence of this trans-species development in the fossil record. This is remarkable since we have quite detailed fossil records going back millions of years. Second, the same fossil record seems to suggest that life emerged on this planet at about the same time, in a way that is much more consistent with the notion of a Creator, or at least consistent with the notion of creation as presented in Genesis. Third, and this is big, cellular life is not as primitive as Darwin considered it to be. Scientists now know that cells are extraordinarily complex things, with internal regulatory systems whose complexity staggers the imagination. Additionally, Darwin had no idea of subcellular life, which we understand now. The cell was the building block in Darwin’s time much in the same way that the atom was in our parents’ time.

Let's also add to all of this the philosophical problems inherent in Darwinism. Darwinian evolution offers no answer to this question: From where did the matter originate from which the elements of life were born? If something can truly not come from nothing, then where did the matter of life originate? Supporters of Darwin are strangely silent on this point, because if they spoke they would have to eventually support the position that somehow this matter came about by the influence of a source of matter, a process otherwise known as creation. If they acknowledge the fact of Creation, then of necessity that implies a Creator. Since I try to be a good Thomist, let me say that “We call that creator God.” This is something atheists simply can't do (see my personal theory on atheism above).

Janet LaRue, in an article published on Townhall.com summarized the problem this way:

"Suppose you awaken alone in your house with its doors and windows locked to find your table set with a scrumptious breakfast awaiting you. Which explanation satisfies you? Your breakfast always existed in its present form, or your breakfast organized itself from lesser matter? Maybe the eggs, ham and cheese just evolved into an omelet, the muffin popped itself into the toaster then rolled around in the butter, the oranges squeezed each other, and there’s coffee but no Mr. Coffee.

"The response is usually an ontological admission, as in, ‘Somebody came into my house while I was asleep and fixed breakfast,’ or a simple ‘I don’t know.’ I’m amazed at the atheists who find it easy to swallow the big bang but not the evolving breakfast."

LaRue highlights the problem very nicely. In her breakfast analogy she shows the dilemma that an atheist faces when dealing with a problem that a reasonable person would consider self-evident. In her explanations of the evolving breakfast, she shows with remarkable clarity the degrees of convolution into which an atheist has to twist in order to avoid the notion of creation and Creator. When one looks at ham, cheese, and egg evolving into an omelet or muffins rolling around in butter of their own volition, then one sees readily how much faith it requires to hold such a strange position. This is why I say that I have enough faith to believe in a loving Creator, but I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Murchison Speaks Truth

This article appeared on Townhall.com this morning. Written by Bill Murchison, he describes the disintegration of the influence of the religious right in American politics. The key sentence comes at the end. Referring primarily to evangelical Christians, he says that their "miscalculation...wasn't getting into politics. It was expecting that the practitioners of politics...had the power to scourge the devil from his fortification in the human heart."

True words, not only for evangelicals, but for most traditional Christians. It's too easy to forget that our Lord reminds us constantly that His kingdom is not of this world.

Here's the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillMurchison/2007/10/30/fall_of_the_religious_right

Time and Prayer

A couple of months ago, I wrote about prayer as a process by which the believer comes to know the Lord. In this month’s column, I would like to discuss the importance of time in the life of prayer. Time, the passing of minutes into hours, and hours into days, has, historically, had two significant roles in our communing with the Lord, both of which deserve some discussion.

The first role of time concerns how it punctuates the day. In the earliest times, Christians would gather together at least twice a day, at sunrise and sunset, in order to praise God in psalms, readings and songs. This tradition has been maintained in Anglican churches by the recitation of the Daily Offices. Later, as the monastic movements developed in the fifth centuries, these times of prayer expanded to mark the passage of the entire day. Two offices (Lauds and Vespers) expanded to include a night office and seven other times of prayers evenly distributed throughout the day. Interestingly the earliest times of prayer were based on the passage of the sun through the sky. However, as civilization became more technologically advanced, the clock replaced the sun as the timepiece of prayer and it is now more common to think of morning prayer as occuring at 6:30 rather than as at “sunup”.

The point to this is pretty simple. Since its foundations, Christians have found it necessary to hinge their prayer lives on the passage of time. So it should be with us, too. I am not saying that every Christian should dedicate the forty minutes or so daily that it takes to recite the day’s offices, but I am suggesting that the prayer life of the individual believer should be grounded in a period of prayer in the morning and in the evening. The 1928 BCP makes accomodation for this by providing forms for family prayer at the back of the book. A good start to a prayer life is a commitment to recite these prayers out loud on a daily basis.

The second role of time concerns a word that I used in the last paragraph: Committment.
A life of prayer cannot succeed without the Christian’s commitment to devote the time necessary to actually pray. Remember, the ultimate purpose of prayer is draw closer to God, to deepen our relationship with Him. This is not something that can happen without time being given to the task. Think of it this way. In our culture, a man and a woman do not simply out of the blue decide to get married. Instead, the courtship process takes time to develop, people need time to get to know each other. Similarly, after marriage, a couple must spend time with each other in order to continue to cultivate the relationship that they built in courtship.

As it is in marriage, so it is with our relationship with God. We begin by making a commitment to pray once a day, twice a day, and we stick to it. No matter how dry the time seems, no matter how unfruitful the prayer seems. There is no substitute in the spiritual life for “sticktoitiveness.” As we proceed in the coming months to discuss prayer “forms,” let’s first make a commitment to pray regularly, let’s make a commitment to show to God the same interest, the same love, that He has shown to us.

Here's the Latest on Intelligent Design versus "The Creature from the Swamp"

If your interested in the ongoing debate between proponents of intelligent design versus the proponents of Darwinian evolution, here's an article for you.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/10/25/darwinism;_too_old-fashioned_to_be_true

The Problem of Human Suffering and the Existence of God

For those that have been attending Christian Education on Sunday morning, here is another great article on the subject of God and Human Suffering, or, "If the innocent suffer, how can a just God exist?"

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12191

Parents, Grandparents, Students: Be VERY Careful!

Dinesh D'Souza has written this piece from townhall.com on the systematic encroachment of atheism on the education of our children. This article goes a long way in explaining why Christian students who are well-versed in their faith and the arguments supporting it are often waylaid by higher education.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/10/22/the_atheist_indoctrination_project

Athens Banner-Herald Article

Here's a link to an article that was published today in the Athens Banner-Herald. Apart from a couple of typos, it seems pretty good. I had no idea I was such a great guy :-)

Here's the link:

http://onlineathens.com/stories/102007/living_20071020025.shtml

John Paul Flambe'??

Here's something you don't see every day. Apparently some folks see the late Pope in the flames of a bonfire. Are they the same ones who saw the face of Jesus in a piece of toast??

http://www.cathnews.com/news/710/103.php

Colson on Rand: Interesting Reading

The following article appeared on townhall.com this morning. Chuck Colson's comments on the objectivist philosophy of the ever-iconic Ayn Rand make interesting reading, especially considering the impact that Rand's works have had on contemporary thought both left and right.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2007/10/16/the_legacy_of_ayn_rand

The Problem of Suffering

Here's an article from The American Thinker. Those who are in my class studying Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Faith, will find it interesting in light of our discussion on why God allows evil.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/about_evil.html

An Interesting Article from Avery Cardinal Dulles

Here's an article from First Things called "God and Evolution." I have only scanned this article but Cardinal Dulles' is usually pretty solid and reliable. For those that have been in my Christian Education Class this fall, this article might prove interesting reading.

http://firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6038

Chalk up another one for the American Thinker

Here's yet another great article from The American Thinker. This one addresses "scholars who question whether Jesus actually existed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/did_jesus_even_exist_can_you_h.html

Oh, so NOW the Fabric is torn!!

Here's an interview from David Virtue's website on the current crisis in the Episcopal Church.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6864

Let me get this straight:

1. The traditional prayer book of the Anglican world has been ripped from the hands of the faithful.
2. The Episcopal Church and others have attempted to "ordain" women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
3. Episcopal and Anglican Bishops have denounced basic doctrines of the faith.
4. The role of human sexuality within the context of marriage has been utterly abandoned.

For over 30 years, the Anglican Communion has hemorrhaged members. BUT NOW, and only NOW, when the communion is in shambles, now when after all that has occurred, an avowed homosexual has been made a bishop (although his consecration is questionable, not because of his sexual orientation, but because of the probable invalidity of the orders of his "consecrators"), NOW a line has been crossed and the fabric of the Communion is torn??

We in the continuum have said for years that this would happen. We said back in the mid-1970s that an attempt to change traditional Anglican formularies and the attempt to "ordain" women would ultimately lead to a major fracture and a departure from Christian Tradition.

My heart aches for all of the Episcopalians who remain loyal to this church that has been so disloyal to them and to the faith of our Fathers. For any loyal Episcopalians left, all I can say is: "Find yourself a home with us."

Another great article from the American Spectator!

I read this article from Lawrence Henry at Spectator.org. In it he describes how human failings and lack of Christian charity can drive some away from church. While our failings will always rise to the surface given enough time, it's probably good advice to remember that "OUR LIVES ARE THE ONLY COPY OF THE BIBLE THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL EVER READ!" Give it some thought as you meditate on this excellent article.

http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12152

I'm Blue, Daba Dee Daba Di!!!

Mimi and I just returned from Chicago, where we met a new friend. He simply blue us away!

In two days we managed to work in two great meals, one at Morton's and one at Mia Francesca, two great shows (Jersey Boys and Blue Man Group [see new friend in picture]) and three pairs of women's shoes (for Mimi).