Come On Christians, History Is Not Our Enemy!

I've just been booted out of a weird facebook argument regarding, of all things, the deity of Christ. A couple of parties took up the position that Jesus is NOT God--that he is subservient to the Father--a subordinate, a lesser being. Oh, they argue that he's still important, but that he's simply and clearly NOT God.

To back up their position, they toss around many scripture passages--passages like John 10:29 where Jesus says "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all." They point to verses like this and exclaim, "See, Jesus himself admits he's not God."

That's their argument--and they've got a large number of verses that, quite honestly, on the surface, seem to support their case. However, the "Jesus IS God" group has its own share of verses. They point to John 1:1 ("the Word was with God, and the Word was God") among others.

Unfortunately, as clear as these passages seem, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd has a different interpretation. Oh, their intepretations aren't completely straightforward and they're certainly not orthodox, but they are, at least, feasible.

And so these groups battled on and on and on, each citing more and more scriptures to back up their case.

Finally, the "Jesus IS NOT God" group resorted to this argument that, sadly, in my opinion won the debate: "The Bible has claimed, from its inception, that there is only one God. Not until the 7th Century did this view become distorted and warped in Christian teaching. Not until the 7th Century did anyone start to make the claim that Jesus is God."

Now, this claim is absolutely so ridiculous and absurd that it should have been scuttled immediately. Yet, sadly, the "Jesus IS God" crowd had no response at all. They simply tossed out more and more Bible verses but they never dealt with the bizarre, bald-faced lie. And that strategy of non-engagement allowed the claim to stand and anybody reading it with an open mind (and no background in Christian history) would have to conclude that the claim went unchallenged because it was true.

But it's not true. And it only takes a beginning understanding of Christian History to refute it. Yet the "Jesus IS God" crowd let it stand and the reason is simple: they fear anything that even smacks of Tradition and they shun Christian history.

What a sad, pathetic stance. As Christians, we should never be afraid of the Truth--whatever that Truth is. Christ our Lord is Truth. No exploration into Truth is going to be anti-christ.

In regards to this bozo claim that the 7th Century was the first time we see Christians referring to Christ as God, let's see how quickly history refutes the idiocy.

Let's look at two writings from St. Ignatius, an early Church Father that gives evidence that Christians of that period already thought of Christ as God. First, let's look at his Letter to the Ephesians where he writes:

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (Letter to the Ephesians, 18:2).

In another letter, his Letter to the Romans, St. Ignatius writes:

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans).

These letters were written around AD 110, so that makes them very early witnesses to the beliefs of the early church, but what's even more interesting is that St. Ignatius was actually a hearer of the Apostle John.

So what we have is a hearer (possibly even a student) of the Apostle John who goes on to become the Bishop of Antioch confirming, at the very beginning of the second century--possibly even during the lifetime of the Apostle John himself--a belief in the Divinity of Christ.

This is well earlier than the claim in the silly facebook argument and so it completely refutes it. However, there's more information we can glean. For example, if St. Ignatius is representing a distortion of the teaching of the Apostles, we would have to admit that the very first generation of Christians after the Apostles had already screwed up the message. That means, before the Doctrine of the Trinity was addressed, before the Canon of Scripture was compiled, the Church had already screwed up--and not just on something little. They had attributed Divinity to a mere man. That would mean the Apostles--at least John--were terrible teachers. It would also mean we would sincerely need to question ANYTHING we believe as Christians. If they could be wrong about Christ being God that early, how do we expect them to get anything else right?

Take the Scriptures for instance. If the early Christians screwed up Christ's Divinity and mistakenly thought and taught that a mere man was God, how in the world are we to believe that these same Christians somehow miraculously figured out which books should be included in the Bible and which books were spurious? If they start with an unorthodox, heretical understanding of Christ, how do we seriously believe these same flawed men would figure out which books shouldn't be included in the Bible?

Now, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd places as much importance and significance on the Bible as the "Jesus IS God" crowd. They just have a different interpretation. A look at history and then some fundamental logical reasoning shows that if their view is correct, then even the Scriptures they cling to are not reliable. Their position is untenable. They're basing their case on the words of a document that, if their claim is true, has extremely limited value.

When we consult history in the case of the Jesus IS or IS NOT God argument, we can instantly dispel the ridiculous claim that Christians in the 7th Century pulled the Divinity of Christ out of the air.

However, that's not all history does for us. History in this case shows that the very earliest extra-biblical sources--the people who were taught by the Apostles--the people who spoke the language the Bible was written in--support the consistently historical Christian viewpoint that Christ Jesus is God the Son--one in substance and being with the Father.

History is not something to be feared. It fleshes out our faith and gives it depth. Every new generation of Christians doesn't need to start from scratch. There's a world of work done by great Christians, men and women who loved our Lord. We can stand on their shoulders. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Something With a Beat

My family and I attended Mass at a new (to us) church a few weeks ago. My wife has friends who attend there and it's been one of those things on my "to do" list this summer.

Well, a month ago, we got around to it and while my wife is certainly not ready (or even, to be honest, remotely interested) in changing churches (and faiths), we all enjoyed the service.

The Priest delivered a good, scriptural homily about the necessity of having a personal relationship with Jesus. The music was decent, the congregation read along with the scripture readings and, most importantly for me, the service had a sense of reverence to it that I've found lacking so many other places I've visited.

This was God's house--there was no question about that. We weren't here to socialize, chit-chat, or "connect". We were here primarily for one purpose: to worship our Divine Creator and our Blessed Savior. This wasn't a place where you all-too-casually come to "hang out with the Lord" and "get your praise on."

There were no pulsating lights, timed perfectly to every thump of the bass drum. There were no choppy black and white videos meant to introduce the sermon topic to the attention-deficient disordered. There were no props. No skits. No liturgical dance.

It was old-style worship--ancient, in fact--drawing phrases from as far back as written records go into early Christianity.

In short, it was a profound experience for me. I left feeling I'd finally found my home. After the last two years of studying Catholicism, I felt I'd finally found a church that exhibited the beauty and reverence I'd read about.

And then we went back....

This past Saturday we walked in and right away I was instantly put on guard: the Priest milling in the back by the baptismal font was not the same as several weeks ago. He was a stand-in. A substitute. And I instantly started wondering if he would be as good.

Well, he wasn't.

The Mass was a little... sloppy, for lack of a better word. He forgot some of the liturgy. He stumbled over this and that. He shot from the hip on a couple of prayers rather than consulting the Big Red Book. He cracked a few more jokes than I would have liked. His homily was shallow. Almost cheesy. A little too Robert-Schuler for me, if you know what I mean.

All of these things played in my mind and even though I'm not Catholic, I kept thinking I was witnessing some sort of liturgical scandal. (Yes, I'm an "over-reactor" if ever there was one). My blood pressure started to rise, my palms got sweaty, my heart started beating a little harder and my brain was whirling.

When Mass ended, we shuffled out of the building and made our way to the van. As we climbed in, my wife asked a question that's pretty typical: "Well, what'd you think? Did you like it?"

I responded with a quick and disgruntled, "Not really. It wasn't nearly as good as last time. That Priest wasn't even remotely as good as Monseigneur Bob." And we drove away.

That was over 24 hours ago. And for the last 24 hours I've been frustrated over that service. That was supposed to be my "new home". God had led me there, I thought. Now, I didn't know what to think. Had I completely misinterpreted? What was God trying to tell me?

And then I stumbled on an article about 20 minutes ago. An article about why Catholics are leaving the Church to become Protestant. After reading that article and the comments posted by other readers, I'm beginning to realize how wrong I've been in my thinking. Not about Catholicism--but about Church.

The article, and many of the commenters (Catholics by their own admission) argued that the Catholic Church has not adapted with the changing times--they've failed to provide liturgies that "touch the heart and emotions." Protestant churches do these things and therefore, the obvious solution (in their eyes) is for the Catholic Church to "Get it's Protestant on." The Church needs worship services that are more fun, that are more appealing to the younger generation, more "with-it". In short, they need to out-Protestant the Protestants.

As I read the comments and the article itself, I realized my error from this past weekend and the trap that I and so many of these "commenters" and people leaving the Catholic Church have fallen into: the notion of that Church is just another form of entertainment that should be graded and critiqued as such.

This is exactly what I did after Saturday's less-than-stellar Mass. I graded my experience at Mass as if it were a summer movie. I asked the BIG questions: How was the plot? Did it develop nicely? How about the characters? Were they likable? Did they engage my interest? Did the story impact me on an emotional level? Was I captivated, enthralled, pulled in? Did the story suspend my disbelief? Did the 2 hours breeze by leaving me wanting more as the final credits rolled or was a I looking at my watch, wishing for less?

I rated that Mass and that Priest as if it was a movie and he the lead actor and I gave both an unenthusiastic 2 stars. But that's the mistake: Mass isn't a movie--it's not entertainment--and the Priest doesn't play the lead.

Mass is about worshiping our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is really and truly present upon the altar under the appearance of bread and wine. It's about Christ's perfect sacrifice--the unblemished and pure sacrifice offered to God from the rising of the sun to its setting (Malachi 1:11). Mass is about being forgiven and thanking God from the depths of our soul that He condescended to our level and opened the doors of paradise.

The Priest can be astonishing in his delivery--a gifted orator--or he can drone on and on monotonously and indefinitely. It doesn't matter because the Mass isn't about him. Whether he's an amazing orator or whether English isn't even his third language, doesn't make a difference: the words of Consecration are the same and the effects are the same. Jesus becomes truly and really present, body and blood, soul and Divinity and we are transported back in time, so to speak, to Calvary. The sacrifice for our sins is made--not again--but the one and only time. And we are witnesses to it.

We stand there indifferently like the soldiers or the crowds just looking to see some blood, or we kneel there in reverence and awe and heart-break and gratitude. But either way, whatever the state of our heart, we stand there and behold, whether we realize it or not, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

And in that moment, as we kneel there, we join the heavenly Liturgy as depicted in the book of Revelation. We honor the lamb, appearing as one who'd been slain--and we honor Him who sits on the throne. We give glory to God our Father, Christ our Brother and the Holy Spirit and in so doing we experience as much heaven as earth can hold.

Then it ends. And we walk to our cars and discuss the entertainment value of the homily. Or the singing voice of the Cantor. And we wonder if maybe we should try one of those "fun" churches next week. You know, one with a band. And some drums. Something with music you can tap your toe to--something with a beat.

The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth

Well, thanks to Facebook, I've been involved in another bizarre "conversation" that, while weird and frustrating at times (and which, in the end resulted in my being ejected from the discussion and blocked from the page), was still quite informative.

For starters, this particular conversation grew over an argument about whether or not Jesus is God. For a while, I watched from the comfort of the sidelines as the parties of both camps threw scripture verses out there, each side refuting the interpretation of the other side's scriptures. When that didn't work each side resorted to throwing out his own version of this particular appeal: "if you would just look at the clear and unambiguous words of Scripture, you would see the truth."

Aaaah, that sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? It's an appeal to common sense. It's a "come, let us reason together" moment. It seems like the way to solve the problem: let's just go to the text, say a little prayer for guidance, read the words, shake hands and walk away united. It should work, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't. Sure it seems reasonable, but that's as far as it goes. Deep down, it's fundamentally flawed thinking.

The problem isn't with the words of scripture, per se. It's the meaning those words are imbued with. In the argument I was watching unfold, both camps took the same words and each read remarkably different ideas into them--contradictory ideas in fact. Their own ideas.

Neither side could understand how the other could not read their particular proof texts and not come away convinced. And so, inevitably, the conversation devolved into who's led by the Holy Spirit and who's a servant of Satan.

As the opinions piled up and the number of posts increased, we "learned" that everyone's level of spirituality was directly related to the strength of his agreement with either of the two sides. For example, if you happened to agree with Side A, then Side A thought you were a Saint--a Biblical scholar of staggering proportions. However, side B typically thought you were a rube. On the other hand, if you, by chance, should agree with Side B, well then, it was clear (to Side B) that you were a powerful theologian--a visionary, able to cut through the clutter, lucidly beholding (and expounding upon) great spiritual mysteries. Unfortunately, Side A comfortably and knowingly assumed you were going to hell.

And all of this occurs because the Bible is exceedingly clear and unambiguous in all matters, right? And we'll know we're right because we know we're led by the Holy Spirit--and that's His job, right? To lead us into all truth? And even though the other people we encounter may SAY they're led by the Holy Spirit, we'll know whether or not that's true by this simple litmus test: do they agree with what we say Scripture says? If they agree, they pass and are clearly spirit led and are brothers and sisters who should be embraced. If they disagree with our positions--and since we KNOW we are spirit-led--we therefore know that they are . . . yes, you guessed it: Devil Spawn. Satan's Emissaries. Servants of Beelzebub.

Now, I'm not here to knock the Bible in any regard. The Bible is the written word of God, handed down to us through the Apostles and various followers of our Lord. The Bible is a tremendous gift from God to the world. And yet, nowhere in the Bible do we read that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith. In fact, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" is the Church of Jesus Christ--not a written word. In fact, Paul's passage reads as such:

¹⁴ Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, ¹⁵ if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Paul WRITES Timothy instructions (the written WORD of God), but he doesn't tell Timothy that these writings are the pillar and foundation of the truth. That position is reserved for the Church of the Living God. The writings are instructional and helpful and definitely important--but they are not the Pillar and Bulwark or foundation of the truth. No writing can be that since the writing itself requires interpretation. The only entity that can provide interpretation is a teaching authority: the Church.

I would love to believe that the Holy Spirit leads each of us to understand Scripture for ourselves in ALL MATTERS. I would love to believe that we're all equally valid interpreters of the Word. It's a nice idea. It puts a lot of power in our hands. If it's true, we're all theologians, we're all experts on doctrine, we're all Doctors of the Church.

But if it is true, why is there so little consistency? If the Holy Spirit is leading us all, why is there so much variance in our beliefs? And we must be careful not to opt for the "easy-out" answer--the answer given almost everytime this question is asked: "we disagree in non-essentials, but in essentials, there's unity."

Really? Is the Spirit so weak? He's only able to persuade unity in certain doctrines, but other things are outside of his control? He is said to lead into ALL truth and yet, we so often are willing to accept just some.

So why aren't we united? It's what Jesus wanted. Why can't the Holy Spirit pull it off? If the original plan of God was to give us the Bible and then provide the Holy Spirit who would lead us (each one, separately) into all truth, then why in the world hasn't it happened? Human error? Human sin? These are things God didn't foresee?

God knew the system of personal interpretation would be flawed, would lead to much disunity, many arguments and widespread division, but He proceeded with it anyway just because He couldn't come up with a better idea? Does that makes sense?

But what if we're wrong about this notion? What if we're incorrect about God's plan regarding the Bible and the teaching of truth? What if He never meant each one of us to pick it up and find out the truth for ourselves all by ourselves? What if He established an authority--a teaching authority--a pillar and foundation of the truth? What if this was the authority who would be led by the Holy Spirit and pass on the teachings of the Lord accurately? What if this authority was created in order to teach infallibly and guide the faithful?

If we can believe that the Holy Spirit can guide each of us personally into all truth, preserving us from error, is it such an impossibility to think that He could do the same with the Church?

Gaining the World, Losing Our Souls

If you haven't already noticed, we're heading into another election cycle. We're due to elect another (or re-elect the old) President. And while the internet and the TV news shows and Talk Radio (both conservative and the (really bad) liberal versions) are talking about the economy and jobs, about the falling dollar and rising gas prices, it's imperative we Christians don't lose focus of what should be the key issue of any election: abortion.

Oh, I know that results in groans and grumblings from both sides. After all, being a one-issue voter is out-of-fashion at best and simple-minded or flatly unintelligent at worst. At least that's what we've been told.

In the last couple years I've run into countless conservative friends and acquaintances who make the case that with this election, we need to be "open-minded." We need to vote for the fiscally conservative candidate regardless of party. We need to put people in office who are going to work towards debt reduction, controlled spending, etc. I've been told that if there's a candidate in a given race who will stand for those things, we need to vote for him or her, regardless of party lines. I've been told that doing so is "responsible". To do so is to be politically astute. It's to care about my country. It's to be patriotic.

And yet, I can't do it. Because that's not how I think. I guess I'm that dyed-in-the-wool one-issue voter. And my one-issue is abortion. Every vote I cast hangs on a candidate's stance on abortion. Period.

I will not vote for my pocketbook at the expense of human life. I will not vote for jobs or for lower gas prices at the expense of the millions of babies who are dismembered in the womb for the sake of convenience.

Now, that doesn't mean that I can't do both. Many candidates will support strong, fiscally conservative platforms while at the same time maintaining a rigid pro-life stance.

I'm just saying that in this current climate of Tea Parties and fiscal conservatism, I pray that we as Christians don't lose sight of what should be the core issue in American life and politics.

Debt and jobs and the economy and social security are all about money. Abortion's about the soul.

Here's Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life talking
about what a Dismemberment Abortion is.