Sums up many of my thoughts

Deacon Tim over at Sacraments Wholesale pretty much summarizes my thoughts and feelings on the whole Redding case.

Sphere: Related Content

Bishop-elect who said Katrina was the fault of 'Gays' withdraws consideration

H/t to Damien Thompson for posting this.

Actually everyone on both sides of the ideological divide - except the right wing nutters - are pretty relieved over this news. His appointment a few weeks ago slipped in between two other controversies, that of the SSPX rehabilitations and the Legionary of Christ Scandal.

The AP article on the request for withdrawl can be found here. It's now only to see if the Pope actually accepts it.

Sphere: Related Content

For the Pope - bad things, like deaths, seem to happen in threes. From SSPX to Linz and now Macial

traditionalist Catholics are prone to paranoia

- Damien Thompson, Holy Smoke

The Pope must be scratching his head right now and wanting to scream out the highest window in the Vatican's highest tower. As if the PR weren't bad enough because of the SSPX kerfuffle, and then the appointment of a Bishop who thinks that God punishes entire cities and populations because of their familiarity with homosexuals now one of the darker undercurrents has burst open yet another ecclesial wound with the revelations that not only was the founder of the Legionaries of Christ (and their lay arm Regnum Christie) an accused child molester but information has surfaced and been confirmed that he led a double life in which he sired two children and embezzled lots of money.

It would be easy for the Pontiff to just scream out that window before hammering it shut and closing the rest of the world out. Damien Thompson's seems apropos. But I would argue that despite the hype the world and the gates of hell will still not destroy the Church.

But still we should reflect on why our Church is stammering and sputtering over such terrible and scandalous events.

In reflecting on these three terrible events of the past few weeks it leads one to ask two very simple questions. How? And Why? Two analyses come to mind each dealing with one of the two more publicised outrages. That of SSPX and the other, with the LCs/RCs, and when considered together both perhaps get to the issue at heart.

The first was brought to my attention yesterday evening by a friend with whom I was e-mailing back and forth over the lesser of the three publicised incidents - that of the appointment of Bishop-elect Wagner to the See of Linz Austria.

I was lamenting over the fact that many conservative Catholics who may or may not know (or care for that matter) about his disturbing equivocations between Hurricane Katrina's destruction and New Orleans sinfulness for hosting a Gay Pride event were taking heart and hoisting the new Bishop for saying (amongst other things):

Those who dissent should consider whether it is not really they who are being divisive. [excellent!] I fail to see why I should portrayed as divisive when I step up in defence of the Church and align myself with the Pope. Something is not right there." [Right!]

(The colored text was used in the above linked post to WDTPRS, and the bold is his as well.) My friend pointed me to Amy Welborne's post on the implosion of the Legion of Christ for anecdotal context but without further elucidation because we were interrupted with the sad news that Mrs. Wellborn's husband had tragically and suddenly passed yesterday morning (Prayers and blessings for comfort and peace to her, her children, her family and friends).

From her post Way Truth and Life,

Movements of all kinds (including religious orders) are a constant source of renewal for the Church. But there are risks and problems associated with any movement, and it is the Church’s responsibility - and by “Church” I mean every one of us - to view movements with open eyes, to see the good, be wary of the bad and call the evil to task.

Secrecy, hero-worship, deification of individuals, reflexive dismissal of critics as wrong-headed or even of the devil, an untoward interest in money and appearance, manipulation of members, demeaning attitudes toward non-members, deceptive means…

trouble.

She precedes this by saying that blanket statements for any group are woefully inadequate that there are many good people who are members of such organizations as LC and RC and follows up this assessment with anecdotal evidence. To note she says "It is wrong to derive the truth about the nature of something simply from anecdotes, but anecdotes can be telling." She then shares two very insightful anecdotes. As with movements the same could be said with ideologies (which of course usually gird movements but none the less) and it's just as important for us to not lump those who are ideologically to the right or left of us with those who are on the extremes and fringes ideologically.

I recount this not necessarily to be provocative in regards to the quote of Bishop Wagner, though it indeed helps illustrate a parallel, but for the larger picture of my own interpretation of how and why these three terrible events of the past few weeks should be wrecking so much havoc upon Holy Church. I also doubt that my interpretation of Amy's post was precisely the intent of my friend in recommending it to me - but we shall see, and at this point it's already inspired me in this endeavor.

This morning by my same friend sent me another article in an e-mail. It is the recently published outrage of Sandro Magister over the bungling of the SSPX debacle by the Vatican and in his opinion the blame lies with the curialists.

What I found to be relevant to the larger issue is what follows,

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier. But wasn't it the primary responsibility of these two cardinals to carry out an
in-depth examination of Williamson's personal profile, and of the three other bishops? The fact that they did not do so seems inexcusable. Such an examination wasn't even difficult. Williamson has never concealed his distaste for Judaism. He has publicly defended the authenticity of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In 1989, in Canada, he risked being taken to court for praising the books written by Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. After September 11, 2001, he supported conspiracy theories to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Just a click on Google would have turned up all of this background material.

Another serious lapse concerned the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity. Reversing the schism with the Lefebvrists is logically part of its competencies, which also include relations between the Church and Judaism. But the cardinal who heads the council, Walter Kasper, says that he was kept out of the deliberations: this is all the more surprising in that the issuing of the decree lifting the excommunication took place during the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, and a few days before International Holocaust Remembrance Day. That's not all.

The media release of the decision also seems to have been entirely negligent. The Vatican press office limited itself, on Saturday, January 24, to distributing the text of the decree, in spite of the fact that the news had already leaked out a few days earlier, and a fiery controversy was already growing around the statements denying the Holocaust made by Williamson.

There is an illuminating comparison to be made. The previous day, on January 23, the same press office had organized, with great pomp, the launching of the Vatican channel on YouTube. And a few days later, on January 29, it announced, again with a great deployment of persons and resources, an international conference on Galileo Galilei, scheduled for the end of May. In each case, the objective was to transmit the authentic meaning of the initiative to the media. But nothing of the sort was done for the decree concerning the Lefebvrist bishops. And yet all of the elements necessary for an appropriate announcement were there. Even the timing was right. The week of prayer for Christian unity was underway; Holocaust remembrance day was just
around the corner; in Italy just a few days earlier, on January 17, there had been the day for dialogue between Catholics and Jews. Cardinal Kasper, the leading curia official in both areas, would have been the ideal person to present the decree, situate it within the persistent situation of schism, explain the purpose of lifting the excommunication, and summarize the points on which the Lefebvrists were being asked to reconsider their positions, from full acceptance of Vatican Council II to the overcoming of their anti-Judaism. As for Williamson, it would not have been difficult to clearly delineate his situation: if he were to remain firm on his aberrant ideas denying the Holocaust, he would exclude himself from the pope's gesture of "mercy."

And yet, if nothing of this was done, it was not the fault of the Vatican press office and its director, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, but of the offices of the curia from which they receive their orders.

These offices of the curia converge in the secretariat of state.

and then the conclusion,

Bertone [the Vatican Secretary of State] does most of his work not inside the walls of the Vatican, but on the outside, in an endless round of conferences, celebrations, inaugurations. His visits abroad are as frequents and as packed with meetings and speeches as those of a John Paul II in vigorous health: he was in Mexico from January 15-19, and is now visiting Spain. As a result, all of the work that the offices of the secretariat of state dedicate to his external activities leaves that much less work available for the pope. ...

Bertone's personal devotion to Benedict XVI is beyond all doubt. Not so that of the other curia officials, who continue to have free rein. It is possible that some of them deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it.

So how then does this all tie together, from a quote of Wagner on what it means to dissent to an assessment on movements to curial crisis?

One could argue that this is what happens when a leader surrounds themselves with people who simply say 'yes,' and even more damning by surrounding themselves with people who presume to know the leader better than the leader his or herself and feel complacent or comfortable enough to say 'yes,' without hesitation, clarification or question while advancing an agenda that pales to the original intent and which may be entirely their own. Sycophant is a word that comes to mine, though is admittedly rather harsh.

That in my view is why Re and Hoyos failed in the task on Williamson. That's why they didn't include Kasper because they knew he would potentially intervene or ask questions.

That is why Wagner can say such hateful, sinful things about the deaths and horror of Hurricane Katrina and say it's caused by the city's welcoming of the LGBT community, and then be hailed as a hero by a vociferous minority that would appear to have hijacked the majority. This culture is the cancer that so ate away at the heart of the Legion of Christ that has them currently headless and without direction and corporately questioning their existence and charismatic purpose.

The Magister and many within the vociferous and empowered minority don't place the blame on such blithe obedience, but instead, surreptitiously, on an invisible "other". For them it's a curia that is full of intrigue (true I'm sure) and the nameless and faceless who "deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it."

If magister reread his own statements that he'd only just written prior to this conclusion he'd realise that that those who "deliberately oppose this pontificate" don't belong in his assessment and only feeds the paranoia that is so rampant on the so called "ideological right." It's Hoyos and Re who's failure to include Kasper, and theirs alone who failed to investigate Williamson who do not understand this pontificate. It is Bishop Williamson who does not regard the evolution of Catholic Social Teaching and the consequences of Vatican II who do not understand it. It is the Maciels of the church that abuse, and their lieutenants deceive and who cover it all up that don't understand it.

In the case of Re and Hoyos, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If that's the case then these characters probably didn't run anything past Bertone the devoted yet flighty (literally) Secretary of State. In their zeal for the old ways and to please the boss, (because they presume to know the boss) they fail and fit into that category of those who simply don't measure up. It's the Wagners who believe that peddling hate and passing it off as the love of God because it's 'the truth that needs to be heard' according to their interpretation of the magisterium who fail to measure up to this pontificate. It's the Maciels in their hollowed perfection and devotion who do not measure up.

Ultimately though, it's a failure of his Holiness himself (and to a significant degree to his predecessor JPII). He after all promoted the likes of Hoyos and Re to be partners within his movement and philosophy of the hermeneutic of continuity. It is his Holiness and his Predecessor who for years protected and preferred the Legion of Christ while aware of the rumors and allegations. It is his Holiness himself who approved or ostensibly appointed Wagner the Auxiliary Bishop of Linz for the noble and hard task of correcting a diocese that was in fact unhealthy and had gone too far - despite his arrogance and outrageous comments and beliefs regarding sexual morality and the wrath of God, and the nature of God's wrath (no pun intended).

But the Pope, despite the devotion of his yes men, is only a Human. He makes mistakes and like other folks, mistakes are amplified when they're made in concert with the opinions and thoughts of those around us. I'm also reminded of something very key that Amy said right after the text quoted above that has empowered that selective vociferous minority, but more importantly gives motive to these unfortunate mistakes.

There is another message for church leaders, including pastors and bishops here. Let’s be frank.

What is the appeal of Regnum Christi and its apostolates in the United States? The appeal may be negative in some ways, but those I have met who have been drawn to it are thirsting for solid faith content. They know that their children live in a challenging world and have no confidence in what passes for catechesis in the parish or even in many Catholic schools to equip them for that world. They do not see these programs or liturgies seriously oriented toward bringing those participating into a deep, committed relationship with Christ.

So something substantive appears…it appeals.

Take note.

And believe it or not this is the majority of practicing American Catholics. They are looking and thirsting for solid faith content. They're looking for a faith content that gives rise to a Catholic identity. It's why folks of my generation feel uncomfortable and don't necessarily get liturgical dancing or the bizarre rituals of the ideological left, while at the same time are just as uncomfortable and disconnected from the latin and lace, and rigid rituals of the ideological right. The Pope understands that, it's the point of the hermeneutic of continuity elucidated by this pontificate.

But hey, maybe I'm just being presumptuous.

Sphere: Related Content

The Traditional Anglican Communion is in according to the CDF?

It appears that SSPX isn't the only Traditionalists group being welcomed back into the fold, though with this crowd there's so far no outbursts of holocaust denialism or anti-semitism.

CathNews is reporting:

History may be in the making. It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church, Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years. But it may also be a prelude to a much greater influx of Anglicans waiting on the sidelines.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

An announcement could be made soon after Easter this year. It is understood that Pope Benedict XVI, who has taken a personal interest in the matter, has linked the issue to the year of St Paul, the greatest missionary in the history of the Church...

...The TAC's Primate, Adelaide based Archbishop John Hepworth, told The Record he has also informed the Holy See he wants to bring all the TAC's bishops to Rome for the beatification of Cardinal Henry Newman, also an Anglican convert
to the Catholic Church, as a celebration of Anglican-Catholic unity. - Anthony
Barich, The Record

The Easter 2009 is significant as we said back in November that rumors were afoot of a meeting en masse between the TAC Bishops and the Pope Easter of this year.

... developing...

Sphere: Related Content

Metropolitan Kirill elected to Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia

Congrats go to our Orthodox sisters and brothers on the election of Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia - spiritual leader of the huge Russian Bloc within Orthodoxy.

From the AP:

MOSCOW – Metropolitan Kirill received 508 of the 700 votes cast during an all-day church congress in Moscow's ornate Christ the Savior Cathedral, the head of the commission responsible for the election, Metropolitan Isidor, said hours after the secret ballot was over.

Kirill defeated a conservative rival, Metropolitan Kliment, who received 169 votes, Isidor said. Another 23 ballots were declared invalid.

It was the first vote for a Russian Orthodox patriarch since the fall of the officially atheist Soviet Union in 1991.

Kirill, 62, will be installed Sunday as the successor to Moscow Patriarch Alexy II, who had headed Russia's dominant church since 1990. Alexy II died Dec. 5, at age 79, after leading the church in a powerful post-Soviet revival.

Only time will tell if Kirill, who is known in Russia as a moderniser (think with the same aire that folks from SSPX view your average post Vatican II Church), will move forward with the thawing between east and West.

Sphere: Related Content

Preparations for DC, week in review and remembering William Henry Harrison

It's been a busy week, I'm heading to DC tomorrow (Sunday) for our President elect's inauguration and this week has been filled with planning and preparations, and lots of work to boot which is why there wasn't much blogging - sorry. But do follow my twitter throughout the week and I'm taking the laptop and a camera so check back too for picture posts and hopefully a couple of opportunities for reflection. I'll be there for the whole week so hopefully I'll be able to cover a lot.

(Aside: Wednesday/Thursday in DC is the national march for Life and I hope to observe that -- I may even make a sign or two and join in somewhere, plus I have quite a few friends in DC that I probably won't get to see, but it's nice mentioning that they're there and that I'm thinking about them, good intentions and all)

But a lot has happened this past week. South Carolina residents were shocked and disturbed to find out that we're the nations landfill - literally, though I find this as an economic opportunity especially as we try and green our economy - see my support for landfill and water treatment plants gas exchange as sources for electricity. Also though the Governor (who I rarely agree with) sees it as an opportunity to raise money for the State by charging fees for other states to dump in SC. But we can't just think of it all about trash -- it's recycling, it's reusing, and in other ways it's reducing. I say reducing because just this week Coca Cola announced the largest plastic bottle recycling operation was opening up right here in the Palmetto State in Spartanburg, and in Georgetown another metal recycling service is adding 60+ jobs to the area, but these are only two examples of businesses around this state that are emphasizing and utilizing the three R's that we learned about in grade school.

Speaking of the Grand Strand Area - remember the Tower of Bible that a lady is pushing to build in Socastee? Well it looks like she got a cool reception from residents who are concerned about traffic and property values though not necessarily her religious values. And I chuckled when I read that the property to be developed in question is (was) a large trailer park.

If you head to Indigo Journal do read the piece by Tim Kelly on the outrageous prices that the Governor's office wanted to charge for copies of e-mails on a CD. This is in response to the "outrage" of Howard Rich's shills to the prices quoted by local school districts to FOIA requests for various specific information - something that, curiously, The State's editorial board picked up and decided not to investigate or inquire about.

And that brings us to the Governor, yeah his State of the State was on Wednesday night and it was full of the same old same old that he's been spouting for the past six years. So to commiserate with the poor condition of our state I went to the Whig where I ran into the Lexington Young Republicans. Who should be with this motley crew of conservatives but Josh Gross. We spoke politics briefly but mainly talked Catholic/Evangelical theology and history (Josh it was nice meeting you and you really should check out Phillip Jenkin's Lost History of Christianity). I also met Wes Wolfe from the Wolfe reports and kept him up way past his bed time - sorry Mr. Wolfe, but it was a good evening I'd surmise.

Other cursory reading before I finish up this post: This guy in Charleston is probably looking for a gun and a quiet cabin in the woods, that or he'll be chased off the peninsula by an angry mob soon. He is one of the many source foci for our economic woes, yes it's a declarative statement and I'm sticking by it, and apparently not the only one thinking it either. And Charleston is asking for a nice chunk of the bailout pie - a little more than 1 billion worth, for which approximately 100 million is being designated for the much needed commuter rail between Summerville and Charleston. In the upstate a report was released on the feasibility of a high speed rail service that will run through one of the world's largest mega regions from Macon Ga and Atlanta, to Greenville, SC, Charlotte, NC and points beyond up to Washington DC. This could add to the capacity and expansion of the upstate as a manufacturing juggernaut even as money tightens in the recession.

Well it's time to go buy wool socks and insulated underwear and long johns as the last bit to gather before the road trip. I do hope our dear PEOTUS, Mr. Obama, remembers the lesson of William Henry Harrison. And if YOU don't, then sit back and enjoy this short historical documentary on our nation's ninth president. (H/t to Rob for discovering this video)

Sphere: Related Content

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, this genration's John Chrysostom?

With the recent passing of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, many obits have appeared eulogizing him with praise and just as many have also appeared with, well, not praise. It got me thinking, and I came up with this not very perfect analogy: Fr. Neuhaus is for this generation what St. John Chrysostom was for his.


I say that because when we look by at the Greek Father many scholars have called him an anti-Semite. And yes, his works have been used to inspire many pogroms throughout history, have passed from generation to generation and have been cited as source material to put Jews in ghettos and ultimately gas chambers. But his defenders point out that during his time period his arguments were in direct contention with other ideas on how to interpret and understand the culture... he was in effect a fourth century culture warrior to apply the modern term.


These defenders say he employed the necessary rhetorical flourishing of psogos to craft and stress his, ultimately successful, point of view to solicit conversions. They say the historical record does not support the notion that he would support later violence against the Jews.


To that end I'm sure future generations will look back and craft an opinion on the life of Fr. Neuhaus. Whether they only have pro-Neuhaus information or anti-Neuhaus information is up to time and the efforts of each camp. For me at least, like John Chrysostom, I say he can be both. And with that in mind I did find an even handed obituary of Fr. Neuhaus, one that presents both the saintly serenity of the curious and devoted convert and the angry culture warrior gleefully bending the ear of those in power to quash his ideological opposition.


From The Nation:

The Two Richard John Neuhauses

The following reflection on the passing of Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009) is cross-posted at the National Catholic Reporter. Additional thoughts on Neuhaus' life and legacy will appear in this space over the coming days.

In the three-and-a-half years I worked at First Things magazine, I came to know two Richard John Neuhauses. The first is the one I worked with in the journal's offices every day: personally generous and jovial, intellectually and theologically curious, alert to political and cultural complications, overflowing with energy and ideas. This is the Neuhaus readers encountered in his lengthy, erudite essays on philosophy, theology, and history, which frequently graced the pages of the magazine. It is also the Neuhaus who produced beautiful theological meditations such as Death on a Friday Afternoon and As I Lay Dying--and who selflessly served as a parish priest at Immaculate Conception Church on 14th Street in Manhattan.

But there was also another Neuhaus--the one familiar to his political opponents. This is the Neuhaus who aimed to be a "thorough revolutionary" during the 1960s and who later brokered a political alliance between Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants in order more effectively to wage a cultural war against the social changes that flowed from that same decade. This Neuhaus uncharitably savaged his ideological enemies in his monthly column for First Things and walked a fine line between predicting that the culture war was on the verge of erupting into violence and actively inciting such violence. This Neuhaus sometimes spoke as if faithful Catholics had a positive duty to vote for the Republican Party, and he strongly encouraged the American bishops to deny the sacrament of Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. This Neuhaus was proudly authoritarian, bullying in temperament, and staunchly traditionalist in his attitudes toward women and homosexuality.

During my last two years at the journal--the years of the Iraq war and its immediate aftermath--the second Neuhaus dominated, enthusiastically seeking to provide a theological defense of George W. Bush's polices at home and abroad and sharply rebuking anyone who dared to dissent from those policies. If I'm not mistaken, the first, more thoughtful Neuhaus reasserted himself in the past two years, as he worked to come to terms with the myriad failures and disappointments of the Bush administration. In these years the tone of his writing was somewhat less stridently political, more concerned with exploring the tensions between politics and theological truth than with covering them over. That his final book project was a nuanced study of St. Augustine's political theology is perhaps a further indication that his views on the proper relation between religion and public life were undergoing a subtle revision in light of recent sobering events.

The most sobering event of all must have been the election of Barack Obama, whom Neuhaus considered the most culturally liberal candidate for president in American history. Worse, Obama employed the rhetoric of religion to conceal his liberalism, portraying himself as beyond the stark oppositions of the culture war when, according to Neuhaus, his true aim was to consolidate and expand on the liberal gains of the past four decades. Neuhaus' populist commitments nearly always persuaded him that the American people would do the right thing in the end. This faith buoyed his spirits during every presidential election since 1980. Sometimes his hopes were dashed; other years they were fulfilled. But I suspect the blow from 2008--victory for a liberal Democrat with 53 percent of the vote, a greater margin than any non-incumbent candidate for president since the war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower triumphed in 1952--must have been particularly painful.

Which Neuhaus would have dominated through the Obama administration? Would the first Neuhaus have remained in control, following the lead of Reinhold Niebuhr to offer an ironic commentary on the disorienting dynamics of political life in a pluralist democracy? Or would the second Neuhaus have come roaring back, hurling theological invective at the new president, fretting about the end of democracy in America, rallying the religious right for the next round in the culture war--the battle to wrest the White House from the clutches of the culture of death? Unfortunately, now we will never know which Neuhaus would have prevailed.

May both Richard John Neuhauses rest in peace.

Though Damon then followed up by pushing back against the syrupy disregard of Ross Douthat he then linked to a second remembrance. This one is lengthy but the key is his own refutation of Douthat's blind ideological subservience and a more appropriate summation of the man by use of his own work that is serenely eloquent.

Neuhaus's profound commitment to both cultural change and Christian orthodoxy led him to develop the idea--and to, let's admit it, to convince many others of its truth--that America's liberal tradition, if it was not to be corrupted, necessitated a "positive duty" on behalf of believers to sustain certain kind of religious language, a religious language that is objective enough that one can identify it with a specific political party, a specific political agenda, and maybe even a specific president of the United States. That's not a prophet calling America to its better nature from the street corners; that a precinct captain explaining to a mob on that same street corner why God logically can't possibly want Americans to do otherwise. And so, it's not that I'm a leftist Mormon communitarian (though with traditionalist religious and moral beliefs) that turned me off on Neuhaus's very conservative, very Catholic, and often brilliant polemical work; it's that too often he took the spirit of the best of American Christianity--the reforming, chastising, praising spirit of it--and insisted that it must be disciplined and contained within a single electoral box.

Now with that said, I have to confess: what do I really know of how Neuhaus prioritized his work over the hours and days? (I should ask Damon; he'd know better than me.) He was a parish priest and a faithful believer, in the midst of all these theoretical, philosophical, and moral controversies; if I have any core to my faith, it is that such work will be far more meaningful in the life to come, and is far more important to his and my soul right now, than any of the rest. Many of those who have spoken in praise of Neuhaus's pastoral writings have focused on the brilliant, haunting, deeply truthful work, Death of a Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus From the Cross; I endorse that praise. In particular, I endorse the praise for the first chapter of that book, a revised version of which Neuhaus published as a separate essay in FT, "Father, Forgive Them." It is an essay that all Christians should read; it is an essay that I, especially as I have dealt with some difficult and painful truths about myself of late, have been reminded how much love for its clear, powerful, and deeply right sense of just what it means to ask for, and receive, forgiveness:

We confess to hurting someone we love and she says, "Forget it. It’s nothing. It doesn’t matter." But she knows and we know that it is not nothing and it does matter and we will not forget it. Forgive and forget, they say, but that is surely wrong. What is forgotten need not, indeed cannot, be forgiven. Love does not say to the beloved that it does not matter, for the beloved matters. Spare me the sentimental love that tells me what I do and what I am does not matter.

Forgiveness costs. Forgiveness costs dearly. There are theories of atonement saying that Christ paid the price. His death appeased God’s wrath and satisfied God’s justice. That way of putting it appeals to biblical witness and venerable tradition, and no doubt contains great truth. Yet for many in the past and at present that way of speaking poses great problems. The subtlety of the theory is overwhelmed by the cartoon picture of an angry Father who demands the death of His Son, maybe even kills His Son, in order to appease His own wrath. In its vulgar form-which means the form most common-it is a matter of settling scores, a drama vengeful and vindictive, more worthy of The Godfather than of the Father of whom it is said, "God is love."

And yet forgiveness costs. Forgiveness is not forgetfulness; not counting their trespasses is not a kindly accountant winking at what is wrong; it is not a benign cooking of the books. In the world, in our own lives, something has gone dreadfully wrong, and it must be set right. Recall when you were a little child and somebody-maybe you-did something very bad. Maybe a lie was told, or some money was stolen, or the cookie jar lies shattered on the kitchen floor. The bad thing has been found out, and now something must happen, something must be done about it. The fear of punishment is terrible, but not as terrible as the thought that nothing will happen, that bad things don’t matter. If bad things don’t matter, then good things don’t matter, and then nothing matters, and the meaning of everything lies shattered like the cookie jar on the kitchen floor.

Trust that child’s intuition. "Unless you become as little children," Jesus said, "you cannot enter the kingdom of God." Unless we are stripped of our habits of forgetting, of our skillful making of excuses, of our jaded acceptance of a world in which bad things happen and it doesn’t matter.... I may think it modesty when I draw back from declaring myself chief of sinners, but it is more likely a failure of imagination. For what sinner should I speak if not for myself? Of all the billions of people who have lived and of all the thousands whom I have known, whom should I say is the chief of sinners? Surely I am authorized, surely I am competent, to speak only for myself? When in the presence of God the subject of sin is raised, how can I help but say that chiefly it is I? Not to confess that I am chiefly the one is not to confess at all. It is the evasion of Adam who said, "It was the woman whom you gave me." It is the evasion of Eve who said, "The serpent beguiled me." It is not to confess at all, and by our making of excuses is our complicity compounded.

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do." But now, like the prodigal son, we have come to our senses. Our lives are measured not by the lives of others, not by our own ideals, not by what we think might reasonably be expected of us, although by each of those measures we acknowledge failings enough. Our lives are measured by whom we are created and called to be, and the measuring is done by the One who creates and calls. Finally, the judgment that matters is not ours. The judgment that matters is the judgment of God who alone judges justly. In the cross we see the rendering of the verdict on the gravity of our sin.

We have come to our senses. None of our sins are small or of little account. To belittle our sins is to belittle ourselves, to belittle who it is that God creates and calls us to be. To belittle our sins is to belittle their forgiveness, to belittle the love of the father who welcomes us home....

Were you there when they crucified my Lord? Yes, we were there when we crucified our Lord. Recognizing the line that runs through every human heart, no longer do we try to draw the line between "them" and "us." Who can look long and honestly at the victims and the perpetrators of history’s horrors and say that this has nothing to do with me? To take the most obvious instance, where would we have taken our stand that Friday afternoon? With Mary and the Beloved Disciple or with the mocking crowds? Knowing myself and fearing God, knowing a thousand big and little things that I have done and failed to do, I cannot deny that I was there. In ways I do not fully understand, I know that I, too, did the deed, wielded the whip, drove the nails, thrust the spear.

About chief of sinners I don’t know, but what I know about sinners I know chiefly about me. We did not mean to do the deed, of course. What we have done wrong-they seemed, or mostly seemed, small things at the time. The word of encouragement withheld, the touch of kindness not given, the visit not made, the trust betrayed, the cutting remark so clever and so cruel, the illicit sexual desire so generously entertained, the angry answer, the surge of resentment at being slighted, the time we thought a lie would do no harm. It is such a long and tedious list of little things. Surely not too much should be made of it, we thought to ourselves. But now it has come to this. It has come to the cross. All the trespasses of all the people of all time have gravitated here, to the killing grounds of Calvary.

If you're not a believer in the Christian faith, then all the foregoing is, of course, of at most merely formal or abstract interest, if not an example of the kind of religiosity you may find pernicious. But if you are any kind of Christian, then my judgment may make sense: a judgment which declares that the man who can write lines like that is so much more than the sum of everything I think he theoretically, philosophically, morally got wrong. The man who can write lines like that is, very simply, a treasure. And so Neuhaus was, for all he wrote worth disagreeing with or rejecting, for all he said that will not stand the test of time.


St. John Chrysostom indeed. Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.

Sphere: Related Content

South Carolina's own Tower of Bible

MC Esher's Tower of Babel

With the potential investment group for the Hard Rock Cafe pulling out at the 11th hour, sending the Myrtle Beach landmark into Chapter 7 bankrupcy, and announcing that they were instead investing in a PTL-HeritageUSA style park in Tennessee, South Carolina transplant JoAnn DeKind felt jilted and is trying to build a similarly themed park here to keep the evangelical tourist dollars pouring into South Carolina Coffers.

And while it's doubtful that you'll be able to see an exhibit of the Holy Family escaping to Egypt on the backs of dinosaurs while visiting "Big Top Resort," because that's what the Socastee Resort is to be named, you can "stay in rooms themed after the biblical King Solomon’s Temple or go to a juice bar named the Garden of Eden." Perhaps though, as our friend Mean Streak recently suggested you can lounge in the Lazy River Jordan, and if you're a newlywed stay in the Bathsheba Suite. It could create a cottage industry too for those folks who might like to indulge in things like alcohol and tobacco, as many South Carolinians and Evangelicals are. And just like the anonymity afforded when shopping in a liquor store, no one has to be any the wiser if you go to the S & G dance club or Cana Bar.

Sphere: Related Content

An Ephiphany message that we need to hear

Found this message from a British Priest to his parishoners and the world in honour of the celebration of the Epiphany and I thought it worth while to co-opt. As an aside in most of the Anglophone world Epiphany, was *moved* to this past Sunday (don't get me started on our Episcopal conference "moving" HDO from their proper day to the closest Sunday)

The Epiphany of the Lord


In England we celebrate this feast today.
A quick thought: compare the pro-Christ Magi who follow the star, with the anti-Christ Herod who uses scripture to discover the whereabouts of the infant.
The Magi come to worship, the anti-Christ Herod comes to destroy.
Do we build up faith through our devotion or come to destroy it by giving scandal?
Are we pro-Christ, or anti-Christ?

An interesting position, and though this priest and I would differ on perspective and intepretation on what one means to build up or destroy our faith, both in ourselves and in the lives of others. Anybody care to add their own perspective or interpretation?

Sphere: Related Content

Well Duh!

Drudge has a report up about an Atheist Soldier who alleges a pattern of Christian bias in the military. The complainant doesn't cite the criticism in recent years that the Air Force Academy as become a bee hive Colorado Springs style of Evangelicalism, but does cite:

The revised lawsuit criticizes the Army's 2008 manual on suicide prevention, quoting it as promoting "religiosity" as a necessary part of prevention and describing "connectivity to the divine" as "fundamental."

The lawsuit cites comments from a chaplain and a second soldier in Christian
missionary publications about attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the two soldiers' desire to distribute Bibles.

The lawsuit also notes that in 2007, the Air Force sponsored "Team Faith,"
which performs motocross stunt shows to "lead extreme sports athletes to Christ."

We knew about the second citation about attempts to coerce conversion through position as occupier over the occupied. And the other two don't surprise us. But to defend the military, at least they're not using religiously specific programming to help stem the tide of divorces. I suppose the overarching question is can we really be surprised by any of this?

Previously we found analysis that most people enticed to join the service were conservative and religiously oriented, a majority of whom are from the rural areas of the country, specifically the South and who have very little if any opportunity for advancement within their own communities.

Sphere: Related Content

Simmer down now

Yesterday I read an article published by Reuters which was picked up by the Huffington Post on the Pope's Christmas remarks to the Roman Curia.


Immediately I e-mailed my friend Gashwin saying that I seriously doubt what the Pope had to say could be appropriately boiled down to the byline they were shilling, and the snipits they were including without any context.


And sure enough I was right.


But what's the point of pushing a story, titled Pope likens"saving"gays to saving the Rain Forest. The only point is to push a narrative, as opposed to the facts (See The Historian's Craft). The consequence of which is to rile people up, get reactions which then cause counter reactions - is it productive? Hardly, but it pushes a preferred narrative, and it sells.


Like Dominos falling, the blogosphere was alight with reactions based soley off the reporting of Reuters, who as I stated had a sexy title and some soundbites. And while I can appreciate the righteous anger of folks like my friend Bilgrimage, who speak from an honest place and have prophetic things to say about the struggle for Gay Rights, I suppose my generation can't fully comprehend and appreciate the old culture warrior approach of our parents.


It doesn't mean we don't agree with them it's just not our style. I tend to think that my generation, while it can be reactionary, is a little more circumspect especially in which battles we choose to fight.


Reuters and others honed in on the word Gender: "He turned his attention to those people who call themselves in Italian “gender” or “transgender” — a broad term that includes anyone who doesn’t identify entirely with their assigned sex and can include homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals and others."

What the Reuters writer is guilty of is creating a narrative where one simply does. not. exist.



So what did Benedict say? From Whispers in the Loggia,


Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and should not confine itself to passing on the message of salvation alone. It has a responsibility for the created order and ought to make this responsibility prevail, even in public. And in so doing, it ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term “gender”, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition. The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind. This forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation.



Wow that's a mouthful, but it's also called context, and yeah I emphasized what I picked out from context clues what the actual theses of this passage are.

"It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God"

The destruction of the same work of God here is speaking to the fact that from the foundation of the world he knew us and formed us individually, uniquely and yet in his image. To compromise the temple of our body in such a way as to fundamentally change or destroy the image of God is the problem.

"Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator"

We were given charge as stewards of creation and one another, as such we've embraced a culture that assumes absolute control over not only creation, but ourselves in totality unconsciously (or consciously) individually and corporately cuts us off from God on whom we depend, it is in this way that we hear but do not listen to the Word of God dwelling within us. This is speaking more to the notion of transgenderism as something recognized, not by the fully formed adult mind of the person who experiences it, but by folks in charge of minor persons who make decisions on behalf of those persons which could be taking advantage of them. It also speaks to postmodern concepts of gender theory which has as it object gender as a completly mutable expression completely independent of physicality and not limited to true transgendered persons. It reduces the complimentarity of the sexes and the natural roles (though not necessarily "traditional" roles for my feminist friends) to whimsy and conscious choice.

"This [marriage] forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God"

The nature of sacramental and ontological marriage is one of equality, stewardardship, companionship and complimentarity between the sexes. It is the church's job to protect and uphold the institution between man and woman help them reclaim the ontological understanding of marriage as a reflection of the communion of the Godhead and to protect individuals from potential marital relationships that aren't oriented towards fulfilling those four qualities and embolden them to work towards it. As such as much as the LGBT community may find this offensive and exclusionary it probably serves more as a teaching moment for the heterosexual community against things like failing to exhibit or work towards those qualities in marriage and all those activities and personal qualities that lead to marital dissolution.

All three of the previous are best expressed in the "main idea" of the talk that the Church is to,

"defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation"

Again as much as the gay community thinks that the church is exclusively rejecting them at this time of year, she's sending out a message to the broader human family that we are not products on the shelf, we are not as humans a commodity to be exchanged to be torn down and built up in an image that is pleasing to the dominant capitalist, consumerist culture but are to be true to ourselves and our God and live relationally in that manner.

Sphere: Related Content

Christmas Wishes...

...from the President of Iran? Yes, Mahmoud is delivering the "Alternative" Christmas Message on Britain's Channel 4. What's surprising is the message is not at all what one would expect from such an ethnocentristic and ravenous lunatic. Remove the Muslim context and one could almost expect to hear such a message from the Pope, or even Jaba the Hagee.

[Aside: I'm sure some of my more 'librul' friends feel comfortable drawing similarities between B.XVI and M.A]

The full text from Ruth Gledhill:

In the Name of God the Compassionate the Merciful.Upon the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, Son of Mary, the Word of God, the Messenger of mercy, I would like to congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain.

The Almighty created the universe for human brings and created human beings for Himself. He created every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection. He called on man to aim to live a good life in this world and to work to achieve his everlasting life. On this difficult and challenging journey of man from dust to the divine, He did not leave humanity to its own devices. He chose from those He created the most excellent as His Prophets to guide humanity.

All prophets called for the worship of God, for love and brotherhood, for the establishment of justice and for love in human society. Jesus, the Son of Mary is the standard-bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.

All the problems that have bedevilled humanity throughout the ages came about because of humanity followed an evil path and disregarded the message of the Prophets.

Now as human society faces a myriad of problems and succession of complex crises, the root causes can be found in humanity's rejection of that message, in particular the indifference of some governments and powers towards the teachings of the divine Prophets, especially those of Jesus Christ.

The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the Prophets have been forgotten, the Almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from God.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime. The solution to today's problems can be found in a return to the call of the divine Prophets. The solution to these crises can be found in following the prophets -- they were sent by the Almighty, for the happiness of humanity.

Today, little by little, the general will of nations is calling for fundamental change. This is now taking place. Demands for change, demands for transformation, demands for a return to human values are fast becoming the foremost demands of nations of the world. The response to this demand must be real and true. The prerequisite to this change is a change in goals, intentions and directions. If tyrannical goals are repackaged in an attractive and deceptive package and imposed on nations again, the people, awakened, will stand up against them.

Fortunately, today as crises and despair multiply, a wave of hope is gathering momentum. Hope for a brighter future, hope for the establishment of justice, hope for real peace, hope for finding virtuous and pious rulers who love the people and want to serve them – and this is what the Almighty has promised.

We believe, Jesus Christ will return, together with one of the children of revered
messenger of Islam and would lead the world to a rightful point; to a world of love, brotherhood and justice. The responsibility of all followers of Christ and followers of Abrahamic faiths is to move towards that and to prepare the way for the fulfilment of this divine promise and the arrival of that joyful, shining and wonderful age. I hope that the collective will of nations will unite in the not too distant future and with the grace of the Almighty Lord, that shining age will come to rule the earth.

Once again, I congratulate one and all on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ and I pray for the New Year to be a year of happiness, prosperity peace and
brotherhood for humanity. I wish you every success.'

Part of me wants to quote James 2:19, but even that's to harsh. I'm not adverse, however, to acknowledging the subtleties of the situation and quote Mr. Stephen Smith the head of Britain's Holocaust Centre, “Many of his political and historical views are very dangerous and do not uphold the views in his message. I think this benign message is deception. People need to be alert to the fact that this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Whether this is really an act of deception is only known to Mahmoud, but his past actions and statements belie the point that as syrupy and sweet as the rhetoric may be there is vinegar behind the gilded flourishes of brotherhood and commonality.

He speaks of righting injustices, of being charitable, of fighting tyranny and discrimination, practically sings the Magnificat of Mary, though he is no Marian supplicant or imitator. To quote the same Jesus that Mahmoud extols:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye (Matthew 7:3-5)

Sphere: Related Content

QOTD: The Historian's Craft

... it sometimes seems to the general reader that "dispassionate historian" is an oxymoron.

- John Derbyshire, When Worlds Collide

Derbyshire in the preface to two excellent book reviews is commenting on the fact that in our day writing about Islam automatically elicits the question what's the angle.

In the case of Islam as Derbyshire points out you have Islamophobes and alarmists on one hand like - Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Ibn Warraq who he says are "keen to tell us about the fundamental, irreducible wickedness of Islam and its founder," and then on the other hand you have everyone else, albeit in not so neat a categorization.

It doesn't automatically mean that the rest are Islamophiles - certainly there are some of those, but also included would be apologists (David Lewis who he is reviewing in this piece) and that oxymoron he spoke of - those who's approach to History is of the more traditional variety which is simply to understand (through your own cultural schema) and explain the ebb and flow of history (Hugh Kennedy).

This though can't simply be explained as a product of our own national history, and the cultural rupture that occurred nearly nine years ago, that's only part of it.

It can't simply be written off as the intellectual dalliances of a few elites, as he notes "Historians with a bill of goods to sell are of course nothing new. Gibbon's pro-classical, anti-Christian bias; Macaulay's Whiggism; Carlyle's heroes; the Marxists' modes of production; Spengler's declinism; [and] Churchill's Anglo-Saxon triumphalism" Having bias doesn't automatically mean revisionism, it simply is extolling some attribute or group over another.

Even more so it's also a product of critical theory, post modernism if you will -- and to be trite, everyone's doing it - we're all Post Modernists now!

[cue creepy tragic music: DUH DUH DUUHHH]

And by everyone, in regards to history - replace Islam with any other ethnocultural group or value. The same question will be asked, what's the angle?

Critical Theory used to be the plaything of the liberal elites in academia - but with the increasing democratization of knowledge, the tools of critical thinking have broken free of their socio-economic, ethnocultural restraints. As Tim Cavenaugh so wryly put it in Reason Magazine, "the mainstreaming of pomo thinking has been largely a stealth project, something Americans do without committing overt acts of academia. We thought we were trying to clear away the cobwebs of shoddy analysis and elite hypocrisy, but all along we were bringing the tools of critical thinking to the masses."

For Historians, much like the rest of society which has been pomo'd, what Derbyshire here laments is that truth get's spun to fit the desired narrative. In the case of Spencer - it's to demonize Islam, for Lewis (the subject of Derbyshire's review) it's a beef with the dominant white western culture. To underscore the point,

The new Carolingian order [of the later 8th century]...was religiously intolerant, intellectually impoverished, socially calcified, and economically primitive. Measured by these same vectors of religion, culture, class, and prosperity, 'Abd al-Rahman's Muslim Iberia was at least four centuries more advanced than Western Christendom in 800 CE. An ironic intelligence from another planet might have observed that if Carolingian Europeans believed that Charles the Hammer's victory at Poitiers made their world possible, then it was a fair question to ask whether or not defeat might have been preferable.

To this Derbyshire responds -

What can one say about this sort of thing? Is there any truth in it? Well, yes, there is some. It is often the case, in history's great churnings, that one nation strides ahead of another, only to fall back into decadence or barbarism a century or few later. And as Michael Hart notes in his recent book Understanding Human History: "Although at times the Moslem world was more advanced culturally than the Byzantines, it was never much more advanced." Notice Lewis's comparison, though: Western Christendom, Carolingean Europeans. His is a much narrower scope than a thorough comparison of Islam and Christendom would require.

Counterfactual speculations of the kind that Lewis is trading in are in any case airy and insubstantial because we lack the knowledge required to evaluate them.

The most telling thing about this type of history is the second and third sentence of the response. Is there any truth in it? Well, yes, there is some.

And that's the difference between the likes of Gibbon and the rest - the standards and approach to epistemology. For most modern historians of any ideological, ethnocuoltural or political stripe - narrative and perspective is the dominant factor in determining truth not the otherway around. That's why Derbyshire says "some" in relation to truth in Lewis' work. It's not enough for a fact to speak for itself, to establish a truth as one may not have the ability to know that truth, one has to create categories to interpret the fact to establish the truth.

On the other hand, for Derbyshire - Kennedy does a decent job of presenting a historical understanding of Islam in his work. In Kennedy's work facts are presented and the narrative arises from those facts. And so Derbyshire says, "His aim in The Great Arab Conquests is strictly narrative: to tell a curious nonspecialist what the Arabs did between the death of Mohammed in A.D. 632 and the fall of the Umayyads 118 years later. There are no counterfactual speculations here." In fact he asserts that Kennedy as a writer of History, "is at pains all through his book to emphasize the scarcity and unreliability of sources for the period. This was, after all, the Dark Ages. Kennedy tells us what is known. When he has to choose between conflicting accounts, or fill a void with speculation, he does so with utmost caution and many warnings..."

So what's the angle? I've recently acquired Philip Jenkin's latest book (Merry Christmas to me), The Lost History of Christianity. He recently did a promo (as opposed to pomo) in the Boston Globe that was quite a teaser, enough for me to buy it, also there's an interesting Q&A at BeliefNet.

The beauty and danger with Jenkins' writing is that he challenges assumptions, but generally does it with a healthy balance of fact and narrative. This doesn't mean that Mr. Jenkins is innocent of pomo tendencies in writing - he's just more of a Gibbon, than a Spencer or Lewis. He's not out to completely change and scrap the narrative framework that we operate in as much as expand it to be more inclusive without having to make extreme mental leaps. He is a passionate dispassionate historian.

All of this to say that I can't wait to read it.

[Full disclosure: I had the honour and pleasure of meeting Dr. Jenkins at a series of Lectures he gave at USC on Europe, Islam and Christianity. They can be read here and here.]

Sphere: Related Content

POTD: Pretty In Pink, Advent Reflection III

Priests attend a mass for the university students in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican December 11, 2008.
REUTERS/Giampiero Sposito

It's Guadete Sunday which is why the priests are wearing rose vestments, they get pissed when you say pink. Gaudete Sunday is the third Sunday in Advent called so because the first word to the introit of the Mass is... you guessed it, Gaudete, which means rejoice! It marks the mid point of Advent and according to Catholic Encyclopedia,

In both Office and Mass throughout Advent continual reference is made to our Lord's second coming, and this is emphasized on the third Sunday by the additional signs of gladness permitted on that day. Gaudete Sunday is further marked by a new Invitatory, the Church no longer inviting the faithful to adore merely "The Lord who is to come", but calling upon them to worship and hail with joy "The Lord who is now nigh and close at hand". The Nocturn lessons from the Prophecy of Isaias describe the Lord's coming and the blessings that will result from it, and the antiphons at vespers re-echo the prophetic promises. The joy of expectation is emphasized by the constant Alleluias, which occur in both Office and Mass throughout the entire season.
In the Mass, the Introit "Gaudete in Domino semper" strikes the same note, and gives its name to the day. The Epistle again incites us to rejoicing, and bids us repare to meet the coming Saviour with prayers and supplication and thanksgiving, whilst the Gospel, the words of St. John Baptist, warns us that the Lamb of God is even now in our midst, though we appear to know Him not.

Today is also the day that the Vatican officially lit its Christmas Tree - as the Gospel and nature of Gaudete Sunday prescribes. The Light of the world is coming, we can look on the lights of Christmas and the glimmer and hint at the much brighter light that is Jesus. But as huge as a miracle and intervention as the birth of Christ (which we anticipate and celebrate in this and the Christmas Season), we are reminded that rhetorical flourishes aside, he did not appear, but was born of a woman. He was not born in a royal palace attended by servants and senators - but was born in a stall attended by barnyard animals and a few shepherds. You know how the rest of the reflection goes... so Gaudete in Domino semper - rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice (Philippians 4:4).

Sphere: Related Content

Miracles do exist

I know that I said during advent folks tend to orient their energies and concentrations on miraculous interventions when they tend to overlook exactly what they are looking for, but even now those 'larger-than-life' interventions do still occur in the world today, although not on demand American Style.

Interfax, Russia's News Agency, is reporting that two Icons began weeping myrrh just prior to the death of Patriarch Alexy II.

On the eve of Patriarch Alexy II’s death, two icons started giving myrrh in the village of Ustyanchi, the Sverdlovsk Region. Icons of St. Alexis, the Man of God, and the Nativity of Christ started “weeping” during the mourning prayer. “We saw a tear - the icon was glittering. We looked more attentively and saw small drops - here where the stars are depicted and where the blessing hand of God is extended from heaven, the drops are very small at the stars and there are drops from the blessing hand,” Fr. Alexy Medvedev said.It is noteworthy that these icons are not painted, but just printed copies, the TVC reports. “It is double witness. If myrrh were coming from icons painted by monks, who observe certain canons, fast, we could have said something, but here the icons are modern, they are just laminated lithograph - you see, it’s very simple, nothing special,” Fr. Konstantin said. Icons are still giving myrrh. The two small images will soon find their new place in iconostasis: they will get frameworks and be placed among venerated old icons.

Think statues of Mary or saints weeping. Images of Christ, etc.

I can report though that the Icons I purchased in Washington this past July, while not weeping, are finally being framed at Haven's in downtown Columbia -- a great frame shoppe if you need anything framed.

Sphere: Related Content

Local Columbia Congregation undergoes a spiritual 'Reformation'

Reformation Lutheran Church in the historic Earlwood Neighborhood has taken a great leap of faith and is now the only Lutheran Church in South Carolina that is a reconciling parish.

Reformation Lutheran Church is known as the church that peals out a welcome on the hour in the Earlewood community.

Now the congregation of the bells is seeking to cast a wider net by welcoming gays and lesbians as a Reconciling in Christ congregation.

“So many faithful people are essentially told in so many ways your church doesn’t want you,” said the Rev. Bill Eiwen, Reformation’s pastor. “The love of God is truly something that we have to share, and I don’t think we get to pick and choose.”

The decision to be more intentional in their outreach was made over several months and after lengthy Bible study and conversations among members and their pastor, along with other Lutheran leaders.

Surprisingly, it came without the overt turmoil that has rocked other Protestant congregations grappling with issues of homosexuality and faith.

“It is not something that is terribly divisive for us,” said Henry Fulmer, the church’s organist and choirmaster.

He said the inclination to be more open to what has become known as the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community comes naturally to a congregation that has evolved as the surrounding Earlewood community has undergone transformation.

Once boasting 1,300 members, the red-brick church at the corner of Union Street and River Drive lost parishioners over the decades to expanding suburban congregations.

Earlewood itself suffered economic decline until an influx of urban pioneers, including many gays and lesbians, flowed in to snap up the arts-and-crafts cottages and other architectural gems that had fallen into disrepair.

But the 150-member congregation, part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, discovered that many of their homosexual neighbors were wary of the church.

“We had more and more wonderful friends in the neighborhoods who were gay or lesbian, and we more and more began to understand they were shy of any church because so many of them had had a bad experience,” said church member Julia Prater.The Reconciling in Christ program was started in 1984 by Lutherans Concerned/North America to recognize Lutheran congregations that welcome gays and lesbians. Since then, the nonprofit has expanded its reach to include people of all sexual orientations and identities, including the transgendered.

“You do analyze what is it to be a Christian, and ask, ‘Are you as welcoming as Christ was?’ Phil Soucy, communications director for Lutherans Concerned/North America, said this week.

While acknowledging that the ELCA has worked to welcome gays, Soucy said his organization would like to remove the “caveats” that prevent gay marriage and ordination of practicing homosexual pastors.

Reformation is the only South Carolina congregation associated with the Reconciling in Christ ministry, although Gethsemane Lutheran Church off Two Notch Road has done so in the past.
Reformation’s members are going door-to-door to spread the word that they are “an old church doing new ministry.”

Part of Reformation’s effort is aimed at erasing misconceptions about homosexuality, including whether homosexuals are created or choose that lifestyle, Dot Jeffcoat said.

“If you are created this way, and God says what God created is good ... the story ends,” she said.
Jeffcoat believes the Lutheran church should bless gay unions, noting “we bless animals, we bless bells, we bless paraments. Why can’t we bless people?”

But gay marriage and the ordination of gay pastors and bishops are issues that still divide people of faith. ...

The ECLA continues to wrestle with the issue of gay unions and pastors as the church formulates its social statement on human sexuality, a paper that will serve as a teaching document for Lutherans.

“There are strong opinions on either side,” said Bishop Herman Yoos, leader of the South Carolina Synod of the ELCA.

But he said he has been impressed with Reformation’s discernment on a difficult issue, which emerged out of the church’s call to “Journey Together Faithfully.”

“I think there has been good leadership in this congregation of asking missional questions — ‘Why are we here? Who is missing here?’” Yoos said. “We, as a church, are called to minister to all people, and here is a church that has taken a bold step.”

Yoos said his role is to “walk with people” as they seek faithful answers to questions of human sexuality.

This isn't the first Church in Columbia that has considered becoming a reconciling parish. Last year Washington Street United Methodist Church was considering becoming a reconciling parish but the initiative failed in part because of concerns of divisions that would arise in the congregation -despite the growing numbers of LGBT church-goers in the membership, and in due consideration for pastor who wasn't quite there yet with as many in his congregation. Shando Presbyterian has a group within their congregation that is reaching out to the LGBT community.

Regionally Myers Park Baptist Church was booted out of the Southern Baptist Convention last year for taking the bold step of affirming gays. The local Episcopal Church hasn't seen the division prevelant in the national organization but the Upper Diocese of South Carolina Cathedraled in Columbia is more progressive than the diocese of South Carolina headquartered in Charleston.

Services at Reformation on Sundays are at 10:30 (with Communion) and on every fourth Sunday there is Taize Song and Prayer beginning at 6pm.

Sphere: Related Content