The Squishy Center

One thing that I remember reading in that brouhaha after A&E caved to pressure to reinstate Phil Robertson after he shot his mouth off about homosexuality was an anonymous network source telling a FoxNews.com writer that several ABC and CBS network executives were fuming about how A&E knuckled under. The source then asked what this meant for moral standards going forward.

I'll put aside the irony of how people on my side were laughed at for asking the same questions about morality 10 or 15 years ago. There's too much schadenfreude there to be of interest to any of you.

Still, he does raise a good point (unintentionally, I'm sure). You see, 50 or 60 years ago, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" were basically economic definitions. The words themselves assumed a common worldview. The issue came down to basically what you thought the government's responsibilities were to the economy.

Obviously that's not the case anymore. I find that when you use the word "worldview", peoples' eyes glass over and they lose all understanding of what you're saying. When you instead say "morality", they're able to follow you a lot easier. I don't know why and I choose not to fight it. It simply IS.

People say that the United States of America is made up of two countries. The "union" is strictly theoretical. That's a premise I tend to accept because it's certainly descriptive of the last several Presidential elections, all of which rose and fell on the voting preferences of 6 or 8 "swing states". The residents of reliably blue states and reliably red states drew their lines in the sand long ago. So let's hope the people in Ohio want tax cuts, eh?

Obviously it comes down to religion. That's the root problem. But the manifestation is morality. There are two moralities at play in America. Two very different and mutually exclusive definitions of right and wrong. And ultimately one or the other will become the dominant moral force in American public life.

That sounds extremist to a lot of people who call themselves moderates. The squishy center. To people like them, I sound like a freak. But history bears me out. There is no center. The center today will be either left of center or right of center ten years from now. It's not a fixed point. It's a self-defeating philosophy And ultimately it doesn't exist.

One side or the other will come to be the decisive moral voice. And for now, it seems obvious which way the winds are blowing. But, as I said before, it's rarely liberals who schism.

The Gay Lobby and Painty-Waist Libertarianism

Yeesh, this is just not my week for sticking to my original plan. I wanted to talk about lay ministries today. But apparently, like the Messianic Judaism entry originally scheduled for yesterday, it just wasn't meant to be.

Okay, big doings in Arizona as Governor Brewer may or may not sign a bill into law that will, GASP!, permit businesses to associate with whomever they want to associate! That's antigayhomophobicbigotedchristofascistgodbaggery!

This has led a few people from the right and the left to call for marriage privatization. That is to say "get the government out of marriage".

Now, my views on most political issues are "cut government, cut taxes, privatize it". That applies to just about everything. Just about. But not everything. Marriage is a good example of my "just about everything" clause.

Whether anybody likes it or not, marriage is a spiritual union between one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. But marriage is also a legal union between two people (for now) recognized by the State. It must be this way. Be it for taxation, inheritance, visitation, legal testimony and other things, the government has a role to play. Whether anybody likes it or not

It's well and good to argue that the government has no business being in the marriage business. And in a world where divorce is rare and would be adjudicated exclusively through churches or private arbiters, privatization even makes some amount of sense. But this isn't a perfect world. The Left has done all it can to enshrine divorce as an institution in this country. Property laws being what they are, the government has to rule on these things.

It's not "fair", it's not "right", but it's the way things are.

I really wish the panty-waist libertarian wing of the Republican Party would adopt a consistent line on when the government should or shouldn't take action. They pipe up everytime one of these "same-sex marriage" issues comes along but somehow their commitment to constitutional government stops short of little things like cutting entitlements and balancing the budget.

This is a contentious issue. One side wants marriage to be legally defined the way it has been for millennia in western civilization. The other side wants to redefine the word and entire concept.

One side will win and the other will lose. It's that simple.

And honestly, I don't really even care about it very much. When it comes to the "gay agenda", I don't care about the "gay" part. The "agenda" part... that's something else.

What people do with each other behind closed doors doesn't affect me. Therefore it doesn't concern me. It's not my job to "rescue" people from these things. What I care about is being free to practice my religion in peace.

Now, The Secular Chorus always sings that our priests, churches and religious organizations will "never" be forced to perform unions they have a religious objection to.

Right now though, people are getting dragged into court and sued into oblivion because they don't want to do business with gay people, usually on religious grounds. So I hope the marriage-redefiners can at least see why I and others are concerned here.

Unity and the 13th Standard

Guess I should probably talk about the video message Pope Francis sent via Tony Palmer to a Pentecostal congregation. But before I do, here it is for you to watch yourself.

Obviously this is a pretty moving video. No question there. And also obviously I have a place in my heart for evangelical Christians because I used to be one. And who doesn't want unity? We need it now more than ever.

It's interesting studying the reactions to this video. All manner of points of view have been expressed. Some Pentecostals have questioned why they should seek unity with statue-worshiping idolaters like the Catholic Church. I've even seen a few Catholics unintentionally confess they didn't know there's such a thing as Charismatic Catholicism. You may not like the fact that they exist. But exist they do. And they've received no rebuke from the Church so it's not my business or yours to criticize them.

There are some challenges here though. It's well and good to cheer for "unity" as an abstract concept but sooner or later we have to work to achieve unity if we're to be taken seriously. How do we define "unity"? If we mean that in the sense of one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, things get sticky.

Putting aside the differences between your average Southern Baptist church and your average Pentecostal church, one key issue that evangelicals at large agree about is the illegitimacy of the papal office. Sure, there are other dogmas peculiar to the Catholic faith that evangelicals object to but the mere existence of the papacy is probably the most obvious.

For the Church to reunite with any evangelical denomination, one side or the other will have to do something drastic when it comes to the papacy. Probably to the entire concept of ordained clergy but, most obviously, the Pope. Either the Pentecostals will have to fully accept the Church's authority and teachings (which seems unlikely) or else the Church will have to abandon those things (which seems unlikelier).

One side or the other will have to effectively knuckle under to the other.

Now, I've studied a lot of history and, most recently, the writings of the Church Fathers. Their theology, beliefs and religious practices sound suspiciously like a fairly primitive, less nuanced and less developed version of the Catholic Church. Several key issues and doctrines may not have been fully hammered out just then but they were essentially Catholic. This is one of the main reasons I made the decision to join the Catholic Church last year.

Unity between the Church and evangelicals in the form of visible reunification means one side or the other has to put aside some of their most deeply held convictions. And I know where of I speak because it wasn't long ago I had to do that very thing myself. That's why I firmly believe that visible, institutional reunification is, humanly speaking, unlikely. Pride, if nothing else, will keep other evangelicals from even considering accepting Catholic doctrines.

And might I say that Tony Palmer is part of the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches? The CEEC is part of the Convergence Movement, which seeks to unify charismatic worship with liturgical sources like the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The purpose is to ultimately move Catholics, evangelicals and charismatics more closely together.

On the surface that seems admirable enough, right? Like I said, who doesn't want unity? But it's like the old software programmer joke. You have two programmers sitting together when one of them complains about there being 12 different "standards" for a certain programming method. "TWELVE standards?! That's just INSANE! There should only be one! Let's you and me develop a perfect, unified standard that EVERYBODY can use to replace those twelve."

And thus is born the 13th "standard".

In CEEC's case, they're not connected to the worldwide Anglican Communion but they are connected to schism groups such as the Anglican Movement in America and the Anglican Church in North America. And those two groups aren't connected to the Anglican Communion either but they are in communion with certain member provinces of the Anglican Communion?

Confused yet?

Also, did I mention that the CEEC ordains women to the diaconate and the priesthood? And so do AMiA and ACNA? So IF unity is the intended outcome, what happens to those "female clergy"? The Church has taught infallibly that ordination is for men. Will the CEEC give way on that? Or is this another thing the Church would have to compromise on?

Now, I give the Holy Father kudos in the extreme for reaching out. His video message in essence is saying that the Church is keeping the door open for them. I'm not impugning his motives. But I do question the evangelicals who scream so loudly for unity. They're all "13th standards" waiting to happen... and they have a "13th standard" leading the charge in the form of Tony Palmer.

I actually find this more confusing and slightly offensive as a Catholic an RCIA Inquirer than I did as an evangelical. Maybe it's related to my political orientation but back in the old days, I didn't see the problem with having more varieties of Christianity in the religious marketplace. What's the harm? We're all worshiping the same God, depending upon the same Christ and praying in the same Spirit. Our unity is spiritual more than it is visible or physical.

But these days it bothers me inasmuch as I have been willing to put my ego aside and admit that I was wrong about the Catholic Church my entire life. So I wonder what makes my former-fellows think special exception should be made for them? What, the ancient Church should change just to accommodate THEM? Their mentality just strikes me as very American.

Anyway. And just think, the original topic I had in mind for today was Messianic Judaism. And one Messianic Jew in particular. Guess I'll save that for another time.

More to follow.

My Catholic Year- RCIA Update

Man, have I been active with updates lately or what?

So. RCIA. Basically this past Thursday was about God the Father. This is a fairly heavy subject but the video series we've been watching ("Catholicism" by Fr. John Barron) has been top quality. He made a point that I'd not considered before. He said that many atheists tend to reject the idea of God (as an abstract concept) because they can't buy into the notion of some kind of sky-daddy who grants wishes and stuff.

Fr. Barron said he can't either. So he and atheists are in the same boat on that one. The remainder of the video was devoted to spelling out, as best as is possible by sinful man, who and what God is. And isn't.

Now, far be it from me to second-guess Fr. Barron about this. I suspect this his comment was meant to achieve the intellectual interest it garnered from me to facilitate the rest of his points. And in that purpose, he was most assuredly successful. But I've long thought the problem with many atheists is less their understanding of God and more their want to NOT believe in Him.

By and large I find that to be true. Any time an atheists sounds off on God, they tend to use snarky bumper sticker nonsense like "when religion ruled the world, we called it the Dark Ages". The fallacies and historical ignorance there defy comprehension. Nevertheless, it's the perfect atheist soundbyte. Because soundbytes are what they deal in; rational arguments are checked at the door.

In any case though, I found the video enlightening and the discussion thereafter with the Catechists and my fellow Inquirers enjoyable.

The video set up for this coming Thursday relates to Our Lady. Now, I've had a mixed view of her over the years, even when I was a fire-breathing evangelical. I believed that we Protestants had maybe thrown the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to be different from the Catholics. Fact is I'd thought she deserved more regard that we Southern Baptists had afforded her.

And yes, watching Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ only reinforced that attitude.

At the same time though, I couldn't quite wrap my arms around several Church dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. So I was sort of stuck in no man's land where nobody quite viewed her the way I did.

Now, a great big part of this was due to some amount of ignorance about what the Church truly teaches about Our Lady. These days, my belief is that Church teachings are pretty much unassailable... when they're taught accurately. And that generally comes from clergy or else extremely well-informed laypeople.

But that was a realization that I didn't have access to as a good little Southern Baptist. Because of that, I toed the party line that the Catholic Church had a few good ideas but they'd wandered WAY off the reservation with several key doctrines, including (but not limited to) teachings concerning baptism, the Eucharist and, most importantly, the Blessed Virgin.

Yes, I've changed my attitude about a LOT of this; I'm simply saying what my belief was ages ago.

And of considerable interest there were her supposed sinlessness and eternal virginity. Come on, we all sin. All of us. Even the best of us. And as to her private life, she was a married woman. You mean to tell me her husband didn't expect her to be his wife (if you take my meaning)?

The first challenge to that stuff came when I was studying Anglicanism and happened across an Anglo-Catholic blog. I've heard even Catholic priests use this line since first reading this so I don't know whom to credit here.

But the blogger compared Our Lady to Mt. Moriah when Moses first encountered God. Moses was instructed to remove his sandals because this is holy ground. For the Lord is present and where He is is holy.

Think it through. If Mt. Moriah was holy ground because of the Lord's presence, what does that imply about Our Lady as the Mother of Our Lord? Both her sinlessness and her marriage?

Mind. Blown.

It's not perfect. Like it or not, I was raised Protevangelical and I can't magically undo that so some aspects of this are still challenging. So my hope is that the video will clear up my lingering doubts. Or if it doesn't, my Catechist will. Either way, I'll submit to the Church on this

What I'm content with though is that my hunch that Our Lady deserved a higher regarded than I'd given her as an evangelical has been justified.

What Ecumenism?

I'm sure this is old news for some of you but I stumbled across this little news item from last year. Usually something this old is so dead that it's not even worth bringing up. But I see a few angles here I can't not comment upon.

Following the personal ordinariate instituted for Anglicans, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller was quoted as saying essentially that the Church might consider a similar arrangement for Lutherans but only if they ask for one.

Seems simple enough, right? The archbishop is basically saying the Church won't go where she's not invited in this case. Well, leave it to the Lutherans to complicate a situation that isn't even all that complicated to begin with.

Martin Junge, general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, shot his mouth off by saying that the Church waiting for Lutherans to make the first move before thinking much about reconciliation "would have deep ecumenical repercussions".

Lutheran Bishop Friedrich Weber, effectively the Lutheran church in Germany's envoy to Rome, said that an ordinariate would be "an unecumenical incitement to switch sides."

Sometimes in life you read something so stupid that it hurts. Lewis Black, the standup comedian, reached a similar conclusion when he heard someone utter the phrase "if it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." And because he's a standup comedian, he made several profane jokes about it. Which is why you're reading a summary of it here rather than watching an embedded YouTube video.

If I didn't know where he was coming from before, I do now.

See, in the weird, goofy, backwards world in which I apparently live, I'd always assumed the point of (to be polite) inter-denominational dialogue such as that which goes on between the Catholic Church and the Lutherans was hopefully to eventually reach some sort of understanding with one another. Unification is, I presume, the end goal. Otherwise why are we here? Surely it can't be to "learn from each other". I assume the reason representatives from the Church have occasion to speak to that misguided bunch of schismatics and heretics the Lutherans is for reasons other than a pleasant chat about the weather.

On that basis, how could the Church setting up an ordinariate possibly endanger ecumenical relations? Would that not be the entire point of ecumenical relations?

And of course, to even speak of an ordinariate is premature at this juncture since Archbishop Müller has said that the Holy Father won't even consider establishing one until and unless the Lutherans specifically ask for them to do so. So why are the Lutherans getting their panties in a twist?

It's a fair, if slightly rhetorical, question. Because I suspect I think I have an answer.

I just did a quick Google search. I found 175 different versions of Lutheranism. 175. And 36 of those are church bodies located in North America.

Perhaps it's a fitting bit of historical tragic irony (or maybe poetic justice) but Lutheranism is an incredibly fractured institution. They're so fragmented that maybe they should be having ecumenical dialogue with each other before they worry about the Catholic Church.

In any case, Lutheranism, like much of the Protestant mainline, has been waning for years. What that implies for their worldwide figures is beyond me and I'm too lazy to check but the current number is somewhere around 45 million. Worldwide.

To put that in perspective, there are 75 million Catholics in the United States alone. That works out to 25% of the country's population.

To put that into further perspective, 5% of Americans are Lutheran. 4% of Americans self-identify as gay.

So what's the REAL issue here? I've got a theory. It's just speculation. Don't give it any more credence than that.

2017 marks the 500th anniversary of Luther's Revolt the beginning of Protestantism. That means a lot of attention will be paid to the Lutheran church. Lots of free advertising. So how much do you think Lutheran bishops want to risk even the smallest possibility of headlines that they might reunite with the Mother Church right now? Why, that might divert attention from the 500th anniversary of Luther's Folly! No, no, we can't have that! The optics here are just BAD!

In all likelihood, the Lutherans know their time is up. My guess is they're desperately clinging to the small amount of relevance they have left in the hope that the magic 500 number will miraculously beef up their membership rolls.

Methinks there's a very real fear in Geneva that press coverage of the 500th anniversary will center mostly on what a monumental failure Protestantism in general and Lutheranism in particular both are. The reality staring the Lutheran church in the face every day is that the 500th anniversary is likely to be their swan song rather than a joyful, triumphant celebration or, in their wildest dreams, a return to the prestige and influence they used to enjoy.

The simple fact of the matter is that Geneva needs Rome more than Rome needs Geneva. Everybody involved knows that too but the Church is too polite to say so and the Lutherans are too proud.

Now, yes, I feel bad about the unwanted divorce the church suffered nigh 500 years ago. We should all be saddened by the schism and heresy Luther led his people into. So my snark and sanctimony are tempered by the sobering reality that Luther has endangered countless souls.

But then that's somewhat colored by the fact that my soul was indirectly one such and that angers me because the Protestants lied to me my entire life about the Church, her true teachings and her place in history.

The fact that their membership rosters have been utterly decimated by further divisions saddens me not one bit. If anything, I rather enjoy seeing the Protestant mainline be humbled.

Considering the Magisterium

In a previous entry I questioned how Evangelicals or, really, any non-Catholic tradition can know the Bible is God's Word considering that much of the Bible's authenticity comes from sources Evangelicals don't adhere to and has been administered and protected by institutions the Anglicans and the Orthodox don't recognize as primal authorities.

But specifically with respect to the Evangelicals, I pointed out that their Sola Scriptura dogma (and yes, it IS a dogma, even if they choose not to use that word) is a sort of logical dead end in many respects.

I stand by it too. But I'll be continuing that theme somewhat today, this time by singling out the Anglican church.

Now, before I even get into this deeper, I must say that I have a tremendous regard for the Anglican church. Had it not been for them, I would never have given liturgical worship a chance. It would've been a bridge too far for me to switch from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Catholic Church. As much as I've always respected the Catholic Church, I would never have made that drastic a change in my faith. I needed the Anglican church to serve as a middle step for me. So, again, don't think of this as me picking on the Anglicans. I'm only trying to make a point here.

The Magisterium for me was initially a big problem for me when I began considering joining the Catholic Church. Partly because of the aforementioned Sola Scriptura doctrine, I was reluctant to place my trust too much in men. For my part, my error was in not correctly interpolating promises made by Christ.

In Matthew 16, Our Lord gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom. That which is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven. That which is loosed on Earth will be loosed in Heaven. The gates of hell and the power of death will not prevail against the Church.

Historically the Catholic Church has interpreted that as Our Lord ordaining Simon as Pope Peter and enacting the Magisterium. Superficially, it's a lot to ask to believe that ANY institution can be supernaturally protected from egregious spiritual and moral error. Why, that's crazy talk and anybody who claims Divine Guidance and Infallibility belongs in a looney bin, right?

But let's check the records, shall we? Let's compare what other traditions have done. It's a little tricky to do because none of them have a 2,000 year history comparable to the Catholic Church. But in the end I suspect that will only strengthen my argument.

Every ten years, the Anglican Communion assembles for the Lambeth Conference. The purpose of the conference is to express "the mind of the communion". There's no authority or obligation for the various territories to abide by opinions expressed at the Conference. Which is another problem all by itself but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, Lambeth is useful for at least understanding what the Anglican Communion is thinking at any given time.

In 1948 the issue of ordaining women was addressed and "authoritatively" put to bed. It was considered that the ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi "would be against the tradition and order of the Anglican Communion". The bishops in attendance said that this eliminates any need for further examination of women's ordination.

If you know ANYTHING about the Anglican Communion, odds are you're already laughing your head off. But please bear with me.

Lambeth 1968 recommended that women be ordained the diaconate and then recognized deaconesses appointed to those offices BEFORE official permission was ever even granted.

Think about that for a minute. The Anglican Communion cried foul when Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained to their priesthood back in 1948. They then opined that the matter had been settled permanently. No need for further consideration. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

But ONLY twenty years later they somewhat reversed that decision that needed no further consideration by not only officially permitting women to be ordained to the diaconate but also decided not to pursue any disciplinary course of action takes by bishops who ordained women as deacons before that was technically permissible. As best I can tell, there wasn't even any sort of official reprimand!

As if that wasn't enough, the bishops also decided that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (you know, the Church of England entire reason for being) was no longer necessary.

It doesn't get much better from here though. The worst is yet to come.

Lambeth 1978 recognized the autonomy of member churches to make their own decision as to ordaining women to the priesthood. So, again, the issue which was supposedly put to bed once and for all back in 1948 is now completely optional for members of the Communion. Thirty years.

You've come a long way, baby!

At Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10 declared that homosexual acts (but not homosexuality itself) are not compatible with the clear teachings of Scripture. This was enough to inspire 182 BISHOPS to apologize to gay and lesbian parishioners the world over for the Communion's "insensitivity". Of course, that statement came in an amendment that was only narrowly passed.

And keep in mind here that all we're talking about for the moment is calling a sin a sin. That's it! This conclusion had never been controversial anywhere in the history of orthodox Christianity. Lambeth 1998 broke new ground for the Communion.

So let's recap everything up to this point. In 1948, the "ordination" of Florence Li Tim-Oi was considered absolutely unacceptable and completely outside the Anglican tradition. The matter was "definitively" settled, never to be revisited.

In 1968, female "deacons" were permitted as a matter of course. Female "priests" were permitted just ten years later in 1978. And just twenty years after that, the Communion can't even coherently condemn homosexuality as a sin without bishops issuing apologies for some of their number communicating simple Scriptural truth.

Lambeth 2008 was controversial before it even started. Rowan Williams, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to permit Resolution 1.10 to be revisited. Things were already tense enough what with four primates boycotting Lambeth because of the Episcopal Church USA's blessing of same-sex unions and more controversial figures like Gene Robinson, ordained bishop of New Hampshire in spite of the fact that he's openly gay.

The best the bishops could manage at Lambeth 2008 was to issue a report that expressed every point of view of the attendees concerning homosexuality and then call for "a season of gracious restraint" and humbly, politely, respectfully request that the Episcopal Church USA not ordain any more gay clergy or preside over any further same-sex union blessings. The report was in no way binding, it had no teeth and no penalties were called for in the event that the Episcopal Church USA continued on their present course.

Think about that! In sixty years, the Anglican Communion had gone from a fairly orthodox brand of traditional Christianity to being theologically and politically unrecognizable by its founders!

The Anglican Communion is the worst but they're by far not the only offenders. In 1968, key figures from the Southern Baptist Convention were quoted by mainstream news magazines not only permitting several forms of contraception but also permitting abortion under many circumstances. These days you'd have to go a long way to find a more faithful fellow traveler of the Catholic Church in the pro-life movement than the SBC. But things weren't always that way.

That's not the only stain on the SBC's name either. They once argued that the Bible permits and endorses the practice of slavery.

To be fair, the SBC no longer holds either position. And in fact, they have repented and apologized for their previous errors.

But all of these things lead to my ultimate point. There are cases when the Catholic Church has had some bad policies in the past. That much is definitely true. But you're hard-pressed to cite one occasion when the Catholic Church has signed her name and staked her credibility on moral and religious issues and then either been shown to be in error or otherwise reversed herself. There are no cases where the Church has had to "revisit" an official pronouncement made in the past and do a mea culpa. It's just never happened.

What are the odds of that? I cited several instances of the Anglican Communion reversing itself on several incredibly important moral issues in less than a century and two instances of the Southern Baptist Convention doing the same in less than fifty years! So how has the Church survived for 2,000 years without so much as one egregious error in faith or morals? And as I've said, there are no similar reversals made by the Catholic Church you can draw comparisons to in spite of the fact that the Church has an incredibly longer history.

The Magisterium and the concept of the Catholic Church being supernaturally guided and protected from error on faith and morals all of a sudden doesn't seem like such a crazy idea, now does it?

Liberalism Doesn't Schism

In recent years, there's been something of a flurry of Anglican parishes (entire dioceses in some cases) joining the Catholic Church. Considering goings on with the worldwide Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal Church USA in particular, this shouldn't be much of a surprise. The Anglican "Communion" is strictly ceremonial. A "communion" in name only. Certainly the liberals and the conservatives mostly can't stand to be in the same room together.

But increasingly there's no home for conservatives in the Episcopal Church USA and, God knows, other territories in the Communion, thus the impetus to part ways and rejoin Rome. Speaking as a former Anglican, this offends me not.

What is interesting though is how the liberals within the Catholic Church and the Episcopal church have reacted. Put simply, neither is very happy about this turn of events.

At the core of it all is, in my opinion, the natively liberal desire to not just be the majority but to DOMINATE. Whether we speak of religious liberalism, political liberalism or liberalism of anything else, the ethos is inherently repressive and totalitarian.

Thus traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians rejoining Rome is offensive to liberal Catholics, as it even further diminishes their influence within the Church. They view incoming Anglicans as interlopers and intruders. Think about that for a minute. How freaking historic is it that so many Anglican laity, parishes and even entire dioceses are coming home? This should be cause for prayer and praise! Instead, the Catholic liberals throw fits that wayward brothers and sisters in Christ have now rejoined His Church.

As to liberal Anglicans (which is fast becoming redundant but I digress), this is cause for consternation on many levels. For one thing, there are fewer conservatives to do the sticky icky work of feeding the poor, caring for the homeless and manning soup kitchens. And this is not to speak of parish donations taking a massive hit what with conservatives taking their wallets with them when they leave. Liberals of any stripe don't believe in charity.

For decades, the liberals were able to piggyback off the conservatives in caring for those less fortunate. Now with the conservatives rapidly hitting the doors, there are fewer people willing to do the heavy-lifting in the trenches to help the needy. And this makes the liberals look bad.

But the other, sicker issue is that on paper Anglican liberals now have what on paper they say they want. There are either formal or informal blessings to be given for same-sex unions, abortion, "consecration" of gay clergy and other things. The liberals rule the roost in the Episcopal Church USA. With each passing year there are fewer and fewer people to oppose them. At this rate, can you imagine what the next Lambeth Conference is going to be like?

Shouldn't that be cause for joy? They're getting their way. They're winning by percentages even if they're losing total numbers. But they're still winning! Why are they upset about being given even greater hegemony?

As I said before, the only logical answer is that they preferred having the conservatives under their thumbs. Liberal Catholics hate that conservative Anglicans are coming home to Rome because it (further) diminishes their influence. Liberal Anglicans hate that conservative Anglicans are going home to Rome because it places them beyond their grasp.

This is foreign to conservatism, be it religious, political or anything else. This is why religious conservatives tend to be more schismatic than their liberal counterparts. Liberals are perfectly content to wait for their opportunity to take over (the South seceding from the United States prior to the Civil War is the lone major exception I can think of). Conservatives would sooner split the blanket than live at someone else's leave.

Example: It seems every six months or so, some news story comes along that some group of liberal nuns out there are ticked off that the Catholic Church doesn't ordain female clergy/bless gay unions/permit abortion/whatever the moment's heresy is, the Church has said that will NEVER change and these liberal nuns are just fed up, why, they've had it up to HERE with all these old fuddy-duddy Holy Fathers who think they can boss other people around and they should realize it's [INSERT THE CURRENT YEAR HERE] so it's time to get with the times, blah blah blah.

Now, you and I look at that and question why those liberal nuns remain with the Church in spite of the fact that the rules won't ever change. And the answers to that are quite simple.

First, they may attract enough attention to swell their ranks. But lacking that, at least they get to be on TV. Never underestimate a liberal's vanity.

Second, they WILL NEVER leave the Church. The instant they leave the Church, they're a non-story. Nobody cares what a bunch of disaffected liberal former nuns think. The networks know that and the liberal nuns know that. But if they're still active within the church? Hey, their rallies or demonstrations or protests or whatever they call them this week are NEWS.

Liberalism doesn't schism because l liberalism is tyranny.

How Do Evangelicals Know the Bible Is God's Word?

I'm actually stumped about this. How DO evangelicals know the Bible is God's Word?

You see, any religious denomination is basically a series of dominos. Knocking one down generally entails several others getting knocked down.

For the purposes of making a point, I exempt Mormons from and include Catholics in this discussion. Mormonism in effect is a completely different religion while Catholicism is, whether anybody likes it or not, one choice among many when it comes to Christianity.

As a former evangelical, getting my head around certain Catholic doctrines and dogmas was a mixed bag. In some cases it was absurdly easy. In other cases, it was a tremendous pain in the neck.

But of all evangelical dogmas (and yes, that's what they are; the evangelicals can use whichever terms they like but they're no less binding than any Catholic dogma), the first and oddly enough easiest domino to fall was Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura. The belief that the Bible is a complete revelation to man and is the first, last and only religious authority anybody needs for 99% of their spiritual needs and, beyond that, is the ONLY inerrant authority men have access to.

And like any good evangelical, I not only believed that but, God forgive me, taught it for years. Years. But even at my zenith as a fire-breathing evangelical, even I had to acknowledge that the Sola Scriptura doctrine was severely flawed.

For one thing, the Bible makes no such claim of being the only authority upon which man needs to rely for inspired spiritual guidance. This is a bigger problem than one may think. A doctrine that explosive would surely be codified in writing somewhere prior to the 1500's, right? But it isn't. It's nowhere to be found in the historical record.

That's a major logical flaw right there.

But another problem is that while the Bible is most assuredly God's inspired word, it is not a book of doctrines. In particular the New Testament is a series of stories, recollections, admonishments and other things. But a collection of doctrines, beliefs, dogmas and other things? Entirely absent.

This raises the question of, IF God intended the Bible to man's sole spiritual authority, why such omissions were permitted. That presented a serious interpretive challenge, to be sure, and it's one I carefully avoided whenever possible.

When I began studying Anglicanism, I recognized the doctrine of Sola Scripture as irreparably flawed. Perhaps I'll deal with the Anglican belief of Scripture, Tradition, Reason some other time but, in the short term, depending upon tradition to speak where the Bible was silent appealed to the armchair historian in me. The historicity of a certain practice doesn't guarantee that practice's validity, of course. It does, however, strongly suggest the practice is trustworthy.

So, whether it was appropriate or not, that was the death knell of my belief in Sola Scriptura. It really was that easy. Tradition is a reliable guide to religious custom and belief. Fine and dandy, thank you Church of England!

However, the Roman Church is the fullness of Christianity. And because of that, light's been shed on other limitations of and flaws with Sola Scriptura that had not occurred to me previously.

Sola Scriptura necessarily eschews tradition as a guide for religious custom. The Bible is ALL you need so the Bible is ALL you'll get. However, this presents a two-fold problem.

First, divorced from tradition and history, Sola Scriptura leaves interpretation of the Bible to the individual of the current moment. First, that approach subjects the Bible to the individual interpretation of millions of laypeople. And given that those individuals are products of their time, it effectively enslaves Christianity to the present culture.

Understand, the Bible must be read. And then it must be interpreted. On that much, Catholics and other churches agree. Where we differ is who should be doing the interpreting.

I cite as an example Matthew 16, where St. Peter confesses Our Lord as Messiah and Our Lord in turn renames him Peter and says upon this rock He will build His church. The Catholic interpretation of that passage is famous. It's what permits the papacy. Even poorly catechized Catholics will tell you that much.

On the evangelical side, things are nowhere near as cut and dried. Ask twenty different evangelicals what that passage means, you'll get twenty different answers. Or ten evangelicals. Or two. There is no unity there. None whatsoever.

Given the number of times the Bible calls for unity, does it really follow that the Lord would not institute an authority to interpret and teach His Word?

The second problem is logical in nature. Evangelicals believe in Sola Scriptura. They believe the Bible is the only inerrant authority. Fine. Track that out then.

How do you know what you're holding in your hands is God's Word?

Now, I can answer that rather easily. The Church first compiled the Bible and has been the custodian thereof for millennia. Holy men of God considered which books are canon and which ones are not, and pruned accordingly. Hence apocryphal books such as the "Gospel" of Thomas, the "Gospel" of Peter and others were left out while 1 Peter, 2 Peter, the four canonical Gospels and all the other books were accepted.

Why, one might suspect Providence was the guide in this.

But evangelicals can't make that argument. Not logically anyway. They eschew tradition. The Bible is their only authority. And as I've said, the Bible not only makes no claim to being the SOLE authority. In fact, I think it's the slim minority of passages that even claim to be God's Word. Recognizing those writings as God's Word requires interpretation and no small measure of Providence. Tradition says that the Church recognized these books as canon and that's that.

This is a Catholic's home turf. But, by definition, it's entirely foreign to evangelicals. They can't depend upon tradition as their guide. That's their rule; not mine.

So how do the evangelicals know the Bible is God's Word?

Catching Up

Complete dearth of updates lately. Partly it's been lack of time on my part. But partly it's been a lack of anything really interesting to talk about.

However, I've had a few musings that I thought I'd share. First, when I began attending a nearby Anglican (not Episcopalian) parish, I developed a taste for high church Anglo-Catholicism. However, I eventually came to realize that my parish had many Anglo-Catholic tendencies, it wasn't quite as high church as I'd have liked. Bells and smells. That stuff. In fact, I noticed a real lack of high church Anglo-Catholicism anywhere in my local area. I was given to understand that this was common almost to the point of being ubiquitous. So why was it such a pain in the neck for me to find it?

I eventually realized that the reason for this is due at least in part to Pope Benedict XVI establishing an ordinariate several years ago that Anglican parishes all over the place took advantage of. Being as they were Anglo-Catholic to begin with and thus likely very high church, it stands to reason that their joining with the Church would necessarily result in far fewer high church Anglo-Catholic parishes dotting the landscape.

Completely new subject now. Something else is I saw a YouTube video by John Cleese that purports to show the spread of various religions over something like 5 or 6,000 years in a minute and a half. Shall we say The Other Side is very accomplished at presenting "facts" (if that's what we're calling them now) without commentary and making you fill in the blanks on your own. If you show any manner of outrage, they can accurately (if not completely truthfully) say they themselves asserted nothing. They're just messengers. Don't shoot the messenger!

Unfortunately the commenters were perfectly willing to speak out where the video itself was silent. And sure enough there were comparisons to the spread of cancer and, my personal favorite, accusations of "cultural genocide".

That accusation has always fascinated me. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, supposedly developed the Prime Directive in reaction to Christian missionaries going overseas to share the gospel with natives of unchurched (dare I say "heathen") places. It seems that the sentiment is that such people ought to be left alone to develop their own unique culture rather than having big mean western imperialist religion crammed down their throats.

Now, personally I disagree with that. Partly it's because I'm a Christian myself and partly it's because missionaries spread more than just religion. They also spread medicine, sanitation techniques, immunizations against disease and other objectively good things as well. But The Other Side still considers this cultural genocide. They view the Church moving to some new area and effectively trampling that peoples' native culture with Christianity to be a no-no. Fair enough.

So please explain to me then why the Church is just as frequently (if not more frequently) picked on for absorbing influences from other cultures. Valentine's Day, Easter, Christmas, all have at best a mixed biblical origin. You can tie Easter in with the Bible more easily than you could with ancient pagan fertility pageants and whatnot. But at the same time, you can't deny the influence paganism had on the placement of Easter on the liturgical calendar and elements of the observance.

Which is it? Is the Church mean and evil because it spreads to areas and effectively wipes out the native culture? Or is it mean and evil because it has been influenced by other cultures and religions? You can't have it both ways. Either the Church should be completely original and effectively smother all other religious expression when it preaches the gospel in a new area (which we're told is bad) or it should be willing to be shaped by the newcomers as much as it shapes them (which we're also told is bad).

Pick one and stick with it.

Separately from all that, we watched a History Channel documentary about the Shroud of Turin in my RCIA class a few days ago. The Church's history is actually one of the main reasons why I'm joining to begin with. The Catholic Church can trace her history directly back to Christ Himself in an unbroken line of apostolic succession. That's a 2,000 year history. ANY institution that's survived that long will invariably have some amazing and fascinating history to it. And that's right in my wheelhouse.

As to the Shroud, members of the Church believed for centuries that it was the burial cloth of Christ. Back before we had modern computers and carbon-dating and other things to support their argument, several faithful Catholics took the authenticity of the Shroud for granted. The more time goes on, the more the evidence supports the conclusion that the Shroud is indeed Christ's burial cloth.

Usually this is where somebody says (or thinks) that it's not a matter of salvation. You can be a faithful Catholic and believe the Shroud is the genuine article. You can also be a faithful Catholic and believe it's a hoax or a misunderstanding. That's completely not my point. I'm not talking about one's faithfulness or salvation. I'm talking about the authenticity of the cloth. It irritates the hell out of me when people say patronizing BS like that because it has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Anyway, to bring it back to topic, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Shroud is absolutely for real. Now, I don't have a dog in the race either way apart from thinking it would be awesome if the Shroud IS real. What interests me though is the vehemence with which the Shroud's authenticity is attacked. Putting aside how spurious the contrary evidence is (which, for the purposes of this discussion, includes questionable carbon dating samples), the nay-sayers seem to have WAY too personal an interest in destroying the credibility not only of the Shroud but of anybody who believes the Shroud could be authentic.

We're so often told that science is a fair, objective, unbiased series of methods to uncover the truth. Or at least facts. And that may even be true. But scientists are generally smarmy, puffed up, arrogant, self-absorbed, immature brats who don't know half as much as they think they do. Their determination to undermine the Shroud's authenticity in spite of the evidence rather than because of it is just a reminder to us who the objective free-thinkers and who the petulant little children are.

Next, and finally, RCIA's been going great. I've really been enjoying it. The standout lessons so far have been the tour of the parish building (because of all the layers of symbolism and meaning) and the lesson about the Shroud. The Catechists are friendly, knowledgeable and have answered pretty much every question we've fired their way. But the rest of the time we've watched a video series. And honestly, while those videos are informative, I could watch videos in the comfort of my own home rather than driving to the parish building once a week to watch them there. It's a hoop so I'm jumping through it but I can't help but feel that our time would be better spent watching this stuff on our own, writing down questions we may have and then asking those questions in a Q&A format with the Catechists and the other Inquirers. But nobody cares what I think.

Anyway. Apart from little quibbles like that, I've found my spiritual home. Couldn't be happier.