Annales Hiezechiheli

Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: Changed By the Servant Christ (Day 1)

2012-01-18T15:17:00.009-06:00

January 18 customarily begins an "octave," or eight-day period, of prayer for Christian Unity. Originally conceived by an Anglican minister in the early twentieth century, the week-plus-a-day is designed to bring together all those who have been baptized into the Holy Trinity so that they may pray with one another for reunification under the headship of Jesus Christ.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops direct American Catholics to the Vatican's "Resources for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity," and it is there that I found the biblical passages upon which everyone who participates in the week -- Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals -- will be reflecting each day.
——◆——
Day 1
Changed By the Servant Christ

Zechariah 9:9-10

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: Behold, your King will come to you, the Just One and the Savior: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

"And I will destroy the chariot out of Ephraim, and the horse out of Jerusalem, and the bow for war shall be broken: and he shall speak peace to the Gentiles, and his power shall be from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the end of the earth."

Romans 12:3-8

"For I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoves to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, and according as God has divided to every one the measure of faith.

"For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same work: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teaches, in doctrine; He that exhorts, in exhorting; he that gives, with simplicity; he that rules, with carefulness; he that shows mercy, with cheerfulness."

Mark 10:42-45

O Lord, hear my prayer.
—And let my cry come unto you.

A reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. Mark.
—Glory to you, O Lord.

"But Jesus, calling them, said to them: You know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles, lord it over them: and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever will be greater, shall be your minister. And whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all. For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many."

The Gospel of the Lord.
—Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.

Catholicism = bad@ss?

2011-12-05T22:00:00.002-06:00

Quoth the blog Bad Catholic:

The badassery does not stop there, in fact it never stops. While most of the world is busy whining about “bad things happening to good people,” as if being a contributing member of society gives you a free “don’t get shot card”, the Church says bring it on. The Church says that suffering is redemptive, that the avoidance of suffering is the avoidance of life fully lived. To put this in understandable terms, this Church tells us to pick fights. Not to sit around and wait for bad things to happen, but to actively fight evil, and to suffer the consequence; suffering. Catholicism in this sense is something of a Navy SEAL, yelling at you to suck it up, it makes you stronger.

Read the rest.

Christian meditation: LLAMA Prayer

2011-11-14T21:50:00.006-06:00

So this isn't actually meditating about a llama, but rather an acronym I came up with to help me remember a beautiful prayer-method that God has used to change my life.

As a new Catholic Christian, I was fairly unfamiliar with not only liturgical prayer, but also extemporaneous prayer that went beyond a thank you list and a to-do list. When my pastor asked me to begin trying to pray "with mental prayer," I thought he'd gone mental. Turns out, he was asking me to delve deeper into the spiritual life than the kiddie pool in which I'd been playing.

I struggled at first, since I didn't really know how to do mental prayer. My pastor kept saying, "The Lord will lead you into this kind of prayer: you have to listen." I didn't want to hear that, though. It sounded too much like what I'd heard growing up about quiet times: which always felt like "Bible Roulette" to me.

Finally, after enough complaining and whining from me, my pastor recommended the Lectio Divina technique with an emphasis on the patristic Four Senses of Scripture.

It is hard to overstate what a profound impact this form of prayer has had on my spiritual growth and development. Because of this great grace which our Lord has poured out upon me through this prayer, I am something of an advocate for it. Earlier today, a friend of mine and I were discussing prayer, and I decided to explain to him how it works.

This isn't the first time that I've sat down to explain LLAMA prayer, and it seems that each time I do, I spend a couple of hours writing out my explanation. After sending this explanation tonight, I thought, "Why not post this to Annales and then you can use it again in the future!"

Follows is the fruit of that brainstorm. May the almighty Father, together with his only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, send forth his Holy Spirit upon all of us, and, through his grace, give us the words to pray, even as he hears our prayers. Amen.

* * *

— (1a) L - Lord

The first L reminds us to "enter into the presence of the Lord." We aren't trying to say that we aren't always in God's presence; we know that we are. Rather, it is an opportunity for us to quiet our mind, our heart, and our lips. One common way of "entering into the Lord's presence" is to:—

—— (a) make the sign of the Cross (forehead, stomach, left shoulder, right shoulder),
—— (b) while saying "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." This orients your prayer to the Holy Trinity and reminds you that you were baptized into Christ's death and resurrection.
—— (c) Then, sit quietly for 25 or 30 seconds, breathing deep regular breaths
—— (d) Think about the fact that God sees you, that he hears you, and that he loves you
—— (e) If you have trouble silencing your mind, try praying this brief prayer: "My Lord and my God: I firmly believe that you are here; I believe that you see me and that you hear me; I adore you with profound reverence; I beg pardon for my sins and the grace to make this time of prayer fruitful. May the angels and saints intercede for me and pray with me to you."

— (1b) Scripture

Next, though this doesn't have a letter in the acronym, it's essential to the prayer: pick a portion of Scripture -- usually from one of the four Gospels -- that ranges between 10-15 verses. Though you're welcome to choose the Scripture as you see fit, it's helpful to get a Bible citation from a table of daily Scripture readings, like the Lectionary. Prayerfully, silently, and carefully read the passage you have chosen or been given.

— (2) L - Literal

Now you're going to ask Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, to show you the literal sense of the Scripture passage you just read. You can initially say something like, "Jesus, show me what you were doing in this passage." Then, slowly re-read the passage, talking to Jesus about what he was literally doing 2,000 years ago. If you like, use your imagination to place yourself as an "extra" in the Biblical scene. Imagine what it must have been like to stand there, watching and listening to Jesus. Remember, as you do this, to keep talking to the Lord -- don't let it become a third-person experience.

For example, in the story of the Samaritan Woman at the Well, you might say something like this to the Lord: "Lord, I can imagine what it was like as you walked up to the well. You knew who this woman was, you knew her struggles, yet you loved her. You were tired, hot, sweaty. The people all around the village were cooking, and the mingled smell of cooking fire smoke and delicious lunches mixed with the smell of the animal manure in the street by the well. You saw how the woman kept looking away from you, and yet she was also drawn to you. And then you went up to her and began to speak..."

The point of this part of the prayer is to talk to Jesus about the who, what, when, where, and how: the smells, sights, sounds. You want to firmly place in your mind the real, historical event that took place 2,000 years ago in Palestine with a man who appeared to be a 30-something Jewish rabbi with a carpenter's build. Pray through the Scripture, recognizing what Jesus was doing, and praising him, sharing the moment with him, spending time with him. If he is supposed to be your best Friend, what an opportunity you have to spend these moments with him.

— (3) A - Allegorical

After you've read through the passage and prayed to Jesus about what happened, turn to the allegorical sense of the passage. In other words, ask Jesus what this Scripture reveals to you about him. Don't try to contrive an answer to the question; instead, pray, "Lord, show me what this Scripture says about you. Reveal yourself to me, O Lord, through this passage."

Returning to the Woman at the Well, you might pray, "Lord, you know all things. You knew about the woman's past. You are holy and righteous. You cannot abide sin, and you will call it what it is. But you are also full of mercy. You desire us. You want to spend time with us and show us your love. You are humble and full of kindness, when you allowed yourself to be mistook by this woman who was a sinner. You are one who chases after the lost. You are the criterion of our salvation. The Lord of love. Of life. You are the source of all our hope and dreams..."

This prayer, where you ask Jesus to show himself to you through the way he acts, speaks, and moves in the lives of those around him in the passage, tends to turn into a pouring forth of praise and love and adoration. It is often easy to get lost in a continuous train of prayer and pouring out of your heart's desire for Jesus in this part of the prayer. This is okay! Again, the idea is to spend time with our Lord, and offer him the praise and thanksgiving and worship he is due in justice.

— (4) M - Moral

After you've spoken to the Lord about what took place 2,000 years ago and then reflected and praised him for the ways which he reveals himself to you in the passage in a new way, you can turn to how the Scripture calls you out of yourself and demands a response. Ask Jesus, "Lord, what does this Scripture say about how you want me to live my life? What are you asking me to do, or to not do, in this Scripture, Jesus?"

Again, the story of the Woman at the Well provides ample substance for reflection: "Jesus, the woman was completely changed by her encounter with you. She didn't continue on with her normal day. She didn't go back to her old way of living. She was transformed. She turned away from her shame and her fear, and she went to proclaim you to the people of her village! Jesus, help me to be transformed by encounter with you. Give me grace so that my heart will burn within me the way hers did when she spoke to you. Help me to yearn for the living water which only you can give. Save me from being satisfied by anything but the life-giving water of your grace and mercy! You are the fountain of life for me, Jesus: save me from relying upon self and turning away from you and others..."

This pray can often develop into an examination of conscience in many ways, where you ask the Lord to show you where you can better serve him and more deeply conform your life to the perfection to which he says all Christians are called because "the Father in heaven is holy."

— (5) A - Anagogical

The second A in llama refers to the anagogical sense of Scripture, otherwise called the teleological sense. In this sense of Scripture, we ask Jesus to show us what the passage is saying and revealing to us about our ultimate purpose in life and afterlife; about the Four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. We look at the Scripture in light of Jesus' coming again: either in our lifetime at our own death, or in our lifetime at his second coming. Pray to Jesus: "Lord, show me what this Scripture reveals about your coming again in glory, about my death and judgment, about heaven and hell. Help me to put my whole trust and hope in you, and by your grace poured out to me in this Scripture, save me on that dreadful day of wrath."

In our final reflection on the Woman at the Well, we can turn to the four last things: "Lord, you knew this woman's sins. In the same way, you know my sins and those of the whole world. You died for us, atoning for our sins so that we could accept your grace and mercy and live an abundant new life. Jesus, I am fearful of that day when I come before your Great White Throne. Like the Woman at the Well, you will know my sins, too. You will tell me everything I have ever done. Please, O Lord, by your grace and mercy, grant that your Blood, poured forth from your most Sacred Heart, will cleanse me and stand between me and your judgment. Say to me, Jesus, that I am your good and faithful servant. See in me one who has received the living water and has gone to sin no more. Help me, Lord, for without you, I am nothing..."

This portion of the prayer can turn toward an appeal for God's salvation; but, it can also turn toward a victorious celebration of Christ's great triumph over sin, death, and evil.

— (6) Conclusion

After you have meditated on all four senses of Scripture, you may find that you have spent 10, 15, or even 30 minutes in prayer. As you sense your time with Jesus drawing to a close, think again about the reflections the Lord led you through during your meditation on the four senses of Scripture. Ask the Lord to give you some resolution, affection, or inspiration. Often, this can be drawn from the Moral Sense of Scripture. Pick one thing, or at most two things, that you believe you can and should do in order to follow Jesus more closely. Firmly resolve to do those things in faith, through grace, and for the love of God.

Prayer, after all, should not simply be something that is said and then forgotten. It should lead to conversion, repentance, and deeper communion with Christ. The more united we are to Christ, the more closely he will unite us to the Holy Trinity, and the more our prayer life will continue to grow, drawing us out of ourselves and into greater love of God and neighbor (for the love of God).

After you've formed your resolution, end with a prayer like this: "My Lord and my God, I humbly thank you for the good resolutions, affections, and inspirations you have given me in this time of prayer. I pray for your grace to put them into affect in my life. May the angels and saints intercede for me and pray to you that I cooperate with this great grace you have given me. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."

Prayers upon the loss of a beloved animal

2011-10-02T13:26:00.006-05:00

One of my favorite things about the Catholic Church is that in her 2,000 years, the Holy Spirit has inspired her to draft special, little liturgies for specific, very human needs. The Christian, with St. Paul, desires to "pray without ceasing," and so turns to prayer in moments of need or difficulty. These "little liturgies" are called "blessings" or "benedictionibus" in Latin (literally "good words" or "good sayings").

The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has a book called, succinctly enough, the Book of Blessings. In this book are found numerous different "blessings" which can be given by a priest -- or, with some changes and without sacramental character -- by a lay Christian. The older version of this book, used in the Extraordinary Form, is the famous Rituale Romanum, or "Roman Ritual." This book, too, contains a wide variety of blessings for people, places, and objects.

In neither of these books, however, is there a suitable blessing or Catholic response of prayer for a family dealing with the loss of a beloved pet.

Now, I'm aware that within Catholic theology -- particularly as outlined by St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise on the soul -- only human souls are subsistent, meaning that they survive the death of their bodies. But this doesn't mean that humans -- in both body and soul -- don't experience grief and loss when a animal who has well-served his function in the order of creation experiences the sting of sin and dies.

This absence of prayer was brought home to me when my own dog Titan died last night, and my parents called to tell me about it this morning. Today is the XXVII Sunday of Ordinary Time, set aside by the Church for the celebration of the Resurrection and the Triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death.

But even that glorious victory seemed somewhat diminished by the knowledge that I could not turn to the Lord to pray for my dead dog because he had no intellective soul. I did want to thank God for the joy that me and my family felt from the beauty and the usefulness that God brought into our lives through our dog, and I wanted to worship God for the glory with which my dog Titan -- in his lack of concupiscence -- rendered to God simply by his being alive.

I also wanted to comfort my mother and father who together buried my dog this morning. Their emotional distress and agony of soul is real; and to my mind, it is a fruit of the Fall that we must suffer in this way as we are reminded yet again that sin and death -- though ultimately defeated at Golgotha -- still stalk the world, attempting to mar the beauty of God's created order.

It is in this spirit that I wrote the following: both as a tool for the future and as an act of thanksgiving and grieving in the present. The prayer is based upon the Blessings of Animals found in both the Book of Blessings and the Rituale Romanum, and I believe the prayer to be in conformity with the teaching of the Church (and if it is not, I shall humbly, docilely, and quickly amend it to make it so).

* * *

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
— Amen.

Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
— Who made heaven and earth.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
— As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.

Lord, have mercy.
— Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Ant. In the day of the Root of Jesse, † they shall not hurt in all my holy mountain, * for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord.

Isaiah 11:6-10
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: † and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: * the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them.

The calf and the bear shall feed: † their young ones shall rest together: * and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: * and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk.

They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, * for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.

In that day the root of Jesse, who stands for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, * and his sepulchre shall be glorious.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, * and to the Holy Spirit:

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: * world without end. Amen.

Ant. In the day of the Root of Jesse, † they shall not hurt in all my holy mountain, * for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord.

Let us pray.
Almighty God, when your only-begotten Son rode triumphantly into Jerusalem, with his face set toward Calvary to endure the Cross for our salvation, you provided for him a lowly animal to assist him in bearing that burden: give your grace unto your servants who suffer the loss of (one of) their useful and beloved animal(s); help them to find solace in you; and grant, O God of compassion, that they may find their strength in your eternal providence; through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit: one God, forever and ever. Amen.

May the Lord bless + us, protect us from all evil, and bring us to everlasting life. Amen.

On my profession of faith

2011-09-23T14:02:00.004-05:00

One of the things that I remember relishing in the past was developing a "profession of faith." I love thinking creatively, and I love drafting new documents (nerd alert). I love things of the Christian faith. Combine all three of those? Yes please.

As of August 1, 2011, however, I'm no longer a man on my own. Now, I stand for more than myself. Admittedly, I would be most accurately compared to some sort of pre-larval stage with respect to public ministry in the Church; nonetheless, I am now no longer my own; my days of drafting a creative, cool-sounding profession of faith are over.

The first profession of faith that I made in a public way in the midst of the People of God came from the heart of the Church herself:

I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.¹

I don't think I realized at the time what an incredible leap of faith this profession requires. Did I really believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God at Easter 2009? I don't know if I truly did. But I know I wanted to -- I wasn't ready to intellectually appreciate and approve everything that Mother Church had said for 2,000 years,² but I definitely believed that Jesus was present in the Blessed Sacrament; the Church had the Blessed Sacrament; and I wanted Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

In the past three years, thanks be to God, my faith and my trust in the Church have increased. I like to think that I've grown as a man, as well. And as I continue to deepen and mature in my faith -- and now that I have set out into the deep with my admission and formation at Catholic Hogwarts -- it's time for me to be more specific about who I am and what I believe.

Initially, I wanted to reproduce Pope Paul VI's Credo of the People of God, which is fast becoming my favorite document from his magisterium.

It is a beautiful, moving statement of the Catholic Christian Faith. I heartily recommend that you take 8 minutes and read it. Heck: take notes (especially if you're not Catholic -- it will challenge some of your assumptions). The Credo would be a bit cumbersome to post in full here, however; and it would be even more cumbersome to post it in the side-bar (where I intend to post my profession of faith once I've made it).

Happily, the Church is already a step ahead of me, and she has provided a succinct Profession of Faith that covers just about everything that one needs to cover. In the July 15, 1998 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, one can find the profession of faith currently required of the Church's public ministers, published by the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.³

Therefore:--

I, D. E. Barker, with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

So, there it is. It requires quite a bit of docility, doesn't it? It requires some pretty dang charitable submission, as well. But this is who I am. This is who I want to be. This is who, with God's grace, I will become.

1. Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, no. 490.

2. And heck, who can say that they can even know everything that Mother Church has said for 2,000 years? Certainly not your humble interlocutor.

3. The man in charge of the CDF at the time? None other than His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger -- a.k.a., His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Here's the source I'm using for the text of the Profession (I have gone ahead and amended the 1974 version of the Niceno-Costantinopolitan Creed with the updated, 2011 version by ICEL (taken from the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)).

On the Nativity of Our Lady

2011-09-18T18:10:00.002-05:00

This year, I got to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady at a little place I like to call Catholic Hogwarts. The liturgy was beautiful, and it inspired me to write the following poem:

Hark! O'er the distant hill of death
Thru night's dark gloom
And icy mist
Breaks forth some sign
That could be Light
Or mayhaps sounds of 'Ternal Bliss?
Doubt I that heav'n would here come down
But now canst not mistake the Sound
'Tis echoing o'er the vale of tears:
That Word which spoke and willed all years

Seems herald of a coming Dawn
This blue-tinged warmth
Whose song now heard
"Fiat!" to me
Her verse of faith
Makes clear Sun's Mother our hearts stirr'd:
Then rise, my soul, take up that Song
Sung by Lady who shines as dawn
And heralds age of Blood-bought grace:
True Eve! Hail Mother of our Race!

Poem is Copyright © 2011 by D.E. Barker. All rights reserved.

On Catholic Christians & Americans

2011-07-21T11:49:00.003-05:00

"America has never really been comfortable with the content of Catholic belief. Catholics have tended to be accepted by the American mainstream in inverse proportion to how seriously they live their faith."

--His Grace, the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop-designate of Philadelphia

Not the way He's leading me

2009-07-25T17:30:00.003-05:00

...add to that our penchant for changing churches, usually because "I just wasn't being fed," as well as our need to test every church and pastor against our personal reading of the Bible—well, you can see why Protestants have managed in 500 years to create out of two traditions (Orthodox and Catholic) some 30,000 denominations. While the Baptists are known for their doctrine of "soul competency," a version of the doctrine is woven into the fabric of broader evangelicalism, though it has morphed into sole competency. Thus, the death of mutual accountability and church discipline in our movement. Thus, the exaltation of worship in which the personal experience of the worshiper so often becomes more important than the object of worship. Thus, the continual proliferation of churches, parachurches, and movements because the group we belong to just doesn't do it the way we think "the Lord is leading me" to do it.

* * *

No, I haven't gone off on a Catholic tangent. That paragraph came from a new article in Christianity Today and was written by Mark Galli. Powerful stuff from an evangelical Protestant, writing in "a magazine of evangelical conviction."

Read the whole thing, within the context of an in-depth piece about gay marriage and evangelicals' response to it.

What do my Protestant friends say in response?

On Scripture and tradition

2009-04-07T15:30:00.002-05:00

Today, I have been arguing religion. (Always a great way to start a blogpost, isn't it). During the discussion, my debatee said:

"At the root of this issue would seem to be dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of the Biblical witness. The Scripture is the best testimony we have available given its source and authority."

This, of course, is a rather eloquent statement of the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

As a former Southern Baptist, I know it well. The problem, for me, comes from a question that was posited to me by a good friend of mine who is a Catholic Christian:

"Where, [diezba], did the Bible come from?"

I responded, "It was assembled by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

"Correct," he replied. "And that's exactly why I believe in the authority of Holy Tradition."

"Tradition!" I exclaimed. I knew better than to listen to someone who seemed to exhibit dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of the Biblical witness. The Bible is the Word of God. Period. End of line.

"Well, I just don't understand how someone like you, in whom I have seen the fruit of God's grace and Spirit, can resort to using 'tradition' as some sort of addition to the Bible," I replied sadly.

"Actually," I noticed him starting to smile, "if anything's an 'addition,' it's the Bible itself."

Immediately, my eyes went wide, my face flushed, and my ire was provoked. Such statements from an allegedly Godly friend?! How could he say such a thing!

Perhaps sensing the coming deluge of righteous indignation, my friend replied, "Whoa, now -- let me explain."

"Fine," was my one-word reply.

"You just told me a moment ago that the Bible was assembled by the church, correct?"

"Correct," I said.

"Do you remember when that was?" he asked.

I looked up, trying to wrack my brain for the date in question. I do hold a bachelor's degree in history, so this sort of thing is something I should remember.

But I didn't.

Slightly embarrassed, I replied, "Not exactly. I guess it was in the First Century A.D., right?"

"No," he said patiently. "Actually, there really was no authoritative list of what was in the Bible. We don't even have an historical list matching the books we currently recognize as the New Testament until Origen of Alexandria produced one in the Third Century -- and even then, there was a dispute about the canonicity of four of the books."

"Really?" I replied.

"Really," he said.

"Was there ever any sort of official endorsement of the canon we use today?" I asked.

"Well, sort of," my friend said. "In A.D. 367 -- that's the Fourth Century -- St. Athanasius (you know, of the Athanasian Creed?) gave a list of books that matches our New Testament, and he even used the Greek word kanonizomena: being canonized."

I looked thoughtful. "So I'll ask the obvious question: what was the Church using for Scriptures until then?"

"That's the point I'm trying to make, [diezba]. Before the Scriptures, the Church used the Old Testament -- and since they all spoke Koine Greek, they used the already-a-couple-hundred-years-old Septuagint translation of the Old Testament -- and they used the word-of-mouth transmission of Jesus' life, sayings, and teaching that we may call 'oral tradition.' Or, using the language of the Church, 'Holy Tradition.'"

* * *

Ultimately, it comes down to basic logic for me. We know, and Protestants agree, that the canon of the New Testament was established by various councils of the Church (i.e., groups of Bishops getting together to discern the will of God, such as the Synod of Hippo, the Councils of Carthage, etc.), and finalized around the middle of the Third Century A.D. But by what did they discern God’s will?

The answer seems obvious (at least it does to me now): there existed some understanding of the Christian Gospel and truth outside of Scripture, and by which the candidates for the Scriptural Canon were judged. How else would the consistency of the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers, written about 100 years apart, yet entirely concordant, be explained? How else would the bishops have been able to decide whether to include non-inspired letters and Gospels which had proliferated across the Roman world in the decades after toleration by the Empire?

Often Protestants argue that it was not tradition, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit that formed that canon of Scripture. But if the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed the Scriptures in the third century, by what were the churches guided in the years immediately after Jesus? They were guided by the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles that had been passed down, orally and through letters and writings, from the very first. Essentially, tradition just means “the way things are done.” Tradition can be seen as “oral Scripture.”

We must be careful to differentiate, as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do, between Tradition and traditions. There is Tradition, which is the Deposit of the Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and by them to their successors, the Bishops. There are also traditions, things that have accreted around the Church, the Bible, and the institution of Christianity over the vast centuries against which Christ has guarded his Church. The one, Tradition, was formative of Scripture; the other, traditions, are not to be upheld unless they conform to Scripture and Tradition.

Getting the Areopagite cold shoulder

2009-03-27T13:41:00.002-05:00

In a conversation this week, I was talking with a friend of mine about how closely American history seems to be mirroring that of ancient Rome.

Britain is our Greece, and we're in the middle of our "Roman Republic" period. While my fellow students of history should be able see the parallels without a side-by-side comparison, my interest, today, is not in the political parallels.

Instead, I have been drawn to consider the aspects of modern American spiritual life that seem to echo the culture of Rome (albeit later on, during the early principiate period).

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees our current relativistic worldview similar to that of the ancient world.

The Archbishop of Denver, His Grace Charles Caput, compared our current situation as Christians in the United States with the Apostle Paul's trip to Athens, recounted in the Book of Acts:

The archbishop also connected this relativistic spirit to St. Paul’s appearance at the Aeropagus, recounted in the Book of Acts. At the Areopagus, a prestigious place of debate for Greek philosophers, "Nearly anything was tolerated, so long as no one claimed to have an exclusive and binding claim on the truth," the archbishop explained.

He then quoted Acts 17’s description of the Areopagite mindset: "All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new."

"It’s worth paying attention to that description. There’s no mention of truth," he commented, noting that when St. Paul preaches the truth "he’s mocked and despised and his preaching is a failure, at least in the short term."

"Paul’s failure at the Areopagus is a good lesson for the times we face now in America," the archbishop said. "When [Christians] start leading their daily lives without a hunger for something higher than their own ambitions or appetites, or with the idea that they can create their own truth and then baptize it with an appeal to personal conscience, they become, in practice, agnostics in their personal lives, and Sophists in their public lives. In fact, people who openly reject God or dismiss Christianity as obsolete are sometimes far more honest and far less discouraging than Catholics who claim to be faithful to the Church but directly reject her guidance by their words and actions."

More of His Grace, here.

It's a good thing the Church isn't a democracy

2009-03-19T14:52:00.002-05:00

Otherwise, people would be trying to impeach God.

In the meantime, they'll settle for the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

A good friend of mine posted a link to this post on his Facebook, and it really got me going.

Without commenting on the blogger's blatant anti-Catholicism, we'll address the points raised in the post one-by-one:

First. The very first statement by the Post author belies the rest of his writing: "I am a Catholic, and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me."

If this man were a Catholic Christian, he would understand that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ ex officio. That's Latin for "out of the office." In other words, by the fact that Benedict was properly elected and installed as the Bishop of Rome, he is the universal Patriarch of the Christian Church.

The Church is not a democracy, and Mr. McElvaine's opinion on the Pope's words and actions are irrelevant: it doesn't matter if you approve or not. The Pope is still the Pope, and dissent won't change that.

Second. Both McElvaine and Clawson take it as fact that the Pope has insulted Muslims and women, "accepted" a Holocaust denier, and commented inappropriately about condoms, AIDS, and Africa (I could write a whole post on the condoms bit -- suffice it to say, you should at least look over nos. 118, 120-21 of John Paul II's Theology of the Body).

It'll take a lot of unpacking, but there's so much trouble in those three clauses that we have to do it.

To be clear, the pope has insulted no one (except secularists and atheists), unless one considers citing Sun'ni Muslim theology to establish Sun'ni Muslim theology at an academic lecture in Germany an insult to Islam.

I honestly can't figure out how the Pope "insulted" women, according to Ms. Clawson.

As for the so-called "acceptance" of a Holocaust denier? That's the easiest one with which to deal. The man in question is a rebel bishop who denied the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Popes since Vatican II. For this reason, he was excommunicated from the Church (basically, the ecclesial death penalty).

Benedict, who has made it clear that the focus of his pontificate is advancing re-evangelization of the West and the reunion of Christendom (particularly Orthodox and Catholic Christians), has a heart for reconciliation with everyone with whom it is possible to be reconciled.

The lifting of the excommunication from against the Holocaust-denying rebel Bishop does not remove censures against him due to the said Bishop's rebellion against papal authority or due to his denial of the Holocaust.

In fact, the Pope has vehemently repudiated what that man said, citing himself as a witness of that great evil. What Benedict's lifting of the excommunication does is restore to the rebel Bishop the opportunity to go to Confession, receive the Eucharist, and -- should he die -- receive Extreme Unction.

It's also curious to me how Ms. Clawson can say that the Pope, of all people, has "hijacked our religion," which I'm assuming means Christianity.

We are, after all, talking about the duly elected and elevated leader of the world's largest flock of Christians (more than 1 billion of them, in fact), and the successor of St. Peter himself. Should the world not yearn to hear the teaching of the leader of the Church?

Mr. McElvaine says that if his writing "be heresy, then make the most of it." This is a rather immature and uncharitable way of approaching the situation, is it not? Instead of approaching his Father-in-God with respect, he openly writes a letter railing against him and directly challenging him to exercise ecclesial discipline.

I would encourage the Pope (or, in this case, the Archbishop of Washington, if the man really is a Catholic Christian) to take him up on that offer.

After all, if his commitment to the teaching of the church is as vapid as it appears, I'm sure Mr. McElvaine won't mind joining one of the thousands of other ecclesial communities operating in and around our nation's capital.

One more note: Ms. Clawson bitingly closes her post with the following: "I’m not a fan of infighting, but I feel the need to say at times 'that man (always a man) doesn’t speak for me, and I don’t believe he speaks for Jesus Christ either.'"

I couldn't have said it better myself, Ms. Clawson: when I was trying to pursue God through the United States' expression of Anglicanism, I kept having to tell people, "That woman (and yes, it's a woman) does not speak for me, and I don't believe she speaks for Jesus Christ, either."

The woman in question? Katherine Jefferts-Schori.

And that, dear readers, is one of the reasons why, come three weeks from now, I'll be submitting to the ministry of the Primate of the Universal Church, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI as a member of the Catholic Church.

Yet someone will argue it's not homo sapiens

2009-02-18T09:14:00.003-06:00

The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed H.B. 1572, which defines, for "purpose of the interpretation of the constitution and laws" of the State, what is meant by "individual" and "person."

And you'd think it'd hard to argue about.

But then you'd be wrong, wouldn't you.

In the midst of adulation, Truth from Pastor Warren

2009-01-20T12:45:00.004-06:00

As the nation gathered on the National Mall and around television and computer screens for its quadrennial self-renewal, it was easy to get caught up in a sense of history and destiny.

After all, whether one agrees or (as I do) disagrees with the policies advocated by President Obama, it is difficult not to see his election as a sign of progress for our nation: that an African American man can be elected to lead us, when the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend would once have counted him as three-fifths of a person.

But despite the pomp and circumstance, there was also a great proclamation of Truth from the Inaugural Rostrum just before the historic moment when Barack Obama became the forty-fourth American President. It was then that the Rev. Rick Warren, D. Min., pastor of Saddleback Church in California, stepped to the microphone and delivered the invocation.

His prayer:

Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory.

History is your story. The Scripture tells us, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.” And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now, today, we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hingepoint of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.

Give to our new President, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you. We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray:

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

Tennessee's very own Saruman

2009-01-16T10:57:00.002-06:00

This past Tuesday, the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee was set to convene in organizational session, and it was to be an historic occasion.

History-making, because for the first time since 1969, a Republican was presumed to be sworn as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Assembled in the historic Capitol in Nashville were countless Republican state officials and dignitaries, including former governors and the only Republican to hold the Speakership in the Twentieth Century, former Judge and former U.S. Congressman Bill Jenkins (R-Rogersville).

When the time came for the election of the Speaker, disaster struck: the Democrats in the chamber voted en masse for a Republican, Rep. Kent Williams ("R"-Elizabethton).

In a chamber split 50-49, the deciding vote would come down to a Republican. In the end, it would come down to Williams himself.

This wasn't the first time that Tennessee Democrats had tried to persuade a Tennessee "Republican" to abandon his party and keep the Democrats in power for just a little bit longer.

Indeed, another East Tennessean, former Senator Mike Williams (I-Maynardville), had been elected as a Republican, only to defect to the Democrats to keep Lieutenant Governor Wilder in office for one more term when the Senate had been divided 17-16 (for his trouble, former Sen. Williams was elected Speaker Pro Tempore and was a pariah among both Republicans and Democrats for the rest of his time in Nashville).

The House Republicans, after defeating enough Democrats in the November 2008 elections to take a tenuous 50-49 advantage in the House, knew that the Democrats would try again.

And so, immediately after it became clear that their party would have an advantage, the Republican caucus met with their leader, Rep. Jason Mumpower (R-Bristol), and the fifty GOPers agreed to stick together this time and avoid a repeat of the Senate debacle.

Besides giving their word to Rep. Mumpower that they would vote for him to be Speaker, all 50 signed a letter stating that they would vote "for a Republican" for both Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore.

But what about Rep. Williams? The Carter County-native signed the document, pledging to vote for a Republican. But he also made statements to Johnson City news radio -- less than a week before the opening session of the House -- that he'd given his commitment to Rep. Mumpower that Rep. Williams would vote for the GOP leader.

That's why so many Republicans were gathered in the historic chamber of the Tennessee House of Representatives -- where the slaves were freed, where Tennessee rejoined the Union, and where Tennessee became the ratifying vote of the Constitutional amendment giving women the franchise -- to see their leader, the man who had led them back into power for the first time in 40 years, become Speaker of the Tennessee House.

And that's also why every breath was held as the Clerk of the House called the roll for the election of the Speaker.

"Surely," Republicans had to be thinking, "this cannot happen again. Surely, no one would so blatantly lust for power to go back on his signature, his public statements, and his word."

But Kent Williams was that blatant.

As he said his own name, voting to abandon his principles and his honesty and the vast majority of his own constituents (who're 83% Republican), Williams voted to complete the quid pro quo: vote for yourself, attain the Speakership, and be our puppet.

As boos and calls of "Traitor!" and "Sellout!" rained down around him, Kent Williams shuffled to the rostrum and feebly attempted to calm the chamber.

But he was only a marionette, moving as directed by "former" Speaker Naifeh (D-Covington) and the other Tennessee Democrats who had managed, once again, to cling, kicking, biting, and scratching, to power, and no one paid him heed as he desperately struck the gavel.

Instead, every heart in the chamber knew that this session was lost. Partisan warfare had been declared that day.

And the people of Tennessee can only be grateful that the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly will give way to the One Hundred Seventh in January 2011.

Breaking news: Strange affliction breaking out across US

2008-11-06T16:43:00.002-06:00

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters
To Suffer Strange Affliction

This is satire, ladies and gentlemen, so please refrain from sending the brownshirts after me. I respect President-elect Obama, and I support the Constitution of the United States.

But this is a funny video.

FEELING: Like, "Yes, I can"
LISTENING TO: The thundering sound of the apparatchiks coming to take me away

A prayer for the election

2008-11-03T13:43:00.004-06:00

Those of us who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth and who claim that He is the God-man, the incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity, know that we are called by Jesus to submit our entire lives to Him. As citizens of a democratic republic, we have the responsibility to exercise our sovereign franchise and choose those who will decide the policies carried out in our name.

In order to reconcile those two identities, and to follow Christ's command to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's," it is appropriate to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we enter the voting booth tomorrow:

Lord God, as the election approaches, we seek to better understand the issues and concerns that confront our city, state, and country, and how the Gospel compels us to respond as faithful citizens in our community.

We ask for eyes that are free from blindness so that we might see each other as brothers and sisters, one and equal in dignity, especially those who are victims of abuse and violence, deceit and poverty.

We ask for ears that will hear the cries of children unborn and those abandoned,
men and women oppressed because of race or creed, religion or gender.

We ask for minds and hearts that are open to hearing the voice of leaders who will bring us closer to your Kingdom.

We pray for discernment so that we may choose leaders who hear your Word, live your love, and keep in the ways of your truth as they follow in the steps of Jesus and his Apostles and guide us to your Kingdom of justice and peace.

We ask this in the name of your Son Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

--Prayer by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2008

FEELING: Introspective
LISTENING TO: Election coverage

The first one hundred days under Obama

2008-10-28T09:31:00.004-05:00

Many of my friends are excited by Barack Obama and his promise of hope and unity for our country. Lost in the enthusiasm, however, may be the policies that a President Obama would enact with the help of exapnded Democratic majorities in Congress. Despite his lofty rhetoric, Obama is still a Democrat, and he believes in Democratic priorities.

What, then, would the first one hundred days under an Obama administration look like? No one can know for sure, but I believe that an article from the respected political website, Real Clear Politics gives us a glimpse of how things would shape up from January 20, 2009 to April 30, 2009:

-- Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense spending.

-- Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal.

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax at all. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexual persons will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize when it repeals the Defense of Marriage Act.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" [which failed in this Congress] nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

The choice is stark. I know that some of my friends support policies like these, and that is their prerogative. I disagree that these policies would be good for the United States or her people, and I believe that many of my friends would find policies like these appalling.

When the question is framed as "change against more of the same," change may seem appealing. But when specific policies that constitute this "change" are mentioned, some may find that their enthusiasm for the junior Senator from Illinois may be quite misplaced.

FEELING: Anxious
LISTENING TO: My conscience

The Parable of the Expulsion and Re-Admission of the College Students

2008-10-21T12:23:00.005-05:00

Once, when the Universe(ity) was first founded, there were only two students in the whole Universe(ity). The President of the Universe(ity) had brought the students into the Universe(ity) after He founded the Universe(ity), and the Universe(ity) was beautifully landscaped, immaculately prepared, and perfectly executed. There was food, lodging, and the students were invited to enjoy the whole of the Universe(ity), because the President loved His students and wanted them to be happy.

Eventually, after a time of learning and growing at the Universe(ity), the President would confer Degrees upon the students, and they would graduate from the Universe(ity) to go home with the President to live forever in the Presidential Mansion.

The President also wanted His students to love him in return. And so, in order to allow them to demonstrate their love, and in order that their love would not be coerced because of the President's power to enforce grades and expel the students from the Universe(ity) forever, the President gave the students one, single rule: "you can go anywhere on campus and eat anything -- only, do not use the vending machine in the break room at the Law School, or you will surely be expelled."

The President had given the students free reign of the Universe(ity), and He had provided elaborate banquets of endless variety at the Student Center and in the dining hall. The vending machine was ugly and brown, with cheap, unhealthy foods.

Into the Universe(ity) came a Teaching Assistant. But not just any Teaching Assistant. This TA had rebelled against the President, saying in his heart, "I will ascend to the Presidency, and I will seat myself at the President's Desk." The President had driven the TA out of his position, but He still allowed the TA to come into the Universe(ity).

The TA hated the President and all that the President loved, including the students. So the TA set out to destroy what the President had founded.

The TA came to the female student and said, "You should try that vending machine in the Law School."

The female student responded, "No, the President said that I should not use it. And besides, I have an amazing, exquisite buffet prepared by the President for me and the male student in the Student Center. The President has also said that if we eat of the vending machine, we will be expelled from the Universe(ity)."

"You shall not be expelled," laughed the TA. "The President knows that if you eat of the vending machine, you will become Presidents yourself."

And the female student saw light refract from the glass on the cover of the vending machine, she saw the subtle colors and bright packaging on the treats inside, and she saw that it looked good to eat.

Taking a shiny, golden coin from the TA, she put it into the vending machine and purchased a Nutty Buddy, with two candy bars: one for her and one for the male student.

As the TA watched with secret pleasure, the female student found the male student, opened the plastic wrapper, and took a bite of the the candy bar. She gave the other candy bar to the male student, who also took and ate.

The whole time, the President, who always kept an eye on the students to keep them safe, watched everything on the campus security system. As His students, whom He loved so much, ate the candy bars, His heart ached that His love for them had been so completely rejected. After all, he had only given them one rule: one way to prove that their love for Him was genuine, and they had violated that infinite, supreme love.

As soon as the students ate, the heard the President walking down tha hall of the Law School. The students ran and hid, not wanting the President to find them still with the chocolate from the Nutty Buddy on their hands and faces.

The President called out to them, asking where they were. Finally, he saw the male student and said, "Where is the female student?"

The male student replied, "Do I look like campus safety? I don't know where she is."

The President responded, "What's that on your face?"

Knowing he'd been caught, the male student stood mute for a moment. Then, inspiration hit him, and he said, "You know the female student that You admitted to the Universe(ity)? Well, she bought a Nutty Buddy out of the Law School vending machine and ate it with me."

Sadly, the President called the students together.

"Today, you have broken the one and only rule I had given you, and you rejected the love that worked so long to prepare for you. You will not graduate from the Universe(ity). Instead, you must withdraw from the Universe(ity) before your time, departing from this place with Incompletes on your transcript. And if you have children, they, as your legacies, will inherit your Incompletes."

"But there is hope," the President said. "Your legacy Son will one day ensure that the TA, who tempted you to use the vending machine, gets fired, but only after the TA hurts him."

And so the students were driven from the Universe(ity) by the Campus Security Guard.

——•——
Life outside the Universe(ity) was rough for the two students. They had to get hard jobs, not like those that had been prepared for them after graduation. They were not qualified for life as Interns in the Great Towers of Downtown, and they had to work long shifts doing back-breaking labor just to eat and have somewhere to live.

As the years passed, the students had children, and eventually, the children had children, and their children had children, and so on. Meanwhile, in the Student Records office, as each generation was born, they, too, inherited the Incompletes that their parents had earned.

The President did not abandon the students. He continued to go out among the children, disguised as an Admissions Officer, to the students and their children and their children's children, urging them to re-apply to the Universe(ity).

Some of the students' children would do so. They would read the Admissions Packet and ask the President what they needed to do (and for His help) to re-enter the Universe(ity). Some of the students' children were better at fulfilling the President's requests than others, but the President accepted each generation's attempts to apply as an actual application, whether they applied correctly or not -- the President didn't care whether the application was filled out perfectly, He simply wanted the children to take a step of faith by wholeheartedly trying to fill it out in the first place.

——•——
Eventually, the admissions standards got so muddled out in the world, despite the Admissions Officer's speaking to the children who got the application most correct, that the President decided pick a group of the students' descendants to be Honors Applicants to the Universe(ity).

The President wanted these children to be examples to the other children living outside the Universe(ity). At the same time, He didn't want the Honors Applicants to think that they were any different from the other children, since he wanted all the students' children to come back to the Universe(ity). So the President found some of the students' desecendants who had been put to work doing hard, manual labor for some of the more wealthy children.

He found a child who'd started out living near the River, and the President appeared to River Child in all his Academic Regalia. The President did not disguise himself, but spoke directly to River Child. He sent the River Child back to the Worker Children to convince the Wealthy Children to let them go and do as the President wanted.

The Wealthy Children didn't really want to listen, so the President gave the River Child some Experiments from the Universe(ity) biology and physics departments that the children could not deny came from the Universe(ity). Eventually, once the Campus Security Guard had been sent by the President to punish the Wealthy Children, the Wealthy Children let the Worker Children go.

The President sent some of the Campus Security Guards to go in front and behind the Wandering, Worker Children on police motorbikes, complete with flashing lights at night. The President promised the River Child that He was going to lead the Wandering Children to a Beautiful Campground near the Universe(ity) gates that they could call their own, so that they would never have to work for Wealthy Children again.

While the Wandering Children were on their way, the President decided to present the Admissions Standards to all the Wandering Children. But as He began to speak, in all his Academic Regalia, the Wandering Children were afraid. They had never seen such beautiful robes or such shining medallions. So they asked the President to give the Admissions Standards to the River Child so that the River Child could then give them to the Wandering Children.

The President took the River Child off by himself and gave the River Child a hardcopy of the Admissions Standards. But when the River Child got back, he found the Wandering Children had carved a mannequin that vaguely resembled the President, and they were talking to it like it as the President. They were even making up their own Admissions Standards and then saying that the mannequin told them what they themselves had made up.

The River Child was angry, and so was the President. The President decided to wash his hands of the Wandering Children, and start over with the River Child, but the River Child begged the President to stick with the Wandering Children. Moved by the River Child's request, the President agreed. But he decided that this generation of the Wandering Children would not be allowed to live by the Universe(ity) where the President had prepared the land.

Instead, the Wandering Children would have to wander until their own children would take over. Once the last rebellious Wandering Child was gone, all the Wandering Children would be led into the Beautiful Campground to take up residence close to the Universe(ity).

But again, the President did not abandon the children. He gave the River Child instructions and taught him how to make a Tent that looked like the Central Library in the heart of the Universe(ity), nearest to the President's Office. The President also set up Rules that would help the Wandering Children follow the Admissions Standards and gave them Things to Do that would help them practice filling out the Admissions Application each year.

——•——
Eventually, the President led the Wandering Children into the Beautiful Campground near the Universe(ity) gates. The Campground Children would wax and wane in their faithfulness to the Rules and the Things to Do that the President had given them on their way to the Campground. Sometimes, the Campground Children's leaders would be great at practicing for the Admissions Application and following the Admissions Standards, and one of these even built a very beautiful and elaborate Practice Tent that mimicked the Central Library. Other times, people would make fake applications or they'd try to carve up a "new President" and say that this "President" had revealed new Admission Standards.

After many years, the majority of the Campground Children decided to follow a leader who said it didn't matter whether the Campground Children listened to the One True President or one of the mannequin "Presidents" that some of the Campground Children had carved. The Campground Children who lived closest to the Central Library Practice Tent, where the children practiced filling out the Admissions Application, were the only ones who stayed faithful to the President.

The Campground Children who had strayed from the True President got so far from the President's instructions that they were teaching their children to do exactly the opposite of what the Admissions Standards said.

Finally, the President had enough, and he sent the Campus Security Guard to lead some of New Wealthy Children to tear down the Strayed Children's tents and scatter them far away from the Universe(ity) gates.

Only a few years later, the President had to do the same thing to the Campground Children who'd stayed closest to the Practice Tent when they, too, strayed from the Admissions Standards.

But even then, the President did not abandon the children.

——•——
The President continued to privately visit with certain Campground Children, whom he would deputize as Assistant Admissions Officers. The President would send these Assistants to the Campground Children, and try to remind them about the Admissions Standards.

The problem was, though, that the Campground Children had gotten so used to practicing for the Admissions Application in the Practice Tent that they didn't think they could practice unless they had the Tent.

After some time, the President let the Campground Children return to the campground, where they re-built the Practice Tent. People kept trying to take the Campground away from the Campground Children, and they would fight to keep their land.

Not long after the Campground Children had returned to the Campground and had begun practicing for the Admissions Application in the Practice Tent, some Newer Wealthy Children took over the Campground. This time, they didn't kick the Campground Children out of the Campground, but they did make the Campground Children pay them a "rental fee" once a year (and the Campground Children hated this).

These Newer Wealthy Children, like the New Wealthy Children and the Wealthy Children before them, had long ago decided not to listen to the True President about the Admissions Standards and instead made up hundreds of Vice Presidents whom they said controlled different parts of the Universe(ity) and had all sorts of different Admissions Standards.

Sometimes, the Newer Wealthy Children, who were now in charge of the Campground, would try to make the Campground Children follow some of these "Vice Presidents," but the Campground Children usually refused.

One day, the leader of the Newer Wealthy Children decided to see just how many of the students' descendants he was in charge of, so he sent out some of his followers to count them.

And it was then that the President decided to act again.

——•——
During the counting of all the children, the President decided to send His Son, who was heir to the Presidency and so both President and not-President, into the world to fill out the Admissions Application perfectly on behalf of all the students' children.

So the President-Son disguised Himself as one of the Campground Children, emptied Himself of all the Regalia of His Presidential Office, and invaded the world outside the Universe(ity) as the Son of a young Campground Girl. The President-Son live among the Campground Children. He followed the Admissions Standards to the letter.

Once he had lived a normal life among the Campground Children, following all the rules that the President had given the Campground Children in the time before they had even come to the Campground, the President-Son announced to anybody who would listen that the President was finally going to perfectly complete the Admissions Application not just for the Campground Children, but for all the students' descendants.

Almost immediately, some of the Campground Children began to hate the President-Son, because they were jealous of His ability to follow the Admissions Standards and because they had gotten used to the idea of practicing for the Admissions Application in the Practice Tent that their fathers had built.

Because the leaders of the Campground Children rejected him, the President-Son went to the children who had no hope: the children who weren't very good at practicing for the Admissions Application. A lot of these children were so bad at trying to fill out the Admissions Application, that the children who practiced every day at the Practice Tent ridiculed them, made fun of them, and excluded them from practicing unless they did extra things that the Campground Leaders said one had to do to really, really follow the Admissions Standards.

The President-Son didn't talk about the extra stuff, though. Neither did he condemn or make fun of the people who weren't very good at following the Admissions Standards. The President-Son also pointed out that the Campground Leaders made a big deal about following the Admission Standards in public, but in private, they were actually a lot worse at following them.

The President-Son also picked some of the Campground Children to be his Inner Circle. The President-Son told his Inner Circle that he wasn't just the son of a Campground Girl, but also the President's Son and heir to the Presidency.

The President-Son got so many followers that the Campground Leaders decided they had to stop Him from doing anything else. The Campground Leaders went to the Newer Wealthy Children who were in charge of the Campground and convinced them to kill the President-Son. They thought that would be the end of him.

But what the Campground Leaders didn't remember is what the President had promised the students right before he made them withdraw from the Universe(ity). They didn't remember that the President had promised that a Son would restore the students and their descendants to the Universe(ity). When the President-Son, who could have used the powers of the Presidency to call upon the entire Campus Security Force, decided to submit to the President's will, he comitted an infinite act of love that restored the love the students had first denied by eating from the vending machine.

The Campground Leaders had forgotten that the first Admission Standard was to love the President completely and utterly. When the President-Son was killed, his death perfectly completed the Admissions Application for every single child, including the original students. Despite all their centuries of practice, no one could have ever successfully complete the Application. But in his act of obedience, even to death, the President-Son did what no one could have done and successfully completed the Ultimate Application, signed in His own blood.

Once the President-Son had been obedient to the Admissions Standards, and perfectly loving the President, the President accepted and admitted the President-Son to the University.

There, because he was the son of one of the students' descendants, he picked up the legacy left by his student-parents, and He completed, on behalf of the students and all their children, the Incompletes that the students had left on the books in the Office of Student Records. Because he was also the President-Son, he knew all the answers to all the tests, and the President conferred upon Him the Degree -- the student's descendant had beaten the TA! -- and the first student Graduated from the Universe(ity). All this took only three days, and the President-Son was dead in the world outside the Universe(ity).

After the President-Son had completed his work, the President -- who had founded the Universe(ity) itself -- used his great powers to bring His Son back to life forever. The President-Son visited with his friends and followers, including the Inner Circle. The President-Son helped the followers, both Campground Children and Wealthy Children, to understand that the Admissions Application and the Standards used to fill it out aren't the goal. Instead, the goal is readmission to the Universe(ity) for Graduation, exactly like the President had intended when he founded it.

The President-Son eventually rejoined the President in the Universe(ity), but he didn't leave his Followers, now meeting in their own tents instead of the out-dated Practice Tent (after all, nobody needs to practice filling out the Application if the President-Son has filled it out perfectly for everyone), alone.

Instead, the President-Son disguises Himself as an Admissions Officer, and He comes to give all those who are willing to quit trying to fill out their own applications and use the one the President-Son filled out for them and signed in his blood, to show them where to send their Application and to prepare for their Admissions Interview.

——•——
Now, there are students at the Universe(ity) again! As each child takes a step of faith and mails in the Application given him by the Admissions Officer, the President accepts it, since it's singed by His Son, and marks that child Admitted.

But the children still have a choice to make before its time to start classes at the Universe(ity). Some of the children decide that they don't want to follow the President's Admission Standards, even the ones who've already sent their Signed-By-The-Son Applications in.

Sadly, these students write up new "Admissions Standards," live by them, and then send in a completed, flawed Application with a note that "this is my amended application -- please accept it." Because the President still loves all the children, and desires each to love him freely, he accepts these new, inadequate applications that serve to supercede the one submitted with the President-Son's signature.

If anyone tries to enter the Universe(ity) with this wrong Application, he is rejected at his Admissions Interview, and this time for good: because the President-Son suffered and died in order to perfectly and infititely complete the Application for all, so the punishment for that rejection of the eternal must also be eternal.

For those, however, who have sent in no application or a wrong application, the Admission Officer stands ready to give anyone who admits they were wrong and asks for a new application one of those filled out by the President-Son and signed in his blood.

The Admissions Standards, of course, haven't changed, but since the President sees his Son's name signed to the Application, he relies upon His Son's judgment and admits anyone for doesn't try to sign his own name.

Some of the children still outside the Universe(ity) are better at following the Admissions Standards than others, but this is only because the Admissions Officer has shown them how. The credit goes to Him, not the children themselves. After all, since both the standards and the gift of the instruction for following them, and the Application itself all come from the President, the President-Son, and the Admissions Officer, the child can't take any credit for himself at all.

——•——
Since the original students were forced to withdraw, there has been a deadline for the Admissions Application to reapply. The President has not told anyone the Application Deadline, because He knows how students like to procrastinate. One day, however, the application period will close, and then all those who haven't re-applied, using the Signed-By-The-Son Application, will be forever shut out of the Unvierse(ity).

But for those who are willing to submit to the President, and mail in the free gift that the President-Son is giving them through the Admission Officer, Admission to the University is guaranteed -- and Graduation and life forever with the President in the Presidential Mansion!

Editor's Note: I wrote this in answer to correspondence which I received from a good friend studying at Beeson Divinity School, in Birmingham, Ala., as part of an on-going theological discussion in which we are engaged.

If every man defines truth, then there is no truth

2008-10-15T10:53:00.001-05:00

One of the great claims made by followers of Jesus Christ is that they know objective Truth -- not just statements that are objectively not-false, but also Truth as it is contained in the person of Yeshua Ben-Miryam, who lived, died, and was raised from the dead to reign at God's right hand.

This is one of the biggest difficulties that many people have with the Way of Christ: when there is Truth, it follows that there are also things that are not true. This runs counter to what most people believe today, that if you believe something sincerely, if something resonates, or if something helps you find your authentic self, then it's necessarily "true" for you.

Christianity stands firm against multiple, conflicting "truths" and holds up one Way, Truth, and Life: Jesus Christ, the revelation of the one, true, and Triune God.

That is the subject of a great book that just came out, discussing the "theological vision" of Pope Benedict XVI, as discerned from his writings and sermons.

Here is a particularly powerful excerpt:

"Nietzsche’s attack on Christianity’s 'slave morality' paved the way for modern rejection of objective standards of goodness, truth, and beauty. But by making ourselves the measure of everything, we have lost a shared measure of anything. Having shrugged off Christ’s yoke and with it our moorings to God’s truth and goodness, we know of no excellence for which to strive, only arbitrary tastes and their pointless pursuit: the 'escapist pleasure of the consumer economy' and the 'exploitation that increasingly marks human relationships.' What was to be our liberation has become our enslavement.

"But we need not remain slaves forever.

"As Benedict sees it, we can regain joy by participating in love—both giving and receiving. Thus, Benedict invites modern man to rediscover his lofty vocation as a beloved child of God, for 'one cannot become wholly man in any other way than by being loved, by letting oneself be loved.' "This divine love cannot be a noble fiction meant to keep us from despair; as Benedict writes, 'Only when love and truth are in harmony can man know joy.' The question, then, is whether the gospel is true.

"From here Benedict launches his fight against the 'dictatorship of relativism.' While many commentators focus on relativism’s moral and political implications, Benedict probes its spiritual consequences. Modern scientific rationalism has so neutered reason that, though useful for solving technical questions, it is impotent to address major questions about life’s origins, meaning, or destiny. As Benedict puts it, '[K]nowledge of the functional aspect of the world … brings with it no understanding of the world and of being,' since what is immaterial 'cannot be approached with methods appropriate to what is material.' The scientific method can never establish or discredit Christianity, he argues, 'because the kind of experiment demanded -- pledging one’s life for this -- is of quite a different kind.'"

(Ryan T. Anderson, Christ our Joy: the theological vision of Pope Benedict XVI).

FEELING: Like I don't have enough time to read all the non-work-related books I'd like to read
LISTENING TO: The baroque channel on iTunes

More wisdom from Phil Bredesen

2008-09-29T18:40:00.002-05:00

Besides my appreciation to him for showering beneficence upon my hometown, I have to give Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) credit for his running commentary on national news of late.

First there were his remarks on Barack Obama, and now Politico.com has a great quote from him up today.

Politico was asking its readers, many of whom are power-brokers in D.C. and various state capitols, "In light of the House vote rejecting the bail out, what now?"

Governor Bredesen responded:

"Stay calm, let the House leadership on both sides fashion some changes that will bring along more votes. Note to traders, investors, politicians: bad time for a herd mentality."

Once again, Governor, I couldn't have said it better myself.

FEELING: Like people in DC are currently running scared
LISTENING TO: The janitor vacuum the office

On becoming a Catholic Christian

2008-09-18T17:30:00.000-05:00

Standing at a cross-roads in my life for months, even years, I realized that it was time to make a decision. I was tired of the sense of homeless-ness. I was ready to quit talking about deciding and actually decide. And so I have: I have decided to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church. The decision is the culmination of years of exploring my faith and personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. I have found peace in making this long-awaited decision, and I believe that it is the right decision for me to strengthen, deepen, and build up my relationship with my Lord.

A heritage of faith

I grew up in a culture saturated with Christ and Christianity. Everyone in my hometown either was a Christian or professed to be one. I have often compared -- in a positive way -- the atmosphere and feeling of Rogersville, Tennessee with that of Medieval Europe: every institution revolves around the church. In some way, faith touches every part of life, from education, to employment, to living, to death.

It was within this culture, in a Southern Baptist church, that I came to faith in Jesus Christ. I was baptized when I was in the third grade, and my faith became my own when I was about 16 years old.

So it was as an evangelical, Southern Baptist Christian that I went to college in 2001. There I was violently dispossessed of the notion that the experiences I'd had growing up were the norm for the rest of America. Indeed, I was shocked to find myself among only a handful of practicing Christians on my freshman dormitory hall -- for me, in those early days, the world was upside down.

God's grace saw me through those tough, early days, and I began to find my place at Vanderbilt: with friends, with a campus ministry, and with a Church. All the time, I remained safely within the tradition I'd known as a child.

Exposure to liturgy

I went to my first liturgical worship service in spring 2002, at a Anglican church in Mobile, Alabama. I was intrigued by the experience, and began to wonder about the history behind it. That same semester, I began a relationship with a young woman at Vanderbilt who had been raised in the Lutheran tradition. The relationship grew, and when it came time for me to go to Washington, D.C. to work on Capitol Hill, my girlfriend's parents, residents of the DC suburbs, offered to let me stay with them -- so long as I was willing to be one of their "children." That meant taking on all the responsibilities of being in the family, including going to church with them.

We attended a Lutheran church, and I spent four months worshipping in a liturgical setting with weekly communion. Though I did not realize it at the time, my spiritual formation had begun to deepen, and I again pondered why and how liturgy resonated so deeply within me. I explored the history of Lutheran litugry, and sought to understand the origins of Baptist worship and practice. The results led me to question, for the first time, the tradition that I'd received.

Daring to pray

But these questions were suppressed, as the pressures of loyalty to family and familiarity kept me from being too willing to question my own tradition. At the same time, the questions were not fully diffused. Instead, they simmered at the back of my mind, and I continued to wonder where they would lead.

In Spring of 2004, I mustered the courage to attend my first Ash Wednesday service at my college's local Episcopal Chapel. The power of the Ashen Liturgy was overwhelming, as I was reminded that I was dust, and "to dust will [I] return."

That summer, I worked as a counselor at a Christian camp, working with young people from 7th through 12th grades. Essentially, I was being paid to proclaim the Gospel full time. I was strongly encouraged to prac tice the evangelical discipline of the "Quiet Time," and I watched my fellow camp counselors pray and spend time in their Bibles for hours at a time.

I, on the other hand, had always struggled with the Quiet Time, becoming distracted after a few minutes and never truly feeling like I was effectively or efficiently engaging the Scriptures as I randomly chose passages to read. I longed for a tool by which to guide my time with God, a tool that would keep me open to the Spirit's leading, yet allow me to retain a sense of structure and order. I had used Sunday school materials I’d gotten from my Church as a teenager, and I’d had some success with those materials: usually a Bible reading for each night and a short, suggested prayer.

Remembering that past success, I decided there was no reason I couldn’t try to find a similar tool that would be age-appropriate. So I began to Google. At first it was for "devotional guide" and "prayer guide." Soon this turned to "devotional book" and "prayer book." This led to "book of prayer" and, finally, Book of Common Prayer.

Mystic, sweet communion

As I began to read the Book of Common Prayer, I realized that I had found the tool that I'd been searching for -- it would be a companion for guiding my devotion and my Scripture-reading. It would give me a rhythm by which I could time the music of my prayers. I prayed the beautiful, almost-haunting prayers of the Prayerbook, and instinctively felt as though I had finally found a connection to not only a rich and truth-filled toolbox for the worship of God, but indeed a connection to the Church Triumphant.

The Prayerbook has many sections, but the part that spoke most to me, that fulfilled the yearning I’d felt for structured, freeing personal interaction with God, was called, “The Daily Office.” This section was essentially a series of prayer services centered around three major sections: Psalms, Scripture, and Prayer.

There was a table of psalms (both from the Book of Psalms and from elsewhere in the Bible) that introduced me to the richness of a part of God’s Word for which I’d never had much use. With the office, I was now praying through the Psalms, making the prayers, the victories, the frustrations, and the longings of the psalmist my own.

There was also a section for a cycle of Bible readings. Essentially another table divided the whole Bible into three readings for each day: an Old Testament lesson, forcing me to go through parts of the Bible I’d never read; a reading from an Epistle, Acts, or Revelation; and a Gospel reading, reinforcing and retrenching the classic stories within my mind and introducing me to Jesus all over again.

Finally, there were the prayers. Using the Lord’s Prayer as a model, there was a daily prayer, that changed according to what time of year it was. There were prayers composed of portions of psalms and other Scripture. There were prayers for national holidays like Mother’s Day and the Fourth of July. There were prayers for regular, every-day events like sickness, birthdays, and travelling. Though I’d been taught to fear “rote prayers” that were “someone else’s words,” I soon realized that here were prayers that had been used for thousands of years by Christians from all walks of life in all places. I found myself not alone in the dark with my door shut, trying, sometimes in vain, to express my doubts, anxieties, and fears, but with my heart lifted to heaven, joining in the celestial worship of the angels and saints, boldly confessing, adoring, supplicating, interceding, and giving thanks.

It was an enriching, powerful experience I'd never had before: a consistent, God-focused quiet time. It became for me the recharging of my heart and soul, and I had discovered a sense of private worship in Spirit and in truth the likes of which I’d never known.

Church is plural

I graduated from college and went to law school, still holding on to my heritage as a Southern Baptist. I now sought to augment my evangelical, revivalistic, free-church tradition with the rich depths of liturgy that I had "discovered" back in 2004. But as the years passed, I became more and more convinced that it was through liturgy I was c alled to worship God.

Finally, it got to the point where I would awake early on Sunday morning -- far earlier than necessary simply to attend worship at my local Baptist Church -- in order to pray the Daily Office. I was desparate for the Readings, the Confession, the Lord's Prayer, and the Thanksgiving; all elements of Morning Prayer that were lacking in not only the Baptist churches I went to, but also in many of the evangelical churches I attended.

It finally dawned on me in July 2007 that I was not called to hold a mini-church service in my bedroom; instead, I was called to be a whole-hearted member of a Church, a group of people gathered as a community worshipping the Triune God.

This is my Body

And so it was that I began to attend an Episcopal Church in Birmingham, a church in the Anglican tradition. It was the Cathedral of the Diocese of Alabama, and I saw countless expressions of the glorifying of God through the liturgy. But I also learned much more than just how the liturgy works.

For the first time since my summer with my former girlfriend's family, I began to receive communion every week. And week in and week out, as I continued to go forward, take the common cup and the one bread, I began to realize that there was something different about this bread and this wine. Something I'd never realized was even truly possible.

I had known, intellectually, that many people believed that transubstantiation changed the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, but I'd never stopped to think about the implications of that belief. I shuddered to think that people believed in that sort of superstitious nonsense: Jesus deigning to let himself be eaten like some sort of magical treat. There was no way that God would – or could? – communicate His grace in that way.

I'd been prepared with apologetic defenses of a memorial understanding of the Eucharist, and no one could have ever "argued" me into believing that there was an ontological difference between the communion wafer and the bun of my McDonald's cheeseburger.

But God didn't even have to argue.

As I experienced communion week in and week out, I began to realize that I was being fundamentally changed and affected by what I was receiving. I sensed there was more to this bread and this wine than any other food with which I was familiar. I realized that there was something about this Bread and Wine that made it different from all other bread and wine. There was something transformative, restorative, powerful and grace-filled about the Eucharist that I can hardly describe in words.

Ultimately, I came to realize that I believed that Jesus Christ was and is really present in the Eucharist -- that upon consecration, the Bread and Wine become Christ's Body and Blood. It is, to me, as Thomas Aquinas wrote so long ago:

Taste and touch and vision to discern Thee fail;
faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil.

An historical faith

In some ways, it is ironic that someone like me would quote St. Thomas Aquinas. Raised, as I was, in the Baptist tradition, I was not exposed to much history in my Christian formation. Now to be sure, I was exposed to the Bible. I wasn’t just exposed, I was inculcated. I could quote John 3:16 by age 3 or 4, and I distinctly remember being trained to memorize Scripture with a chart in Sunday school class: if you memorized your weekly “memory verse,” you got a sticker on the chart. Everyone that filled up a certain section of the chart every month got a candy bar. Needless to say, I have a vast Biblical literacy for which I will always be grateful.

Outside this stalwart Bible teaching, however, I was unfamiliar with the history of the Christian faith. I was taught that ours was an historical faith, and that the historicity of the Bible was a key theological concept upon which the truth of the Gospel stood or fell: if Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead in the city of Jerusalem (a place we can go and visit) about 2,000 years ago, then he truly is Lord and God! If he was not, then, as C.S. Lewis said, he was a lunatic, a liar, or worse.

As a Baptist, I was taught that venerable motto of evangelical Scripturalists, that ours was a church seeking to be exactly like “the New Testament Church.” It was a repackaging of the Reformation slogan ad fontes, “to the source” (or, m ore familiarly (and alliteratively) for many evangelicals, “back to the Bible”). It is certainly a logical position: if we claim, as we do, that ours is an historical faith that has roots in a real historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, whom we claim did and said actual things in time and space and history, then it makes sense that these claims were, somehow, given to us at some point within all that history. If we can get as close as possible to that historical fountainhead, then we can understand the faith more clearly and, perhaps, practice it more closely to the way that our spiritual forebears did.

The problem with this position was not so much its conception as was its implementation in my evangelical education. Instead of studying Christian history to see how it developed over the centuries, we started with the Bible, certainly a good place to start, went through the book of Acts, but then stopped. The next thing we studied was a brief look at the Reformation, with cursory examinations of Luther and a more in-depth analysis of Calvin. Ultimately, the great heroes of history to which we looked were men like Charles Spurgeon, who preached in London in the nineteenth century.

I can remember learning about the Middle Ages for the first time, really, in my Sixth Grade World History class at school (I went to public school). My teacher attended my church, and I knew she had even been a missionary (rockstars to young Baptists like me–literally: we had (and have!) missionary trading cards in Baptist circles) to Indonesia. Our textbook kept talking about Christians all over the place, and finally my curiosity could not contain itself: “Mrs. Lawson, what Christians are we talking about? Are these the same people from the Book of Acts, or were these some of the people who supported Martin Luther?”

“These are Catholic Christians, Dillon.”

“Oh,” I said, taken aback. Catholics were Christians?

The “secret” history of the Church

I am not sure from where my love of history came. It is possible that simply being nurtured and raised in Rogersville caused me to be interested in it by osmosis (though the same cannot necessarily be said about everyone else there). For whatever reason, I become enthralled with stories of the past and never really did let go.

That made it fairly simple to choose a major when college rolled around. History, with its corollary political science, would be the focus of my four years at Vanderbilt. It was that major that presented me with an opportunity to answer a question that had been raised in my mind all the way back in sixth grade: what happened to the Christians after Acts, but before Martin Luther pulled out his hammer in Wittenberg?

When I saw the class called, “History of the Christian Tradition,” I was hooked, without even reading the course description or sample syllabus. I knew I’d take it, and I proselytized for my friends and fraternity brothers to take the class with me so that I would have someone to talk to about it. Some agreed to take it.

Our class text was an anthology of “readings in the history of Western Christianity,” as its subtitle put it. Among those readings were two of the most influential Christian writings, outside of the Bible, I’ve ever read: the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers.

As we got to the chapter entitled, “the Church in the Era of the New Testament,” I couldn’t help but recall that Baptist motto, “The New Testament Church!” My mind practically reeled with excitement at the opportunity to learn something new about a subject so dear to my heart. So, uncharacteristically for me, I carefully did all of the reading for that part of the class. I devoured the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers.

Looking for a mirror

Before I go on, a word about these two works. First, the Didache (pronounced, more or less, “Dih-dack-ee”). It’s basically (and generally) a practical how-to manual for being a Christian that’s been dated by scholars to somewhere between A.D. 90-100. Now, this is significant for someone who’s mind is reading through a “New- Testament-Church!” Filter: according to most scholars, the Book of Revelation was written somewhere between A.D. 68-95. That means that this w ork w as w ritten either during, or only 22 years after, the lifetime of the Apostle John. For me, those dates placed this work within the time frame of the New Testament Church.

I do not believe that the Didache is Scripture, but I do believe what I was taught when receiving my history degree at Vanderbilt: primary sources are the only way for us to know about history. A primary source is “a document that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described” (Wikipedia.org, “primary source”). In historical research, primary sources are our bread and butter. These are the tools by which we reconstruct what has happened in the past.

For me, the Didache was a primary source (if you’re an historical scholar, I recognize it doesn’t exactly meet the definition, but let’s remember this is about my spiritual journey, not a Ph.D. thesis). I saw a window into the New Testament Church that I’d never had seen before; I also realized that here was a document that the Reformers had not had available to them in the sixteenth century (since it was only discovered in the nineteenth).

When I looked to the Didache, I hoped to see a mirror: I hoped to see examples of things that Baptists were doing; in other words, I assumed that the Church I’d been taught was a manifestation of the New Testament Church would be reflected by my mirror into the first century.

It turned out to be pretty much the opposite.

True, there were elements of what we did reflected in the Didache, but when it came down to brass tacks, what we called the New Testament Church and what the New Testament Church actually looked like weren’t very similar to one another (I intended to examine the differences more closely, but that would be an essay all its own, as would examining, even in a peripheralway, the Apostolic Fathers—find these documents and read them; they’re free all over the Internet).

Basically, these two primary sources that were contemporaneous with the Apostles and portions of the New Testament describe a Church that it is diffused yet connected, led by Bishops who appoint sub-bishops called Presbyters, and Deacons who either remain in that office or train to become Presbyters. They describe worship as half Bible-reading and preaching and half Communion. They talk about communion in a way that is anything but memorial. Baptism is more than a symbol, it’s an initiation and a new birth. In short, they describe a sacramental, evangelical vision of Christianity that challenged everything I thought I knew .

A rude awakening

My faith wasn’t challenged by these “revelations,” indeed, it is strengthened as I read of people living barely fifty years after Jesus calling him Lord and God (there’s some amazing encouragement to be found in the understanding that these people are only grandson-to-grandfather removed from Jesus, and in the realization that it’d be hard to “legendize” someone that quickly: think JFK in our context). I was, however, rudely awakened to the fact that what I’d always taken for granted (that my way was the way it’d always been done) was not even close.

By this time, I had found the Book of Common Prayer, and I had learned that this Book was associated with a specific church, the Episcopal Church. I had begun attending the Cathedral in Birmingham, and the Lord had revealed his presence in the Eucharist to me. When all these things came together, I realized I was ready to connect with a church that had a vision of this Apostolic, sacramental, evangelical way of relating to Jesus that I had uncovered.

It was then that I decided that I was ready to be confirmed in the Episcopal Church. I'd become convinced that this was where I belonged: weekly communion, with the Real Presence; submission to my father-in-God, a bishop; and a sacramental, liturgical vision of Christianity.

But then I was awakened to what had happened in the Episcopal Church, and I realized that the things I had begun to cherish seemed to be vanishing as quickly as I had discovered them. The Deposit of Faith transmitted from the Apostles was threatened, as church-leaders espoused strange doctrines: Pelagianism, which holds that Creation is unmarred by Adam's fall; Marcionism, which conceives a god of love and mercy of the New Testament diametrically opposed to the god of law and wrath revealed in the Old; Pluralism, which holds that all sincerely held religious beliefs are salvific, independent of Jesus Christ or his mediation and atonem ent; Universalism, the idea that there is no hell or judgment, that all people will receive eternal life by virtue of natural birth; and Gnosticism, which sees a distinction between the Risen Christ and the historical Jesus -- in short, denying the Trinity and the Resurrection.

I realized that in the history of the Church, doctrines like these had been encountered before. In the past, these ideas were called heresy, and those who propounded them were disciplined and excommunicated. I realized that if I submitted to an Episcopal bishop, I would be placing myself in communion with those who rejected the teaching of most Christians in most times and in most places. This, I could not do.

Painted into a corner

It had come down to this: I knew that I wanted weekly communion, a sacramental and liturgical framework within which my relationship with Jesus could flourish, and the authority and teaching of an upright father-in-God to whom I could submit as the early Christians had done.

This understanding effectively cut me off from my past: but it had also connected me with a past I’d never known anything about. I went from seeing my Christian heritage in a few generations, those of my parents, grandparents, and forebears, to seeing the “great cloud of witnesses” to which the Apostle Paul says we are called. This realization, however, did not come without pain: because in resolving to worship Christ in this ancient, Apostolic, sacramental way, I could no longer continue membership in a church that I did not attend.

I do not reject my heritage as a Southern Baptist. Indeed, I am proud that it was the faith of my mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and others who equipped me with the tools to discover the ancient Way of the Apostles. Their faithfulness to Jesus remains a steadfast pillar of strength to which I look for hope and encouragement. Their love and support, I am sure, encompasses me about with a sense of what matters most: commitment to the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

But even as I stood – and stand – upon the foundation laid down by my family and friends, in my evangelical upbringing and young adulthood, I continued to long for a fuller expression of the vision of Christ-following I’d seen in my windows to the past. When I searched for such a vision, the only places, outside of Anglicanism, that I saw such an understanding of being a following of the Way was in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. By process of elimination, I’d found the oldest and earliest churches, the ones that claim continuation with those same apostolic practices I’d read about.

Making the decision

I stood at a cross-roads, then. My faith in Jesus was as strong as ever, and my relationship with Him continued to grow as I sought His face, His will, His Word, and His grace. Ultimately, after months of searching, praying, discussing with friends, attending services (Mass with the Catholics, Divine Liturgy with the Orthodox), and meeting with priests (one Catholic and three Orthodox), I realized the direction I was being led at celebration of the Divine Liturgy, the Eastern Orthodox weekly worship service. As I left the worship of God on a beautiful Sunday morning in Nashville, I realized that place to which God was calling me was the one with the tradition I knew.

Having finally discerned God’s will for me in this area, it was left to me to ask God for the grace and courage to follow through. And that is a much scarier proposition than it sounds. Besides leaving generations of family members who followed our God as Protestants (I am a son of English and Scots-Irish settlers; thus, my ancestors were Baptist, then Presbyterian, then Church of England -- all the way back to the Reformation in England -- and it is no small step to break with four hundred and fifty-nine years of familial heritage), there are theological issues. There was a Reformation for a reason: people were extremely dissatisfied with the theological positions of the Catholic Church. I cannot make a decision like this without acknowledging that, and I would be irresponsible to not investigate those issues. And investigate I did.

Theological challenges

The usual list of Protestant exceptions to Catholic teaching most often includes the following: (1) authority; (2) Mary; (3) saints; (4) sacraments; and (5) prayer for the dead. We'll examine my take on these in turn.

Authority: Scripture & Tradition

The Protestants and Catholics alike embrace the Bible as the first authority. The difference between the two is that Protestants take the Bible as their only authority. As an evangelical, this was my position, and I viewed any additions to Biblical authority as an attack on the very Word of God itself. I still view the Bible as the Word of God (this is what it teaches about itself), but I no longer embrace the Reformation sola scriptura; I believe that prima scriptura is consistent with Scripture and history: Scripture first, not alone.

The Catholic insistence on the importance of tradition made no sense to me before I studied this issue. Honestly, this seemed like a no brainer at the time. These days, I’m convinced I was wrong before.

Ultimately, it comes down to basic logic for me. We know, and Protestants agree, that the canon of the New Testament was established various councils of the Church (i.e., groups of Bishops getting together to discern the will of God, such as the Synod of Hippo, the Councils of Carthage, etc.), and finalized around the middle of the third century A.D. But by what did they discern God’s will? The answer seems obvious: there existed some understanding of the Christian Gospel and truth outside of Scripture, and by which the candidates for the Scriptural Canon were judged. How else would the consistency of the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers, written about 100 years apart, yet entirely concordant, be explained? How else would the bishops have been able to decide whether to include non-inspired letters and Gospels which had proliferated across the Roman world in the decades after toleration by the Empire?

Often Protestants argue that it was not tradition, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit that formed that canon of Scripture. But if the guidance of the Holy Spirit formed the Scriptures in the third century, by what were the churches guided in the years immediately after Jesus? They were guided by the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles that had been passed down, orally and through letters and writings, from the very first.

Essentially, tradition just means “the way things are done.” Tradition can be seen as “oral Scripture.” We must be careful to differentiate, as the Catholic Church does, between Tradition and traditions. There is Tradition, which is the Deposit of the Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and by them to their successors, the Bishops. There are also traditions, things that have accreted around the Church, the Bible, and the institution of Christianity over the vast centuries against which Christ has
guarded his Chuch. The one, Tradition, was formative of Scripture; the other, traditions, are not to be upheld unless they conform to Scripture and Tradition.

Authority: Apostolic Succession

The other primary issues that Protestants take with the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding authority is that regarding the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Obviously, the assertion that a human being is infallible is bound to be a lightning rod for criticism, particularly when we examine Scripture – and History – that proves that leaders are, almost without exception, all too human.

The issue comes, however, from an improper understanding of the Pope’s teaching authority. It is not based upon his personal merit or goodness; instead, it is a product of his selection by the whole Church.

The Church, the Bible teaches, is the Body of Christ. It is his Bride, and it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The reason that even Protestants accept things like the Nicene and Apostles Creeds is because they were promulgated under the influence of the Holy Spirit by the whole Church. Throughout Christian history, the Bible has been read to teach, and Tradition has affirmed, that the Church, speaking collectively on matters of faith and morals , w ill not be allow ed to err by the very Holy Spirit of God.

Again, this is not an assertion of the individual human beings’ power or authority; instead, it is an affirmation of the power of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

When it is time to choose a new Pope, the Bishops of the whole Church who have been chosen to elect the Pope gather together – often several hundred – to seek God’s will for the Church. They pray the Holy Spirit’s protection, and ask his guidance, just as the ancient councils of the church did in the earliest centuries of the Church. When they elect a man to be Pope, they are speaking as the Church; they are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit from erring in their selection, and they chose a man to whom the teaching authority of the Church is given.

The man chosen is the successor of the Apostle Peter, who was the leader of the Apostles. In that role, and in that role alone, he exercises the teaching authority of the church that has been conferred upon him. It is only when this man speaks out of the Chair of Peter, ex cathedra in Latin, that the Pope’s statements take on the authority of the Church. This is because it is only then that the power of the Holy Spirit overshadows him in this specific way.

So special is this authority, that it has been used less than a handful of times in the history of the whole Church.

Mary

The next major issue that Protestants have with the Catholic Church is its devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. This is a major issue for many. But it would be difficult to find any Protestant who would object to the title I just used for Mary: “mother of Jesus Christ.” It would also be difficult to find a Protestant who would not confess, with St. Thomas the Apostle, that Jesus is “my Lord and my God.” Indeed, a steadfast belief in the divinity and humanity of Jesus is at the heart of our understanding of the Incarnation and the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

How, then, can Protestants challenge the title of Mary as “Mother of God”? If Jesus, whose natures, while being two, are fully reconciled in him, how can Jesus not be God? And if Jesus is God, as the Bible teaches, how can Mary, whom the Bible teaches is Jesus’ mother, be anything other than the Mother of God?

Protestants often object to this title, saying that it implies an uncreated origin for Mary or some sort of co-equal status with the Triune God. Within Catholic teaching, there could not be anything further from the truth.

The reason that Catholics esteem Mary so highly is because of her role in the Plan of Salvation: Mary was the mother of Jesus, and God chose her to be the human vessel who would not only carry Jesus to term, but who would give Jesus her human nature. Jesus, as Mary’s son, took his human flesh from her. If Mary truly is the biological mother of Jesus, as the Bible teaches, then Jesus had her DNA, and he got his humanity from her.

By definition, then, Mary is a created human being. That is what makes her so special in the eyes of Catholics: here is a woman, an Israelite in the House of David, as the Bible teaches, of whom the Angel of God said, “Hail, thou that art highly favored: the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28). The Bible also teaches that this lowly woman “found favor with God” (Luke 1:30). How was it then that a human being, whom the Bible teaches is doomed to destruction, was able to find favor with God? How can there be “none righteous, no not one,” yet Mary is called “highly favored,” finding “favor with God”?

The answer comes from Paul’s teaching in Romans. If God “foreknows” the choices that we make, then God knew the choice that Mary would make at the annunciation to her by the Angel Gabriel. And, foreknowing that Mary would choose to submit as “the handmaid of the Lord,” God predestined her to be filled with grace won for her by her Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ.

We know that Christ’s atoning blood was applied retroactively to the great men and women of faith from the Old Testament, as the Apostle Peter teaches in his Epistle (and as the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds teach), whom Jesus saved when he “descended into hell” and “preached to the souls in prison” (Apostles’ Creed; 1 Pet. 3:19). This was done by God’s foreknowledge (after all, as Jesus describes in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Old Testament faithful went not to be with God in heaven, but to the “Abraham’s Bosom” section of Sheol, Hades, the Place of the Dead). If God, in his sovereign foreknowledge could apply the saving grace of Jesus Christ’s atoning death and resurrection to the souls of the Old Testament faithful, then surely he could – and did – apply it to Mary, the unique progenitrix of Jesus’ human nature.

But why would God go to all the trouble of finding Mary “with favor” in the first place? It is a question of original sin. The Bible teaches that all men and women are cursed by the sinful nature since the Fall of Adam and Eve. But we know that the Bible also teaches that Jesus “knew no sin.” How then could Jesus, who was fully human, have avoided the sinful nature of his mother Mary? How did he avoid the transmission of humanity’s curse from his mother yet remain fully and truly human? It was by the divine foreknowledge and predestination of God: knowing Mary’s choice of obedience and faith, God applied to her, at her conception, the salvation won for her and all people by our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus prepared, Mary could be the chosen vessel worthy of God’s favor and ready to be the Mother of God.

This is the concept of the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of the Assumption flows logically from this understanding of God’s action in Mary’s life: because in his sovereignty God chose to save Mary from original sin, she was able to walk with God, as Enoch and Elijah did, and as they were, be taken into heaven, body and soul. When Mary fell asleep, her body did not stay in the tomb; instead, because of what Jesus had done for her on the Cross, she was resurrected and taken into heaven, where she is the first human being to enjoy the everlasting life promised by Jesus to all those who, like Mary, submit to God in faith and obedience.

It’s important to understand that nothing in the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption ascribe anything to Mary because of something she merited on her own. Everything that makes Mary unique or different flows from what Jesus did for her. Take, for example, the common title, “Our Lady” or “Queen of Heaven.”

Both of these do not place Mary in the role of Jesus’ spouse or co-monarch; instead, Mary is Queen in the sense that she is Jesus’ mother. An example more familiar to English-speaking Christians comes from the United Kingdom: the mother of Queen Elizabeth II was Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. The Queen Mother was only special by virtue of her relationship with the reigning Monarch, Her Majesty the Queen. In the same way, Mary is special because she is Jesus’ mom. Obviously, a son loves and respects his mother (and the Bible teaches that God the Father desires this of his people, particularly in the Fourth Commandment). As those who honor Jesus and love and worship him, we are called to respect and honor those things and people that he honored (i.e., the poor, marriage, etc.). Jesus honored and loved his mother, we are called to do the same.

Let me be clear: Mary is not “Lady” in the same sense that Jesus is “Lord.” Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; he is part of the Triune God, eternally begotten on the Father. Mary is a creature, created by God, and redeemed by her own son, Jesus Christ. Any explanation of Mary that alters that would be repugnant to her and a rejection of Christ.

Saints

Our discussion of Mary helps us understand the role of the saints in the teaching of the Catholic Church. First, with the Apostle Paul, the Church teaches that all those won for God by Jesus on the cross are saints in glory, a part of the “great cloud of witnesses” which no man can number or count from every tribe, language, nation, and tongue.

At the same time, there are certain people, and again the Apostle Paul provides us with an example, who serve as a sort of “Hall of Fame of Faith,” people whose godly lives and example to us of following God are an inspiration and encouragement. The Catholic Church finds these exemplars of the faith and publicizes their stories to give the faithful models for godly living, just as Paul did with the patriarchs and other Old Testament heroes in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

At the same time as the Church provides the saints as an example, the Church also follows the Bible’s teaching about what happens to those who have been faithful to God. The Bible teaches that they are not dead, but alive, and awaiting the resurrection of the dead. If we believe, as the Bible teaches, that these people are not dead, and if we believe, as the Bible also teaches, that those who have been saved by Jesus are apart of the Body of Christ, then it is logical that those of us within the one Body of Christ who remain alive may, by the power of the Holy Spirit, ask those in the Body of Christ who have gone on to be with the Lord to pray to Him on our behalf.

Now immediately, the objection is raised that “we should just pray to Jesus for ourselves.” And of course, the Catholic Church and the Bible both teach that Jesus is the one Intercessor between God the Father and man, and that Jesus has given us access to the Holy of Holies. This teaching, however, does not stop us from asking our brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us, however. And neither should it stop us from asking our Brothers and Sisters who are even now with Jesus to also pray for us.

This is the doctrine of prayer to the saints. It is not prayer in the sense of worship or adoration of God, which should be offered only to the One and Most High Triune God. In fact, a more accurate name for this doctrine in English might be, “requests to the saints,” as in “prayer requests.” Because invariably, we ask the saints to “pray for us.” This is the heart of the petition of that oft- maligned prayer, the “Hail Mary.” That prayer is as follows:

Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord art with thee;
blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now, and at the hour of our death, Amen.

Looking at this prayer closely, we see, most glaringly, that the first four lines are taken directly from the Bible: Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42. The second four lines flow out of the doctrines we discussed above: Mary is “holy,” in the same way that all who have been sanctified by Jesus and resurrected to eternal life are holy; she is literally the Mother of Jesus Christ, our Lord and God; and we ask her to pray for us, to Jesus, now and at the hour of our deaths.

Another aspect of prayer, or requests, to the saints that is often overlooked is the fact that these brothers and sisters who have gone on to be with the Lord can pray for us perfectly, unlike the prayers offered by our earthly brothers and sisters. My best friend may desire to pray for me, as Paul insists, “without ceasing,” but I would be quite (pleasantly) surprised if he were able to do so. Those who have been sanctified in heaven, and to whom we can make requests through the power of the Holy Spirit, are able to perfectly and constantly pray for us to God the Father and to Jesus while we are sleeping, at work, or even (especially?) when we’re bogged down in sin (when prayer is the last thing on our mind). I, for one, am grateful for the prayers of the saints on my behalf.

Sacraments

Another issue that some Protestants (this is directed to evangelicals reading this), take with the Catholic Church is its teaching on the sacraments. First, we’ll list the seven primary sacraments, then we’ll talk about sacraments in general, and finally, we’ll focus on each one specifically.

The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are (1) Baptism; (2) Confirmation; (3) Eucharist, or communion; (4) Reconciliation; (5) Anointing of the sick or dying; (6) Holy orders, or the priesthood; and (7) Matrimony, or marriage.

What are sacraments? Generally, sacraments are the dispensation of grace “coming forth” from Christ, “actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church,” and “the masterworks of God”of the new covenant. It is important to recognize two key truths about the sacramental life right off the bat. First, neither the Bible nor the Church teaches that God’s grace only comes to us through the Sacraments. Second, the Bible and the Church do teach that God’s grace can flow to us through other sacramentals: blessed objects and people who are outward and visible manifestations of Christ’s grace being wrought inwardly.

As a Baptist, I was taught that Jesus only instituted two “ordinances,” or practices “ordained” by him. The Catholic Church also teaches that there are only two Sacraments of Christ: Baptism and the Eucharist. The other are called Sacraments of the Church. The difference between the two are that Baptism and Communion are included in the Scriptures (which, as we discussed above, are taken first under prima Scriptura). The Sacraments of the Church are those handed down through Holy Tradition, i.e., the “oral Scriptures” given to the Apostles by Jesus, and handed down to their successors, the Bishops.

Baptism. The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that baptism is the rite of Christian initiation. It is the sacrament whereby men and women experience a new birth in Christ and are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Baptism consists of the application of water (immersion, dipping, pouring, sprinkling–the amount is not relevant) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Immediately preceding Baptism in the Catholic Church is the ancient Confession of Faith, called the Baptismal Symbol or the Apostles’ Creed. God’s gift in baptism is the birth into his family through Christ’s grace applied by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing magical about the water, but the water becomes the medium by which the Holy Spirit manifests God’s grace.

Confirmation. This sacrament consists of the laying on of hands by a bishop, with prayer, and the anointing of the confirmand with holy oil. The New Testament describes the apostles laying their hands on new believers after their baptism, and this is the modern equivalent. In his prayer, the Bishop invokes the Holy Spirit to descend with special grace to strengthen the grace given at baptism, and to seal the believer as the oil is applied to the forehead of the confirmand. Confirmation is also a sign of the faithful’s submission to the Bishop as a spiritual father, much the same way that Timothy submitted to his father-in-God, the Apostle Paul.

Eucharist. We have already spoke at some length about my transformation in understanding the sacrament of the Eucharist, or communion. Generally, the Eucharist takes place with the proclamation of God’s Word, followed by a prayer of thanksgiving over bread and wine. The priest asks the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood, repeating the Words of Institution that Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper. After prayers, the bread and wine are given to all the baptized Christians in communion with the Church. In the Eucharist, Christ comes among his people, literally, and fulfills his promise to be with us always, even to the end of the age. Through the Body and Blood, the faithful are strengthened in their faith, forgiven of their sins, and confirmed to eternal life.

Reconciliation. The Apostle James, in his Epistle, teaches all Christians to “confess your sins to one another and pray for one another” (James 5:16). The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a formalization of that teaching, with the added benefit that priests have been given, by Jesus, the authority to forgive sins in Jesus name. The priests are not infallible or sinless, and indeed, priests are required to go to confession regularly (John Paul II even went weekly). The Church does not teach that a person must go to a priest to pray for forgiveness (indeed, laity are expected to pray regularly on their own). The Bible and the Church do teach that Confession is good for Christians, and the principle of “iron sharpening iron,” and learning from a mentor in faith are all good and godly means by which God’s grace is restored to the penitent. As the name of the sacrament suggests, the point of Reconciliation is to reconcile the penitent to God, to the Church, and to any whom the penitent may have offended through his sin. In this way, God’s grace is inwardly wrought as the priest outwardly makes the sign of the Cross, absolving the penitent in Jesus’ name.

Anointing of the Sick. In this sacrament a priest anoints the sick with oil blessed specifically for that purpose, praying for the Holy Spirit’s grace to heal that person in body, mind, and spirit. Originally, this sacrament was called “unction,” after one of the Latin words for “anoint.” Protestants may be familiar with the terms “Last Rites” or “Extreme Unction,” this was essentially the anointing of the dying, and praying for the grace of the Holy Spirit in that process.

Holy orders. The Catholic Church does not require that all priests be celibate, but it is the tradition of the Western Rite of the Church, based upon Paul’s teaching that a person not drawn between God and their spouse will be more fully devoted to the Lord, that priests and bishops be celibate. Deacons, on the other hand, may be married, so long as they are not preparing to become priests.

Marriage. The Catholic concept of marriage is almost exactly the same as Protestants. One difference is that the Church applies Christ’s teaching on being unequally yoked more consistently: only baptized communicants of the Catholic Church may be married by a priest to another Catholic Christian. The Church also uphold’s the Gospel teaching that divorce is unscriptural, with provision for anulment in cases where it is obvious that the sacrament of marriage did not occur.

Prayer for the Dead

Another issue that many Protestants have with the teaching of the Catholic Church is its prayer for the dead, and the related doctrine of purgatory. The misconception about purgatory and prayer for the dead comes from a layman in the thirteenth century A.D. named Dante. In his classic work, The Divine Comedy, Dante tells an enthralling story of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. The problem with this work, however, is its understanding of Purgatory as a place, not a state.

The Bible and the Church teach that after death, one is either with God in ecstasy or separated from God in torment. The Apostle Paul teaches that “fire shall try every man’s work,” and “if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so, as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15). This cleansing fire of which Paul writes is also referenced throughout Holy Tradition, and purgatory, or more accurately, “purgation,” is this cleansing after death for those won for God by Christ that is accomplished by Christ’s grace.

Praying for the dead is found throughout Christian tradition. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul prays for the family his dear friend Onesiphorus, but he also prays for his friend, writing to Timothy: “May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus” (2 Tim. 1:16-18). St. Augustine also prays for his dead mother Monica, in his book Confessions.

The Catholic Church, with the Apostle Paul, prays for those who have died with faith in Jesus, that God would show mercy “on that day.”

Forward in faith

I hope it is evident that I have investigated the claims of the Catholic Church, that I have studied their doctrine and practice, and that I have experienced Catholic worship. In all of these things, I have sensed a resonance within me. My soul has felt peace, and I have had an abiding sense of “rightness” in the decision to follow God into the Catholic Church.

But even as I find peace in this decision, I want to make it clear that my love and concern for my family and friends—my brothers and sisters in Christ!—has only grown through this process. Nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church will force me to reject my heritage or my family. Nothing that I must do to be confirmed in the Church will require me to believe that my family and friends are not Christians or unfaithful. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with faith has received the sacrament of Christian initiation and been born into the family of the Triune God.

I look forward to the opportunity to continue to worship our God with my parents, sister, family, and friends from Rogersville, Vanderbilt, Samford, Nashville, and elsewhere. I retain and nurture both great respect and great honor for the people and institutions who have made me who I am. I will forever thank God, and continue to pray for his protection, for the people of First Baptist Church of Rogersville. In my heart, that congregation will always be the place where my journey began. It will always feel like home-away-from-home.

I wrote all of this, because I wanted you, the reader, to understand why I made what might seem like a radical decision. I wanted you to understand that I have put tremendous amounts of deliberation and prayer into this decision. I wanted to assure you that I was neither abandoning Jesus Christ nor those who do not follow me into the Catholic Church. I wanted to demonstrate that I had thought through the consequences of the decision. And I wanted you to know that while my Church affiliation—and a few doctrines here and there—may now be different from yours, I am still a disciple of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. My hope is still built “on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” It is only upon “Christ, the solid Rock, I stand.”

I’m sure you’re laughing at me for citing to hymns, but if there’s one thing people who know me know, it is that my relationship with Jesus is one that is expressed in music. No better way to close, then, than this:

The Church’s one foundation
is Jesus Christ her Lord,
she is His new creation
by water and the Word.
From heav’n He came and sought her to be His holy bride;
with His own blood He bought her and for her life He died.

—Given at Nashville, on the Vigil of the Memorial of St. Theodore of Canterbury, anno Domini MMVIII.

Update (April 12, 2009): Last night, at the Easter Vigil, I was accepted into the Catholic Church, received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and made my first Holy Communion. Deo gratias!

Statement on the Deposition of Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh

2008-09-18T16:27:00.001-05:00

On Thursday, September 18, 2008, the eve of the Memorial of St. Theodore of Canterbury, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America purportedly deposed the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh for "abandonment of the communion of this church."

It is with great disappointment that I learned of the actions of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church today. I find it sadly ironic that on the eve of the Memorial of St. Theodore of Canterbury, who brought peace and order to the troubled dioceses of England in the Seventh Century A.D., the hierarchs in a daughter-church of his See would purport to depose such a good and godly man as Bishop Duncan.

I pray that the Holy Spirit would continue to uphold and strengthen the Bishop in his ministry, and I continue to fervently pray that Almighty God would reform and renew The Episcopal Church, purging it of heresy and restoring it to the Church Catholic and the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us, sinners.

St. Theodore, pray for us.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Governor Bredesen on Barack Obama

2008-08-19T09:08:00.004-05:00

From his excellency, the (Democratic) Governor of Tennessee:

“Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.” *

I couldn't agree more, Phil.

FEELING: Surprised
LISTENING TO: Sounds of the office

* Quote from The New York Times

Quote of the Day, from Chancellor Zeppos

2008-07-24T12:10:00.002-05:00

This made me want to run to campus, find this man, and shake his hand. God bless him as he leads my alma mater:

Nicholas Zeppos is clearly enjoying the challenge.
"I plan on finishing my career here," he says. One of the perks of being chancellor, he adds, is the option of being buried on the Vanderbilt campus.
"I'm thinking 50-yard line."

FEELING: Proud
LISTENING TO: The sounds of Music City out my window

The Pope on the upcoming decennial Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops

2008-07-16T14:34:00.003-05:00

According to Zenit.org, "the world seen from Rome," Pope Benedict XVI was asked about the upcoming, every-ten-year Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops. Follows is the exchange, translated from Italian by Zenit.org:

Q: While you are in Australia, the bishops of the Anglican Communion, which is very widespread also in Australia, are meeting in Lambeth Palace. One of the main arguments will be possible ways to consolidate communion between the provinces and to find a way to ensure that one or more provinces do not take initiatives that others see as contrary to the Gospel and tradition.

Is there the risk of a fragmentation of the Anglican Communion and the possibility that some will ask to be received into the Catholic Church. What is your hope for the Lambeth Conference and for the archbishop of Canterbury?

Benedict XVI: My essential contribution can only be prayer and with my prayer I will be very close to the Anglican bishops meeting in Lambeth Conference.

We cannot and must not intervene immediately in their discussions, we respect their own responsibility and it is our hope that schisms and new breaks can be avoided, and that a responsible solution will be found given our times, but also in fidelity to the Gospel. These two things must go together.

Christianity is always contemporary and lives in this world, in a certain time, but it renders present in this time the message of Jesus Christ and, hence, offers a true contribution for this time only be being faithful -- in a mature and creative way -- but faithful to the message of Christ.

We hope, and I personally pray, that together they will find the way of the Gospel for our day. This is my wish for the archbishop of Canterbury: That the Anglican Communion in communion with the Gospel of Christ and the Word of the Lord will find the answers to the present challenges.

FEELING: Hopeful that the Holy Father will, as the Bishop of Ebbsfleet said, make a "gracious gesture" to Anglican Christians toward reunion
LISTENING TO: Silence, as I study for the Bar Exam

Modern mythology

2008-06-24T16:52:00.002-05:00

I just finished it. I can literally say that these past four years have been among the best television I have ever watched -- really, among the best drama I have ever watched. It parallels the pivotal story of our time -- of my time -- the story of human civilization in the post-9/11 world -- in a compelling and thought-provoking way. And no matter how much I get teased about it, if people put their prejudices aside long enough to give it a fair shot, there's no way they can miss the allegory.

It truly is modern mythology.

And it is only appropriate that the show should end its final seasons' half-way point with words like these:

"Viatores fatigati
Venientes ad litus longe distantem

Collinae virentes
Superstant nebulam tristem

Dies surgit
Unda matutina

Omnes passi sumus multa
Omnes superviximus
Venimus Terram

Fratres sororesque
Inimici et amici
Osculamini
Domum venimus

Iam plango
Non mortuos
Sed implacatos

Collinae virentes nos excipient
Vento sequente
Caeli aperient
Approquinquantibus" *

Translation:

"Weary travelers
Approach a distant shore

The sky breaks
Like a wave

We have all suffered
We have all survived
We have arrived at Earth

Brothers and sisters
Enemies and friends
Embrace
For we have come home

Yet I weep
Not for the fallen
But for the unforgiven

Green hills await
With wind at our backs
The heavens part
As we approach" *

If that's not something straight out of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, or Tolkien, I do not know what is.

FEELING: Excited
LISTENING TO: The soundtrack, once more

* Lyrics by Bear McCreary, composer for Battlestar; read more about them and their genesis at his official blog.

What if Jonah had been sent to the Anglicans instead of the Ninevites?

2008-06-18T17:46:00.003-05:00

"Jonah?"

"Yes, LORD."

"It approaches the end of forty days and the Ninevites have not repented. Prepare to leave the city before..."

"Listen, LORD, about that. How hard-and-fast is that forty day time limit?"

"Hard. And fast."

"The Ninevites were wondering if they could get an extension."

"A what?"

"An extension. More time."

"Why?"

"Well, frankly, LORD, and I mean this with the greatest respect, you know that. I mean, anybody that can create a fish just to swallow me up has got it going on, you know what I'm saying? But forty days is nowhere near time enough for Nineveh to repent."

"Help me out here, Jonah. I know that I, YHWH, am only the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it. But it seems to me that if I, YHWH, the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, tell you to repent, you either do or you don't. Up or down."

"LORD, it's way more complicated than that. Here, it takes a lot longer."

"Once again. Why?"

"For one thing, the Nineveh Commission isn't anywhere close to finishing its work."

"What in the world is that?"

"That's the commission that's going all over Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire getting input from all segments of Assyrian society in order to put together a considered response to your request."

"A considered response!!"

Read the whole thing here.

FEELING: Like that's a sadly accurate portrayal of the Anglican Communion
LISTENING TO: A smelly "representative" from the Democratic National Committee stand in my doorway trying to convince Zach to vote for Obama [on your shoulder] -- no, seriously

The forces of heresy advance throughout the Anglican Communion

2008-06-16T10:35:00.005-05:00

With the upcoming Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops in shambles (thanks to a rival meeting of orthodox Anglican Bishops in the Holy Land) and with the Church of England's first gay wedding, the victory of the forces of heresy (that word is not used lightly, see an account of the heresies in which Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop believes) are ever more confident in their takeover of Anglicanism.

How confident? Try this:

FEELING: A bit demoralized
LISTENING TO: The BarBri professor drone on about torts

Why alcohol is Biblically-acceptable at public, family events in Rogersville

2008-06-10T11:39:00.002-05:00

[Note: the following is written in response to a series of posts on a message board upon which folks from my hometown post regularly about current events in our town.]

In several posts on this forum, folks have posted -- either explicitly or impliedly -- that drinking alcohol is wrong, and that Rogersville officials are evil for allowing alcohol at public events, such as the "Bluegrass and BBQ" event that was recently held on the Courthouse Square.

To me it's very sad that in my hometown, a place that has always seemed very Biblically literate (i.e., people know what the Bible actually says, not what they've been "taught" the Bible says), people are having this argument.

Here is why.

1. BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

Someone mentioned the "KJV," which I'm guessing is their citation of the King James Bible as the only "real" authoritative version of the Bible (which raises a whole host of other issues, such as: what Bible was the "real" version before 1611), so it seems to me that some Scriptural citations -- in the King James Version -- would be appropriate.

• Ecclesiastes 9:7-8 says, "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment."

• Psalm 104:14-15 says, "He," meaning God, "causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."

• John 2:1-11 says, "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, 'They have no wine.'

"Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.'

"His mother saith unto the servants, 'Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.'

"And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

"Jesus saith unto them, 'Fill the waterpots with water.' And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, 'Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.' And they bare it.

"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, 'Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.'

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

* * *

2. WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE MEAN?

So clearly, there is a disconnect between what the people on this posting believe the Bible says and what the Bible actually says.

A. Ecclesiastes 9

First, with regard to the Ecclesiastes passage: the author of Ecclesiastes, inspired by the Holy Spirit, has been writing about the vanity of the world. But in his recognition that, outside God, everything is vanity, the author also realizes that God has provided for some happiness in this world. What are among those blessings? The simple ones: "bread of joy" and "wine with a merry heart."

This isn't the drink-wine-because-water's-not-safe (if that were the case, the "thou leadest me beside still waters" doesn't make a lot of sense over in Psalm 23) use of wine; no, here, the Holy Spirit, through the writer of Ecclesiastes, specifically instructs those who recognize that vanity of the world to drink their wine with a merry heart -- and seemingly precisely because it gives a merry heart.

B. Psalm 104

In Psalm 104, the Holy Spirit is even clearer than in the Ecclesiastes passage. Here, the author declares, "He causeth ... wine that maketh glad the heart of man." It's difficult to explain this away (though I'm sure some here will try, giving up a "literal" interpretation of Scripture because it doesn't fit their preconceptions).

What does God cause wine? To "maketh glad the heart of man." Period. Not for health purposes. Not because the water isn't safe. Not because they don't have Coca-Cola. Because it "maketh glad the heart of man." Clearly, then, if God's purpose in creating wine was to "maketh glad the heart of man," can it be against God's purpose for his creatures to use it for that very purpose?

I would argue no.

C. John: the Miracle of the Wedding at Cana

Finally, we come to Jesus. Even if the Old Testament allows a Godly person to drink wine, surely, in the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ condemns alcohol use, setting up rules for us to avoid it's "evil" "tempting" power.

In fact, Jesus does the opposite.

First, Jesus is at a wedding. He goes with his mom and his brothers and sisters. At the wedding, there is wine -- and lots of it. There are multiple "casks" (i.e., large barrels) of wine. Does Jesus condemn the wedding-goers? Does he give a parable, explaining to them the evils of alcohol? Does he explicitly say that he won't drink the wine? No. None of the above.

And then, the wedding hosts run out of wine. People have drank so much wine that there isn't any more wine. So Jesus' mom, Mary, comes to him and says, "Son, our hosts haven't planned well enough, and they've run out of wine."

Does Jesus respond to his mother with a rebuke? Does he say, "Well good, woman, because they're all drunk, and they don't need any more wine"? Does he give a parable, explaining why he cannot?

No: Jesus provides more wine. Miraculously. And it's his first miracle! Jesus' first miracle isn't a healing, it isn't raising from the dead, it isn't casting out demons -- instead, he wants people to have fun at a wedding party by giving them more wine!

* * *

3. WAS BEER AT THE DOWNTOWN EVENT OKAY?

People here have stated that the leaders of Rogersville must be reprobate because they had beer at a "family" event. In order to look down on these civic leaders, the people who believe that it was wrong for there to be beer in downtown must set themselves above our Lord Jesus Christ.

For them to hold that position, they have to argue that they're more righteous than Jesus -- that they have a clearer understanding of God's will than Jesus. Because when Jesus was confronted with a joyful, public occasion, involving the whole community (including children and families), not only did he fail to condemn the alcohol use, but instead, he furthered its consumption!

We do see, in the New Testament, examples of people who take God's Law seriously. They take it so seriously, in fact, that they come up with "extra" rules that go above and beyond what God requires. For example, they read in the Law that God requires us to "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." They want to obey God's law, but they're afraid that they might unintentionally break the law. So what do they do? They come up with extra requirements to help them avoid breaking the law. They come up with all sorts of things that "might" be considered work, and thus breaking the Sabbath. They don't want to break the Sabbath, so they say that these "extras" are also what God was talking about when he hallowed the Sabbath.

Sounds like a good idea, right? After all, we don't want to break God's law -- we want to be holy as He is holy -- we want to be obedient -- we want rules to follow.

But Jesus doesn't agree. Because these people that come up with extra ways, on top of God's law, for being holy? They're called Pharisees. And more than anyone else in the Bible, Jesus rebukes them, mocks them, ridicules them, and calls them names.

I know that the people on this forum who are against alcohol consumption have good intentions in their hearts. They know that alcohol can become addictive, and they know that the Bible does say that it is sinful to become drunk. And so, because they are afraid of that temptation to sin, they decide to come up with extra rules. Instead of what the Bible teaches -- alcohol in moderation is not only acceptable, but within God's very purpose in allowing wine in the first place, they decide that we cannot drink at all -- because the temptation is far too great that we might sin.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is the very definition of being a Pharisee: it is putting a human rule or tradition on top and in excess of what God has demanded and required in his law. Jesus calls that sort of activity a sin: pride. And he calls those who commit it to repent.

I am confident that our Lord Jesus, as he looked down upon the Courthouse Square in Rogersville during the Bluegrass event was enjoying the music -- gifts and talents his Father gave to those playing and singing it -- and also laughed along with all those who were partaking of a part of the bounty of his Father's creation -- beer, the fruit of fermented barley -- without excess.

And if Jesus had showed up outside the Hale Springs Inn to enjoy the show? There's a good chance he would have probably had a beer.

FEELING: Hopeful that people will listen to the Scriptures
LISTENING TO: What the Bible says

Challenging words for a Tuesday afternoon

2008-06-03T12:47:00.003-05:00

From the Rev. Matt Kennedy, and his four-part talk, Mere Christianity in a Pluralist World:

"When the apostles preached the gospel they did not sell Jesus. They did not go around begging people to please, please invite Jesus into their hearts because then they would feel a lot better about things and he'd really enhance their career goals or their bottom line.

"The apostles’ message was that the whole world is in bondage to sin but now God has sent his Son to save all those who repent, submit and commit their lives to him. As Paul said to the Athenians on Mars Hill, God now commands all people to repent. Repentance puts everything in the right perspective.

"Jesus is not our co-pilot. He’s not here to take the edge off of life. He is our Lord and King and Savior -- and we are to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him."

FEELING: Challenged, convicted
LISTENING TO: A BarBri lecturer drone on about equitable remedies

Providence continues

2008-05-13T16:16:00.003-05:00

It never fails: God's providential grace is more than enough to get me through any situation -- even those that are major, paradigm-shifting ones. This week, the first after my most recent paradigm-shift, is the Week after Pentecost, and the prayer-of-the-day for this week seems to have been designed for my encouragement:

Remember, O Lord, what thou hast wrought in us and not
what we deserve; and, as thou hast called us to thy service, make us worthy of our calling; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit: one God, now and forever. Amen.

FEELING: Hopeful
LISTENING TO: Casting Crowns sing "...I need your peace to get me through / To get me through this night. / I can't live by what I feel / But by the truth your word reveals / I'm not holding on to you / But your holding on to me...."

Once again, a major paradigm-shifting event

2008-05-10T17:56:00.003-05:00

As an abstract matter, should you ask me just out-and-out, I'd be quite inclined to agree that, as a general issue, "God answers prayer." Most of the time, my prayer-life reflects that: I genuinely ask God things that I believe he can accomplish, and in asking, it is my hope that he will answer.*

But if I am honest, I will recognize that there can be something -- well, let's call it "cognitive dissonance" -- between my intellectual affirmation that "God answers prayer" and an expectant-looking for that very eventuality.

And so it has been with the news I learned Friday: that I will no longer be moving to Montgomery, thanks to a complex series of events that began when the Legislature of Alabama passed the State budget, cutting it by around seventeen percent. Without going into details, I can say that my prayers to God regarding whether it was within his will to move to Montgomery were rather abruptly answered yesterday.

So, for the second time in fourteen months, a major, life-altering paradigm shift has occurred, causing a future that I believed certain and secure to collapse in upon itself in a matter of moments.

It's enough to give one whiplash.

But in recognizing that this paradigm shift is, indeed, an answer to prayer, if a resounding, "No," I must also return back to the source of the answer, and recognize that powerful truth proclaimed by Jesus: "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today."

And again, from Jesus' follower and disciple, James: "Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money.’ Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that.'"

Yesterday afternoon, God took my "I will go to Montgomery, spend a few years there, doing business as a lawyer and making money," and reminded me that "I do not even know what tomorrow will bring."

Truly, I am a mist that appears for a little while, and then vanishes. And with all the saints, today I must affirm the truth that "if the Lord wishes, I will live."

And maybe, just maybe, "do this or that."

FEELING: Chastened
LISTENING TO: "Falling in Love," a song by the band Falling Up, as they sing, "All of my dreams and passions / are in Your hands."

* I'd like to point out that since I believe God is Almighty (as in the Creed: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty"), I ask God for lots of things because I believe he can accomplish whatever he wills.

Why popes matter

2008-04-14T11:38:00.003-05:00

Great article in Newsweek on the historical and spiritual role of the papacy, how its changed in the last 75 years, and why it matters -- even to good Protestants -- when Benedict speaks.

He will be here this week; please pray for his safe journey and that the message of the Gospel will be clearly heard by the Americans to whom he speaks.

FEELING: Rested
LISTENING TO: iTunes playlist

Pray for the visit of the Bishop of Rome

2008-04-08T18:58:00.003-05:00

Our brother in Christ, Benedict XVI, is traveling to the United States next Tuesday, April 15 through Sunday, April 20. He'll be visiting Washington, D.C. and New York, N.Y. Among his visits, he'll be meeting with President Bush, the General Assembly of the United Nations, and faithful Catholic Christians from across the western hemisphere (and especially the United States).

Today, he issued this statement to all Christians in the United States:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the United States of America,

The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you!

In just a few days from now, I shall begin my apostolic visit to your beloved country. Before setting off, I would like to offer you a heartfelt greeting and an invitation to prayer. As you know, I shall only be able to visit two cities: Washington and New York. The intention behind my visit, though, is to reach out spiritually to all Catholics in the United States. At the same time, I earnestly hope that my presence among you will be seen as a fraternal gesture towards every ecclesial community, and a sign of friendship for members of other religious traditions and all men and women of good will. The risen Lord entrusted the Apostles and the Church with his Gospel of love and peace, and his intention in doing so was that the message should be passed on to all peoples.

At this point I should like to add some words of thanks, because I am conscious that many people have been working hard for a long time, both in Church circles and in the public services, to prepare for my journey. I am especially grateful to all who have been praying for the success of the visit, since prayer is the most important element of all. Dear friends, I say this because I am convinced that without the power of prayer, without that intimate union with the Lord, our human endeavours would achieve very little. Indeed this is what our faith teaches us. It is God who saves us, he saves the world, and all of history. He is the Shepherd of his people. I am coming, sent by Jesus Christ, to bring you his word of life.

Together with your Bishops, I have chosen as the theme of my journey three simple but essential words: "Christ our hope". Following in the footsteps of my venerable predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II, I shall come to United States of America as Pope for the first time, to proclaim this great truth: Jesus Christ is hope for men and women of every language, race, culture and social condition. Yes, Christ is the face of God present among us. Through him, our lives reach fullness, and together, both as individuals and peoples, we can become a family united by fraternal love, according to the eternal plan of God the Father. I know how deeply rooted this Gospel message is in your country. I am coming to share it with you, in a series of celebrations and gatherings.

I shall also bring the message of Christian hope to the great Assembly of the United Nations, to the representatives of all the peoples of the world. Indeed, the world has greater need of hope than ever: hope for peace, for justice, and for freedom, but this hope can never be fulfilled without obedience to the law of God, which Christ brought to fulfilment in the commandment to love one another. Do to others as you would have them do to you, and avoid doing what you would not want them to do. This "golden rule" is given in the Bible, but it is valid for all people, including non-believers. It is the law written on the human heart; on this we can all agree, so that when we come to address other matters we can do so in a positive and constructive manner for the entire human community.

Dirijo un cordial saludo a los católicos de lengua española y les manifiesto mi cercanía espiritual, en particular a los jóvenes, a los enfermos, a los ancianos y a los que pasan por dificultades o se sienten más necesitados. Les expreso mi vivo deseo de poder estar pronto con Ustedes en esa querida Nación. Mientras tanto, les aliento a orar intensamente por los frutos pastorales de mi inminente Viaje Apostólico y a mantener en alto la llama de la esperanza en Cristo Resucitado.

[I cordially greet Spanish-speaking Catholics and manifest to you my spiritual closeness, especially to the young, to the sick, the elderly and those experiencing difficulties or who are most in need. I express my great wish to be present with you in this dear nation. In the meantime, I ask you to pray intensely for the pastoral fruits of my imminent Apostolic Voyage and to keep high the call of hope in the Risen Christ.]

Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends in the United States, I am very much looking forward to being with you. I want you to know that, even if my itinerary is short, with just a few engagements, my heart is close to all of you, especially to the sick, the weak, and the lonely. I thank you once again for your prayerful support of my mission. I reach out to every one of you with affection, and I invoke upon you the maternal protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Que la Virgen María les acompañe y proteja. Que Dios les bendiga.

May God bless you all.

As the two hundred and sixty-sixth Bishop of Rome travels to our country, let us pray that his visit will bring all those who do not know the risen Lord to embrace the Way, the Truth, and the Life: "Christ, our hope."

FEELING: Tired, but excited
LISTENING TO: A discussion of what sort of scenarios would be acceptable under Batson v. Kentucky

Easter triumph, Easter joy

2008-03-30T19:20:00.003-05:00

Apparently, my Good Friday post was starting to depress people; and really, it wasn't witnessing the fullness of the Christian Gospel. Because the story doesn't end with the death of Jesus, and that's why His followers will be partying for the next fifty days!

Mighty Victim from on high,
hell's fierce powers beneath Thee lie;
Thou hast conquered in the fight,
Thou hast brought us life and light:
now no more can death appall,
now no more the grave enthrall;
Thou hast opened paradise,
and in Thee thy saints shall rise.

Easter triumph, Easter joy,
these alone do sin destroy.
From sin's power do Thou set free
souls newborn, O Lord, in Thee.
Hymns of glory, songs of praise,
Father, unto Thee we raise:
risen Lord, all praise to Thee
with the Spirit ever be!

---Robert Campbell (1814-1868)

Never was a grief like His

2008-03-21T13:54:00.002-05:00

Lo, here I hang, charg’d with a world of sinne,
The greater world o’ th’ two; for that came in
By words, but this by sorrow I must win:
Was ever grief like mine?

Such sorrow as, if sinfull man could feel,
Or feel his part, he would not cease to kneel.
Till all were melted, though he were all steel:
Was ever grief like mine?

But, O my God, my God! why leav’st thou me,
The sonne, in whom thou dost delight to be?
My God, my God --
Never was grief like mine.*

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. They kept coming up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and striking him on the face.

Pilate went out again and said to them, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him."

So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"

When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him."

The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God."

Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, "Where are you from?"

But Jesus gave him no answer.

Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?"

Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against Caesar."

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge’s bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!"

They cried out, "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!"

Pilate asked them, "Shall I crucify your King?"

The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."

Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus; and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews', but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'"

Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it."

This was to fulfil what the scripture says, "They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots."

And that is what the soldiers did.

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scripture), "I am thirsty." A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out (he who saw this has testified so that you also may believe -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth).

These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "None of his bones shall be broken."

And again another passage of scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."

--The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to Saint John (vv. 1-37).

*George Herbert, "The Sacrifice." 1633. Online at http://www.ccel.org/h/herbert/temple/Sacrifice.html.

Now, my tongue, the mystery telling

2008-03-19T22:08:00.002-05:00

It began this past Sunday, with palm-branches and "Hosanna!" We remembered with joy the welcome Jesus received as fulfilled prophecy and entered Jerusalem. And then we braced ourselves for this Week of Weeks with a meditation on Jesus' teaching, betrayal, suffering, and death.

And we wait.

We wait for the culmination of our hope as Christians. The yearning for the completion and fulfillment that we sense is just over the horizon.

But for now, the glorious rays of Light, the peals of "Hallelujah!", and the glad proclamation of victory are yet unfulfilled.

We must wait.

And as we wait, we remember. The twentieth day of March is Maundy Thursday this year: the night that we remember Jesus' teaching of the New Commandment (mandatum novum) that we "love one another." The night we remember the example that he gave for us, as he washed his disciples' feet. And the night that we joyfully recall that sacred meal that he taught us to commemorate, to proclaim his death until he returns.

I hope you will take a moment and think about that Thursday night: the night that Jesus was betrayed and handed over to sinners. To help you as you turn to God in prayer, consider the following poem, attributed to Thomas Aquinas (a Christian from the thirteenth century), and use it to guide your prayers of thanksgiving, adoration, and remembrance.

And then wait. Sunday is coming.

Now, my tongue, the mystery telling
of the glorious Body sing,
and the Blood all price excelling,
which the Gentiles Lord and King:
once on Earth among us dwelling,
shed for this world's ransoming.

Giv'n for us and condescending
to be born for us below,
he with us in converse blending
dwelt, the seed of truth to sow,
'til he closed with wondrous ending
his most patient life of woe.

That last night at supper lying
'mid the Twelve, his chosen band,
Jesus, with the Law complying,
keeps the feast its rites' demand;
then, more precious food supplying,
gives himself with his own hand.

Word made flesh, the bread he taketh,
by his word his flesh to be;
wine his sacred blood he maketh,
though the senses fail to see;
faith alone the true heart waketh
to behold the mystery.

Therefore we, before him bending,
this great Sacrament revere;
types and shadows have their ending,
for the newer rite is here;
faith, our outward sense befriending,
makes our inward vision clear.

Glory let us give, and blessing,
to the Father and the Son,
honor, thanks, and praise addressing,
while eternal ages run;
ever, too, His love confessing
Who* from both, with both, is One.

--Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274); ver. Hymnal 1940

* Reference to the Holy Spirit

'Dwelling in unity' just got a little bit bigger

2008-03-16T21:41:00.002-05:00

This week, we initiated new brothers into Beta Upsilon Chi Fraternity at Vanderbilt's Nu Chapter. I had the personal joy of being present for the ceremony and celebrating with the newest members of my family.

It's starting to get hard to keep up with them all, though, so I've taken a cue from Facebook and decided to post my Family Lineage:

Dillon Barker Founding Father
Eric Armstrong Alpha
Ross Morrison Beta
Justin Miller Gamma		Austin Fish Gamma
Chase Blood Delta	Garrett Spiegel Delta	Andrew Lossing Delta
Greg Wigger Epsilon	Cramer McCullen Epsilon	Garrett Sauter Epsilon

FEELING: Proud
LISTENING TO: The Fraternity Song

Georgia plans to invade Tennessee, steal water

2008-02-27T14:08:00.002-06:00

So because Atlanta and the State of Georgia can't really manage their own water resources, they've decided to invade Tennessee and siphon off the waters of the Tennessee River, about 1.1 miles inside the Tennessee border. No, really. And the politicians in both States have the paperwork to prove it.

Indeed, the resolutions that have been coming out of the General Assembly of Georgia, the General Assembly of Tennessee, and the Mayor's Office of Chattanooga have been hilarious. Here, for your enjoyment, are a sample.

First, from the Georgia General Assembly (which started all this):

WHEREAS, the northern border of the State of Georgia and the southern border of the states of North Carolina and Tennessee lies at the 35th parallel, north of the southernmost bank of the Tennessee River; and

WHEREAS, a flawed survey conducted in 1818 and never accepted by the State of Georgia erroneously marks the 35th parallel south of its actual location; and

WHEREAS, over a long period of years, from time to time, the legislatures of these states have undertaken to authorize the appointment of committees to meet and to resolve the issues associated with the wrongly surveyed and erroneously marked border; and

WHEREAS, by an Act of the General Assembly of North Carolina, approved in 1881 (N.C. Gen. Stat. 141-1 to 6 (1964)), the General Assembly of North Carolina authorized the Governor of North Carolina to appoint commissioners and a surveyor from North Carolina to act with the commissioners and surveyors appointed or to be appointed by any of the states contiguous to North Carolina to resurvey and mark the boundary lines between these states; and

WHEREAS, no official record of any such commissioners and surveyors as provided for in said Act exists; and

WHEREAS, by an Act of the General Assembly of Georgia, approved October 15, 1887 (Ga. L. 1886-87, p. 105), the General Assembly of Georgia directed the Governor to communicate with the Governor of Tennessee for the purpose of having a joint survey and settlement of the disputed boundary question and authorized the appointment of a committee to meet with an assembly committee representing the State of Tennessee, whose duty it would be to survey, establish, and proclaim the true boundary line; and

WHEREAS, by an Act approved April 8, 1889, the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee enacted a similar authorization; and

WHEREAS, by a resolution approved March 6, 1941 (Ga. L. 1941, p. 1850), the General Assembly directed the Governor of Georgia to communicate with the Governor of Tennessee for the purpose of having a joint survey and settlement of the disputed question and further resolved that a standing committee of the House of Representatives be created to meet with a similar committee of the State of Tennessee to establish, survey, and proclaim the true boundary line between Georgia and Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, by a resolution approved March 27, 1947 (Ga. L. 1947, p. 1728), the General Assembly appointed a commission to negotiate with the proper authorities of the State of Tennessee and to agree upon and to fix a definite boundary line, and, in the failure of the commission to reach a settlement, the General Assembly authorized and directed the Attorney General of the State of Georgia to institute suit in the federal courts for purposes of accurately determining the boundary line between Georgia and Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, by a resolution approved March 6, 1971 (Ga. L. 1971, p. 2374), the General Assembly directed the Governor of Georgia to communicate with the Governors of North Carolina and Tennessee for the purpose of having joint surveys and settlements of the disputed boundary questions and further resolved that a Georgia-North Carolina and Georgia-Tennessee Boundary Line Commission be created to meet with similar commissions of the legislatures of the states of North Carolina and Tennessee to establish, survey, and proclaim the true boundary lines between Georgia and North Carolina and between Georgia and Tennessee, and to take such further or other action or pursue such remedy or remedies as the joint Commission of the Georgia General Assembly, by a majority vote, deems proper to establish the definite and true boundary lines between Georgia and North Carolina and Georgia and Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, by suggestion of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Chairman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission and the Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission agreed in 1974 to reserve resolution of the general boundary issue until a later date (15 FERC, p. 61240), the resolution of which has never been reached; and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding these authorizations and directions, the boundary lines have never been accurately resurveyed and marked and remain in doubt; and

WHEREAS, it is to the public interest and welfare that accurate and exact lines between the said states be established and proclaimed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA that the Governor of Georgia is hereby directed to communicate with the Governors of North Carolina and Tennessee for the purpose of having joint surveys and settlements of the disputed boundary questions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is hereby created the Georgia-North Carolina and Georgia-Tennessee Boundary Line Commission to meet with similar commissions of the General Assemblies of the States of North Carolina and Tennessee to establish, survey, and proclaim the true boundary lines between Georgia and North Carolina and between Georgia and Tennessee, and to take such further or other action or pursue such remedy or remedies as the joint commission of the Georgia General Assembly, by a majority vote, deems proper to establish the definite and true boundary lines between Georgia and North Carolina and Georgia and Tennessee. The commission shall be composed of three members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the President of the Senate. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate shall designate one of their respective appointees as co-chairperson, and the co-chairpersons shall jointly call the organizational meeting of the commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in order to effectively carry out its duties and responsibilities, said commission may employ consultants and contract with persons, firms, or corporations to provide research and other assistance as the commission deems proper and necessary; provided, however, that the amount of any funds proposed to be spent for such services shall first be approved, in writing, by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the Senate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each member of such commission shall receive the expenses and allowances provided by law for legislative members of interim legislative committees for each meeting of the commission or subcommittees thereof attended by each such member, but shall receive the same for not more than 15 days, unless additional days are authorized by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. All funds necessary to carry out the provisions of this resolution shall come from funds appropriated or otherwise available to the legislative branch of government.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the commission shall issue a report of its findings, work and meetings with similar commissions from North Carolina and Tennessee, and shall report the resolution of any boundary line questions or recommendations to the 2009 regular session of the General Assembly of Georgia. Said commission shall stand abolished as of the day on which the General Assembly convenes in regular session in 2009.

Upon learning of this declaration, Tennessee's Governor, Phil Bredesen, said that Tennessee would "defend her sovereign borders." He was joined by the Tennessee General Assembly in his outrage. Currently being debated on Capitol Hill in Nashville is the following:

WHEREAS, action recently taken by our good friends in the Georgia General Assembly constitutes an assault on the sanctity of the borders of our great State of Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, our legislative neighbors to the south have passed ill-conceived legislation alleging a boundary dispute between Georgia and Tennessee at the 35th Parallel and purporting to settle such dispute by the creation of a Boundary Line Commission composed of legislators from both States; and

WHEREAS, the Peach State alleges that erroneous surveys conducted in 1818 and 1826 with antiquated equipment have deprived Georgia of a tiny sliver of the Tennessee River; and

WHEREAS, this General Assembly realizes that the Tennessee-Georgia boundary has been well established for nearly 200 years, and that there is no valid reason for Tennessee to revisit this issue; and

WHEREAS, in addition to the doctrine of adverse possession, in which long-term possession of real property trumps survey boundaries, all other pertinent legal precedent favors the Volunteer State, just as good fortune often smiles upon the righteous; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has held in Oklahoma vs. Texas that there is a “general principle of public law” that, as between States, a “long acquiescence in the possession of territory under a claim of right and in the exercise of dominion and sovereignty over it, is conclusive of the rightful authority” and has held in Georgia vs. South Carolina that “long acquiescence in the practical location of an interstate boundary, and possession in accordance therewith, often has been used as an aid in resolving boundary disputes” between States; and

WHEREAS, this General Assembly understands that original jurisdiction in boundary disputes between the several States of this great nation resides with the United States Supreme Court, not some entity arbitrarily established by the Georgia legislature via resolution; and

WHEREAS, the State of Tennessee elects to take the high road relative to this mythical dispute, instead of becoming embroiled in an election-year ploy initiated by the Georgia General Assembly through legislation which, while purporting to settle a boundary dispute in a friendly manner, is actually nothing but a veiled attempt to commandeer the resources of the Tennessee River for the benefit of water-starved Atlanta, which is either unable or unwilling to control its reckless urban sprawl; and

WHEREAS, instead of engaging in such political rhetoric, this General Assembly is presently considering substantive measures to address Tennessee’s water supply and water shortages; perhaps our neighbors to the south should do the same; and

WHEREAS, in the face of Georgia’s heinous assault on the sovereignty of Tennessee, this General Assembly must act expeditiously and with authority to protect the borders of our State for present and future generations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that on behalf of the State of Tennessee and all Tennesseans, this General Assembly refuses to participate in the Boundary Line Commission purportedly established by the Georgia General Assembly, or any similar commission established for such purpose.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the sense of this General Assembly that the Tennessee-Georgia boundary has been properly established since 1818.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that enrolled copies of this resolution be delivered to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the Georgia General Assembly.

And finally, today, the Mayor of Chattanooga promulgated a Proclamation naming today "Give Our Georgia Friends A Drink Day." Here, in Biblical proportions, is the proclamation:

WHEREAS, it has come to pass that the heavens are shut up and a drought of Biblical proportions has been visited upon the Southern United States; and

WHEREAS, the parched and dry conditions have weighed heavily upon the State of Georgia and sorely afflicted those who inhabit the Great City of Atlanta; and

WHEREAS, the leaders of Georgia have assembled like the Children of Israel in the desert, grumbled among themselves and have begun to cast longing eyes toward the north, coveting their neighbor’s assets; and

WHEREAS, the lack of water has led some misguided souls to seek more potent refreshment or for other reasons has resulted in irrational and outrageous actions seeking to move a long established and peaceful boundary; and

WHEREAS, it is deemed better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and better to offer a cool, wet kiss of friendship rather than face a hot and angry legislator gone mad from thirst; and

WHEREAS, it is feared that if today they come for our river, tomorrow they might come for our Jack Daniels or George Dickel;

NOW THEREFORE, In the interest of brotherly love, peace, friendship, mutual prosperity, citywide self promotion, political grandstanding and all that,

I, RON LITTLEFIELD, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, do hereby Proclaim that Wednesday, February 27, 2008 shall be known as “Give Our Georgia Friends a Drink Day.”

Special thanks to Patrick Johnson for citing the Chattanooga proclamation my way.

Still standing

2008-02-09T18:40:00.000-06:00

Today I mark my twenty-fifth trip around the Sun, and what a year it's been since this time last year. Those of you who know me, know that it is only by God's grace that I have made it, and I give Him the thanks that twelve months later, I'm still standing. But even on this day, as I give thanks for God's mercy to me, I have to call your attention to another man who many never believed would be standing on February 9 in 2008. That man is Mike Huckabee.

I know many of you have asked me why I continually (and stubbornly) stand up for the underdog Governor from Arkansas. And many times, I have tried to give talking points about why I believe Mike Huckabee's policy positions make sense for America and would be better than any alternative I currently see.

But one of the things that I often fail to mention about the Governor is his uncanny ability to lead. He is a man of conviction, of character, and of hope -- a man that I believe can truly help us find what Ronald Reagan called "morning in America" all over again.

I know that many of my friends are progressives, people whose hope has been be raised by Senator Obama, who believe that this man who stands for change can lead America into a new Camelot. I believe that however sincere, they are wrong. I admire Senator Obama's rhetoric, but his policies and inexperience would be an utter disaster for America.

I also know that many of my friends who are conservatives believe that we can rally behind an elder statesman who will lead us in the fight against Isalmofascism. And while I believe that Senator McCain is a strong leader of immense character, I fear that too many Americans would see him linked with the errors that we conservatives made during our time in power; I fear that he would be but a foil and a prelude to the coronation of a Democratic presidency.

And so, I must ask all my friends to once again, as we stand on the precipice of a decision about who will be the next President of these United States, to consider Governor Mike Huckabee.

I write today because it was today that the Governor stopped to speak at the annual meeting of CPAC, the largest conservative political group in America -- the same forum where Governor Mitt Romney withdrew his candidacy for President. And it was there, today, that Governor Huckabee reminded conservatives -- and Americans -- that he is still standing. He boldly, eloquently, and powerfully stated his case for why he should be the next President of the United States.

The speech is about ten minutes; I invite you to open you mind, be willing to consider, and watch the video. It is available online, here.

After you have watched it, I believe that you, too, will see the rays of dawn approaching over the horizon. If Mike Huckabee is elected, it will be morning in America, again.

Tsunami Tuesday is coming: have you picked a candidate yet?

2008-02-01T16:43:00.000-06:00

I know many of you have been tuning in recently to the Presidential campaign, since both the Alabama and Tennessee primaries are this Tuesday, February 5. For my friends who are Democrats and progressives, I encourage you to switch while there's still time (just joking). For everyone else, I'd like to take this time to lay out, point-by-point, the reasons that I support Mike Huckabee, and I think you should, too.

These are only "talking points," so to speak; but if you'd like more information about the Governor, there's a lot more where this came from on his website, MikeHuckabee.com.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

1. With ten-and-a-half years of experience running state government, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has more relevant executive experience than any candidate in the race – either Republican or Democrat.

2. Recognized and tapped by his peers for leadership, the National Governor’s Association selected Governor Huckabee as it’s Chairman.

3. TIME Magazine honored him as one of the five best Governors in America.

4. Governor Huckabee is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes almost 100 times in the state of Arkansas, including the state’s first broad-based tax cuts, and turned a $200 million deficit into an $850 million surplus.

ISSUES

1. TAXES/ECONOMY – Governor Huckabee supports The FairTax because it will restore the “Made in America” label, making American goods 12-25% more competitive, boosting economic growth, increasing our exports, and securing American jobs. It also prevents criminals or illegal aliens from avoiding taxes, and makes the taxes we all pay 100% transparent.

2. GOVERNMENT SPENDING – Governor Huckabee is committed to reducing government spending. One way he’ll do this is by reducing the cost of welfare. Governor Huckabee will work with states to reduce welfare roles through programs like the one he implemented in Arkansas, which reduced welfare roles by 50%.

3. HEALTH CARE – Governor Huckabee will implement a consumer-based healthcare system that emphasizes preventative medicine and wellness. Because 70% of our $2 trillion dollar healthcare costs is spent treating chronic, preventable diseases, this approach will make healthcare more affordable for everybody while keeping us healthier.

4. FAMILY VALUES – Governor Huckabee supports a federal constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. He Successfully fought for Arknasas’ marriage amendment and strongly supports a similar, federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

5. IMMIGRATION – Governor Huckabee will secure the border (with physical barriers, electronic surveillance, and more border-patrol personnel and detention facilities). He will also end sanctuary cities and increase penalties on, and enforcement against, employers who hire illegal immigrants. Governor Huckabee will make sure the border patrol has adequate funding to end our “catch and release” system so that everyone caught trying to enter illegally, overstaying their visa, or committing a crime will be held until they’re tried, convicted, and deported. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Numbers USA "No Amnesty" Pledge.

6. WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ – Governor Huckabee knows it takes a large, well-equipped military to ensure our national defense and to deter conventional military confrontations. He also knows we need large, well-equipped intelligence and Special Forces operations for our national offense – so we can effectively find and eliminate terrorist threats at home or abroad. Governor Huckabee will be a Commander in Chief who knows that IF WE HAVE TO FIGHT A WAR, our President has to fight it the way our GENERALS tell him it can be won, not the way we wants it to be won.

7. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – Governor Huckabee will implement a program to end the import of foreign oil in the next ten years by increasing domestic oil production in the short term, and then replacing oil-based energy infrastructure with alternative and renewable energies.

8. CLEMENCIES – Arkansas Governors grant clemency, but the parole board grants parole. Wayne DuMond’s parole was granted by the board and NOT Governor Huckabee.

9. TAXES – When Governor Huckabee left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when he first came into office. Governor Huckabee returned almost $400 million to Arkansasf taxpayers, and he also DOUBLED the standard deduction for individuals and married couples, DOUBLED the childcare tax credit, and eliminated the marriage penalty. He also repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate by 25%, expanded the homestead exemption, and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition. Gov. Huckabee has also signed the Americans for Tax Reform's pledge not to raise taxes.

10. SECOND AMENDMENT -
• Lifetime member of the NRA, member for over 15 years
• First Governor to have concealed-carry permit
• Removed restrictions on carry permit holders
• Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits
• Opposes reauthorization of the Assault Weapon Ban
• Opposes expansion of the unconstitutional “Brady Bill”
• Opposes waiting period for purchase of firearms
• Opposes background checks on private firearms transactions at gun shows
• Will nominate judges who interpret the constitution as the Founders intended, rather than as a “living document reflecting current political trends or opinions”
• An avid hunter and conservationist, and a member of the Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation and BASS.

If you like what you've read here, be sure to check Mike out on his website at MikeHuckabee.com. And remember, vote this Tuesday, February 5.

Huckabama

2008-01-25T14:31:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow, Saturady, January 26, former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will be speaking at Samford University's Brock Hall at 4:30 p.m. Come hear Huck's positive message about vertical politics, winning the global war on terror, the fair tax, protecting the unborn, preserving traditional families, securing America's borders, and bringing hopeful change to Washington.

Why we'll win in Iraq: Al-Qaeda's hypocrisy

2008-01-23T13:54:00.000-06:00

I've written about the difficulty I often have respecting people who don't take their own faith seriously in the past. And it seems I'm not the only one who feels that way.

In a press conference on Al-Fayhaa TV, a network in Iraq, Sheik Th'aban Al-Bazoun had this to say about Al-Qaeda and their hypocrisy:

"[We say] to the terrorists, the supporters of takfir, to Al-Qaeda: If you want Iraq to be as Islamic state so badly, shouldn't you make your own countries Islamic first? What, they come from Morocco to establish an Islamic state in Iraq?! Why don't they turn Morocco into an Islamic state?

"They come from Saudi Arabia to turn Iraq into an Islamic state. They cross the border and blow themselves up -- why don't they blow themselves up in Saudi Arabia? After all, the Americans are present in Saudi Arabia, as well as in the UAE, in Bahrain, in Egypt, and in all the Arab countries. They have bases there. Go blow yourself up there. Instead of blowing up Iraqi children in schools, universities, and markets, go blow yourself up there. Go establish an Islamic state in Morocco, Tunisia, and Sudan.

"But one cannot establish an Islamic state by blowing up children, women, schools, or universities, or by means of terrorism and murder. We've become victims of people who come here from across the borders in order to kill Iraqi citizens, because they want to establish an Islamic state in Iraq. They want to force women to wear the veil.

"In their own countries women do not wear the veil. They want to force Iraqi Christian women to wear Islamic gowns. Christian women here do not wear these gowns. In their own countries, people wear pants and cowboy jeans. In your country, Saudi Arabia, people smoke marijuana on the beach, yet you come to Iraq to establish an Islamic state?!" *

I can't help but agree with the Sheik: the irony of these people (the Al-Qaeda folks) is that no one, not even their own countrymen, wants to live the way of life that they would impose by force on foreigners. And because of that, with the help of other foreigners (even though those foreigners' fellow-citizens back home think it's a bad idea), Iraqis will finally take back their country and their lives.

* See the Sheik's press conference at the Middle East Media Research Institute Television Monitoring Project.

Cold, ashivering in the night

2007-12-25T22:01:00.005-06:00

I wrote the following today, after thinking about what Christmas really means to me. It may be sophomoric or pedantic (take your pick), but it's offered sincerely.

Cold, ashivering in the night?
Warm, wrapped close toward heavenly light?
Did holy hands grasp empty air,
As shepherds knelt in hushèd stare?
What did good Joseph think and say
who watch'd o'er God's own Dame that day?
Did pond'ring of the Virgin's heart
Unfurl God's plan there, at the start?

And who among the gathered throng
Knew in that trough laid one so strong
Whose might the mighty angels dread
Who looks as judge o'er quick and dead
By whom all things that are were made--
Who knew there in that manger laid?
Did ox or cow or horse or sheep
A silent, holy vigil keep?

Bath'd silv'ry white by star's glory,
Didst know these the God-man's story?
Did angels with their singing done
Return on wing to th'Holy One?
Or did they stay in Beth'lem town,
And ere return, fall raptur'd down
And there adore the nascent Son
Whose High Invasion: now begun?

And what of we who now recount
What started on the shepherds' mount
As highest heaven's holy host
Foretold the coming of the Ghost
This tiny Infant soon would bring
To all who claim Him as their King?
Do we recall with reverend awe
What sages sought and fin'lly saw?

Or do we parrot call we hear
Fought yearly in this season dear?
"Merry Christmas to all!" the cry
Embattl'd would-be Ar'gorns sigh,
Who steadfast watch o'er news and store
To fight the fight each year, once more.
Remember they the charge of he
Who walked the Sea of Galilee?

Was it not He whose saying great
To bless those whom we think we hate?
Recalled by any his command
Love the Lord God and fellow-man?
Our charge we do seem to forget
Great Commission is often let
Slip idly by, each year ignore--
Like beggars stoop'd at Wal-Mart door.

Let us return with heart and soul
And unto humble Beth'lem go
And hear anew the gladsome song
Sung proudly by the angel throng
We'll see once more the shepherd's faith
That took them in to see His face
And then depart, with them, and say
"God loves and saves: e'en to this day!"

--D.E. Barker
Feast of the Nativity
25 December 2007

O Sapientia

2007-12-17T17:00:00.000-06:00

"O Wisdom, coming forth from the mouth of the Most High,
reaching from one end to the other,
mightily and sweetly ordering all things:
Come and teach us the way of prudence." *
As we come to the seventh day before Christmas Eve, here in the Third Week of Advent, we can observe the ancient tradition of the Great "O" Antiphons, a series of seven prayers to Jesus in the spirit of the Season of Advent.

I see it as a way to counter the culture of Christmas-consumerism; it's my effort to mimic the revolutionary spirit of the folks at Advent Conspiracy: we have an opportunity, as Christians, to stand up and proclaim that we will not be subverted to the secularization of Christmas. Indeed, as followers of Jesus, we have an amazing opportunity to stand athwart the emptiness of the buy-me culture and declare that this is the season of Advent; a period of remembrance of the longing of a world without Christ, and a reflection on the future of a world when Christ comes again.

It may surprise us to recall that we are not presently in the season of Christmas; indeed, that season begins at sundown on December 24 and ends at sundown on January 5 (the night before Epiphany).

Let us, then, subvert the world and proclaim the Coming Christ. We may do so with tonight's prayer: the Prayer of December 17, is "O Sapientia," or "O Wisdom," the name Jesus claims as the divine Logos, the Word of God Incarnate.

The wisdom of this world flails impotent before the overwhelming Reason and Truth of the Wisdom that comes forth into the Universe out of the very mouth of Almighty Creator; a Great Invader: to free the captives, proclaim the truth, and to reign as God's Word enfleshed.

* From the Latin, "O Sapientia, quae ex ore Altissimi prodiisti, attingens a fine usque ad finem, fortiter suaviterque disponens omnia: veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae." For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Sapientia#O_Sapientia.

Why we sometimes wish the atheists were right

2007-11-29T12:52:00.001-06:00

It is exam season here at Samford University, and that means that your humble author has re-discovered the amazing capacity that blogs have to provide adequate distraction from that upon which he should be focusing (e.g., constructing ponderous, third-person sentences about himself). It also provides, however, an opportunity to read gain insight into one's inner life, the true self that has been living through these interesting times.

And when I reflect upon that inner life, it's not always a pretty sight. In fact, as a human, it's a rather ugly sight. And that's also the message from Mark Galli in his piece, A rustling in the Garden, "why we sometimes wish the atheists were right."

It's a brief yet powerful article, and it will surely aid your inner reflection as we approach the time of anticipation and longing known as Advent.

Why Veterans' Day has new meaning for me

2007-11-12T15:48:00.000-06:00

I was nervous.

It didn't really make a lot of sense for me to be nervous; after all, this was one of my best friends. A young man who'd stood by me through all sorts of things. Who'd put up with me as a roommate on two separate occasions. Who'd been my fraternity brother. Somebody I'd trusted with so much of my life. Despite all this, I was nervous.

I was nervous because I was unsure who I would be going to meet in Atlanta. I had heard stories about how going to war changes a person. I'd seen, with my own eyes, how young men from my own hometown had returned from Baghdad to our peaceful haven in the hills of East Tennessee only to wake up in a cold sweat, night after night, waiting for the lurking enemy to kill them in their bed.

Is that how he would be? Would the John* I would meet at his home in suburban Cobb County be the same friend that had left for Afghanistan only six months before?

I didn't know. And as I drove down the interstate, heading for the South's megalopolis, I thought about the ironies of modern warfare that made me question the reasons for my anxiety.

First of all, John had been able to keep internet access almost the entire time he was in Afghanistan, even though there were times he was truly in the middle of nowhere. Throughout the time he was there, we'd emailed back-and-forth, he'd sent pictures, he'd updated his Facebook profile, and we had even had (roughly) weekly contact through instant messenger.

All the contact that I'd had with him seemed to show that the John who was getting a two-week furlough back in the USA would be the same John that went to war in the first place.

But I also knew, as I approached the Atlanta bypass, that John's time in-country would be a huge, life-changing experience for him. I knew that it would shape and change him in ways that I had not been shaped and changed. He would have been forced to grow up immediately -- taking charge of the lives of 40 men -- while I struggled with issues like whether and how to study for my next exam.

In a lot of ways, I was worried that my conversations with John would be petty. All I had to talk to him about, from my life, were mind-numbing, law school social politics, office politics from my summer job, and the silly, everday things about which we normally talk to one another. I thought about asking John about his experiences in Afghanistan -- had he seen anything that had made him think twice about his enrolling in the Army? Was there something that occurred that made him proud to be a soldier? Was it scary? Was it boring?

But even as I tried to map out an outline of the conversation I would have with him, I realized that it would be pointless. John is my friend, I told myself, there's no reason to be freaking out like this. Of course, as sometimes happens in my head, I began a heated, internal debate: what if this is the last time you see him, my self worried.

That thought gave me pause. I'd regularly prayed for John while he'd been in Afghanistan, thankful to God that his superiors had seen fit to keep him mostly on a base with thousands of US and coalition troops. Then he'd been sent out into the field, with his platoon, to help other soldiers carry out their mission. My prayers had taken on a new fervancy, as I begged God to keep John safe.

Would John have discovered this new sense of mortality with which my vicarious imaginings of his sojourns through the Afghani countryside left me? Or would he perceive me as a civillian with romantic, wrong-headed notions about warfare that had nothing to do with what'd he'd actually experienced?

I think John could tell I'd been arguing with myself when I finally pulled up to his parents' home outside Atlanta. After a sincere embrace -- and believe me, John is not one for hugging -- he gave me a good-natured punch in the arm and asked me what I'd been worrying about.

We quickly settled into the wry banter that characterized our friendship, and he told me about books he'd read, people he'd met, and some of the insights into his own character and personality to which the lonely nights on the far-side of the world had led him.

As I spent time with John, I stopped worrying about what we'd talk about and instead relied upon the substance of our friendship to fill the time as we'd done so many times before.

The drive back to Alabama was much less pensive. I'd realized how amazing it was that our nation -- with history's most powerful military and most expansive reach -- was led by young men like John. I felt proud to be represented by someone like him.

And on this Veteran's Day, as John is joined by another of my fraternity brothers in fighting the War on Terror (this brother stationed in the heart of Iraq), I understand, probably for the first time, why we take this day so seriously.

Jesus said, in John 15, that "[g]reater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." Jesus called his disciples "friends."

And when John got back on that plane after two weeks in America, placing himself back into harm's way, he did it for me, for his family, for his friends, for all of us -- and with our Lord, I affirm that "greater love has no one than this."

* "John" is used here as a pseduonym for the actual name of my friend who is serving with the United States Army, fighting in Afghanistan. Those who know me and "John" will doubtless be able to identify him through the context of the post, but I was unsure whether "John" would want his sacrifice highlighted in such a public way.

Since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses

2007-11-01T15:11:00.000-05:00

...let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

--Hebrews 12:1-2

Have a blessed All Saints'.

FEELING: Inspired
LISTENING TO: The music in the above-embedded video

On being pleasantly surprised by New England

2007-10-24T22:41:00.000-05:00

This past weekend, I travelled to New Haven, Connecticut with Samford University's Cumberland School of Law National Mock Trial Team to compete in the Quinnipiac University School of Law's National Crimianl Trial Advocacy Competition (wow -- that's a lot of capital letters).

It was my first trip to New England, and (except for a journey to the U.K. that took me over Greenland during my trans-Atlantic flight) the furthest north I've been in the U.S. (although now that I think about it, is Chicago more northerly?).

I'll be honest: I expected rude people who didn't much sense of right and wrong; people more worried about being selfish than anything else. I thought I'd find ugly places and unfrinedly people.

Thankfully, I was completely wrong.

Actually, what I found when I landed at the Hartford airport was that Connecticut was beautiful: indeed, as we landed, I remember thinking that the scenery outside my window -- with its vivid fall colors and rolling hills -- could have been Knoxville, but for a lack of the Great Smoky Mountains to one side.

I really enjoyed being able to experience fall again. Since I've lived in Alabama, I have missed feeling the snap of the cold air in the morning and as the sun goes down. I have grown somewhat tired of the green-to-dead transition that Alabama foliage takes in going from summer and summer-lite to winter.

It was certainly a surprise to feel an affinity for Connecticut -- somewhere that seems so far from where I'm from, and yet was so similar to that with which I had grown up.

The surprise continued throughout the weekend. People were friendly, people were welcoming, and no one was rude (well, except maybe some of the people from Queens -- but even they weren't that bad).

As the weekend wound down, I received another pleasant surprise: our mock trial team -- after hard work, a 166-page problem, no coach, and hardly any time to prepare -- came through and won the tournament all the way through for Cumberland's first championship of the semester.

And now, thanks to my trip to New England, I will be able to come back to Samford and point to my trophy in the case and join the pantheon of Cumberland's winning tradition.

The crossroads in New Orleans

2007-09-20T14:41:00.000-05:00

I visited New Orleans for the first time on the weekend of August 3 this year. In a word, I found the city nothing short of extraordinary. I must confess that before I visited, last month, I was skeptical about how I'd react to the "Big Easy." I did not believe that I would count myself among those find the city, and all its myriad charms and foibles, irresistible.

But after going to New Orleans, after seeing the city in all of its gritty, strange beauty, I fell in love with it -- with it's history, with it's sense of perseverance despite come-what-may, and with its pervasive aura, this utter sense of immediate and present spiritual warfare. It's a unusual reaction, I'm sure, but it's one to which I keep coming back.

I had a crossroads of my own in New Orleans this summer, and I find it somewhat ironic that the American expression of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church of the United States, is facing its own crossroads in the Crescent City.

Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the world's almost 80 million Anglicans, and the third-largest Christian church in the world, is in New Orleans to meet with the leaders of the American church. His Grace Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop and Primate of All England, has come to Louisiana to encourage those who continue in the post-Katrina recovery, but he has also come to mediate a dispute in the American expression of Anglican Christianity.

As and the Bishops of the United States meet, I join with thousands across the country in praying:

Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, be thou present with those who takest counsel in the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States for the renewal and mission of thy Church. Teach us in all things to seek first thine honor and glory. Guide thou us to perceive that which is right, and grant us both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give unto us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; takest away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior, who lives and reigns with thee and the Holy Ghost, forever and ever. Amen.

--Prayers for a Church Convention, for the Unity of the Church, and for the Church; from the Book of Common Prayer (1979).

FEELING: Anxious
LISTENING TO: The Socratic method in class

What I learned while standing in the pouring rain

2007-09-10T13:45:00.001-05:00

Saturday, September 8, 2007 promised to be a huge day. And the day dawned with gorgeous weather: partly sunny skies revealed that dappled-blue-and-hazy-white Nashville sky that I loved waking up to for four years.

As I parked my car along Capers Avenue behind the Village at Vanderbilt apartments and began the walk through the Medical Center toward Jess Neely Drive, I couldn't help but think to myself that "this is why I love Music City."

It was a day for football, for reunions with old friends while tailgating, and for celebrating the marriage of two dear friends with folks I hadn't seen since the last wedding.

And even the hordes of Crimson-clad folks who'd descended in their thousands upon my beloved campus "[o]n the City's west'rn border" could not take away the since of belonging, of coming home, that walking across Vanderbilt's campus gave me.

Hours later, as the sky darkened appropriately to match my grim mood, and as the Commodores punted yet again, I looked up just in time to notice the first raindrops begin to fall. The score was 3-16, and the good guys were losing.

All day long, calls of "Cumm own Baaa-muh" had echoed across Dudley Field, and what had begun as a truly amazing morning full of potential and hope had devolved into an ugly reminder that an entire team can be brought down by one player's injury (read Chris Nickson's hamstring).

But then, the rain began to fall. I turned to my best friend, who'd braved the disaster with me, and suggested that it was time to go.

To the uninitiated, that simple suggestion seems of little import. Indeed, considering the circumstances (rain, losing, disappointment, being surrounding by the opposing team's fans in one's own stadium), it might even have made sense to cut one's losses and head for the exit, giving a sigh for the sake of Cornelius Vanderbilt and the eternal underdogs who bear his name.

But for me, and for Mark, it was almost a sense of psychological defeat.

Neither of us had ever left a Vanderbilt game early. One of the great traditions that binds together Vanderbilt fans is the singing of our Alma Mater after the conclusion of our athletics contests. I do not know how the tradition developed; part of me believes that it could have developed as a soothing remedy for the star-crossed sons and daughters of the Black-and-Gold who, after "cheer[ing] for them through thick and through thin" needed the consolation and reaffirmation of their identity as Vanderbilters that singing those hallowed refrains of "Forward! ever by thy watchword / Conquer and prevail" call up within our hearts after the stinging, unforgiving football game has ended.

But as I stood there, waiting for Mark to respond, the raindrops beginning to fall with more frequency, while, all around us, the cheers of yet another opposing team's contingent of fans taunted and gloated, even the promise of the elixir of "mem'ries sweet" that the Alma raises within me seemed small consolation for the sense of disappointment that I felt. It was a dark moment. One of the darkest that I have experienced over the past few months that have indeed had their share of darkness.

And it strikes me as extraordinary that it was within the context of a football game that my psyche seemed to rear up these months' worth of emotions of doubt, and hope, and love, and hate, and fear, and confidence all mixed up into that plaintive request to Mark: "You want to head out?"

But it was Mark's response that struck me even more so. He didn't even really speak. Instead, he simply looked sad. It was the sort of emotional affect that I'm not even sure that someone who didn't know him well would notice. But, having known Mark for more than five years and having been brother to him in BYX, I know him well enough to catch it.

He knew why I asked what I asked, and I think he knew what the question meant. He knew that it meant giving up that perpetual hope and sense of eternal optimism that has marked sons of Vanderbilt since Dan McGugin roamed the sidelines of Dudley Field. He knew that it was admitting defeat; that it was more than just leaving a football game early.

It would be admitting that they were right: that we are losers. That doing things the right way won't work. That playing smart, playing right, and playing well won't cut it. That big money brings victory; that cheating pays off.

And, in a moment of strength for which I am grateful to God for his friendship, Mark told me, "Let's stay."

Don't give up. Do not surrender. The rain be damned. Let the Alabama fans cheer; they'll never understand what it means to truly be more than just a fan. This isn't just about football or school spirit or State pride or even the "old college try." This is about what it means to not give up in life. This is about fighting the fight even when you know it is lost. Aragorn charging into the hopeless darkness at Helm's Deep. It is the test of character, fortitude, and loyalty that few can pass.

This is what it means to be a Commodore. This is the life of the Vanderbilt alumnus and fan.

The rain came. And it came, and came. Many of the Vanderfans in the alumni section left; Mark said it best: "They've seen this game before."

But many more stayed. In the parents' section; in the student section; and in the south endzone season ticket section, they stayed. That's where Mark and I stood.

As the cold win and the bitter rain poured, I stood, without aid of hat or jacket, and faced the unrelenting pain of it all. I endured the embarrassment and the disappointment, I took the taunting and the the hurled insults and I let it pass through and out of me.

As the rain got worse, we sought some shelter against wet and cold at the wall at the top of the south endzone, just to the east of the television camera booth below the south jumbotron. It offered little in the way of reprieve from the pouring, driving rain, but it did offer us the comfort of the company of fellow Vanderbilters who continued to hold on.

Standing there, I couldn't help but respect the gentleman in the Vanderbilt polo and sport blazer that stood next to me in the rain. He looked to be in his mid-forties and, like me, he wore the Ring. When I noticed it, I remarked, "I guess it's always like this, isn't it. And it will be for the rest of my life."

He smiled sadly and said, "Yeah, I suppose so. But I keep coming."

I said, "You ever wonder why you do?"

"I can't give up on them," he said.

"Neither can I." I paused, sighed, and watched as we completed another three-and-out series. I shook my head. "Guess I'll inflict this on my children, too."

"I already have," he said. "On my nephews, too. But it's okay. They'll come to school here. Like I did."

Then he sort of stood a little straighter, despite the rain, the wind, the sense of loss and defeat, and he almost glowed as he said, "And then, they'll understand."

I haven't been so proud of myself in a while, as I was when I made it to the end of that game and joined my voice with thousands of others and sang:

"On the city's west'rn border, reared against the sky, proudly stands our Alma Mater, as the years go by. 'Forward!' ever by thy watchword, 'Conquer!' and 'Prevail!' Hail to thee, our Alma Mater; Vanderbilt, all hail!"

FEELING: Resolved
LISTENING TO: My better angels

New blog to feature Vandy commentary, news

2007-08-29T17:24:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, I often feature Vanderbilt sports news and commentary here on Annales. Lately, though, I've joined forces with my friend Mark to put together a high-quality, professional sports commentary and news blog centered around the Commodores.

Bookmark it or add us to your RSS reader: starandstripe.blogspot.com.

FEELING: Excited for football
LISTENING TO: Bobby Johnson's interview

Now a word from General Petraeus

2007-08-14T14:33:00.000-05:00

"If you didn't like Darfur, you're going to hate Baghdad."

--General David H. Petraeus, warning of the consequences of an early troop withdrawal from Iraq in Time magazine.

Vanderbilt football '07: my predictions

2007-08-13T16:22:00.000-05:00

Putting my Vanderbilt history degree to work (though making no claims as to statistical accuracy, since it is a history degree), I present the following review of the past five games against the Commodores' 2007 opponents, with averages for 5-game and 2-game margins of victory (where available), followed by analysis of the 2007 season based upon these statistics.

RICHMOND SPIDERS

2005 UR 13 VU 37 (-24 pts., Nashville)
2001 UR 22 VU 28 (-6 pts., Nashville)

2-game average margin: -15 pts. (favor VU)
Last 2 in Nashville: -15 pts. (favor VU)

ALABAMA CRIMSON TIDE

2006 UA 13 VU 10 (3 pts., Tuscaloosa)
2002 UA 20 VU 08 (12 pts., Nashville)
2001 UA 12 VU 09 (3 pts., Nashville)
2000 UA 28 VU 12 (16 pts., Birmingham)
1999 UA 28 VU 17 (11 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: 9 pts. (favor UA)
2-game average margin: 7.5 pts. (favor UA)
Last 2 in Nashville: 7.5 pts. (favor UA)

MISSISSIPPI REBELS

2006 UM 17 VU 10 (7 pts., Oxford)
2005 UM 23 VU 31 (-8 pts., Nashville)
2004 UM 27 VU 24 (3 pts., overtime in Oxford)
2003 UM 24 VU 21 (3 pts., Nashville)
2002 UM 45 VU 38 (7 pts., Oxford)

5-game average margin: 2.4 pts. (favor UM)
2-game average margin: -0.5 pts. (favor VU)
Last 2 in Nashville: -2.5 pts. (favor VU)

EASTERN MICHIGAN EAGLES

First meeting

AUBURN TIGERS

2003 AU 45 VU 07 (38 pts., Nashville)
2002 AU 31 VU 06 (25 pts., Auburn)
2001 AU 24 VU 21 (3 pts., Nashville)
2000 AU 33 VU 00 (33 pts., Auburn)
1993 AU 14 VU 10 (4 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: 20.6 pts. (favor AU)
2-game average margin: 31.5 pts. (favor AU)
Last 2 in Auburn: 29 pts. (favor AU)

GEORGIA BULLDOGS

2006 UG 22 VU 24 (-2 pts., Athens)
2005 UG 34 VU 17 (17 pts., Nashville)
2004 UG 33 VU 03 (30 pts., Athens)
2003 UG 27 VU 08 (19 pts., Nashville)
2002 UG 48 VU 17 (31 pts., Athens)

5-game average margin: 19 pts. (favor UG)
2-game average margin: 7.5 pts. (favor UG)
Last 2 in Nashville: 18 pts. (favor UG)

SOUTH CAROLINA GAMECOCKS

2006 SC 31 VU 13 (18 pts., Nashville)
2005 SC 35 VU 28 (7 pts., Columbia)
2004 SC 31 VU 06 (25 pts., Nashville)
2003 SC 35 VU 24 (11 pts., Columbia)
2002 SC 20 VU 14 (7 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: 13.6 pts. (favor SC)
2-game average margin: 12.5 pts. (favor SC)
Last 2 in Columbia: 9 pts. (favor SC)

MIAMI (OH) REDHAWKS

2000 UM 33 VU 30 (3 pts., Nashville)
1899 UM 00 VU 12 (-12 pts., Nashville)

2-game average margin: -4.5 pts. (favor VU)
Last 2 in Nashville: -4.5 pts. (favor VU)

FLORIDA ALLIGATORS

2006 UF 25 VU 19 (6 pts., Nashville)
2005 UF 49 VU 42 (7 pts., double-overtime in Gainesville)
2004 UF 34 VU 17 (17 pts., Nashville)
2003 UF 35 VU 17 (18 pts., Gainesville)
2002 UF 21 VU 17 (4 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: 10.4 pts. (favor UF)
2-game average margin: 6.5 pts. (favor UF)
Last 2 in Gainesville: 12.5 pts. (favor UF)

KENTUCKY WILDCATS

2006 UK 38 VU 26 (12 pts., Lexington)
2005 UK 48 VU 43 (5 pts., Nashville)
2004 UK 14 VU 13 (1 pt., Lexington)
2003 UK 17 VU 28 (-11 pts., Nashville)
2002 UK 41 VU 21 (20 pts., Lexington)

5-game average margin: 5.4 pts. (favor UK)
2-game average margin: 8.5 pts. (favor UK)
Last 2 in Nashville: -3 pts. (favor VU)

TENNESSEE VOLUNTEERS

2006 UT 39 VU 10 (29 pts., Nashville)
2005 UT 24 VU 28 (-4 pts., Knoxville)
2004 UT 38 VU 33 (5 pts., Nashville)
2003 UT 48 VU 00 (48 pts., Knoxville)
2002 UT 24 VU 00 (24 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: 20.4 pts. (favor UT)
2-game average margin: 12.5 pts. (favor UT)
Last 2 in Knoxville: 22 pts. (favor UT)

WAKE FOREST DEMON DEACONS

2005 WF 20 VU 24 (-4 pts., Winston-Salem)
2000 WF 10 VU 17 (-7 pts., Winston-Salem)
1994 WF 14 VU 35 (-21 pts., Nashville)
1993 WF 12 VU 27 (-15 pts., Winston-Salem)
1992 WF 40 VU 06 (34 pts., Nashville)

5-game average margin: -2.6 pts. (favor VU)
2-game average margin: -5.5 pts. (favor VU)
Last 2 in Nashville: 6.5 pts. (favor WF)

Based on this analysis, I predict the following record, with point
spreads in parentheses:

RICHMOND: W (Vanderbilt -14)
ALABAMA: L (Vanderbilt +7)
MISSISSIPPI: W (Vanderbilt -2)
EASTERN MICHIGAN: W (Vanderbilt -14)
AUBURN: L (Vanderbilt +21)
GEORGIA: L (Vanderbilt +8)
SOUTH CAROLINA: L (Vanderbilt +10)
MIAMI (OH): W (Vanderbilt -3)
FLORIDA: L (Vanderbilt +8)
KENTUCKY: L (Vanderbilt +5)
TENNESSEE: L (Vanderbilt +14)
WAKE FOREST: W (Vanderbilt -3)

2007 Football season record: 5-7

Comments? Thoughts? Questions? Burns? Is this analysis reflective of reality? How reliable is this sort of analysis? I guess we'll see (and I hope the Commies throw stats out the window and kick butt).

FEELING: Somewhat disappointed about the 5-7 result
LISTENING TO: Dynamite anyway

Our national religion: Moral Theraputic Deism

2007-07-27T13:41:00.001-05:00

I get frustrated with relativism. It's one of the reasons that I hate the term "Happy Holidays" around Christmastime. If someone affirms that "all religions are true and good," that person hasn't studied religion very much. There's no way that the mutually exclusive truth-claims of, for example, Christianity and Islam can be true at the same time. Either Jesus is God, or he isn't. It's like a rabbi told me in a class at Vanderbilt once: "You can't be half-pregnant."

It's in this spirit of frustration with "wishy-washiness" that Rod Dreher writes in the Dallas Morning News:

Acknowledging that people have a right to be wrong about God is a moral breakthrough for humanity, an idea that should be spread.

It's wrong and dangerous, though, to expect a religious believer to affirm that all beliefs about God could be equally true – which is what Benedict's critics really demand. To do so would be to empty religion of its deepest meaning – to turn it into something that's merely socially or personally useful.

That's where American religion is headed, however. Several years ago, researchers with the University of North Carolina's National Study of Youth and Religion polled American teenagers and found that faith was important to them. But it's faith not in established religion but rather in what NYSR's social scientists termed "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, as researchers explain, teaches that a vaguely defined God exists, cares about us and wants us to be good, nice and fair. You don't need to get too involved with God, absent a problem or crisis. The point of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. Good people go to heaven.

Whatever that relativist mush is, it has little to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or any traditional religion. Researchers concluded that either American youths don't know their traditions' teaching, or don't much care. Strikingly, they found that many teenagers interviewed had never discussed theology with an adult. The theological content of our faiths is fast eroding because of the lazy indifference of older generations to whom the traditions were delivered.

I hope that I am not yet as frustrated as this author seems to be; but I must confess that I do harbor some anger with those who would expect me, as a person of faith, to tell someone that they have "truth" when that "truth" denies what I believe to be True.

Someone, somewhere, has got to be right -- and that means that someone must be wrong.

FEELING: Ready for the weekend
LISTENING TO: Not much at all, actually

Discerning right and wrong: Jesus and the Old Testament

2007-07-11T13:35:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite memories from college was standing the dorm hallways discussing life's great and grand ideas: politics, religion, and (of course) sports. One of the questions that always seemed to arise when people would ask me about my beliefs was how I could believe in absolute right and wrong when there were so many concepts of right and wrong in the first place. Some would add, "even in the Bible."

Though I would try valiantly, I often fell far short of "be[ing] ready to make [my] defense" to those who would "demand" "an account of the Hope that is in me" (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, though it is parenthetical for the purposes of the present post, some of my friends from those halcyon days could give more than a few anecdotes about my inability to adequately express myself.

More to the point, there are plenty of pastors in pulpits today who are ready to make just such a defense, and in doing so, encourage believers while challenging those who don't yet call Christ Lord. One of those pastors is the Rev. Dr. John W. Yates II, rector of The Falls Church (Anglican) in Falls Church, Va. On June 17, 2007, the Rev. Dr. Yates preached a sermon called "Discerning right and wrong" as a part of his series on Jesus and the Old Testament.

It's a fairly long read, but it's extremely encouraging, informative, and challenging. To make it a little more manageable in blog format, I've added some headings into the text.

I invite you to print out a version of it from my blog; or, if you prefer, The Falls Church website has made this PDF file version available (perfect for printing). Open your mind and your heart, and hear God speak through his servant.
* * *Discerning Right and Wrong Today

by the Rev. Dr. John W. Yates II
Rector, The Falls Church, Falls Church, Va.
The Third Sunday after Pentecost
June 17, 2007

One of the mothers in our church sent me an email not too long ago and asked me a question. She said that she had been talking to her college-age son, and he was questioning why it is that in the church we seem to pay particular attention to certain rules of behavior in the Bible and disregard others. Particularly in the Old Testament, why do we lift out some Old Testament guidelines and say we have to be obedient to these, and yet there are others we ignore. Well, that’s a good question. And it is a question that has come to me many, many times, especially in this current time of disagreement in the church around the world. I want to try to respond to that this morning by telling you a story.

PARABLE

Imagine two young girls growing up in a southern town: best friends, same age, same social set. Both sets of parents were self-identified as Christians, conservative in their morals, liberal in their politics. Both sets of parents were connected with churches. One was deeply involved in church; the other were Christmas and Easter folks.

Now these girls were disciplined, good young women. They finished high school. They went their separate ways to college. They both embraced college with enthusiasm. The one with parents deeply involved in church met some appealing, dedicated, born-again college students, and in time she made a decision to give her life to Christ. Her southern grandmother rejoiced and shared with the girl that she had long prayed for this, though her parents were taken a bit aback. Hadn’t she already known God?

The other young woman didn’t have a praying grandmother, and her parents weren’t particularly interested in her faith. She connected with a wilder bunch in college, espousing drugs and sexual expression, which she rejected initially but had no real answers as to why there was anything wrong with this lifestyle. Her parents had lived respectable lives mostly because that was the accepted way in a southern town, but the girl had no intellectual or spiritual moral framework for decision-making particularly, and so she drifted. Eventually she moved in with a man, lived with him for years. Education and environment became her passion. After several years they eventually married and they had a child who they raised without much Christian input. They raised her to make her own moral decisions as best she knew. The child grew up and she now works in the area of public policy.

The first young woman deepened in her faith, she read widely, became a thoughtful, articulate Christian whose children learned through the model and training of the parents to love the Lord. Deep involvement in a good church helped them grow.

Now they too are adults, and they’re involved in education, law, business, and politics. It remains to be seen how their children—the next generation—will fare. These two women remained friends, but their worlds were farther and farther apart, not just because they lived in different regions but because they have dramatically opposing world views. The first believes that we’re created to love and trust and serve the Lord. The second rejects this. The one believes that human beings were created to be theonomous, subject to the law of God. The other believes that human beings are autonomous, free to be a law unto themselves, to live as one wants. Two very similar young women, two very different pathways.

It’s been said, looking back over the last century, that a hundred years ago people knew what was right and what was wrong, and people knew why. People like my grandparents. Then in my parents’ generation, all those things were still known to be right and wrong, but many people were no longer exactly sure why. In my generation, people grew up believing things were still right and wrong, but in the 60s began to radically disagree with their parents about just what was right and what was wrong.

Now, people say you can’t really say what’s right or wrong. What’s right for you may not be right for me. There are very few absolutes now, and parents are having a tough time sorting this out with their kids as they grow up. ...

AUTONOMY & THEONOMY

We live in a time where the air the young people breathe is filled with the spirit of autonomy. There’s a great hesitation among young adults today to say that such and such behavior is wrong for someone else if the someone else doesn’t think it’s wrong. Our culture is becoming more and more hesitant to draw moral boundaries.

Even young people who follow Christ are hesitant to draw moral conclusions about others because they’ve grown up in a society that says do you own thing, find your own way, question authority. And so the college student who challenged his mom, the college students who challenge their parents’ interpretation of biblical teaching about sexual morality now, it’s not unusual.

And, Christians who just quote the Bible in support of this or that moral position are often accused of either insensitivity or backwardness or of selecting out those passages that fit their own predilections and ignoring others. That’s the setting that we’re living in today.

Now, the question is, how do we know what’s right and what’s wrong? And another question is how do we make wise moral decisions? Well, we’re here at Church because we follow Christ. We believe he’s the Son of God who came among us to reveal God, to teach God to us, to teach us the way of God. And so we follow Christ to know right and wrong. We believe he’s entrusted to us the scriptures as a reliable, true, authoritative guide in right thinking and right living.

Jesus told us to trust and to heed the Old Testament, and he established the New Testament through the apostles who he promised to guide into the truth as they proclaimed the word. And so the church has always believed what the apostles wrote in 2 Timothy 3. You know the words: "All scripture is inspired or breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God [or the woman] may be competent, equipped for every good work."

The fundamental reason why the Anglican Communion, and other churches and communions as well, is being pulled apart is that there’s no longer agreement as to what scriptural authority means. Church people are now accepting and approving ideas and behaviors that the church has consistently seen over the centuries as contrary to biblical teaching: the deity of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, the historical reliability of the resurrection, our responsibility to proclaim Christ to all people, and of course certain standards of moral behavior. All this and more is being questioned and even discouraged by many church people, and so we’re divided over these things, painfully divided.

How do we read our Bible to discern what is right and what is wrong? We’re about to enter into a series of talks on Sundays in the summer on the Ten Commandments -— God’s moral foundation for all civilization -— because we forget how basic and how helpful the Ten Commandments are and what they teach us. They never go out of date. We’ll try to pitch this in a way that the kids will appreciate it as well as adults.

But before we get to that today, I want to help you think clearly about how we view the Bible as a whole in its moral teaching.

It’s true -— as some people accuse us -- that we do accept some passages of Leviticus, for instance, as still binding, and others we reject. Why do we do that? Are we just subjective -— that’s what we’re accused of -— or is there more to it?

FOUR EXAMPLES

Let me remind you first of four simple truths about living the way God desires us to live, summarized in four names, four men who taught us how to live a life in harmony with God: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul (and the other apostles).

First, Abraham. We learned through Abraham that God prizes most of all what? What quality? Faith. The man who trusts, the woman who trusts and lives in humble dependence upon the one true God may be considered by God a good person. In Genesis 15:6 is that foundational verse in the Old Testament. “Abraham believed God, and God credited it to Abraham as righteousness.” He became the father of the Jewish people, and of course Islam looks to him as well. So faith in God comes first. It’s not morality that leads us to God. It’s faith in him.

Second, Moses. He walked in the footsteps of Abraham. God gave ten words to Israel through Moses, and this formed the essential moral, spiritual core of the covenant between God and Israel. The first four deal with our relationship with God, the last six deal with our relationship with one another. The Ten Commandments. Only the Decalogue is inscribed in stone by the finger of God. But Moses also established a thorough system of laws for the Jewish people, for the Jewish nation regarding everything from diet to their civil life together, their religious worship life.

Moses developed with God’s guidance detailed laws and punishments for when those laws were not obeyed. And then later on, God raised up the prophets who called people to obedience and faith in God. And they explained to the people how it’s the character of God that guides us in shaping our own moral characters, to be people of integrity and justice and mercy. And the prophets also told us, you remember, that a new age was coming when a Messiah would come, and he would usher in a whole new way of living with God—life in the Spirit when God’s laws would be written on our hearts and it would be our delight to walk in God’s way. Islam honors Moses and the prophets as well.

Next came Jesus, God’s only unique son who summarized all the Old Testament law in the great two commandments: to love God; to love your neighbor. He explained and he deepened the meaning of the Old Testament law, and he reapplied it in a new age: life in “the kingdom of God” where the Savior reigns as our king. Now Jesus took issue with many of the Jewish traditions that had become binding upon the people, and he explained that some of Israel’s laws, which Moses had established, were temporary and would no longer apply in the new kingdom that he was ushering in.

So, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally the apostle Paul and the other apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they worked in the young church, they worked out what it meant to live in the Spirit under the moral guidance of God and how Gentiles—non-Jews—were to live as a part of God’s family. The moral laws didn’t change, but Jesus had taught them that the political laws of Israel—the laws about ceremonial purity and diet and sacrifice—had been temporary, preparation for life in the Holy Spirit.

So the church, led by the Holy Spirit, realized that circumcision, kosher food, dress styles, certain hygienic requirements need not be maintained, but the moral laws did. A person couldn’t gain a right relationship with God by keeping God’s laws. He could only come to God in faith trusting in Christ as his Savior.

And so, for instance, a few years down the road, around 45-50 AD when the apostles were seeing all sorts of non-Jews come into the Church -— Greeks, Romans -— in places like Antioch and elsewhere, they had to get together and decide which of the Old Testament laws applied. You can read all about it in Acts 15, where it says that they decided that basically these new non-Jewish believers mustn’t have any contact with idols and idolatry and they must be careful to maintain sexual purity. The other Jewish requirements were dropped.

During the days of the apostles, the New Testament was completed and then the church expanded tremendously for centuries, but one of the biggest problems was that the Christians didn’t have their own copies of the word of God. They didn’t have Bibles to read. Their only source of authority was the church, which as time went by became too dependent upon tradition and closed in upon itself.

I’ve often thought how tragic it is that Mohammed, for instance, did not effectively encounter vital, mature, biblical Christian faith in his lifetime. He might never have established Islam. He might have become a Christian leader instead. Think how that would have changed history. He honored Christ as a prophet, but he really didn’t understand Christ as Savior and Lord.

So, time went by and eventually two things happened. Around the 14th or the 15th century, we know that the church “rediscovered” the Bible and translated it into the common, everyday language of the people. And then the printing press enabled people to read the Bible for themselves, to have their own copy of the Bible. Soon the Reformers established exciting new forms of church, especially in Europe, and they had to help Christians understand how to read the Bible.

OLD & NEW

Now back to the question of how to understand the Bible in matters of right and wrong. In England, for instance, the Reformers prepared an outline of the Christian faith. It’s called the Thirty-Nine Articles, and it’s found in the back of the Book of Common Prayer.

Article Seven explained the Reformers' understanding of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament in moral decision-making. Here’s what it says. It says, "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and the New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ as the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. . . . Although the law, given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet not withstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from obedience of the Commandments which are called moral."

In other words, we don’t throw the Old Testament out. We love it. We read it in light of the New Testament. So, clear, eternal, foundational moral principles that under gird the universe began in the Old Testament. Principles like truth, faithfulness, justice, family, mercy, honoring God first.

Remember those two women I told you about a few minutes ago? Today, as I said, their children are grown and are moving into influential decision-making positions. But they’re approaching matters of ethics in very different ways.

The one who grew up in the secular home rejects any sort of biblical approach to morality, but the others who were raised in a Christian home represent many of us here today. We’re trying to understand how to make moral decisions and help our children make choices that will be pleasing to God and honoring of Christ. And sometimes, even for us, the Bible seems confusing. So, many approach it differently. It’s not easy to make wise, moral choices. There are so many competing world views, and I want to help you with that.

Therefore, as I said, we’re going to take a thoughtful, unhurried look at the moral core of the Bible, the Ten Commandments. We’re going to see how the tender loving heart of God has provided us these Commandments and why we’re grateful to him for doing that in his love and wisdom. But before we begin that next week, there’s a principle I want to be sure that you have a hold of that will help you understand how to interpret the Bible in matters of moral decision-making.

Frankly, I’m not sure many Christians really get this. If you become a serious student of the Bible, you will grapple with problems of how to interpret the New Testament in relationship with the Old Testament. That principle is addressed by Jesus in many, many places and particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount —- Matthew 5-7 or Luke 6 -— is a radical statement by Jesus of the life that he calls us to, the kind of attitudes that we’re to have, and the way we’re to act in relationship with others.

SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The first time I read the Sermon on the Mount as an adult -— I was about 20, and I read it with adult eyes and with a listening heart for the first time -— the Sermon on the Mount absolutely blew me away. It thrilled me and frightened me at the same time because in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus calls us to the highest possible moral standards. He gives examples of how people in his day had misinterpreted or misunderstood or even replaced Old Testament moral law with traditions. He calls us back to see what God really intended, and he makes it clear that he’s our king and he’s calling us to the highest standards in every area of life.

I want to look just at one statement in the Sermon on the Mount before we close, because it helps us see how Jesus made his own moral decisions and how he viewed the Old Testament even while he was establishing the New.

I want us to read these few verses together, Matthew 5:17-20: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is our king, he’s our master. How did he view the moral laws of the Old Testament? He had been immersed in the Old Testament since his childhood. It was the story of God, the story of his people. In the Old Testament, Jesus saw God’s truth revealed. In the Old Testament, he found his own guidance for his own life, for his ministry, for his mission, for the message the God had called him to as our Messiah. He loved the Old Testament. He submitted to the Old Testament personally, but people accused him of ignoring it or even disobeying parts of it. Now, look. He says here he was not abolishing the Old Testament. He was not annulling it—not anything in the Old Testament. No, he said he had come to “fulfill” the Old Testament. “The law and the prophets.” That’s a phrase for the Old Testament. He said he came to fulfill it. What did he mean by that?

First, by fulfilling the prophets, he meant that in his life, death, and resurrection he fulfilled the great statements -— the prophesies -— that had been made about him in the Old Testament. Then, two, by fulfilling the law, he meant that he kept the Old Testament law fully himself. No one else had, fully, perfectly. Three, by fulfilling the law, he meant also that he satisfied all the demands of the law on our behalf for the sake of those who would believe in him. He kept the laws perfectly himself and then died on a cross in place of those who could not keep God’s laws so, therefore, through him we could meet the standards of God. Four, he meant that he was filling in, filling out the fuller meaning of the law. He was amplifying the Old Testament. By the way he lived and taught us, he demonstrated the way God really calls us to live, what it really looks like to be a son and daughter of God.

And then finally, by fulfilling the law, he meant that the Old Covenant had come to an end. It was over, and now he was establishing a New Covenant, a new kingdom on earth. And that he was offering forgiveness of sins, new life, grace, and acceptance to all people, not just to Israel. In the New Covenant, we wouldn’t be required any longer to keep the particular laws of the Jewish nation dealing with diet and temple worship, ceremonial purity, sacrifice, and Jewish civil law.

So, God’s moral laws are eternal, and Jesus simply raised the standard in interpreting what God demands of us. For instance, in verse 43 of Matthew 5, he says, “Now you have heard that it was said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but look, I’m saying to you, love your enemies.” He’s just ramping up our whole understanding of what it means to obey God. But at the same time he says very clearly that keeping God’s laws is not how we enter God’s family.

We become God’s children by faith in him, repentance and beginning to live in the strength of the Holy Spirit. And we live out this new life seeking his guidance and following the scriptures’ moral teaching.

RIGHT & WRONG

We really need to know how God wants us to decide right and wrong in the moral choices we must make in our life, and I just want to finish by summing up how we go about doing that. It’s not complicated, but it’s not easy. You will have to make many moral choices in your life. You already have. When you make a difficult ethical decision, whether it deals with relationships with others, or money, or matters of fairness, or your job, or public policy, or whatever here that confronts you, here’s what you do. When you have to make a moral decision, you obey Christ. It’s as simple as that. You just obey Christ. And if you aren’t willing to do that, don’t call yourself a Christian.

Some of you may say, "Yes, I will obey Christ, but how do I know the mind of Christ?" It’s the process of a life time. You study the scriptures; you study the Bible to understand God’s unchanging moral demands. You learn how Christ lived out those moral demands and how he taught them and how his apostles taught and applied these things in the young church. And then you make your decisions based upon what the Lord approves, and you work against those things that he disapproves.

If you want everyone to love you, don’t follow Christ. If you want to go along with whatever the popular mood of the day is, don’t follow Christ. But if you want to live a truly good life and you want to have an impact for good in this world, then follow Christ. You’ll fail. You’ll make mistakes. You’ll be frustrated. You won’t get it right all the time, and you’ll keep coming back to God on your knees asking his forgiveness.

But every time we fail, we learn and we grow. And as time goes by you find life with Christ. He’s our gracious Lord. He’ll take you by the hand. He will truly show you the way to go.

Lord God, we thank you that you love us enough to care how we live our lives. We thank you that you’ve given us unchanging eternal moral laws. We thank you that one has gone before us who has met your standards, and that by following him in faith we receive his righteousness. We pray that you will help us to deepen and mature in our understanding of what things you love. We pray these things in the name of Christ Jesus, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.
* * *FEELING: Inspired and illumined
LISTENING TO: Office bustling

Immigration, East Tennessee style

2007-06-28T15:31:00.000-05:00

"In East Tennessee, a guest means you come, you visit. But what does a guest always do? A guest always goes home. They don't need to be here living off of our tax system, our social security system, our health-care system and our education system."

--Congressman David Davis (R-TN-01), on why he has reservations about the "guest worker" program in President Bush's immigration package.

FEELING: Amused
LISTENING TO: NPR's All Things Considered

Christian commentary on American politics

2007-06-11T12:59:00.000-05:00

Former-and-current Caedmon's Call singer Derek Webb has been singing solo for some time (though he recently announced that he had rejoined the Houston-based Caedmon's), producing lyrics that are at the same time as introspective as they are challenging. In one of his latest songs, Webb calls Christians, of both progressive and conservative stripes, to rethink the hopes we place in temporal, political power: a call for reassessment of priorities.

A Savior on Capitol Hill

"I’m so tired of these mortal men
with their hands on their wallets
and their hearts full of sin
scared of their enemies,
scared of their friends
and always running for re-election

"So come to DC if it be thy will
because we’ve never had a savior on Capitol Hill

"You can always trust the devil or a politician
to be the devil or a politician
but beyond that, friends, you’d best beware
‘cause at the Pentagon bar they’re an inseparable pair
and as long as the lobbyists are paying their bills
we’ll never have a savior on Capitol Hill

[Bridge]
"All of our problems gonna disappear
when we can whisper right in that President’s ear
he could walk right across the reflection pool
in his combat boots and ten thousand dollar suit

"You can render unto Caesar everything that’s his
you can trust in his power to come to your defense
it’s the way of the world, the way of the gun
it’s the trading of an evil for a lesser one
so don’t hold your breath or your vote until
you think you’ve finally found a savior up on Capitol Hill"

--Derek Webb

FEELING: Contemplative
LISTENING TO: Sounds of the office

I'm with Fred

2007-06-06T16:14:00.000-05:00

And you can be, too. Soon-to-be-announced Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson has finally posted a website, at I'm with Fred. I've already signed up to be on Fred's mailing list, and I've also volunteered to add a fundraising widget to my blog.

I hope you'll considering signing up for Fred's mailing list. Or, even better, donate to Fred's campaign. He's the man America needs for President.

So who are you with? I'm with Fred.

FEELING: Excited
LISTENING TO: Sounds of the library

Vanderbilt baseball wins SEC championship

2007-05-18T08:52:00.000-05:00

The No. 1 Vanderbilt Commodores baseball team has set VU records all year long, and they did something last night that no other Vanderbilt sports team has done since 1993: they clinched a regular-season SEC championship.

Tim Corbin's baseball team stayed at Hawkins Field, along with dozens of the Black and Gold faithful from the record-setting crowd of 2,685, after the Commodores' 4-3 win over the LSU Tigers, while the P.A. system blared the radio coverage from the Mississippi-Arkansas game.

When Ole Miss got the last out around 10:35 p.m., Tim Corbin got drenched with water from a Gatorade cooler, and the Commodores had clinched sole possession of the regular-season SEC title.

It was the first time that a Vanderbilt team had done so since the men's basketball team won the 1993 regular season championship; the fourteen-year drought was interspersed with SEC tournament titles and individual accolades, but it was Tim Corbin's "Diamond Dores" who got to pose with the iconic SEC logo in the outfield of Hawkins Field last night.

Though I was unable to be there, due to my duties serving the people of Alabama, I was at a baseball game getting regular score updates from our correspondent, Mark Halling, who was live at Hawkins Field.

Mark's call of the win, via text message: "Ball game! We win 4-3; and we won the SEC!!!"

FEELING: Pround of alma mater
LISTENING TO: Joe Fisher's report on 104.5 The Zone

On magnolias and superpowers

2007-05-16T14:05:00.000-05:00

"Be in this world, be part of it, give to it. Never let yourself be anesthetized. Do not become distracted by the zoo full of fabulous beasts: the Lindsays, the Parises, the TomKats, the Britneys; by the pageant of fevered celebrity trainwreck that is paraded in front of you every time you log on to your computer.

"Do not let yourself be so seduced by your Mercedes and your barbecue that you forget what is most essential about yourself, that you forget what is worth caring about, that you forget you have powers to help others that you forget you have a heart that wants to help!

"And keep, always, your articulate and discerning minds about you, for although it can be assuaging to look at the Freedom Rides in retrospect, from our position in history, in some ways it can be too comfortable.

"It should never be."

--E. Gordon Gee, seventh Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, at the 132d Commencement Exercises; on Alumni Lawn at the University, in the one hundred thirty-third year since its founding, in Nashville.

Read the whole speech (PDF file).

FEELING: Inspired
LISTENING TO: Gee read his speech

What will happen if we leave Iraq?

2007-05-06T21:52:00.000-05:00

President Bush recently veteoed legislation passed by the Democratic-led Congress that called for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by October 1 of this year. Thankfully, his continued commitment to stablize that nascent democracy and his loyalty to the people of Iraq have proven steadfast in the face of polls suggesting that Americans are frustrated and bored that no outcome is within sight.

When I read through the plan proposed by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, it was difficult for me to understand how people with access to such high-level information could possibly conclude that extracting Americans from Iraq -- Americans who everyday protect normal Iraqis from the Al Qaeda terrorists, insurrectionists, and death squads roaming that country -- would improve the situation.

It is clear that the primary reason for our invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear or biological weapons, was not true. It is equally clear, however, that our invasion of Iraq did remove a state-sponsor of terror who sought to aggrandize his country through continued development of weapons programs and funding of terrorism. I can understand why people like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid -- and, probably, many of you who regularly read my blog -- object to the original invasion itself. They believe that President Bush and his Cabinet were ill-prepared to deal with the consequences of the invasion itself.

What is difficult for me to comprehend, however, is why people who did not support the initial invasion, feel like pulling out and leaving a mess behind would repudiate the original invasion. Because our invasion so quickly toppled the Saddam Hussein regime, and because our troops were so successful in hunting down Saddam, his sons, and Ba'athist regime leaders, people who oppose our presence in Iraq today don't have the same recourse that anti-war activists had during the Vietnam era.

Then, persons who wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from South Vietnam had the option of allowing North Vietnam to take over the country and provide "stability" that the real politick style of international theory suggests is the desirable norm.

The issue that anti-war activists must deal with today, and the question with which they are usually at pains to avoid, is what happens to Iraq and the Iraqis if American troops withdraw? Who will move in to provide the security and stability necessary for the stabilization of the global situation?

Certainly, Al Qaeda is no position to govern a state; the closest that they have come was Afghanistan during the Taleban, and even then, an active, organized military-political group, the Northern Alliance, maintained a medium-level conflict throughout the borders of that state. Afghanistan was, by no measure, a stable situation (just ask Pakistan, who is continuing to feel the repercussions of a Taleban-led Afghanistan along their mutual border).

Who else could move into the power vacuum that would exist after the U.S. support was recalled? Iran, that Shi'ite neighbor to the east, certainly is a candidate for a post-U.S. withdrawal. How does the possibility of the expansion of an anti-American, theocratic, repressive Iranian-style caesaropapist regime strike opponents of American involvement in Iraq? Would the progressive forces who are arrayed against our commitment to the Iraqis, people and pundits supposedly in favor of the advance of liberty, support a move that would give Iran a chance to dominate Iraq? If we leave, and Iraq comes under the sway of Teheran, what are the repercussions?

How would, say, Saudi Arabia react to an Iranian-aligned regime in Baghdad? Would it pressure that Sun'ni state to acquire their own "ally" near Iraq? Can we expect European-style proxy war in the middle of Earth's last, remaining source of nonrenewable energy?

And what about the internal consequences of an Iranian-influenced Iraq? Do those who favor American withdrawal believe that the Sun'nis in the western parts of Iraq would allow an openly anti-Sun'ni government backed by Iran to govern unmolested? Do anti-war proponents believe that stability would flow from a theocratic government in charge of a large, opponent religious minority? It seems more logical to me, at least, to suppose that American absence would only exacerbate the conflict between Shi'ias and Sun'nis to develop more fully into a Sixthteenth Century-style War of Religion.

What, then, is the best-case scenario for an American withdrawal (or retreat, as it might more accurately be called)? The best case is that American withdrawal by a date certain motivates Iraqi political factions into agreement by August (two and a half months away) so that they can have time to finish training of enough soldiers and police to enable their own security forces to assume the security role that American and Coalition forces have since the fall of Saddam. And with these forces they will, by October of this year (6 months from now), be able to sustain the democratically-elected government of Iraq.

I should not have to explain why such a scenario is unlikely. If four years of training has not yet prepared Iraq and her people to "go it alone," it seems obvious that six months cannot do likewise.

It is our duty and responsibility as the invader, as a champion of democracy, as an upholder of our own ideals (i.e., did we mean "all men are created equal" or just "Americans"), and as the world's only remaining hegemon to stay in Iraq until that nation may securely govern itself.

That's the way I see it; but I was inspired by Senator Joseph Lieberman's speech on the floor of the United States Senate. Read it all, and I think you'll see that he can say much the same as I, only much more eloquently.

FEELING: A sense that we're facing a crossroads of history
LISTENING TO: Senator Lieberman's speech from C-SPAN.org

On being 'aptly damned'

2007-05-02T16:40:00.000-05:00

During finals, I spend an inordinate amount of time listening to music, on the radio and iTunes, when I'm studying. One of the songs I've heard over and over, to the extent that I think Someone's trying to tell me something, is this one by Relient K:

"Forgiven"
by Relient K

Oh yes, I know this tension that you speak of
We're in the palm of a hand making a fist
It'd be best for one of us to speak up
But we prefer to pretend it does not exist

Bridge:
And you can't see past the blood on my hands
To see that you've been aptly damned
To fail and fail again

Chorus:
Cause we're all guilty of the same things
We think the thoughts whether or not we see them through
And I know that I have been forgiven
And I just hope you can forgive me too

So don't you dare blame me for
Prying open the door
That's unleashed the bitterness
That's here in the midst of us
Sometimes we live for no one but ourselves

And what we've been striving for
Has turned into nothing more
Than bodies limp on the floor
Victims of falling short
We kiss goodbye the cheek of our true love

Bridge:
And you can't see past the blood on my hands
To see that you've been aptly damned
To fail and fail again

Chorus:
Cause we're all guilty of the same things
We think the thoughts whether or not we see them through
And I know that I have been forgiven
And I just hope you can forgive me too

(Repeats)

FEELING: Hurt, guilty, and forgiven -- all at the same time
LISTENING TO: Relient K

An Earth-like planet: what about a doctrine of extraterrestrial life?

2007-04-24T22:09:00.000-05:00

As science fiction fans such as myself have long dreamed, the day has finally come when scientists have confirmed that a planet capable of sustaining life, Gilese 581c, exists a little more than twenty light-years from Earth: orbiting a star in the constellation Libra.

The planet exists within exactly the right temperature range, 32º to 102º F, to allow both liquid water and life to flourish on its surface. In addition, the planet's sun has been stable for several billion years, long enough for life to have established a foothold.

We don't know whether the planet sustains life. But the very possibility that it does requires thoughtful, faithful Christians to ask: if Gilese 581c (let's call it Decima for now) is home to life, intelligent or otherwise, how can our faith in the Bible as God's revealed word deal effectively with such a paradigm-shifting discovery? The answer, I believe, is surprisingly better than we might think.

———
First, let's look at exactly what the Bible says about creation.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Now, obviously, the creation recounted in Genesis gives primacy of place to earth's creation -- and why shouldn't it? God wasn't revealing what he did to our hypothetical Decimans, he was speaking to folks right here, a little closer to home.

But notice what the text doessay: "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). While the text specifically mentions earth, not surprising considering its earth-based audience, the Bible does mention the heavens.

We know, from our reading of Scripture, that the Bible talks about three distinct "heavens," the shamayim.

First, there is the sky here on earth, the heavens of the birds and the clouds and the weather. Second, there is the heavens where the sun, moon, and planets exist, what we would call "space." Finally, there is the third heaven, the heaven we think of as "Heaven," proper -- the place Dante called the "Empyrean," the source of light and the abode of God.

I believe that when the Bible says that "God created the heavens and the Earth," it is referring to God's laying out of the divine canvas that is the universe.

The Bible then recounts how God's Spirit hovered over the face of the formless void of earth and walks us through the steps of creation that God took in making the earth he had just created into the form that he purposed. God creates light: the very essence of his presence shining upon the creation as he hovers over it, filling the universe with his light by his Word.

Then verses 6-8 record the creation of the first heaven, the sky. "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome [i.e., the weather]. And it was so. God called the dome Sky" (Genesis 1:7-8a).

God makes the earth fruitful: he specifically calls forth vegetation. "Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so" (Genesis 1:11). Note the specificity of the text: God specifically tells the Earth to bear plant life. The command recorded here neither limits nor presupposes that God has reserved earth as a special abode for life.

After bringing forth vegetation, God divides the light into day and night, assigning the sun and the moon their roles.

All of the conditions necessary for animal life -- water, light, air, plants -- are now ready. And God creates: "And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so" (Genesis 1:24). Again, notice the permissive phrasing of the text: Earth is called to bring forth life; nowhere does Scripture deny the existence of other animal life.

The sixth day sees the culmination of God's creative action on Earth: "Then God said, ‘Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27).

God's plan for the creation of Earth is complete: his sentient creatures, designed for fellowship with him, were ready. "And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Genesis 2:8). Notice that God does give special attention to his newly created humans. To this point, he has spoken and creation has burst forth. But here, God "plants" -- a picture of the almighty King of the Universe lovingly preparing a place for those to whom "dominion" over "the earth" has been given.

Again, however, nowhere in the text do we see Scripture telling us that Earth is the only place where God's creative action is at work. We are told that humans are created in God's image; yet we are not told that we are the only ones to whom that honor has been bestowed. And, once they are placed in the garden, humans are given a chance to choose God or to choose their own way. God gives them the opportunity to make a moral choice: whether to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We all know, of course, what Eve, and then her husband Adam, chose. Rebellion.

Of course, this, too, was within God's plan.

Even at the Fall, God's love for his sentient human creatures was there, when he prophesied concerning the fate of the humans and the Serpent.

God sais, "I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel" (Genesis 3:15).

———
The Bible does not rule out the creation of other planets, or other life, in the Genesis account. Nor does the Bible even say that humans are specifically the only sentient creatures in God's creation. But does the Bible suggest that there are other sentient creatures, other life?

We know, of course, that there are angels, of both the holy and fallen varieties. Nowhere in the Genesis account do we learn the specifics of their creation. Does that mean that God did not create them or that they are co-eternal with God? Certainly, other Scripture would belie both those arguments. A logical conclusion -- and a conclusion consistent with the witness of Scripture -- is that the angels, as agents of God, are created (see Isaiah's account of Lucifer's creation and rebellion) and that we are not told about their creation.

Why did God not tell us? The answer seems obvious: the Bible is God's revelation of Himself and his interaction with humans. We do not know how God reveals himself to the angels -- or if revelation is even necessary. Why, then, would it not be possible for God to have created life elsewhere, without revealing that to us?

In answering that question, we are not left in a Scriptural void. The clearest argument for a divine reference to non-Earth life comes from Jesus himself.

In the tenth chapter of John's Gospel, Jesus is answering the Pharisees' accusation, captured in John 9, that he sinned by healing a man born blind on the Jewish Sabbath. The parable that he tells is the familiar story of the Good Shepherd.

As a part of that story, Jesus identifies his "flock" as all the faithful people, Jews and Gentiles alike, who listen to his voice. Then, curiously, Jesus speaks of "other sheep":

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me -- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father -- and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life -- only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:14-18) (emphasis added).

Did you notice verse 16? "I have other sheep," Jesus says. It is true that this verse is the subject of some contention, and we must deal with that contention before we discuss its implications for our argument here.

Some scholars suggest that Jesus is making a distinction to his Jewish audience, the Pharisees, that the Gentiles -- the "other sheep" in this interpretation -- will also be made a part of the flock of the faithful. This argument parallels the idea that the Gentiles are grafted-in to the Tree of Life whose root is the people of Israel. But, considering the verse in context, that seems to contradict what Jesus has been saying in the earlier verses of Chapter 10 about the sheep being all of the faithful people, regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile.

One of the minority views about this verse is held out by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Mormons argue that this verse is a direct reference to the Jewish remnant that they believe existed in North and South America during Biblical times. They argue that Christ is referring to these "sheep" and bringing them into the flock of the faithful.

But to me, neither of these interpretations (certainly not the one alleging that the Jews scatted from the northern Kingdom of Israel based at Samaria made it to the Western hemisphere) make sense in the context of John 10. So if Jesus is not talking about phantom people-groups in the West and if he is not referring to Gentiles, who do the sheep "not of this sheep pen" represent?

I argue that the sheep referenced by Jesus before this mysterious "other ... pen" represent all the sheep -- or people -- on Earth. In the classical language of the Old Testament, you're either Hebrew -- a Jew -- or you're a Gentile, one belonging to the nations to whom the Israelites were charged to be witnesses as God's covenant, chosen people. So if Christ's earlier references to sheep account for all the people on Earth, who are the sheep in the other pen? Could they be sentient creatures on other planets?

Suppose, arguendo, that the other pen is another planet. Look at Christ's statement: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." Jesus is proclaiming his impending substitutionary, atoning death and subsequent resurrection. He is asserting his sufficient Lordship over all creation. And here, in John 10, he appears to even be applying that sacrifice to "other sheep pens" and the sheep in those pens, too!

———
It is, to be certain, a bold argument to say that Christ himself references sentient life on other planets. But I must not claim that I originated this idea.

One of the Twentieth Century's most influential Christian writers, C.S. Lewis got to it before I did. In his books Out of the Silent Planet and Thulcandra, Lewis boldly asserts, in fiction, that Christ's atoning sacrifice covered not only the sins of humanity, but also gave hope to God's creatures on Mars and Venus.

We know, today, that there is no life, at least sentient life, on either of our two neighbors in this solar system. But what of other planets? What about Decima?

If, one day, a human probe or vessel visits Decima, and they do find life, who is to say that such life will not have already discovered the worship of Creator, His Son, and His Spirit? As Lewis theorized, such a discovery would -- like the possiblity and potential of life on Decima itself -- have enormous implications for Earth and her people.

After all, how astounding an affirmation of God and His Gospel would the discovery of sentient life worshipping the Triune God be?

Whether or not Decima, or some other planet that science may soon discover, sustains life, the Bible, and our understanding of God and his revelation to us, will not be shattered by the discovery. Indeed, such a worldview-changing event may draw even more of God's image-bearers on Earth -- and Decima? -- to relationship with him.

Let us pray, with C.S. Lewis and all God's saints from throughout time and space, that as we explore God's universe, we will but uncover more of God's glory.

FEELING: Inspired
LISTENING TO: Air 1

Gordon Gee's measure of VU athletics success

2007-04-23T13:59:00.000-05:00

In an article by the Associated Press, Vanderbilt chancellor Gordon Gee discussed how the program has progressed since he eliminated the Department of Athletics and the position of Athletics Director four years ago.

Gee also responded to the AP reporter's contention that "some doubters" of Vanderbilt's athletics restructuring "won't be converted until they see success in football" with his own measure of how far the Commodores have come since the VU Athletics Department went the way of the dinosaur:

And Gee has faith that the ultimate measure of football success -- a bowl game -- is near. "We're no longer anybody's homecoming game," [Gee] said.

FEELING: Pumped
LISTENING TO: Professor giving a review for one of our Law Finals

Reflections on the murders at Virginia Tech

2007-04-17T14:54:00.000-05:00

Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time, Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel, for his part, brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering; but for Cain and his offering, he had no regard.

Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Later, Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"

Cain replied, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?"

The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen: your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!" *

———
Sin lurks at our door, desiring us. God challenges us to master it. But we do not listen.

This is the first time a man killed another. Cain slaughtered his brother as he had done to this animal sacrifice. Lured him into a field, a trap, where he rose up against Abel. Pre-meditated. Brutal. Bloody.

The sin which led Cain down the path of murder need not have done so. God warned Cain that Cain's wounded pride was a foothold for sin. God warned him, "Sin is lurking at your door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

But Cain did not listen.

Instead of seeking God's will in mastering the sin that threatened him, Cain pursues his sin. His pride begins to consume him. And begins to burn with rage against his brother. This man whose parents literally walked with God did not seek their wisdom in following God's command. He did not ask God why God rejected his offering in the first place. He did not seek God's will in how to make his sacrifice worthy as his brother's had been.

He shifted the blame for what happened away from himself and decided that it was his brother's fault. If Cain could not have the favor of the Lord, then neither would Abel.

And so Cain lures Abel into the field: "Let us go into the field," he said.

His brother, a man whose faith led him to offer up the firstlings of his sheep, saw no malice in his own flesh and blood. And in the innocence of the morning of the world, he never dared suspect his brother of so heinous a motive. He followed.

Scripture does not record how Cain killed his brother. And, in the end, the method he used does not really matter. We know that he rose up against him and killed him. I imagine the two brothers walking silently in the field. Perhaps Cain is nervous; he knows what he is about to do. He knows that he is about to spill blood that has never been shed before. And he knows he is about to disobey God.

He knows, with the voice of God still ringing in his heart, that what he is about to do is wrong. And yet, as he and his brother walk into the field, he resolves to complete his revenge. His pride yearns to destroy the source of its demotion. One can imagine Cain leading his brother into the field. The two walking, perhaps with Cain in the lead.

All of a sudden, Cain turns; his brother, surprised, wonders what is happening. And then the reality begins to sink in as Cain destroys the life that had wounded his pride.

We do not know how Cain killed Abel; but we do know that it involved spilt blood.

How does God respond to what Cain has done? The Lord gives the man with blood on his hands a chance to admit what he has done. He offers Cain an opportunity to confess and seek the Lord's forgiveness. What does Cain do? He lies.

The sin that Cain allowed a foothold is working its evil. First, Cain was envious. Then he was prideful. He harbored wrath. That wrath grew into murder. After the murder, Cain turns to lies. Even then, God would have heard Cain's confession had he offered it. Certainly, there would have been consequences. But perhaps God would have mitigated the curse under which Cain would labor. Perhaps he would have eased Cain's guilt.

We cannot know, because Cain did not confess. He thought he could hide his inquity from the eyes of Almighty God. When God came looking for Abel, Cain replies with sarcasm, anger, and guilt. "Am I my brother's keeper," he bitterly asks.

But God will not be mocked. When Cain refuses to acknowledge what he has done, God's righteous wrath is kindled against the murderer. "What have you done," the Lord thunders, "your brother's blood cries to me from the ground!"

———
As our nation responds to what happend in Blacksburg yesterday, we ask one another what we would ask the gunman, as God asked Cain, "What have you done?"

The very blood of those thirty-two people cries to us from the floors, walls, and ground upon which it lays spilt.

We cannot escape the horrible sound of the ominous, incessant gunfire, as our minds recall the horrible images of yesterday. All day long, the death count continued to rise. Shock and disbelief turn to anger. Why did this man do this? Why?!

What we have heard of this man, this killer, is that he was a loner. No friends, really, to speak of. The police have had difficulty finding information on him because he just did not know many people. He did not have the fellowship for which he was designed. He was a foreigner living in a land not his own. This man, an image-bearer of the Almighty and Everlasting God, created from eternity for relationship with him, could not find a friend, even on a campus of 25,000. If early reports are correct, he may have just lost his girlfriend, perhaps the only real relationship he had.

Surely, his pride was wounded. He was lonely. His world was collapsed. His reasons for trying to fight against the self-doubt and sense of isolation finally ran out. Like Cain, sin was lurking in at the door. He should have, like Cain, received the call to fight sin, and master it.

"But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent?"

Paul asks the difficult quesiton that we, too, must ask in the aftermath of a tragedy such as what happend only three hours from my home, in the mountains of my birth.

The sin that caused Cho Seung-Hui to coldy, calmly, and deliberately murder thirty-two of his fellow human beings yesterday should be no stranger to any of us, "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

After something like this, we always ask, "Why?" But we often ignore the answer. Here was a man lonely and hurting. Some published reports suggest he may have been the vicitm of pedophilia from his father as a child. This was a young man who needed the transforming relationship and fulfillment that only God's love can bring. Because he never found it, he never mastered his sin.

And so, yesterday, the whole world saw the consequences of sin left to itself. It festers and grows and multiplies until it can no longer contain itself, and then it spends its energy destroying as many lives as it can. And in this case, it did so on international television.

People have called what happened yesterday senseless. And, in the sense that there was no reason for innocent people to die, it was.

But we must remember that Cho's actions were neither random nor unpredictable. Like Cain, Cho let sin master him. And ultimately, the lonliness and anger that consumed him on the inside destroyed not only his life, but those of others.

God of Infinite Grace, we confess that so many times we, like Cain, do not seek your help in mastering our sin. We proclaim that you alone are worthy to break the power of sin in our lives, to reclaim us from the curse of death eternal and to purchase for us everlasting life. Help us, O Father, to understand that your power is available to each of us to conquer the sin in our lives. Comfort those who lost friends and loved-ones to death and use this tragedy to bring glory to your Name. We give you thanks, O Lord, that you love each one of us; that you have called each one of us into intimate relationship with you. We ask and give thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom, with You and the Holy Spirit, be all honor and glory, now and forever. Amen.

* Genesis 4:2b-10

Endorsement: Fred Thompson for President

2007-04-12T13:05:00.000-05:00

Since I'm sure the world has been waiting to see who I will endorse for President of the United States in 2008 (said with tongue very firmly in cheek), I hereby endorse and encourage Fred Dalton Thompson to stand for nomination by the Republican Party and to seek election to the office of President of the United States in 2008.

First, I endorse Fred because of his record of service to my home State. Fred grew up in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. After he graduated from Memphis State University (now University of Memphis) and Vanderbilt University Law School, Fred became an assistant United States attorney in Nashville.

At the age of 30, Fred was appointed Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, where he served in 1973 and 1974. In 1977 Thompson took on the case of a Tennessee Parole Board chairman fired under suspicious circumstances. Thompson's work helped to expose a cash-for-clemency scheme that ultimately toppled corrupt Governor Ray Blanton.

Then, in 1996, he ran for and was elected to the United States Senate by the people of Tennessee. It was then that I first met the Senator, when he was touring Tennessee's ninety-five counties, and he stopped at the Courthouse in my hometown (the picture from that occasion is going to be dusted off and published to Facebook soon).

That is the second reason that I endorse Fred: his rock-solid, Tennessee-style conservative record. One of the things that marks a Tennessee lawmaker on the state-wide level is their tendency to practical conservatism. According to On the Issues.org, Fred is a moderate, populist conservative. Check out his voting record (especially toward the bottom of the page, where the website summarizes his career in the United States Senate).

Finally, I endorse Mr. Thompson because I echo many of the arguments made by Tennessee's newspaper of political record, the Chattanooga Times-Free Press in their editorial endorsing Fred's run for the presidency:

The barbarians are at our gates. Our nation -- our civilization -- is under attack by countless jihadists who are so dedicated to our destruction that they are willing, even eager, to destroy themselves suicidally to strike us.

At the same time, although our country enjoys great prosperity and promise, we are being afflicted domestically by a vile and intense degree of petty partisan political hatred and divisiveness that inhibits application of sound principles and positive possibilities, generating ill will and negativism.

In this frustrating atmosphere, are you satisfied that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards has the vision to unify our country in progressive good will with presidential leadership for a brighter future?

Do you believe Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or Mitt Romney can light a torch of leadership that will generate national unity of purpose and good will on a sound path to confront our challenges and overcome them?

Each of them has "something" that kindles his or her ambition. But each obviously is lacking "something" that is needed to stimulate the national will required for our troubled times.

It is significant that while there are many actively "seeking" the presidency of the United States, there is one outstanding individual who is not -- but is being "sought" because he has demonstrated many unique qualities of sound principle, possesses wisdom gained from proved experience, has admirable qualities of character and has displayed a cooperative spirit of good will that could inspire a great majority of Americans to unify enthusiastically to elect him.

I agree that in these troubled times, we need a Statesman. We need a leader. Someone who, like Ronald Reagan, can remind Americans of why our nation should be seen as a "city on a hill."

I enthusiastically endorse Fred Thompson. And I pray that God will lead him to seek the nomination to the office of President of the United States.

FEELING: Excited
LISTENING TO: One of Fred's speeches when he filled in for Paul Harvey on ABC Radio

He said 'It is finished'

2007-04-06T11:35:00.000-05:00

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. They kept coming up to him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ and striking him on the face.

Pilate went out again and said to the crowd, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him."

So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"

When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him."

The Jews gathered there answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God."

Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, "Where are you from?"

But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?"

Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor."

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge’s bench at a place called "The Stone Pavement," or in Hebrew, "Gabbatha." Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!"

They cried out, "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!"

Pilate asked them, "Shall I crucify your King?"

The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."

Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus; and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called, "The Place of the Skull," which in Hebrew is called, "Golgotha." There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'"

Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it."

This was to fulfil what the scripture says: "They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots." And that is what the soldiers did.

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved, John, standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son."

Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfil the scripture), "I am thirsty." A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.

When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "None of his bones shall be broken." And again another passage of scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."

--Ninteenth chapter of the Gospel of John

FEELING: Contrite
LISTENING TO: Psalm 22

Mandatum novum do vobis: Maundy Thursday

2007-04-05T13:49:00.000-05:00

Today we celebrate and remember the night Jesus institued the Lord's Supper, washed his disciples' feet, gave them a New Commandment, and was betrayed by one of his inner circle.

Maundy Thursday, as it is called in English, developed its name from the Old French word mandé, which in turn came from the Latin mandatum. The Latin comes from John 13:34:

Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem: sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem.

Which, of course, is translated, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another."

We are invited to gather this night to celebrate the Lord's Supper, recalling the "New Covenant, in my blood, which is shed for you and for many." We relive the anxiety and courage that Jesus underwent as he prayed that "this cup may pass," but "not my will, but yours be done." We watch Judas' betrayal of Christ in the garden, and we confess the part our sin plays in the ultimate treason of creature against Creator.

We look to the paradoxically-named morrow: Good Friday, with its torture, abuse, and murder. And we mourn the death of God's only Son, the sinless, perfect sacrifice.

But we do not mourn without hope. Because we know that Easter, with its Resurrection light and joy, is just beyond the horizon.

FEELING: Thoughtful
LISTENING TO: Sounds of breaking bread and wine outpoured

Quote of the day: April 3

2007-04-03T16:59:00.000-05:00

From the Family Guy episode "Bango was his name-o":

Brian: "Maybe you should slow down."

Stewie (yelling because he's hyped up on caffeine pills, while driving a Winnebago): "Why?! We're making good time!"

Brian: "We're not even on the road!"

Stewie: "Huh?!"

Brian: "I said, we're not even on the road!"

Stewie: "Don't need to be! Compass says, 'west,' that's where we're headed!"

Brian: "Stewie, we're in the middle of the desert."

Stewie: "I know! Imagine the nads on the guys who did this is in a wagon. Pioneers! We share their spirit... manifest destiny!!"

FEELING: Distracted
LISTENING TO: Stewie and Brian arguing

So that's what the Sears Tower looks like

2007-03-28T11:46:00.000-05:00

Today, I'll join fellow Cumberlandites Baird Beers, Patrick Johnson, and Josh Andrews for a flight up to Chicago, Illinois for the National Criminal Trial Advocacy competition, sponsored by the American Bar Association.

This year's case is a murder that could be considered a self-defense case, a domestic violence case, a hate crime case, or even a business partner homicide. Needless to say, we've got our hands full with this one.

FEELING: Nervous
LISTENING TO: The giant air conditioner in the Samford library turn on, which sounds like a jet taking off

Some Scripture cogent to recent events

2007-03-21T12:00:00.001-05:00

With special thanks to my brother Mark Halling, some Scripture that I have been thinking about over the past couple of days:

Lamentations 3, after the destruction of Judah:

I cry out, "My splendor is gone! Everything I had hoped for from the Lord is lost!"

The thought of my suffering and homelessness is bitter beyond words. I will never forget this awful time, as I grieve over my loss.

Yet I still dare to hope when I remember this: "The unfailing love of the Lord never ends. By his mercies we have been kept from complete destruction. Great is his faithfulness; his mercies begin afresh each day."

I say to myself, "The Lord is my inheritance; therefore I will hope in him." He's all I have left.

And Psalm 143:

Come quickly, Lord, and answer me for my depression deepens. Don't turn away from me or I will die. Let me hear of your unfailing love in the morning, for I am trusting you. Show me where to walk, for I have come to you in prayer...

May your gracious Spirit lead me forward on a firm footing. For the glory of your name, O Lord, save me! In your righteousness, bring me out of this distress.

FEELING: Devastated
LISTENING TO: Nothing

Men's SEC player -- and coach! -- of the year

2007-03-07T15:47:00.000-06:00

And the honor goes to: Vanderbilt University's Derrick Byars for SEC Men's Player of the Year. But what's this, there's one more award: your 2006-07 SEC Coach of the Year is none other than Kevin Stallings, Vanderbilt's own!

Who would have seen that coming. But hey: "who ya with."

In other news, just in time for SEC Tournament and NCAA Madness time, I've been hooked on (thanks Austen) an alum-written blog about Vanderbilt Sports that has articles, frankly, better than either Vandymania.com or Vandysports.com.

It gets the Diezba Recommendation, so check it out: Vanderbilt Sports Line.

Oh, and since I haven't said something about it yet, how 'bout them Commodores (of the female variety) winning the 2007 SEC Women's Tournament Championship! Way to go, ladies. Now, if only LSU can knock off the Lady Vawls in the Big Dance, then we might have a chance at breaking into the Final Four.

FEELING: Ready for March Madness
LISTENING TO: iTunes

Heresy or insight: you need more than just the Sinner's Prayer

2007-03-06T20:19:00.000-06:00

There's a funny thing about Lent: it has a way of making people uncomfortable. It's hard to explain to people why (and how) you can give things up that you regularly do or enjoy. Or add on things that you don't normally do. And all for a specific period of, well, rather inconvenient time of the year. Why inconvenient? Two words: spring break (not to mention the fact that every so many years, my birthday happens to fall on Ash Wednesday).

The discipline of Lent always bring me back to the word, "disciple," and what it means to undertake to become Christ's disciple. I have, lately, been persuaded by experience that the classic formulation of salvation from my Baptist heritage, the Sinner's Prayer, is somewhat lacking when it comes to introducing a new believer to true, Christian discipleship.

The prayer, or some form of it, is used to guide potential believers into the arms of Jesus through admission of sin, belief in Christ's saving death and resurrection, and commitment to follow Him (notice the convenient ABCs of salvation).

The problem with the sinner's prayer, and one of the weaknesses of my Baptist tradition, is that once a person prays this prayer, often the only guidance available to them afterward is "read your Bible daily and attend a Bible-believing church." Certainly not bad advice, but my what broad strokes. What part of the Bible should I read? What exactly is a Bible-believing church? Is there anything I should do differently now? What should I do differently?

My readiness to question the Sinner's Prayer, and the simplistic call to salvation that usually accompanies it, was inspired by a recent column in Christianity Today. The author's poignant analysis of the problem in the "get saved and go serve God" mentality is that it overlooks the biggest challenge to any young believer.

The author said it best:

I suggest that we tend to confuse the beginning of the faith journey with its entirety. Yes, believe in Jesus—that's the first step. Yes, invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior. Then, empowered by God's grace, embark on the journey of discipleship, in which you seek to love God with every fiber of your being, to love your neighbor as yourself, to live out God's moral will, and to follow Jesus where he leads you, whatever the cost.

The most challenging part of the author's message was convicting to me. It is so easy to "share the Gospel" and then move on. But real Christian discipleship -- and thus, real Christian ministry -- is about more than easy platitudes and rote recitation of a formulaic conversion prayer:

Mediocrity and hypocrisy characterize the lives of many avowed Christians, at least in part because of our default answer to the salvation question. Anyone can, and most Americans do, "believe" in Jesus rather than some alternative savior. Anyone can, and many Americans sometimes do, say a prayer asking Jesus to save them. But not many embark on a life fully devoted to the love of God, the love of neighbor, the moral practice of God's will, and radical, costly discipleship.

FEELING: Challenged to pursue "radical, costly discipleship"
LISTENING TO: My roommates having dinner

Pray for the people of Enterprise

2007-03-01T17:52:00.000-06:00

Today was a deadly day in Alabama, as multiple tornadoes touched down in the Yellowhammer State.

More close-to-home for me and my fiancee Kat, a twister tore through Enterprise High School in Enterprise. That town, in lower Alabama (toward the middle of the State, and not too far from the Florida border), reminds me a lot of Rogersville (though its population is larger). And in 2003, on our way back from Panama City Beach, Katharyn and I stopped in Enterprise to take our picture with Enterprise's famous Boll Weevil Monument.

At Enterprise High, students were still in classes as a tornado moved through Coffee County. As the sirens wailed, students were evacuated from their classrooms into the gymnasium and the hallways. Most of the students were safe, despite the direct hit the school took from the storm. The gym, however, suffered heavy damage, and in one of the hallways, where students, teachers, and staff took cover, the roof collapsed.

Currently, local news is reporting, and the Alabama Emergency Management Agency has confirmed, that eight people have died, in the hallway-roof collapse at the high school. Some students are still trapped; and the community has been devastated.

Please pray for the families of those who have died, for those who are trapped, for the rescue workers and Alabama Guardsmen, and for the people of lower Alabama.

FEELING: Sad
LISTENING TO: The Fox 6 Storm Team

Discovery Channel finds tomb of Hanun -- or Jesus?

2007-02-26T10:34:00.000-06:00

According to a press release from the Discovery Channel, and the associated website that they've put together, director James Cameron and archaeologists for the Discovery Channel have discovered what they say is the "tomb of Jesus," but what independent scholars are saying is probably the "tomb of Hanun."

The implications of this are obvious: if Jesus is still in a tomb, then the central tenet of Christianity is false: "on the third day, he rose again."

Read the AP article on the documentary for good analysis from both sides.

And remember, this isn't the first time that people have tried to deny Christ through attacking his resurrection.

FEELING: Disappointed in the Discovery Channel
LISTENING TO: A discussion of the Supreme Court's reproductive autonomy jurisprudence

Golden era: top tier sports succeeding at VU

2007-02-19T15:25:00.000-06:00

When Vanderbilt restructured its Athletics Department to merge it into the Division of Student Life (now the Office of the Dean of Students), folks were quick to say that Vanderbilt athletics would shortly devolve into Division III quality, and that the Varisty Football team might have to share practice space with the Sigma Chi intramural team.

Almost four years later, it seems the nay-sayers were wrong. Vanderbilt football notched a 5-6 season, with a 4th-in-the-East finish, including a win over archrival Tennessee in 2005, and in 2006, the same team, minus first-round draft pick Jay Cutler, saw a 4-7 season with a win in Athens over the Georgia Bulldogs. In 2007, with most of the team, including many starters, returning, and with 8 home games, Vanderbilt looks set, within the next 2-3 years to finally achieve a winning season and the accompanying bowl invitation.

The story is the same for men's basketball. With Saturday's win over then No. 1-ranked Florida, the Commodores have all but clinched an invitation to the NCAA Tournament: the program's second in four years. In addition, the Black and Gold squad was ranked No. 17 in the nation by the Associated Press just this week; ESPN predicts that the 'Dores could be as high as a fifth-seed in the tournament, come March.

On the women's side of things, Vanderbilt has been consistently ranked in the Top 25 every year of Melanie Balcomb's tenure as Commodore head coach. And though she has yet to knock off the arch-nemesis Lady Vols, an SEC Tournament championship has helped soften the frustration.

Finally, the most resurgent of Vanderbilt sports, especially since the restructuring, has been the Vanderbilt baseball team. Under head coach Tim Corbin, the Diamond 'Dores have progressed each season toward becoming one of the nation's elite clubs. In 2006, the Black and Gold went all the way to the SEC Tournament Championship before falling to the Ole Miss Rebels. And this month, Vanderbilt baseball, after knocking off three teams in the Top 10, has done something that no Vanderbilt men's team has ever done in the history of Commodores intercollegiate athletics: just today it was announced that the Vanderbilt Commodores are the number one team in the country.

The marketing slogan may be cheesy, but for once, it's accurate: in 2007, it's "good to be Gold."

FEELING: Pumped
LISTENING TO: You guessed it -- 'Dynamite

The gospel: 'Jesus died for our sins' or 'talk about life'?

2007-02-12T10:25:00.000-06:00

The current controversy in our society over issues as diverse as human sexuality and the sanctity of human life is really more than an argument over specific issues. Especially among Christians, it also reflects a broader conflict over what exactly is at the heart of following Jesus and his teaching. This conflict is being played out, almost by proxy, in the troubled, American expression of the classic via media, the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church is, for now, the American expression of the global Anglican Communion, the Christian tradition founded upon the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer, the two Creeds, episcopacy, and (at its heart) the Bible. Lately, there has been quite a storm in our nation's (un)official religion.

Into the midst of this dispute comes the Church's new Presiding Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori. She was interviewed last week by USA Today, and one of her comments reflects the fundamental juxtaposition between the two sides in this important dispute. The author of the piece in USA Today wrote:

[Katharine Jefferts-Schori] sees two strands of faith: One is "most concerned with atonement, that Jesus died for our sins and our most important task is to repent." But the other is "the more gracious strand," says the bishop who dresses like a sunrise. It "is to talk about life, to claim the joy and the blessings for good that it offers, to look forward. God became human in order that we may become divine. That's our task."

The question then becomes, how does the Chief Pastor of our nation's most influential Church stack up against what the Bible has to say about this same question? Would the apostle, St. Paul, agree with The Rt. Rev. Jefferts-Schori's view? Let us allow Paul to speak for himself:

Now I should remind you, brothers and sisters, of the Gospel that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you — unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I will only connect the dots so much as to say that I added the bold text, not Paul. But I doubt, seriously, that the apostle would object to that emphasis.

FEELING: Anxious
LISTENING TO: A discussion of whether admitting a man to a nursing school is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution

When the culture becomes the standard

2007-02-10T13:41:00.000-06:00

I usually try to avoid discussing issues like this because, well, people are generally not going to be persuaded by arguments for and against (plus, it usually gets me pretty riled up). Most of us are set in stone on a divisive issue such as human sexuality. But occasionally, an argument arises that simply has to be read.

This argument is such. Read it. All of it. And then ask yourself how it differs from similar arguments made by an increasing number of "religious" people today.

Be careful, though. Your worldview might start to shift a little.

FEELING: Somewhat heartened, somewhat saddened -- that it takes an argument like this to get people to listen
LISTENING TO: Some good, country music, after getting so disgusted at the Vandy-Yew Tee game that I turned it off

The Christian's role in the political process

2007-01-31T20:31:00.000-06:00

A friend and I have recently been debating the role that Christians should play in the political process, particularly American politics. Both of us see ourselves as committed Christians of an evangelical bent, and both of us affirm classical, orthodox Christianity as embodied by the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. My friend's position, broadly speaking, is that the Christian believer's primary role is to fulfill the Great Commission; as such, he sees a Christian's involvement in trying to pass laws, or "legislate morality," as a less-than-profitable enterprise.

His argument goes something like this: since Christians are called to be on mission with God in expanding God's kingdom into the hearts of all people, and since that can only be done through the individual choice of each person to accept Christ and become his disciple, it is almost a waste of time to attempt to pass a law that would burden a non-Christian with the responsibilities and principles of Christian ethics.

But it is those same Christian ethics, particularly Christ's emphases on his disciples still being in the world, being salt and light, that causes me to reconsider whether abandoning the secular, political process -- particularly when that process is a democratic one.

Certainly, God had no problem with his Chosen People's desire to mix belief with politics. It was God who called judges like Deborah to be his temporal agents; it was God who appointed Samuel to annoint Saul king over Israel, and it was God who put David in Saul's place. In the Mosaic Covenant, at least, God did not mind his faithful getting their hands into the nitty-gritty of politics.

Of course, Christians are not called to follow the Mosaic law, and it has been some time since a prophet of the Lord has gone forth to annoit a ruler over his people (despite what some televangelists might say next year). What, then, is the Christian's role in a democratic republic?

FEELING: Pensive
LISTENING TO: Some music

Look who's No. 14

2007-01-26T14:13:00.000-06:00

In the Sports Illustrated men's college basketball power rankings. Who ya with?

FEELING: Pumped
LISTENING TO: If you read Annales regularly and don't know, there's no point in telling you anyway. But here's a hint.

Democrats' strategy for Iraq

2007-01-26T10:47:00.000-06:00

A picture is worth a thousand words.

FEELING: Hopeful that Americans of all parties will not abandon the (small d) democrats in Iraq
LISTENING TO: Professor discuss the United States Constitution -- which, of course, took almost ten years to get together after the end of "major military operations" against the British

Learning from atheists' mistakes

2007-01-25T10:37:00.000-06:00

It is at the same time heartening and terrifying that atheism seems to be at an ebb from its mid-twentieth century high. Heartening, because it means that more people than ever are open to the possibility that God exists; terrifying, because, according to the Bible, religion, as such, will only increase as the hour approaches.

It is appropriate then, that in this middle hour, believers should take a lesson from the mistakes being made in the waning days of the antitheists. As Christianity Today editorialized:

The new atheistic rhetoric betrays panic, another sign of weakness. Atheism knows that it is losing both arguments and the global tide. Stories of the global vibrancy of religion are everywhere trumping the grand narrative of evolutionary progress. And the best philosophers are still taking the God-hypothesis seriously.

Christians should learn from the confident work of apologists who frame for our time arguments for God's existence. We should also pay attention to the state of civil society, being careful not to overreact to atheism's newly aggressive stance. In an already polarized culture, we cannot afford to destabilize the balance further.

Most of all, we must be careful to live out our faith — with demonstrable neighbor-love — rather than coasting along in a civil religion that blesses consumer culture and sings praises to the God of materialism. After all, the greatest apologia is love lived out.

FEELING: Like CT gave good advice
LISTENING TO: Professor Ross make fun of his old senior partner

The 'compassionate conservative' is back

2007-01-23T21:11:00.000-06:00

I was anxious about President Bush's State of the Union speech tonight. After this past November's election, and the return of a Democratic majority to Congress, the House Chamber did not look to be a friendly venue for the most unpopular President since Nixon to "recommend to their consideration such mesaures as he shall deem necessary and expedient."

But tonight, despite the war, despite polls, and despite a situation where a lesser man might "pack it up" and become a lame duck, the character of this reformed fratboy from Texas shone through.

In his delivery (measured and determined), in his policies (health care, immigration reform, social security, and education -- along with steadfast support for the nascent democracies in Lebanon and Iraq), and in his earnest sincerety (you could see it in his eyes), I saw the man who raised a bullhorn and raised a nation from despair. And it was good to see him again.

FEELING: Renewed hope
LISTENING TO: The State of the Union post-game coverage

Ranking SEC beauty

2007-01-18T15:38:00.000-06:00

After my little rant about the glories of the SEC, this article seemed appropriate (except, of course, for the misogynistic parts, which I do not endorse).

Preview of the rankings:

(1) Ole Miss
(2) Georgia
(3) Vanderbilt
(4) Auburn
(5) South Carolina

Where did your team end up (he ranked all twelve schools)?

FEELING: Like the author only put Vandy third because he's an alum (Law '04) -- clearly though, at least after reading this other article by him, I think he agrees with me
LISTENING TO: Vanderblit Alma Mater's second verse, "...cherished by thy sons and daughters, mem'ries sweet shall throng..." in light of the author's comments about Vandy

Who really cares? Poor, religious Americans

2007-01-14T16:52:00.000-06:00

According to a study by a sociologist at Syracuse University, "the further to the [political] left you are -- particularly to the secular left -- the less likely you are to donate your time or money to charity.

"Imagine two demographically identical people, except that Joe goes to church regularly and rejects the idea that the government should redistribute wealth to lessen inequality, while Sam never goes to church and favors state-driven income redistribution. Brooks says the data indicate that not only is Joe Churchgoer nearly twice as likely as Sam Secularist to give money to charities in a given year, he will also give 100 times more money per year to charities (and 50 times more to non-religious ones). ...

"This is not merely a byproduct of our wealth. In fact, one of the most interesting observations of the book is that the most giving Americans, measured as a share of their income, are the working poor. The rich come second and the middle class last."

Read more from this Chicago Tribune review.

FEELING: Surprised
LISTENING TO: People talking in the Trial Courtroom

Stats show why SEC is the best

2007-01-13T12:01:00.000-06:00

First, congratulations to the University of Florida Alligators, for their resounding defeat of (the) Ohio State University in the BCS National Championship game. They really showed people why the SEC is such an amazing Conference. They, to use a term familiar to those from up-in-the-hills (such as myself), "womp-stomped" the Buckeyes right straight into the Arizona desert, by a score of 41-14.

Just for kicks, let's review Florida's season in the SEC this year:

• at Tennessee: win, 21-20 (1 point)
• Kentucky: win, 26-7 (19 points)
• Alabama: win, 28-13 (15 points)
• LSU: win, 23-10 (13 points)
• Auburn: loss, 17-27 (-10 points)
• Georgia: win, 21-14 (7 points)
• at Vanderbilt: win, 25-19 (6 points)
• South Carolina: win, 17-16 (1 point)
• Arkansas: win, 28-18 (10 points)

Factoring in the loss against Auburn (as 10 negative points), Florida's average margin of victory in the SEC is 6.89 points per game. That's right -- the Gators don't even have a touchdown-plus-PAT advantage over their conference brethren (which, of course, is not to say anything bad about UF).

So how did the national championship game against the "mighty" Ohio State Buckeyes go? The same Ohio State Buckeyes who were all-but-crowned, presumptive national champs? Who were supposed to beat the Gators by at least 14 points?

Final score 41-14, a 27 point victory. That's right: Florida had a greater margin of victory against the so-called #1 team in the land than against their combined margin of victory over the SEC East's two worst teams: (Kentucky, 19 point margin, and Vanderbilt, 6 point margin).

It's hard to make statistics lie. Just ask Bruce Pearl (whose current least-favorite-statistic is 81-82).

FEELING: SEC pride (along with some Commodore pride, too, since we lost to the eventual national champions by only 6 points)
LISTENING TO: What else: SEC fight songs

If there's a war on Christmas, January 1 must be Tokyo Bay

2007-01-02T14:35:00.000-06:00

Obviously (I say obviously, because surely-to-goodness if you've read my blog, you know this), I'm a Christian (at least, I'm doing the best that I can, with God's help). I celebrate God becoming the God-Man Jesus, otherwise known as Christmas; its prequel, Advent; and its sequel, Epiphany.

Like some people, I'm not a big fan of the generic "Happy Holidays" (important note: I do not advocate making everyone else celebrate Christmas with me, but I want people to say "Happy Hanukah" and "Blessed Ramandan" along with Christmas greetings -- in other words, I don't want the faith-filled celebrations that men and women of good cheer enjoy swallowed up by the meaningless, pointless, materialistic, and secular "winter holiday" that, to me, "Happy Holidays" connotes).

At the same time, I am somewhat annoyed by the lambasting that goes on around the whole greetings-war, a.k.a., the "War on Christmas."

It seems that every year people get up in arms about it -- and I have to admit, it has brought "Merry Christmas" back into vogue a bit. At the same time, though, I deplore the fact, noticed by Christianity Today's weblog, that some of Christmas' loudest defenders are the first to turn tail and run after New Year's.

Even Rogersville wasn't immune: our beautiful downtown, which was dressed "to the nines" for this year's Christmas festivities, was de-frocked just in time for 2007.

I think this quote from CT sums it up well:

In the Christian calendar, Christmas continues until Epiphany (January 6). So if you take your decorations down this weekend, are you part of the "war on Christmas"? On a similar note, why have almost all the organizations that made such a big deal about putting Christ back in Christmas already dropped references to Christmas from their website home pages? Was all that really just about the shopping season?

FEELING: Like celebrating Christmas 'til January 6

LISTENING TO: Voices from the "cloud of witnesses," the Christians who came before and who, for something like 1,800 years, have observed the Christian calendar

NOTE: See this article to understand the significance of the title of this entry in relation to its subject.