"If It's Just a Symbol..."

Looking at something else, I happened on a Youtube of Jonathan Roumie, the actor who portrays Jesus in "The Chosen," addressing the Catholic National Eucharistic Conference.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7iZEOxAWoE

 

I bookmarked the video to watch later, but what struck me was that he was wearing a tee-shirt

with a quote from Flannery O'Connor about the Eucharist: "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it."

 

Googling to find out more about her quote, I ran across an article in the National Catholic Register which suggested the same might be said of baptism.

 

     https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/flannery-o-connor-s-to-hell-with-it-applies-to-baptism-too

 

But I was totally gobsmacked to read there that (my emphasis)

 

     "We have an obligation to baptize because Jesus told us to.

      And we have an obligation in obedience and love to baptize

      correctly.  Given that the non-Catholic media does not

      believe in sin or in the divine authority of Jesus, it is

      no wonder they are befuddled."

 

Not to charge Catholics with brain-dead insularity.  The Register seems to be some kind of hyper-"Conservative Catholic" publication; and not to be confused at all with the National Catholic Reporter out of Kansas City, which is respected (even among the Church' hierarchy, of which it's independent) for honest, penetrating, coverage of Catholic news and issues.

 

In contrast, the Register's writer seems to think no one can be considered honest except those who believe exactly as he does.  Jesus IS "The Truth," he evidently reasons, so obviously no unbeliever (including, in his view, "non-Catholic media") can possibly tell the truth.

 

That self-blinding attitude is hardly unique to Catholics.  It's the same prideful solipsism that underlies "Evangelicals' " contempt for "the liberal media," science, historians, etc., etc.  And at root it is, itself, unbelief; denial that "The Truth," Jesus, in actuality rules anywhere except in our self-chosen little group.

Christ The Lord Is Risen Today

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

In his book book Building Social Capital, Muhammad Yunus tells the story of how he got the idea for the
first grameen bank.

After a privileged upbringing in what was then East Pakistan, Yunus was the head of the Economics
department at Chittagong University.  But the nation's economy had crumbled after East Pakistan won
its war for independence, only to be hit by catastrophic flooding.  Famine followed, and starving people
from the countryside flocked to cities to find jobs they hoped would help their families survive.

"I found it increasingly difficult to teach elegant theories of economics in the classroom while a terrible
famine was raging outside," Yunus wrote.  ". . . I felt the emptiness of traditional economic concepts in
the face of crushing hunger and poverty.  I realized I had to be with the distressed people of Jobra, the
neighboring village just outside of Chittagong University, and somehow find something to do for them..."
(p viii)

Talking to the residents of the Jobra shanties, Yunus found them still on the brink of starvation, although
they had found work and were working hard, working long hours.  The problem was that they were all
falling deeper into poverty, because they had to buy tools and materials to produce the bamboo furniture
and woven cloth they sold.

They had been forced to apply to predatory money-lenders who charged exorbitant interest on their loans.
The money-lenders also required borrowers to sell their products only to them . . . and the lenders always
drastically under-priced the people's products.  Borrowers' families had been forced to work, to try to keep
up with their increasing debt to the money-lender...from whom they had to borrow more money for more tools
and materials.

Yunus found entire families working all day long, every day, hopelessly trying to pay their still-increasing debt
to the money-lender.  One woman's family had fallen into economic slavery for an initial loan equivalent to
seven American cents.  When he totaled the debt of the 42 people he had interviewed, Yunus found their
cumulative debt to money-lenders amounted to $27 U.S.

Yunus told his poor friends he would help them get a loan from a bank.  The banks would charge a much more
reasonable interest-rate, he said: and with their continued hard work, they would soon be out of debt, and able
to sell their products at fair market-prices.

But Yunus was wrong.  When he took his poor friends to the banks, none would lend them a cent.  Even when
he, an esteemed academic in the local university, offered to personally guarantee the loan, no bank considered
his friends "credit-worthy" for even the very small sums that would free them from poverty.

"The more time you spend among poor people," Younus later wrote, "the more you become convinced that
poverty is not the result of any incapacity on the part of the poor.  Poverty is not created by poor people.  It is
created by the system we have built, the institutions we have designed, and the concepts we have formulated."
(p. xii)

Yunus finally paid his friends' debts from his own pocket.  And from that experience he began to formulate the
idea for grameen (Bangladeshi for "village") banks, by which the poor could help each other escape from poverty.

The idea for grameen banks has now spread throughout the world, saved millions from economic slavery, and
created millions of jobs.  Yunus and his idea have even been honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.

But reading this story as we prepared to celebrate Christ' resurrection, I was forcibly struck by the thought that
Jesus is the hero of the story.

I doubt Yunus is a Christian.  I don't know if anyone who benefitted from his idea is a Christian.  Doesn't matter.
The idea of grameen banks saved people from poverty and hopelessness: and ideas are spiritual events.  Don't
we really still think in the terms Romans did when they created the word "inspire"...that "into" man's thoughts a
"spirit" is breathed?

What spirit is it that inspires a man to free people enslaved by unrighteousness ?  What spirit inspires a man to
help the poor escape poverty and hopelessness ?  The only spirit like that which exists is the Spirit of Christ.

I don't know if Muhammad Yunus realizes his idea embodies Christ's Spirit.  I'm pretty sure some of my fellow
American Christians, who theoretically believe that Christ rules even in (what they call) the "secular" world, would
also be unable to see that He is the "Hero" of this story.  And there are some American Christians are so enslaved
to the enemy's false political ideas that they would even reject the Spirit's inspiration as "socialism."

Doesn't matter.  For those who have eyes to see, "Christ the Lord is risen today."  In this very day, Jesus is still
alive.  The same as He did 2000 years ago, He continually shows up in places, and ways, and people, where we
would never expect Him.

Hallelujah !!

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Re-Post: "5 Things Jesus Would Say to Conservatives"

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I don't agree with all the points this brother's post makes: but "conservatives," who claim to politically represent Jesus' teachings, should expect to be thoroughly measured on how they manifest Jesus' teachings.  Even moreso, those who self-identify as "Conservative Christians."

"Conservatives" (like all of us) fall short.  This post seems an honest critique of some of those short-comings: which, if "conservatives" take correction in a Christian spirit, will give them fruitful thoughts for self-examination and repentance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There’s no question that conservatives are not solely to blame for this problem [of disunity]. So where do I get off calling them out? That’s a great question.

In the last thirty years, evangelicalism has come under the spell of the Republican party. Through an intentional effort to secure this enormous voting bloc—one that responded positively to Jimmy Carter’s “born again” talk—Republicans focused on painting themselves as God’s party. They were the only ones who cared about Christianity and moralism.

Today, Republicans need the evangelical vote. They’ve come to a place where they rely on this bloc to carry them through elections. By coloring themselves as the choice for God-fearing Christians, they guarantee that poor, white middle America will consistently vote Republican—often against their best interests.

Meanwhile, evangelical Christians are increasingly poisoned by this political association.  As Christians have conflated Christianity and conservative politics, they’ve ended up championing things that oppose Christ: nationalism, war, division, racism, hatred.

If conservatives and liberals simply represented two sides of a political divide, I wouldn’t particularly care. Politics are important insofar as they affect real people and for that reason, I try and vote as responsibly as possible. But the fact that people outside of the church are left thinking that American conservative politics and Christianity are synonymous is wrong—plain and simple.

This post isn’t intended to slam anyone with conservative viewpoints. There’s nothing wrong with having a political perspective that skews right. The problem occurs when you believe that your religious and political identity are synonymous. If you think that you’re a conservative because you’re a Christian, this post is for you.

And while this isn’t intended to be mean-spirited, it is pointed. The relationship between conservatism and the church is driving people away from the cross—and here’s what I think Jesus would say about it.

Read the full post at

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jaysondbradley/2017/11/jesus-would-say-conservatives/#WjlKpOj4YMQQbXOA.99

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Oaks of Righteousness

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
Because the Lord has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners;
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
To grant those who mourn in Zion,
Giving them a garland instead of ashes,
The oil of gladness instead of mourning,
The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting.
So they will be called oaks of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

                                                --  Isaiah 61:1-3

The first two verses are very familiar to us.  They are the words of prophecy which Jesus read from the scroll in his home synagogue, saying they were fulfilled that very day, in Himself (Luke 4:18).

I think it was sometime last year when I was praying for my teenagers and those of a beloved sister, that God brought to mind a phrase from scripture.  I had to look it up to see where it was, and make sure I got its words right.  I was very surprised to see it was immediately after the words Jesus said were the prophecy about Himself, words I've often read and meditated on.

Guess I stopped paying attention right after verse 2, all the times I read that passage.  But this time the phrase God brought to mind was in verse 3..."oaks of righteousness."

"That's what I want you to pray for your teenagers and Genelle's boys," God said.  So I have been every since.

Praying it this morning, God got me thinking about the phrase.

What is it He means by that phrase, that I should understand and mean too ?

The first things He brought to mind was that oak is a strong tree...that it is a straight tree, and that its roots go deep to hold it firm.

I trust if I continue to listen, God may say more about this scripture: but for now, that's what He's given me.  That he wants me to pray that my grandkids and Genelle's sons will be strong in righteousness, straight in righteousness, and firmly-rooted in righteousness.

Thank you, Father, for teaching me.  Please never stop teaching me Your ways and Your wisdom.  Amen.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Calvin on Evil Rulers

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I very definitely have no dog in doctrinal disputes about Calvin's teachings.  I'm not even sure what anti-Calvinists are called, beyond "anti-Calvinists."  It's never really seemed a necessary part of my life in Christ to research and decide and declare if I'm a Calvinist or an anti-.

The formal theology associated with Calvin's name is doubtless flawed: that's only what we should expect of anyone's theology, including our own.  Believing any human mind can substantially encompass the reality of God is a first step toward idolatry...taken in pride.  None of us can, and none of us do.  So I'm also pretty sure the theology of Calvinism's opponents is just as flawed.

It seems a mistake to follow either to the extent we identify by one "side's" name, or by the other's.  Taking "sides" in theology is the same as taking "sides" in politics, football, nationalism, or any of the other human constructs to which men give their allegiance: that is to say, idols.

"Taking sides," or "factions," is not a fruit of Christ's Spirit any more than idolatry is.  Galatians 5:20 says "dividings" or "factions" grow from our flesh.  The Greek word there for "dividings" is haireseis, from which we get our English word "heresy."

The rhetorical question in I Corinthians 1:13 affirms that Christ is not divided.  Since Jesus identified Himself as "the Truth" (John 14:6), Christians, above all other people, must believe that "the Truth" is not divided.  There are no "sides" in Truth, no "your Truth" and "my Truth:" and the only "anti-" connected with it is denial of Truth.  The latter is what Jesus said is the distinguishing character of "the father of lies" (john 8:44).

Quoting Calvin here has nothing to do with identifying as a Calvinist or an anti-Calvinist.  I cite Calvin because I consider he speaks scriptural truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We are not only subject to the authority of princes who perform their office toward us uprightly and faithfully as they ought, but also to the authority of all who, by whatever means, have got control of affairs...that whoever they may be, they have their authority solely from him....they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people; that all equally have been endowed with that holy majesty with which he has invested lawful power....a wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth...thus nothing more would be said of a [wicked] king than of a robber who seizes your possessions, of an adulterer who pollutes your marriage bed, or of a murderer who seeks to kill you. For Scripture reckons all such calamities among God’s curses. But...In a very wicked man utterly unworthy of all honor, provided he has the public power in his hands, that noble and divine power resides which the Lord has by his Word given to the ministers of his justice and judgment. Accordingly, he should be held in the same reverence and esteem by his subjects, in so far as public obedience is concerned, in which they would hold the best of kings if he were given to them.”

                                   --  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 25

 
"He now commends to us obedience to princes...that the Lord has designed in this way to provide for the tranquillity of the good, and to restrain the waywardness of the wicked...for except the fury of the wicked be resisted, and the innocent be protected from their violence, all things would come to an entire confusion...

For since a wicked prince is the Lord’s scourge to punish the sins of the people, let us remember, that it happens through our fault that this excellent blessing of God is turned into a curse.”
 

                                  --  John Calvin, Commentary on Romans  (Chapter 13, vv. 3-4)

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Heart Problem

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I grew up in a neighborhood where there were a lot of Mormon kids.  (In fact, my high school graduation was held in the nearby RLDS temple, where that branch of Mormons supposedly believe Jesus will return to earth).  I was a pretty superficial Baptist Sunday-School believer (and had a string of Baptist Sunday-School attendance pins to prove my superficial faith was of long standing . LOL).

I had as little theological understanding as it took to get by.  Even so, when I learned what Mormons believed about God, I can remember thinking, "HOW CAN THEY BELIEVE THAT CRAP !?!?"

That bothered me a lot.  It's always seemed to me that (in the words of a much-later TV show) "the truth is out there:" manifest, and impossible to miss.  So that incredulous question stayed in mind.

I refined the question a bit during Watergate, when my parents were obdurately convinced that Richard Nixon hadn't done anything wrong, and everything was the result of his enemies' maneuverings to "get" him.  (That mindset has been dusted off and pressed into service by Trump's followers.)  But the question became a bit more focused, and a bit more personally tormenting in those circumstances: "why do my folks believe those lies ?"

Chewing on that question was like chewing on beef-jerky; it got larger.  It wasn't just my folks, and not just Nixon's lies.  There was a distinct period when the one question about life that I couldn't escape, and always seemed to come back to, was "why do people believe lies ?"

I really can't say that finally getting the question right was the reason I finally got an answer: but the two seem roughly contemporaneous in my memory.  "Why do WE believe lies ?" seemed the only honest question.

Taking a philosophical perspective on life and its questions has its value.  It also feeds our tendency toward a flattering self-image ("Look at me, I'm a philosopher").  Worse, it gives us a bit of safe personal detachment from life and its questions.

By the time I got to "the right question," I was, and knew I was, a Christian...not a philosopher.  I'm sure that fact had something to do with getting the question right, since Jesus identifies Himself as "the Truth," and the Spirit of God as "the Spirit of Truth."  Any question about truth, especially about the absence of Truth, is Personal with Jesus.

As a Christian it seemed dishonest to frame questions safely, to not involve me personally; and to look for safe answers.  Jesus didn't.

 The answer I ultimately came to was not at all what I'd call "satisfying:"  But I'm certain it's the hundred-percent true one, and the only one there is : "because we WANT to."

Believing lies isn't really a problem of our cognitive processes, our intelligence and knowledge.  It's a heart problem, that we DESIRE to believe lies.  Jeremiah 17:9 says our heart is desperately wicked: that would explain why we want to believe lies.  It also says our heart is "deceitful above all things:" our heart makes us desire lies...and itself lies to us.