Tag Archives: morality

Salvation, Discipleship, and Priorities

6 Replies

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 – Matthew 25:31-46

I have recently come to understand that "the nations" in verse 32 would be goyim if the Gospel of Matthew had been written in Hebrew. To Jesus' audience, the goyim would have been gentile nations, i.e., those not part of God's chosen people. In light of Christ's teachings, we would see non-Christians as goyim.  We can see thing from the tradition, going back to the time of the apostles, of referring to the Church as the new Isreal or the new Jerusalem.

My point is that this parable is descriptive of those outside the Church (in the broad sense). In it, Jesus tells us how those who do not have faith in Him, but did not explicitly reject Him, are to be saved. What it amounts to is an explication of His command to "love our neighbors as ourselves". To borrow from another parable, a good tree will not bear bad fruit, nor will a bad tree bear good fruit. That is, to act with agape love is to follow Christ, whether one knows it or not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not endorsing universalism. There are plenty of uncertainties in this parable, such as how different charitable acts balance against failures to act charitably, to leave more than enough rope for man to hang himself. There's also the matter of explicit rejection of Christ, which seems to be pretty…well…condemned.

I believe this parable shows us how those of other faiths, or no faith at all, can be saved. Consequently, it represents the barest minimum of loving behavior that is expected from humanity. Isn't it reasonable to expect that those who have faith in Jesus Christ to do even more? Shouldn't the love we receive from our Lord and Savior spill over into our relationships with other people? Shouldn't we, who allegedly have the Law written on hearts, be more focused on loving one another as Christ has loved us than beating each other with doctrinal sticks?

I do not deny that there are real and important differences between different sects within the Body, and I do not believe they can be ignored. However, there are times and places for discussing such matters and there are people who are better equipped to do so than the average Joe blogger. Surely there cannot be as many qualified theologians in the blogosphere as there are bloggers spouting pontifications. We cannot all be hands in the Body Christ. Some of us have to be feet. Others are part of an arm. You get the idea.

Far too much air is expended, too much ink spilled, and too many pixels lit in battles over orthodoxy. Why don't we spend a little more time talking about orthopraxy? I addressed a specific aspect of this topic, civility in discourse, in an earlier post. There's more to being Christians than just being civil, though. That's not meritorious behavior, just what is expected of us. There are poor, lonely, hurt, angry, sick, and otherwise needy people in this world. Let's try spending a little more time caring about them, and leave theology to the theologians once in a while. It's fine to have a rousing debate once in a while, but it doesn't fulfill our duties as Christians, as people commanded to love to the point of laying down our lives. Instead of being quick to label each other heretic and refuse to have dealings with each other, let's work together to spread the love of God. Even nonbelievers can do that; Jesus said so.

Is NFP Just Another Form of Contraception?

160 Replies

In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:

“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.” 

I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.

Continue reading →

Have Christian Bloggers Lost the Plot?

24 Replies

 

[bloggerpatron.jpg]I’m worried that Christian bloggers have lost the plot.

My grandfather used to say that the habits or faults of other people that annoy us the most may be ones we are also guilty of. I guess that was his atheistic Quaker version of Luke 6:41. I am very often reminded of that lesson and it has been an important part of my maturation process and growth in faith. It’s a lesson I have to relearn over and over again. It’s painful; the saying is true – no pain, no gain.

There are times (too many to count) God puts me in a situation in which I find myself correcting someone for a fault I too am guilty of. Sometimes I get sort of a “spider sense” feeling as I reprove a friend, knowing all the while that I’ll learn Pop-pop’s lesson before I’m through. Other times, I’m too blinded by my own self-righteousness to see what’s coming. It’s a very humbling a experience either way.

What I’m trying to say is that the irony of this post is not lost on me. How can I reprove others for a sin I’m just as guilty of? This isn’t going to be a self-righteous lecture. If you insist on believing it is, then imagine me as the recipient rather than the deliverer.

If I had to summarize in one sentence the main reason I blog and how I choose what to blog about, I’d say that I’d like to help people stop begging questions, talking past one another, and calling each other silly and rude names, and start thinking critically, listening to one another, and treating each other with, at minimum, the same love they’d ask for themselves. That, of course, is easier said than done. Popular legend has it that G.K. Chesterton, among other eminent authors of his time, was asked by a newspaper to write an essay on the theme “What’s Wrong with the World?” His reply? “I am.” When it comes to the kind of acerbic and caustic blogging that I believe is poisoning the Body of Christ, and the rest of the world for that matter, I too am guilty.

Continue reading →

French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2

25 Replies

Oh, wait, he just wants the Vatican to reconsider birth control. God save us from such an episcopate!

"Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act."

"That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics." 

Say what?!? First of all, Pope Paul VI didn’t pull that ban out of thin air. The Church has always forbid contraception. The point of almost every papal encyclical, just like councils, is to clarify an eternal truth in modern terms. Paul VI only reiterated what the Church was already teaching to a generation itching for sexual license (among other stupid things). Secondly, the people who left the Church over this issue were never faithful Catholics in the first place. I mean, that’s a pretty flimsy excuse for leaving the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Either you trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it or you don’t. Thirdly, if Humanae Vitae undercut papal authority, it’s only because the episcopate and the presbyterate failed miserably in their efforts (or lack thereof) to explain Catholic sexual ethics to their flocks, and continue to do so. Lastly, I’d very much like to know how the Catholic Church’s hestance on contraception weakens her message on abortion and bioethics. It’s all of a piece.

The primary ends of sexual congress are procreation and unification. To block conception is to interfere with both of those ends. Contraceptives, particularly barrier methods, interfere with complete self-giving (an element of unity). They also interfere with the natural product of intercourse, a child. Furthermore, all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Abortion, like contraception, treats conception as an undesireable side effect of a primarily pleasure-oriented act. It also murders children, the true primary product of what should be a love-oriented act. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research murders unborn children and justifies that act by redefining the beginning of human life to some unspecified time beyond conception. It also seperates the creation of humans from the natural procreative act, treating them not as children to be protected and loved, but as raw material to be consumed. Incidentally, these reasons are similar to those for why the Church opposes artificial means of conception, such as IVF. Abortion and ESCR both result from a contraceptive mentality. Denying that sex should be a life-giving activity allows one to justify both the destruction of life if it interferes with pleasure and the production and consumption of life for one’s own purposes.

This Reuters article is very much wrong in its protrayal of Catholic sexual ethics, and reproducing it without commentary or caveat was an irresponsible choice on the part of the editors at CathNews.

(For similar thoughts, head to  Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)

Making the Best of a Bad Situation

33 Replies

I have a knack for offending people unintentionally. Anyone who knows me well knows that I hate doing that. Darn it, if I'm going to offend somebody, I want to mean it! 😉 Seriously, though, my recent post on legalizing prostitution offended someone, and that was never my intention. The following is from an email by a woman who has escaped the hell of prostitution.

"Your thought experiment is dangerously naive and bordering on offensive. I don't believe that the comment thread does quite enough to explain your position. You spend most of that thread defending your initial assertion. As far as I can tell, you are insufficiently knowledgeable to even broach a discussion of prostitution and the ramifications of making it legal."

I am very sorry that my naivite caused offense. For the record, here's how that post and ensuing discussion came about.

Sometimes the oddest thoughts occur to me right before bed. If I'm lucky, I write them down before I've forgetten then. I'll usually discuss them later with friends, with my spiritual director, or on my blog. A few nights ago, for reasons unknown, I started wondering why prostitution illegal. More specifically, I wondered what made it, among the myriad of immoral acts, illegal when so many aren't. I decided that I'd query my blog readers.

I explicitly cast aside moral arguments because I thought the inconsistency of which immoral acts are illegal and which are not would cloud the issue. I then proceded to break down the various amoral arguments that came to mind. I really wanted to know what made this activity unacceptable by society in 49 states. At no point did I, or would I, state that I actually wanted prostitution to be legalized. Granted, I used some provacative language, but I never endorsed the practice.

Out of a discussion about a strange random thought came what I believe to be very important to Christians wishing to interact with secular government. Occational contributer and frequent commenter Steve Nicoloso posited (disapprovingly) that this country was not founded, nor is it guided by moral priciples, but rather Lockean notion of social contract. Commenter Tom Smith, on the other hand, argues that one can justify moral legislation via natural law. Putting aside the inflamatory topic of prostitution, I'd like very much to continue this conversation. Some questions that I feel are worth answering:

Was our country primarily founded on Judeo-Christian moral principles or amoral social contract theories?

Even if it was founded on Judeo-Christian moral principles, is it still guided by those principles?

If it isn't, why not, and how can Christians help change that?

If it was on social contract theories, is it still guided by those principles?

If it is, should we seek to change that? If we should, how do we go about doing so?

The question that summarizes the preceding is, "How should Christians interact with secular government?" Many of the arguments given against legalizing prostitution amounted to "because it's wrong". Before one can argue that an act is wrong, though, one must define wrong. You cannot define a right to perform a wrong action, or lack thereof, until there is agreement of what is wrong. Who defines right and wrong? Should laws only pertain to those rights and wrongs that are nearly universally agreed to or should a mere plurality or majority of the electorate be allowed determine right and wrong for the remainder?

It is my hope that a rational debate about such matters will aid Christians in the pursuit of moral legislation on nonreligious grounds. Determining whether there are universal moral concepts to base such work on or not is a core part of such a discussion. If we could be convinced, and then convince the secular world, that there are good reasons other than divine writ to ban (or maintain bans) on practices like prostitution, we'd be well on our way to formulating and executing more effective plans for getting wholesome legislation passed. Learning how to argue better on secular terms would be an invaluable asset in our efforts to abolish abortion. As long as secularists can accuse us of trying legislate our faith, no progress will be made in any of the political arenas in which we find ourselves fighting.

The preample to the Declaration of Independence ought to inspire us in these endeavors.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

{All emphases mine]

We who believe in that Creator are among the governed from whose consent the just powers of the goverment are derived. If our government becomes destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we the people have the right to alter or abolish it, to throw it off and provide new guards for our future.

I am not (and I cannot express this strongly enough) suggesting some kind of revolution. Rather, I would like to see Christians exercise their First Amendment right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and to perform their civic duties of voting and running for office, at all levels of government, so that laws might enacted that, in accordance with the purpose our constitution, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". And if those laws should be found to be contrary to the Constitution of the United States, we should seek to exert our right under Article V of the that constitution to amend it.

So, dear readers, how do we go about doing these things?