Do You Care About Deep Questions?

 Philosophy is incredibly important and it would take a much longer post to say why, but one thing I've heard when discussing philosophy off the cuff with people is it seems completely impractical to them. I'm not a philosopher in the academic sense, I just have a deep appreciation for the work of philosophy as a laymen and enjoy reading about philosophy in my spare time (and really whenever I can).

There are aspects of philosophy that to the average person seem pointless to talk about. But there are more practical applications of philosophy that are not always immediately realized. One of those practical applications for me is a process of self-reflection that focuses on "knowing myself." I've noticed that I have been self-aware since I was young and found myself asking incredibly deep and sometimes troubling existential questions at a young age. They were only troubling in the sense that I couldn't quite wrap my head around existence. I remember one instance when I was probably about 9 years old give or take a year when I suddenly became hyper-conscious of myself as an individual observer in the world. All of the sudden I was thinking "outside of my self" to the extent that it sparked an existential mini-crisis in me where I simply could not grasp what existence was. I looked at a coffee cup sitting on the table and didn't just see the coffee cup but tried to understand what this coffee cup was if it wasn't for our own definitions of what it was. The question for me was, "was it more than just the cup?" and "does it even make sense to call it a cup if the word cup doesn't really exist?" 

These periods of sudden awareness would subside and I would soon forget them only to return to the question in periods of solitude or when I was having good days.

This lead to a deep appreciation of the things I had even at a very young age. If I was having a particularly good day with family and all things in the world seemed to be perfect for the moment, the heightened state of awareness about the possibility of losing this happiness would hit me and I would immediately become concerned about the good times ending. This made me really savor the moments with family and friends and shaped who became later in life. 

I suppose this was the foundation for my interest in the academic work of philosophy. When I was in 10th grade I read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus and it changed me. I suddenly felt in the right company with the main character in the book who saw the apparent absurdity in life. This led me to a long search for truth and a process of developing my own views as an individual. That was the book that led me to appreciate philosophy.

Though I had always been someone who believed in God, I wasn't particularly religious in high school but would have considered myself loosely in touch with my spiritual upbringing. 

One book that started my craving for the ultimate truth about God was the unlikely book "Bless Me, Ultima". I was the only kid in my class that would actually have deep conversations with my teacher about the book and it sparked yet another search for truth.

Both of these books were instrumental in my approach to life and my love for philosophy, not so much for their own approach to viewing the world but for sparking curiosity in my mind enough to search out the truth for myself.

That brings me to why philosophy, to some extent, is important for everyone. How many people actually think about deep questions about life? How many people go about their mundane day to day lives hoping to find some purpose in what they do without actually thinking about what our purpose truly is? 

Mary at Bethany

In reading the book, Divine Love Made Flesh: The Holy Eucharist as the Sacrament of Charity by Raymond Cardinal Burke, I came across a passage where Cardinal Burke made a beautiful observation about the anointing of Jesus' feet by Mary at Bethany:

Mary, the sister of Lazarus whom Christ had raised from the dead, anointed Jesus with the most precious oil shortly before His passion and Death. Some disciples, most notably Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, objected strongly to her gesture of great reverence and love. Judas and others saw it as a waste of resources which could have been used to car for the poor. 

Our Lord responds to their reaction in what may be for some a surprising way. He teaches that the anointing by Mary is an act fo profound reverence for His body, the instrument by which he has carried out our Redemption.

This thoughtful observation, which is originally attributed to Pope John Paul II, illuminated a beautiful truth to me about the inviolable nature of the Holy Eucharist, where Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

First, the sacredness of the Lord's body is clearly demonstrated in Mary's care to bring the most valuable of oils to anoint His feet with. In my days as a Protestant, I always had an inclination to not care much for the "physical" and had a tendency to over spiritualize Christ. This observation shows the truth, perhaps often forgotten, that the Son of God has a body made of flesh and bones. As such, there is a certain sacredness attached to this reality that those with the faith to believe in Him undeniably realize.

For Mary, her actions spoke louder than words. While others, as with Peter, would declare Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Mary spoke the same truth, but with her actions. If Jesus was indeed God in the flesh, would is not be fitting to anoint His feet with the finest of oils?

But those who were blind to the truth about Christ ridiculed her for her actions, saying that it was a waste of resources. But as Cardinal Burke points out, Jesus did not rebuke her but instead welcomes her actions. His body is sacred for it is Divine Love made flesh, God in human form.

It is for this reason that we both revere and adore Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist, who chose to be always present with us in the humble form of bread and wine.

Secondly, the words of Judas and the others who ridiculed Mary reveals the spirit behind the old accusation that the Church spends too much on lavish churches, religious objects, sacred art, and so on. The common cry that all of this wealth "should be given to the poor" echoes that of Judas' words to Mary at Bethany.

Because Mary believed that Jesus was the Son of God, she purchased what surely cost her a great deal of money so that she could anoint Jesus' feet with the precious oil. Jesus did not rebuke her because of the truth she revealed in her actions, namely that Jesus is the Son of God. We can perhaps assume that Judas did not believe this, for if he did he would not have betrayed our Lord, and thus rebuked Mary because he himself did not truly believe that Christ was the Son of God.

In the same way those who tell us that the Church should sell what they have to give to the poor, because they deem it unnecessary, operate from a lack of belief in the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. If they believed this truth then they would see that our reverence for His body justifies our use of fine linens, religious objects and art, and materials to build our churches, which house and surround the very place where Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Our respect for the Lords body in the Holy Eucharist always stems from our internal belief about this mystery. There are those who might bow before the Blessed Sacrament as a manner of ritual, but who do not truly consider the reality of what they're about to face. In other words, they do not "discern the body" and therefore eat of the Blessed Sacrament "unworthily" (1 Corinthians 11:28-29).

When we eat the bread and drink the wine, we partake of the Lords body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16) and therefore must express our belief in this truth with our mind, body, and souls. In approaching the altar, where Jesus' once-and-for-all sacrifice is recapitulated and offered up to God, we must also assent to the truth that Jesus is the Christ and the son of the living God. When His body, blood, soul, and divinity enter into union with our body and souls through the Holy Eucharist, we must also revere this truth with our actions before and after partaking of the blessed bread and cup. We should see Mary's actions as a model for revering the Lords body, realizing that we daily chose to anoint the Lords feet with either the precious oil of our fully devoted love in action or with the left-over time, money, and energy we have to dedicate to Jesus.

It's Time To Come Home!

Post-modern America is being taken over by rampant secularism and spilling over into churches in subtle ways difficult to detect. It operates like a virus, spreading mind to mind, and multiplying itself and mutating to adapt to new Christian reactions to it, the latest of which is evangelical fundamentalism.

The problem is that nothing will work so long as the underlying foundation of the protestant denomination is based on adaptation as well. All denominational and non-denominational churches under the Protestant umbrella mutate, multiply, and adapt the same way the secularist worldview does, thus making both worldviews ripe for osmosis.

Case and point: contraception.

For 2,000 years the Catholic church has been against contraception. Since the Protestant reformation all Protestant denominations were against it up until the 1930's. The Anglican Church was the first to compromise and the rest followed suit.

The Catholic church, however, still speaks out against it as it has for the last 2,000 years, while Protestants see it as a secondary moral issue. To them contraception is permissible since there is no explicit biblical text they can point to that forbids it.

For an unbeliever accustomed to the social norms of our day it is much easier to become a Protestant. And this is where the Trojan horse can be found (no pun intended). It is in these subtle ways that the secular worldview enters Christian religious communities and quietly influences them.

It's a slow process. The frog in the warm to boiling water analogy fits well here. Protestants don't know that in their attempt to become relevant, they are becoming irrelevant. Not because being relevant to the culture isn't important, but because they themselves have no center of balance, no point of reference to see how far they've gone.

How long will it be before the modern music, colorful lights, smoke machines, big screens, and the hip pastor, all become irrelevant?

What then? What if the culture is so backwards that becoming relevant means compromise? The issue of contraception is the precedent for the validity of this problem. Becoming relevant meant compromising what Christians held as true for 2,000 years.

This is what will become of Protestantism in the future. More division, more disagreements, more secularization.

You need a center of balance and a point of reference. This cannot be found anywhere else except in the Catholic church which has been the center of balance for Christianity for 2,000 years, misgivings and all.

Think about it for a second. The Catholic church is an institution (Protestants hate that word) that is despised among secularists and Christians alike! It's too organized, too dogmatic, and so out of touch!

What do you expect for a 2,000 year old institution established by the Son of God himself? Would you not expect that the Church established by Christ Himself would be organized, continue to speak with authority on issues regarding faith and morals, and carry with it a rich tradition?

It is in our Tradition that we will be relevant to the most modern culture. Men and women will walk into our churches with reverence, sensing they are in a holy place, and be taken to heaven with an other worldly experience, unlike anything our modern culture has to offer.

Rather than experiencing a nice hour long talk with concert music and lights, they experience an ancient liturgy with clergy in ancient vestments and prayers as old as the Church itself. The candles, incense  chanting, stained glass windows that tell a story, and beautiful statues of saints we wish to remember, will take them back and away from the shallowness of this culture.

The Catholic church is the answer, for she contains the true Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. She contains the sacraments given to us by Christ Himself. She contains the fullness of truth.

Come home all of you who desire to know God and His only Son, Jesus Christ. The Catholic church welcomes you.

Why, Lord?

Why have I been chosen to know your name? How is it that you should come to me? Am I not a wretch? Am I not depraved? What have I done that I should even see the shadow of your presence?

Have I not trespassed against you? Have I not cursed at your name? How is it that you continually seek me, always seeking where I dwell? Do I not carry the appearance of a wicked creature to your eyes?

How is it that I can place your sweet name upon my iniquitous lips without the burning of my soul? Have I not scourged you? Have I not my self accused you only to have you punished? Have I not denied you?

Where is the light in my soul? Where can I find it in such a wicked place? I deserve nothing from you, yet you continually give to me.

Who am I, my Lord, my righteous King? Who am I that I should have you?

I am nobody.

Jesus, son of the Blessed, I am yours.

The Lament of My Soul

The peace of my mind is tormented by the ailments of my will. The heart, says the Divine, is desperately wicked. Who can know it? Indeed, who can know the heart except God?

It devises murderous plans against me. It waits until a moment of weakness to breach the walls of my will. My spirit often rebukes the slothfulness of my intellect. What fool keeps the gates of his kingdom open for attack?

So I am left accused in the end, desperately seeking the mercy from God our Savior. Broken, I fall before him. Like a son who lacks wisdom, who is torn with shame. I approach the Father while not daring to look upon his face, otherwise his eyes would set fire to my soul!

Dare I look to the Son, the just judge of the Kingdom? I cannot, for I have betrayed his cross. I have made a mockery of his suffering.

To whom shall I look upon first if not the Mother of the Lord Jesus, who is full of motherly affection and mercy? She desires that all would be drawn to her son and prays unceasingly for it.

"Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one."

Therefore, I shall first approach the Mother of God in my time of need, in my sin, in my filthy garments. She shall first console me and tell me of the many graces given to us through her Immaculate Heart from the Holy One.

Only then will I approach her Son, the Just Judge, and fall prostrate before His throne.

"Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, graciously hear us."

He will remind me of his cross, which he bore for us. He will reveal to me the vastness of His Divine Love. He will show me the ocean of His Divine mercy!

Only then will he allow me to enter into this ocean and be cleansed. Only then will he show me his grace when I have shown my repentance.

"Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us."

THE Reason Why I'm Catholic

The Eucharist.

It is growing to be so incredibly important in my life that I cannont help but exclaim how wonderful it is to know Jesus in this way. Every first friday of a new month we have the opportunity to be in front of Jesus in this sacrament and contemplate this mystery.

That Jesus would allow us to receive Him, body, blood, soul, and divinity is such a priveledge that all other things pale in comparison.

That being said, I'd like to write out my Eucharistic prayer for today.

Lord, thank you for allowing me to come before you in this Blessed Sacrament. Please give me the strength to overcome my weaknesses and allow me to draw strength from your presence to win the battle against my temptations.

My Lord, My God, I worship you. Forgive me for my sins. Forgive the sins of my family and friends. Strengthen them, give them hope, and show them your love.

I pray this in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit.

Amen.

Musings on Doctrinal Development

But first...

Rather than pretend that the knowledge I impart is from a genuine study of the subject I am imparting knowledge about, I'd much rather blog about my musings on the given subject. I'd like to do this mostly because it is more honest in that I'm not simply regurgitating what I found elsewhere, though re-purposing that information is inevitable to discuss any subject.

Everything that I write about could be credited to all of the historians, theologians, philosophers, etc. that I stand on to help me develop my thinking. How else do we learn?

So the primary purpose of this blog is to present it to my readers as a genuine reflection on the given subject  "according to Daniel" and to hopefully provide it in an accessible manner so that the subject is easily understood.

The secondary purpose of this blog is to fulfill my burning desire to write and learn. Having a blog allows me to have conversations about the things I like to have conversations about when "real life" doesn't present those opportunities. I've found that most people simply do not like talking theology, philosophy, history, and like subjects. This blog fills the gap between those occasions where I do find myself in the presence of someone who is intellectually curious and the very long periods of time where I don't encounter those people.

That being said, indulge with me for a moment about a subject I am most unqualified to muse about...

Doctrinal Development

One of the most striking features of Catholicism is their definition of doctrine compared to the rest of the worlds religions. What we find in Catholicism is a "code" with walls and all. Defining what we believe is essential in maintaining what we believe as time goes on and cultures change.

 If there ever was an institutional mainstay in society, the Catholic church is it. This is evident when we consider a controversial topic such as that of contraception. The Catholic church has not changed her position on the subject for 2,000 years and despite getting opposition from non-Catholic Christians and secularists alike, they still won't change their position. 

Interestingly enough, one of the accusations Catholics receive from Protestants about doctrine in general is how certain doctrines developed over time. If I held the "bible alone as the sole rule of faith" presupposition, then I'd probably be suspicious of Catholicism as well. In fact, I was when I was a Protestant, despite having grown up in the Catholic church. But once that presupposition gets called into question, the dominoes fall in order and you start to see why Catholicism makes more sense. 

Cardinal John Henry Newman is the person to look to when it comes to the subject of doctrinal development and you can find a lot of his work online regarding it. For now, all I want to do is point out one particular thought of his regarding development.

In order for anything to "develop" it first needs to be living. I think that makes a lot of sense when thinking about things in nature or even abstract laws or constitutions. From this perspective, one can see that development is not necessarily a bad thing. So the question isn't about whether it is good for something to develop or not, but rather whether something has developed genuinely or fraudulently.

In other words, is this development corrupt or does it derive from its original source? Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition, which is the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation."

That oral revelation combined with the written revelation work hand in hand to make up the sacred deposit of faith. With oral revelation, in order for it to be living, it needs to be handed down from its source, the same way written revelation is handed down. This is where the Living Magisterium of the Church comes in. That is just a fancy way of saying the "teaching authority" of the Church. These teachers are legitimate successors to the Apostles who handed down the deposit of faith to men they chose to be their successors.

Whether we can prove that these teachers, the successors of the Apostles, are truly successors can be addressed in another post. But suffice it to say that there is no other plausible contender for such a position in light of history. It is virtually undeniable.

Now, this is the context in which we can now look at the essence of doctrinal development. It must be understood that the deposit of faith does not comprise of dusty books from the ancient world, but is "living and active" being that it is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12). And as I have mentioned before, anything that develops is assumed to be living.

Now, many non-Catholic Christians take it for granted that they also are a part of a tradition whether they like it or not. Even if you're part of a non-denominational church, there is an inherent connection to some other tradition that ultimately has its origins in the Reformation. Whether these Protestant traditions develop is evident by their various characteristics. For example, evangelical fundamentalism in America looks nothing like the Lutheran churches, though they essentially have their origins in the Reformation. Evangelicalism is largely the fruit of the seed planted during the "Great Awakening" in the 19th century and Lutheranism is closer to what was originally planted during the Reformation.

All of this was a round about way of pointing out that regardless of whether or not you think you're simply a "bible Christian," you're part of a larger theological tradition that has developed, evolved, and grown into something different than what it once was.

This brings me to my thoughts on Primivitism, which in and of itself has many forms within Christendom. Primivistism is the idea that the Church became corrupted at a certain point after the period of the Apostles and the primary goal of Christians should be to restore "pure Christianity." In its extreme form, you get Mormonism. It its more docile form, you get different types of Protestantism.

Protestants believe that the purest form of the deposit of faith from the Apostles is found in the New Testament, not Tradition. Ever since the Reformers planted this seed into peoples minds, protestant Christianity mutated and multiplied exponentially. This was mostly because of the invention of the printing press which essentially allowed more people access to Sacred Scripture.

When it was established in peoples minds that there wasn't a need for a teaching authority and that they now have the purest form of the deposit of faith in their hands, they believed they could legitimately start their own church according to their interpretation of the written word of God.

What Protestants take for granted is their own assumption that the Church was ever corrupted, but it's this view that the Church did become corrupt that drives their suspicious of doctrinal developments in Catholicism.

Going back to what I said earlier, the question isn't whether development is bad, but whether its corrupt or legitimate. Protestants essentially say that most Catholic doctrines are corrupt and they do so on the basis that certain doctrines (such as Marian doctrines) are "un-biblical."

So now we arrive at a point in the discussion that can go either of two ways. We could take the micro-level view and pick each doctrine apart and see whether or not it developed, or we could look at the macro-level and see whether doctrinal development makes any sense in the first place. I'd rather take the macro-level view.

Once we establish that doctrinal development makes sense, then we can see why Catholicism is the best possible option for anyone wanting to experience full Christianity.

The Trinity

There is perhaps no better example of doctrinal development than the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Holy Scripture does not contain any explicit formula for the doctrine of the Trinity and as such has been the source of many heresies.

We can access this concept via philosophy and define it from there, but none of these definitions are found in Scripture, at least explicitly. What the Church received regarding the Trinity contained in it the purest form of its truth, which is that God is one, yet is three distinct persons. There is a certain potentiality that exists in this doctrine that allows itself to be worked on while maintaining its most basic truth, namely that God is a Trinity of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 

But how we grow to understand the trinity, though it may seem to have foreign language in its definition when compared to what was originally said about it, is something that cannot help but grow. One can look a car they look and find it very pleasing on the outside and they understand it to an extent. They know what it looks like. But that is all together different than knowing how it drives and once you do know how it drives, you've grown in your understanding of that vehicle. And in understanding how it drives, you don't lose what you previously knew about the vehicle, but you gain more knowledge. 

The purpose of me giving you that measly analogy is simply to point out that one can grow in their knowledge of something that is complete, but at various points not know it completely. The Trinity seems to have that characteristic, as do many other doctrines. We've grown in our understanding of how it would work using our reason and thus can define it more clearly. Defining it more clearly and explicitly only helps us to avoid falling into heresy by not believing what was divinely revealed to us. When we see it from that perspective, doctrinal development is a very good thing.

G.K. Chesterton and Protestant Logic

“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

In Defense Of My Catholic Shenanigans

It's not easy being Catholic you know. 

I have to go to Confession, can't use contraception, and must go to Church every Sunday. The horror! But seriously, it's not exactly convenient. 

Here's the thing, being Catholic for me was a choice that I chose because I had every reason to choose it. I was a Protestant since I "trusted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" when I was 18. Then on my way to the Catholic church I was involved in all sorts of shenanigans. I started to dissent. 

First off, I couldn't stand using crackers and little plastic cups of grape juice every first Sunday of the month for communion. Secondly, Church was like a concert with a conference-esque talk in between. Along with the funky lights and the fancy flat screens, the lack of intellectual depth in the sermons were annoying. 

I'm just being honest and maybe I sound like a pompous you-know-what, but I can't help that I felt that way. I wasn't being prideful. I just couldn't stand the self-help talk every Sunday because I knew Christianity was more real than that. 

Then I read Thomas Aquinas and my expression was...

Is this guy really Catholic? So faithful, so devout, so...umm...Christian? He knew the Bible, he knew theology, philosophy, and all that good stuff and still defended the Church's Marian dogmas!

"Nonsense," I screamed. 

But that was all I had. No counter. Just annoyance to the nth degree. Why? Because I loved Aquinas and he was a damn Catholic and Catholics are idol worshippers who put Mary on a peddle stool and don't know the Bible. 

Then I read Augustine and...

This guy is Catholic too? Ah heck no! I delighted in reading Augustine until I found out he was a good Catholic. What's up with all the good guys, why are they all Catholic? 

This question ate away at me. Then I read John 6 and it was at this point that I was like...

And the rest followed. You see, I believed Jesus and that is ultimately why I am a Catholic. Everything in me knew deep down that the Eucharist (what we commonly call communion) was the center of Christian life and worship. And when I reflected on it and asked myself what Church celebrated the Eucharist in this way, I discovered it was the Church I grew up in—the Catholic church. 

I had come to believe that Jesus really meant what He said when He said:

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. (Jn. 6:53-56)

Compare that to..."This is my body" and "This is my blood" speaking about the bread and wine. Wait, wait, wait. So Jesus just said I have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life and be raised up and then he said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood...

So I thought to myself, "What Church believes that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine?" Then I started to become Catholic. For real G. I didn't become Catholic because I had some deep intellectual awakening that proved my protestant logic wrong (okay, maybe a little bit), but because I believed Jesus in everything He said. 

The rest was an intellectual thing. It didn't help that I was part of a fundamentalist church called Calvary Chapel where there is an unacknowledged spirit of anti-intellectualism. But I'm not being Mr. Intellectual Superior here, I'm just saying that a little critical thinking wouldn't kill anybody. 

Besides all that, what I really had an intellectual problem with was the two fundamental doctrines of Protestanism. The first was, "The Bible Alone" as the sole and final rule of faith. The second was, "Faith alone" for salvation. 

The first is by the far the most important tenant of Protestantism. It was called into question when I was in a conversation with my friend about Catholicism when I was still a Protestant and told him, "I believe in the Bible alone," to which he responded, "Where is 'the Bible alone' in the Bible?" 

To which I had no answer. 

I went home frantically searching my Bible to find evidence for this fundamental Protestant tenet of faith, but I was found wanting. My only hope was 2 Timothy 3:16 - 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Aha! But not really. This didn't establish "the Bible alone," it merely established that Scripture is "useful" or "profitable" for these things. Even still, when Paul wrote this particular passage, he was speaking about the Old Testament. Surely the Old Testament alone didn't count for all Scripture.

All of the arguments from Protestants to establish "the Bible alone" were weak and found wanting. What's more is that without this principle, there is no reason to accept any church in Protestantism as an authority. There was always much talk about "submitting" to your church leaders, but why? If the Bible is my ultimate authority, why should I submit to a pastors particular interpretation of the Bible? If the Bible was the foundation of truth, then why submit to any church when I could read it for myself and come up with my own interpretation?

Then I read 1 Timothy 3:15 -

"...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Say whaaat?! The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Yes, that is what Holy Scripture tells me and what Tradition has always said. But, which Church?

That's when all sorts of buffoonery starts happening in your brain. 

You walk into your Protestant church on Sunday and all of the sudden you don't feel very exicited. You want to go to a Catholic church but everything inside of your rebels against the idea of ever stepping foot in the Catholic church.

I lost that battle obviously. I couldn't hold it in anymore. It was like what G.K. Chesterton said:

“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair.”

It was a love affair alright. I found myself thinking about her all of the time and wanting to sneak off on Sundays to go sit in the back of the church and experience the liturgy of the Mass. I was secretly in love with the Church.

It would be an injustice to not mention the role of N.T. Wright in all of this. N.T. Wright is an intellectual titan by today's standards. Do a wikipedia search for some background, but his insights made an incredible impact on my theological and intellectual journey to Catholicism.

N.T. Wright probably doesn't know it, but he took me by the hand and dropped me off in Rome. He might not approve of such a notion, but it's true. I'm not the first or the last person to have that happen to them.

He took every pillar of my evangelical fundamentalist logic down with an academic prowess and poetic prose that I simply couldn't refute. It was biblical, well reasoned, and obvious once he pointed it out.

Then I went on a search for a new church. The only option seemed to be the Episcopalian church which was the American wing of Anglicanism, the tradition that N.T. Wright was a part of. That's when I went on a camping trip with my good Catholic friend.

He conveniently brought with him some audio to listen to in the car and a man by the name of Scott Hahn said something that played on the strings of my Catholic leaning heart.

He was a former Protestant converted to Catholicism and on his journey to the Catholic faith he came to a decision point—he had to change churches too.

That's when he mentioned he thought he should become Episcopalian after coming to the same conclusions that I came to. Then he threw down a line of defense for not being Episcopalian that compelled me to go home and start getting some answers.

Then, my good friends, I decided it was over.

This is not a perfect conversion story and it certainly doesn't contain all of the details, but it gets the point across. I became Catholic because I couldn't help it and to me, that's a good defense of my position. 

In reality, I know you might not feel compelled to come to the same conclusions, but I'm leaving room to write more about it in the following posts. I hope you'll stay tuned. 

Sugar and Sin

For the last week and a half I have been seriously starving my body of sugar. Part of it has to do with doing the South Beach Diet in which the first phase calls for a serious drop in carbs. I don't see myself as being seriously overweight, but I needed to make some adjustments to be comfortable with myself. I've lost probably about 8 lbs when you count in the fluctuations one might have from day to day.

At the start of this, I was 201 and now when I wake up in the morning  after fasting all night in my sleep, I weigh about 190.5. My pants are certainly fitting better and I feel better, but one thing has been very apparent to me in his last week and a half. My addiction to sugar was pretty bad. By eliminating, if not limiting, anything that causes a spike in my blood glucose levels, I realized just how much I was overloading my body with toxic sugar. 

Seriously, in the morning I'd wake up and have one full glass of orange juice and if there was a piece of bread around, I'd eat it. Go check out how much sugar one glass of orange juice has and consider the fact that since it is a juice, it will be absorbed much faster. I would eat some sort of bread, whether it was toast or my personal favorite, pan dulce (sweet bread). I'd pour my cup of coffee with creamer and sugar or a flavored creamer and the day is just getting started!

Lunch comes around and I would exercise virtually no self control. Whatever sounds good, I went to go get it. Burritos, hamburgers, fries, chips, sandwiches, it didn't matter. After lunch, that mid-afternoon craving for more sugar would set in and I'd find myself at the store buying some delightful peanut butter cups or Snickers to satisfy my need for more sugar.

Then dinner comes around and I may exercise some restraint on the fast food, but it was none the better because even if I was making tacos at home I considered it "home made food." Needless to say, my blood glucose levels were off the charts all day long and with my routine at work which consists of a lot of sitting, my body was storing fat like it was getting prepared to hibernate. 

The first week of not eating this way was difficult because the cravings don't go away. You eat a high-protein, very low-carb meal and you feel satisfied for a little while. But the craving for some sugary delights kicks in very quick and you have to exercise some amount of control over yourself not to give in. 

The weekend is the hardest with the many temptations it brings. Luckily, I was home most of the weekend and on Sunday for mothers day when my wife and I went to my parents house, they cooked grilled chicken tacos and all I had to do was eliminate the tortilla. 

So here I am on Wednesday almost done with a full two weeks of very low sugar intake. Here is the biggest surprise I am learning from this experience. Our addiction to sugar is unknown until we start to cut off all the food sources that give us sugar. I'm not talking about just candy and soda, I'm talking about breads, sauces, and fruit juices, and yogurts, all of the above that have too much sugar and very little nutritional value. I did not understand how dependent I was on sugar, it is an addiction. 

Here's what I am feeling right now. My sugar addiction has subsided. I have very little need to stop at the store and grab chips and a candy bar. The morning is much easier now. I wake up and make coffee with a non-fat creamer and sweet and low and have bacon or eggs, which are full of protein. I also try to have a full glass of water.

Lunch has become a cinch. Today, for example, I had a shrimp salad with a small amount of balsamic vinaigrette. It helped that the Mexican restaurant who made it does a good job with the shrimp, but you can get a good salad like this anywhere. My only real indulgence has been diet sodas which I know are bad for you in one sense, but they don't cause an insulin response (though there are some studies that indicate some may). 

Dinner is a no brainer and is very easy if you're willing to put in the effort. The bottom line has been that eliminating or seriously limiting the amount of carbs I take in, I have effectively curved my craving for sugar. It's completely manageable. In the midst of chips and salsa and the guy next to me eating a burrito, I was happily eating my shrimp salad. I keep thinking of my progress and how good I feel and how I don't want to undermine that, so I keep on pushing on. 

Applying Spiritual Principles

How can any of this apply to spiritual principles? Sin is an addiction of sorts and if we can successfully starve the spirit that causes sin, I think we can curve the need to sin. I'm not trying to build a theology around it, but I think there is some validity to this. Just as in anything else, there is lots of discipline and practice involved in becoming an effective disciple of Jesus. One thing that can throw us off track is sin, which can be likened to sugar in this case. 

I can go right now and pig out on peanut butter cups. Or I can choose not to. Last week, it would've been easy to go to the store and take my choice of sweet indulgences. Right now, I can firmly resist because I don't have a deep sense of urgency to get sugar into my body. 

Right now it may be easy for all of us to engage in some particular sin. Maybe its really easy to get angry and hurt someone. Maybe its really easy to sit in front of your computer to look at explicit content. Maybe its really easy to cheat on your husband and wife with that guy or girl you've been flirting with for a while. 

Whatever it is, the key is to starve it. 

This takes discipline and you may not be presently tempted by certain sins, but ultimately you want to protect yourself from all sin. The way we can all do this is my exercising restraint in our life with all things concerning sin. 

If you're constantly listening to bad music that doesn't uplift and edify, too much of it will be stored in the fat cells of your spirit like sugar to the fat cells of your body. It becomes part of you. This can be applied in many other things such as flirting when your not supposed to, looking at things your not supposed to, hurting people, being angry, acting in malice, lying, etc. When you're taking too much in, it will become part of you.

When it becomes part of you and you're carrying all that extra weight of sin, you have only one choice but to starve it and work out your spiritual muscles. This requires discipline, a focus on the end goal, and lots of prayer. It most certainly requires a serious dedication Jesus. 

We want to be as perfect as we can be and seeking perfection is not done in vain. God has called us to be perfect even though we know perfect won't come until the Resurrection. But, as we know, right now we are called to live holy lives to God. If we dabble in "little" sins all of the time, like little indulgences of sugary snacks, how can we expect to resist that big piece of succulent chocolate cake when it is presented to us?

The little sacrifices we make count because they are investments in the kingdom of God. As you slowly remove your need to sin from your spirit, overtime the big temptations are easy to overcome. Yet still, sin will be crouching at the door always and we must overcome it and we can do this by first stopping it in its tracks and also occupying our lives with good works. 

The Tragedy of a Miscarriage

Writing about this is intensely personal and I hope to share just a few thoughts about my recent experience that is both a tragedy and a lesson.

My wife had a miscarriage and it was tremendously hard to take her to the doctors when we suspected something might be wrong. The whole way down to the doctors I was praying silently hoping that everything was okay and that if it wasn't going to be okay, God would give us the strength to endure.

Both my wife and I were extremely anxious about what the doctor would find out which made sitting in the lobby almost unbearable. After being called in, we sat inside of the doctors room in silence. I looked up at my wife and she seemed scared and sad. I reassured her that whatever happens, God is always here. She shook her head in agreement, but with little change in her expression.

The doctor came in and asked my wife a few questions and mentioned that what she was experiencing happens in a lot of pregnancies. This offered a little bit of hope for me that everything was going to be fine. The doctor then proceeded to tell us that we would have to do a sonogram to make sure everything was okay and it was at this moment that I became extremely nervous.

My wife closed her eyes for a moment with a worried look on her face as the doctor was preparing for the sonogram. I simply uttered prayers underneath my breath that the baby would be fine.

As the image pulled up on the screen, my heart immediately dropped. I knew exactly what I was looking at and the tears on my wife's face confirmed that she knew as well. There was no heartbeat, no movement, just dead silence. The doctor spent a few more seconds looking and looking, but I suspect she knew what she was looking at too.

It was at that point that the doctor looked up at Yesenia to say sorry and tell her that she miscarried. This of course brought tears to her eyes and my heart broke into pieces, not just for my baby, but for my wife who I could sense was immensely sorrowful at the mention that our baby was no longer alive.

The doctor finished up and left us to ourselves. I embraced my wife the way a husband should, grabbing her head to place on my chest and holding her tightly. But this was all I could do. I mourned with her and just held her there while she cried. After a few minutes, I looked at my wife in her eyes to assure her that within God's providence all things work together for good.

It is at this time that faith plays an important role in peoples lives. There are many couples who suffer much harder things. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a stillborn or go almost full term and have a miscarriage.

To us, this was big, but at the end of the day it can't break us from the hope that is in us. I spent the next few days with my wife at home while she would go in and out of crying. It was a hard few days. We had to spend time in prayer and I had to make sure that my spiritual leadership came into serious play here.

It is with these small battles, whether in marital problems or in tragic things like miscarriages, that we learn whether or not we are up to the task to endure. This is not to say that there is no pain or heartache, or that there is no suffering. Rather, these battles show us whether we are prepared to endure the pain, heartache, and suffering.

If there is no intimacy between you and your wife and your consolation only comes at a time of trouble, it will be difficult for your wife to hear your words. I must work to gain the trust of my wife and this can only come through the discipline of living a life after the Messiah's own heart. In the discipline, I must provide my wife with guidance in our marriage all of the time and when I do so I prepare her for battle as well. Our job as husbands is to protect and provide. This is not limited to physical sustenance and shelter, but to spiritual sustenance and shelter as well.

If in my passion for Jesus I become more like him and my wife follows my example, we will be prepared to endure these battles by the armor that we have put on. We are not immune to suffering, but we can travail the rocky terrain when we encounter it and we can only do this if we have properly trained for the task.

This miscarriage is a tragedy for us and for our family. We want a child that we can call our own. But, in this tragedy I have learned the immense value in being a disciple of Jesus and the tremendous obligation to be passionately dedicated to imitating Him in every facet of my life so that my wife and future child or children will be equally prepared for the battles of life by knowing and imitating Jesus as well.

Standing below Scripture

With all of our ideas, philosophy, theology, and other scholarly endeavors (be it in school or not) there is the very real temptation to stand above Scripture in criticism not realizing that ultimately Scripture stands above us.

If we don't handle the Word of God with fear and trembling, we can make the fatal - and I mean that in a serious sense - mistake of making the Word of God a book at your disposal, ready to be used for your purposes rather than His.

Theology is necessary. Philosophy is important. Most Pastors in the evangelical realm have very little discipline in this area, which is a tragedy. But they exist as parts of the whole. Approaching Holy Scripture as a spiritual species is vital. The Bible is a Spiritual book first, not in the pagan sense, but in the sense that it is full of the Spirit. It is the living word of God, not simply a book of disposed historical facts or sayings.

I say all this as a reminder to myself. I approach the Word with my head low, not taking the study of it as a light task with highlighters and notes as if it were a text book.

This is Spiritual food, Holy Testimony. It stands above all of us.

The Clouds of Heaven

For this post we'll be discussing Mark 14:62, which reads:

“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Now, for any regular church going Christian, this verse would mean only one thing--Jesus' second coming. But, what if I told you that's not what He was referring to?

If you simply read Scripture in a devotional way where you hand pick certain readings on a daily basis, coming to this verse may be of no help. Rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we're all prone to our biases when reading certain verses. In the case of Mark 14:62, most Christians (I'm assuming) would think that Jesus is very directly referring to His second coming. But, when we allow Scripture itself help us understand Jesus' statement, we see an entirely different interpretation.

For this discussion, we have to ask ourselves the first question? What is Jesus' talking about?

If you're familiar with the book of Daniel, you'll know exactly what Jesus is talking about. We have to start there in order to "interpret" why Jesus is saying what He is saying and what it all means.

There is no dispute that Jesus here is referring to Daniel 7:13 (hover over this verse link and you'll see the verse pop up).

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

Before we dive into this verse, it is first necessary to build context around it. For this we have to start at verse 9 and 10:

“As I looked, thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened."

We are clearly in a heavenly court scene. The "Ancient of Days" is none other than YHWH, the Judge. So, as Daniel is watching his vision, he is seeing heaven and YHWH taking His seat. What follows is Daniel seeing the beast being destroyed and "stripped of authority."

Now we can get the verse in Mark.

Jesus is referring to himself as the "son of man" and his hearers would know that Jesus was referring to Daniel. Here's where everything gets interesting.

As I said in the beginning of this post, most people think this is speaking about the Second Coming. But, as we can see in Daniel, we get a very different meaning. Part of the confusion is language. We're accustomed to hearing about the Second Coming and when Jesus says you will see him "...coming on the clouds of heaven," we make the connection. Ah!, we say, this must be the talking about the Second Coming, what else? 


Here's what we know. Jesus is clearly, without a doubt, referring to Daniel 7:13 when he says you will see Him "...coming on the clouds of heaven." Since that is what he is referring to, we must necessarily go to Daniel to also  understand what Jesus is saying and why.

Take this into account. Daniel's vision is very clearly set in a heavenly scene, it would be hard to disagree with this. Although heaven doesn't have a locale within space and time, it is symbolically referred to as being "up there."

As Christians, we understand Jesus' final advent as a descent into our universe, coming from heaven to earth as it were. It's not that we understand it as Jesus will physically be coming out of the sky (though some do) into earth, it's just that "coming from above" is a way of saying "coming from heaven." The final advent, of course, is when all things are restored and heaven and earth are finally united.

So it helps our conversation to understand the "location" of heaven and earth as we understand it. Heaven is above, earth is below.

When Christians read Mark 14:62 here, they may imagine that this is Jesus "coming" from heaven to earth. But, as I mentioned earlier, in order to know what Jesus is talking about we have to refer to what he is referring to, which is Daniel 7:13.

When we go to Daniel 7:13, we can build some context as long as we read that verse within its own context.  Now that you've read Daniel 7:9-10 (if you haven't, do so now), lets look at Daniel 7:13:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." 

I put the last sentence in bold. Maybe you know what I'm getting at already, but lets elaborate. The first sentence describes the "...son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven." Then right after, "He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

Who is the Ancient of Days? YHWH.

Where is YHWH's throne? Heaven.

Who is the son of man approaching? YHWH

Where is the son of man approaching Him? Heaven.

So, the "...coming with the clouds of heaven" has an upwards trajectory not a downwards. This can mean only one thing--this verse is not referring to the Second Coming.

Verse 14 adds more context to this:

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power

If what Daniel saw in his vision was the Second Coming, are we to suppose that Jesus only has authority, glory, and sovereign power at that time?

We don't need to guess. First, in Matthew 28:18, post-resurrection, Jesus says:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And of course, Stephen see's Jesus, post-resurrection in heaven:

“I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

It is clear also that placed against the backdrop of Caesar, followers pulled no punches when they proclaimed Jesus as king:

“These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” (Acts 17:5-7)

There are many other places and references we could make both in the OT and NT, but the point is that Jesus HAS authority on earth and in heaven.

This leaves us coming away from Mark with something completely different. Jesus isn't referring to his second coming, he is referring to the resurrection and everything that comes after.

This is not to say that there is no Second Coming, but that this reference isn't talking about the Second Coming. Jesus is the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven TO the throne of YHWH where he will be vindicated and given authority over heaven and earth. When he delivers the death blow to Satan on the cross, He shows his victory in the resurrection and has authority over heaven and earth. We are called to exercise that authority by preaching the sovereign rule of Jesus as King and Lord. I will be posting on this topic soon.

Within Your Temple

How can we pray and be closer to God? Where can we go to experience His warmth? How can we feel the loving embrace of His arms?

In His temple.

The words of God are like sustenance to our bodies, filling the innermost parts of our being. They supply energy to our spirit by giving us a life that comes from above. The streams of living water that flow from Jerusalem are for the healing of the nations and the nations thirst, panting like a deer by the brook.

What end does our pilgrimage find if not in the Holy City, Heavenly Jerusalem?

Genesis presents God resting in His temple, the heavens and earth. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden because they wanted to take what wasn't rightfully theirs yet. Now they would have to learn how to subdue the earth with the knowledge of YHWH. Through Israel, the covenant people of YHWH, there would come a way for all of the nations come to the rivers of Living Water.

The great priests of old would go into the temple of YHWH and meet Him there. The tabernacle was a temporary dwelling for YHWH. The first temple was only temporary because the Israelites could not keep YHWH's commandments. Again, the chosen kicked out from the garden. But, YHWH's arm is strong and He would bring salvation to them, as He always promised.

The 2nd temple was built, but no shekina. There was the very deep sense that God was not present. The Israelites continued in their work in the temple, but God wasn't there.

Four-hundred plus years in exile! And Lo! A child is born in Bethlehem in a humble stable. The salvation of the world summed up in the Messiah.

But would we enter into a building to meet with God?

The Messiah says, I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.

Let us enter into the temple boldly! 

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscienceand having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another —and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Within His temple, we meditate on His love.

"Within your temple, O God,
we meditate on your unfailing love. " (Psalm 48:9)

Not by might

Jesus tells Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world..."

Many Christians use the concept of not being "of this world" as meaning that there is some delineation from this world and heaven and that Jesus has come to establish the fact that they are separated.

First, nothing could be further from the truth. As in the Lord's prayer, "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven...", Jesus has come to establish His kingdom here on earth.

There are a few things going on here that are worthy of our attention. First, it is probably more proper in our overly spiritualized view of Scripture to translate Jesus' words to pilate as "My kingdom is not from this world". Jesus pushes the point that if it was from this world, his followers would've taken up arms to destroy the kingdom of Rome. Of course, that's not how it happened.

There is a clear distinction here between how the world rulers reign and how Jesus reigns. Whereas the kings of this world rule with brute force and fear, Jesus rules with love and peace. This echoes what it says in Zechariah:

"Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zechariah 4:6)

It is not by might or power that Jesus reigns, but through the Spirit. Jesus is very much apart of this world. His vocation was that of what was told in the OT—The Messiah would be the God of Israel coming to visit His people and restore them.

This is our calling. To restore the earth until it is all summed up in Jesus at the end. So many Christians want to leave this world and not labor in it. But remember what Paul has told us,

Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58)

What we do in this world lasts. We are here to change it, not by might, nor by power, but by His Spirit.

Are You a "Flip and Pick" Christian?

You're getting ready to read the Bible. It's been a while and you know that you have to get in the word. So you pick it up and stare at it for a few seconds wondering where you're going to start. You know the Bible is divinely inspired so anything you read will be good, right?

So what do you do? You flip the Bible open and you blindly use your index finger to pick a random piece of Scripture out from the Bible.

Ah! Your index finger suddenly lands at 1 Chronicles 7, a wonderful list of genealogies!

Oh well, you say, lets move on to an epistle or something. And the life of the "flip and pick" style of reading the Bible goes on. We come across a nice little verse you can fit in your pocket, share it on facebook, and you've done your meditation for the day.

I blame devotionals on this. I blame pastors for doing the same thing. I blame all sorts of personalized, pocket verses that have been used, abused, and taken out of context.

If you're a "flip and pick" Christian, you're not taking your faith seriously. The Bible is extremely rich in deep theological significance. No, I'm not talking about going to seminary and studying theology. I'm talking about theological significance for your faith. The more you understand the Bible, the stronger your faith will be.

There are many Christians who abandon their faith because of some apparent problem in the text that they simply cannot get over. Maybe its the ever famous, "This genration will not pass away..." verse in Matthew 24. Or maybe its the extravagant stories and epic tales in the Old Testament. Maybe its all the laws and seemingly irrelevant regulations God gives to the Israelites. I don't know, but I am sure it is grounded in not being able to read the Bible for all its worth.

Do I have the antitote? No! I wouldn't dare try to teach you how to read the Bible. But I can point to someone that can.

Enter How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth...

This book will save you from flipping and picking and bring into a world of searching the scriptures like the Bereans did. This book is easy to read and simple to understand. You don't have to major in theology to understand any of its concepts.

You will be edified and strengthened in your faith by learning how to do what the books says, read the Bible for all its worth.


My recommendation is to pick up a new NIV Bible and this book. If you like your current translation, then use that. But whatever you do, buy this book.

I started reading it for a class and I immediately started putting the principles in practice. Because of it, I can pick up the bible and start reading with serious comprehension. It's not that the Bible is "hard to read," its just that some people cannot successfully place context around what they're reading because they've been trained to "flip and pick."

So, to conclude my book recommendation for today....GO GET THE BOOK!

Luke's Christology

I hear it around that John's gospel is the "spiritual" gospel with "high Christology." This is nonsense. Each gospel writer had intentions in mind about what they were writing and how it would come across.

When we don't learn how to read the Bible for all its worth, we miss things that are right in front of us. The Western church is very concerned right now about "proving" that Jesus thought He was God. We do this in the face of Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, and historical critics.

The most common gospel to go to is John because it is more direct about the fact that Jesus did indeed think He was God. But, we only go to this clear Scriptures because we don't fully understand the entire implications of the Gospel story represented in all four of the Gospels.

I'm not going to go into detail with each one, but I want to call attention to one that is almost always missed. Luke, in telling the story about Jesus casting out demons from a man into the pigs, gives us a very clear implication that Luke was trying to give us.

"The man from whom the demons had gone out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, "Return home and tell how much God has done for you." So the man went away and told all over town how much Jesus had done for him."

Did you catch it?

"...tell how much God has done for you."

and then...

"So the man...told all over town how much Jesus had done for him."


Did you ever catch that before?

This is just one little example, but there are several ways in which it is very clear in Mark, Matthew, and Luke that they were telling the story of God coming to visit His people just as He had promised.

We shall revisit this again soon...

Mary's Song

It may be that in reading Luke you came across the beautiful words of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in her song to God.

"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever
just as he promised our ancestors."

I want to call particular attention to the last portion of her song.


"He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, just as he promised our ancestors."

Mary is proclaiming what she knows to be true of her Son Jesus. He is the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. Yeshua, which means "YHWH saves," has indeed come to save His people, just as he promised their ancestors. 


We can't miss this stuff in the Gospels. They are the lifeblood of the Church. We have a mission to fulfill, a vocation that Jesus has given us. We are the people of God, called to carry on what God has always said He would accomplish—redeeming the whole world to Himself.

Israel was the instrument of God's saving plan. He dwelt among them in the tabernacle in the desert. He promised to dwell with them in a temple. He did, but then He left because Israel rebelled. Now, as Mary clearly understands, God "...has helped Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever," all by becoming flesh and dwelling among them.

The Gospels are incredibly important in understanding our mission as disciples. If we can't read them in the right light, then they become what they all to often have, simple stories to "recollect" what happened or moral teachings for our personal lives. That's not what the Gospels are.

Some may simply overlook Mary's song as beautiful. But it is packed with significance that we cannot miss.

Father, give me the strength...

To lead them with strong hands.

All I want to do is love them with everything that I am. Help me to love them with an undying passion just as you love us with yours.

Help me to be everything you want me to be.

I just want everything for the love of my life and the love of my life yet to come.

Lord, all things are possible with you. Jesus, I can do all things through you. Holy Spirit, lead me in the path of the righteous so I can lead them to you.

This is all I want Lord.

Amen.

Sitting in the back seat

It becomes apparent in Genesis 1 that there is a hierarchy being established as God creates everything. This hierarchy can be seen as God creates man to rule over the earth. The writer of Genesis 1 (which is traditionally seen as Moses) isn't interested in the how of creation as much as he is in the why.

Hierarchy is extremely important in understanding creation as a whole. There is an immediate hierarchy between the relationship with God and humans from the beginning. God creates man, places him at the top of the hierarchy of His creation and gives him his vocation.

When I was going to lunch today, I noticed something that came automatic to me. My co-worker was driving and our boss was coming with us. I defaulted to sitting in the back seat to allow my boss to take the front seat. This was the manifestation of hierarchy. Although there would be nothing wrong with me sitting in the front, it was a matter of "knowing my place" in the hierarchy of my company. My boss is above me and as a result has the authority to control my actions within the scope of my job. Giving him the front seat was a way of recognizing this hierarchy.

All of life runs in this way. There is always a hierarchy. Watch the animal kingdom and see hierarchies take place. Work for a company and its immediately important.

Hierarchy is important in running things.

Jesus stands as the sole owner of His kingdom. He has appointed His people to do a certain job. We live and breath in an everlasting hierarchy and to understand this is to understand creation.