“And now, please rise for our opening hymn, uh…’In the Garden of Eden,’ by I. Ron Butterfly.” Cue the Organ music … annnnnnnd … oh, right, this is suppose to be a serious post … Roger, I owe you a story, bud. I’m thinking …
The theology of Original Sin simply says one thing: Adam’s sin has removed mankind from God’s presence – from communion with God.
Right … but that’s the short version. For the purpose of making it a little more meaningful, we need to unpack that simple statement.
In the Garden of Eden
Prior to the Fall, mankind – Adam and Eve – lived in communion with God and all of His Creation in the Garden of Eden. In the simplest sense, this means that Adam and Eve lived in a manner that was consistent with God’s creative purpose. All they did was right and pleasing to God. But living in communion with God and Creation goes beyond just following some set of rules. Living in communion means you give all of yourself over to those things. You give God all that you are. You give Creation all that you are. You receive from them what they gift to you – you don’t take what is not yours and not given.
And that’s the setup for the Fall. God had given Adam and Eve everything in the Garden except the fruit off of one tree – the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Being as the whole of Creation is suppose to be represented in the Garden, you would have to conclude that there was plenty of other food around – the restriction God had placed on Adam and Eve was no real burden on their part … just an observance for obedience.
The Serpent then comes along and tells Eve (and Adam) that eating the fruit would make them like God. Eve (and Adam) like this idea. They like the idea of being like God. They also know that God has said eating the fruit is an act of disobedience. When they take the fruit and eat it, they in effect prefer themselves over God. They eat the fruit hoping to elevate their place in Creation to that of (or at least like) God’s place – a place that God had not given them.
In eating the fruit, however, they find that they are not elevated. Instead, they become aware of the fullness of freedom, that of acting outside of obedience – and so they become aware of evil. They gain that knowledge of what evil is and the vulnerability it preys upon – thus, they don’t need to be told they are naked, they know it and dress in fig leaves and hide. They also become aware that life wasn’t simply pleasant before, it was good … and their disobedience has created something in them that isn’t good.
When God finds Adam and Eve in hiding afterwards, the first question He asks them is, “Who told you that you were naked?” It’s a redundant question. God knows how it is they know they are naked. The question is a grace, a freely given opportunity, for Adam and Eve to repent. Instead of answering wholly truthfully by accepting responsibility, Adam denies the fullness of the blame proper to him and says, essentially, “Eve made me do it.” Eve then gets the same opportunity … but instead, “The Devil made me do it.” And certainly, the Devil did instigate the whole affair and certainly did not speak truthfully – God knows this character, he has already made any choice he would make, repentance is beyond him, and so God does not question him.
So it came to pass that mankind came to be at spiritual odds with the Devil and his minions, mankind is promised a redeemer from the Devil and his minions and the suffering resulting from his deception, women suffer greater pain in childbirth, women are subjugated under their husbands, and mankind’s communion with Creation is broken. Worst of all, Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden, from communion with God. All that was wholly good was lost, but all that is good was not destroyed nor abandoned.
More to come …
bit of a sporadic piece that’s been in my mind for a few weeks… not precisely ironed out, could probably use some more thought and work particularly at the end… comments appreciated
My boss expressed this sentiment in discussing his flavor of Christianity… skirting the topic of sticking with a denomination because that’s “religion”. He and his family go where ever the Bible is preached (and I hear a *thump,thump* in my mind). Religion … is to be avoided.
I tried to go into that idea a little bit with him, but it was clear it would go nowhere fast… so I let it die. Religion is something we mortal, fallen men do – end of story.
But the whole idea of the sentiment, particularly within the scope of Christianity, is ridiculous. Yes, religion is an endeavor of men, but the whole idea behind Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) is that it is ordained by God. It’s everything else that more or less says “do whatever brings you closer to God so long as you practice within these boundaries”.
It was Christ that certainly instituted Christian baptism. It was Christ that instituted Holy Communion. It was Christ that ushered in Confirmation and Holy Orders (more or less with the advent of the Holy Spirit and at Pentecost). It was Christ that instituted Reconcilliation and Healing – as that was pretty much His whole ministry and the same ministry that He left for the Church to carry on. It was Christ that instituted a communing body of believers. I think Marriage is the only Sacrament that Christ did not formally create for the Church. …but Marriage was instituted by God from the get go in our very flesh.
Yet this idea remains within many people that “religion” is a bad thing. Sure, there is such a thing as bad religion, but bad religion does not make all religion bad. Catholicism has had its fair share of darker moments, but that does not negate nor dim nor invalidate all the wonderful, awesome, holy and Christ-ian things it has done, is doing, and will continue to do. Yet because of bad religion, people react wrongly – namely to do away with that bad religion instead of healing that bad religion.
That’s why today you’ve got Christians who don’t baptize. You’ve got Christians who think Holy Communion really isn’t all that Holy or special or necessary in a Christian’s life. You’ve got Christians who think divorce is always an (and most likely is the) option. You’ve got Christians who fear any kind of gift of the Spirit – healing among them. You’ve got Christians who think organized, corporate communion and worship really isn’t something you are called to do.
My Religion is certainly man made, but it was not made by any ordinary man. It was made by the God-Man, and it was brought to me by men after His own heart. So I look to all of them – Christ and the Saints – to point me in the right direction for my life. You know what they say? They all say “this is the way, the truth, and the life.” If you divorce the idea of grace from Religion then that statement seems rather blasphemous – but in Catholicism, it all flows from Christ and it all flows as one. So, indeed!! Religion is a Man-made endeavor… it’s what’s bringing me closer to heaven here and now.
YARWIBITE – Yet Another Reason Why I Believe In The Eucharist
This might need to become a category of its own.
Anyways.
I’m reading Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. It is, as the name implies, an introduction to the theology developed by Pope John Paul II during his life-time and particularly his papacy that explains how the human body reveals spiritual realities – even those of God: “‘The body, in fact, and it alone,’ the Pope says, ‘is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden since time immerorial in God, and thus to be a sign of it.’” (p. 5)
I’ve only read the introduction, and I’m already nodding my head and finding myself deeply moved and awed. In particular, I wanted to share this piece, which is a thought I’ve often wanted to express but did not have the theological clarity to make.
In addition to imaging the Trinity, sexual love is also meant to image the union of God with humanity. Christ’s redeeming self-donation is a new outpouring of the Trinity’s love on all of creation. The Church receives this love and attempts to reciprocate it. God endowed our bodies as male and female with the sacramental ability to convey this exchange between Christ and the Church. As St. Paul says, quoting from Genesis, “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32)
This passage from Ephesians 5 is a key text – perhaps the key text – for understanding the body and sexuality “theologically.” Christ is the one who left his Father in heaven. He also left the home of his mother on earth. Why? To give up his body for his Bride (the Church) so that we might become “one flesh” with him. Where do we unite bodily with Christ? Most profoundly, in the Eucharist. (p 9)
No one is saying the Eucharist is a sexual encounter, but that sexuality images this ultimate, complete giving of self that we see in Jesus – an image of the giving of self we find in the Trinity. We find in our sexuality and in the Eucharist and in the Trinity the purpose of relationship – that thing we’re born into and can never escape – being made plain: that God is and mankind was created for “an eternal exchange of love and communion.” (p 10)
Yes! and Amen!
So, when I went to college, I had narrowed down my major to three related yet very distinct majors: math, computer science, and chemical engineering. After a week of my chemistry classes, I knew ChemE was not for me. Math… what would I do with math after graduation? And Computer Science… …now that was cool… It’s a lot of math and algorithms, which I love, and I get to apply it towards making games. Very cool. So, CS it was.
But now, I’ve been watching the show NUMB3RS…. and I love this show. …makes me kinda wish I had majored in Math after all… except I know I just don’t have the studiousness to be a permanent student/teacher. I got to be doing something a little more practical.
Maybe someday I’ll get back to it… or maybe teach math in like a highschool or freshman college or something… Dunno… I just know I really love math, and I kinda miss it. NUMB3RS makes me all swoony for it.
Shortly after the election last year, the Sage posted a message on the politics of Jesus entitled A King Without a Quarter.
It’s worth reading for yourself, but to summarize it briefly so you can get through the rest of this post, it asserted that Jesus was social not political. Not particularly mind blowing, but at the time when people were using religion as a means of divinely selecting a political party, it was important. There were a few other discussions on AYOR that surrounded it – especially the war – that made this whole thing particularly gut wrenching for me, but eventually I put it out of mind and got on with my life.
That was until after New Years this year. I can’t remember what prompted it, but I started to think about this essay again. The agitation and aggrevation that it caused in me earlier started to surface violently. Wouldn’t Jesus go to war? Don’t we have a just and righteous cause? …and that essay came screaming back at me: no, He wouldn’t. People are too precious to be sacrificed for causes and politics – the dealings of men. People are to be ministered to as we can – to be led to righteousness through Jesus and, in that, salvation.
What’s worse is that in all of this I found myself as a cog in the great war machine. The things I have worked on have motivated and aided the current war effort. And at the time I had nothing but pride for my work – blinded by the fact that my work, right or wrong, was justifying the death of some other human, some soul in need of redemption.
Now, I’m no commander-in-chief. The burden of what has happened is not directly upon me. Nor is the salvation of others my burden to bear directly. But my consent and participation makes me party to any soul who may be in hell right now because of my passive agreement to take their life in this time. If salvation is a communal affair… then our failure in these matters are also a burden upon us.
How am I to respond to this? What does this mean to me?
I then thought of – as I often do – the story of the rich young man. The rich young man approached Jesus asking how to find eternal life. Jesus said to obey the commandments of the Law, and the young man answered that he has kept the commandments since his youth. Then Jesus told the youn man to sell everything and follow after him, at which point the rich young man walked away dismayed because he owned a great many things.
I am a rich young man. I do my best to keep the commandments, and I have a great many things – much more by the standards of the whole world. And before I ever say that these things are of my doing, I acknowledge God’s blessing and providence in all my opportunities. I have no home – it is His before it is mine – and I gladly give it up when I should be called.
But now I find myself in a world of cognitive dissonance. I have a job under Caesar, for Caesar – an occupation of politics and not service to all mankind. The nature of how I came by these jobs is nothing short of God’s providence I do believe. They each came unexpectedly, easily, and most providentially. …but, in a world of guns, bombs, and wars… I’m working in some manner against the Gospel – against the ministry of Jesus, against seeking and saving souls.
And now, after having finished school, when my family is looking for some breathing space… I’m considering moving once again into something new… to possibly throw our lives once more into some kind of stress… I think they deserve more than that: some time to me, some time to peace, some time of stability.
The hardest part of all this for me personally, I’ve dealt with now. The hardest part was that, as far as I was concerned up until the beginning of this year, my current job is my dream job: simulation – games. And now I’m thinking of giving it up. Every thing that I had done to prepare myself for the real-world was for this specific kind of job, and now I’m going another way. It hurts. It’s disappointing. Yet it’s frightfully emancipating. It’s dying to myself and, hopefully, rising once more in Christ.
I don’t know what’s to come. As I told Sage, I think “it”, whatever “it” may be, is coming. I see two possibilities before me at the moment. I probably should look into them instead of letting them slip past me, and that’s the rub, right? If “it” is coming, you would think it would hit you over the head like a two-by-four, but I’m not certain God works so obviously – He certainly hasn’t so far in things such as these, though I see His hand guiding me in the choices I’ve had and, in part, the decisions I have made. For every opportunity I’ve had to lead me here, I’ve had other options. I think my choices, however poor, God has worked toward the clarity I have right now. And the funniest thing is that it’s not a clarity of action but a clarity of purpose. …I think, in general, we’d all prefer the former over the latter – it certainly makes things easier.
Now I wait, standing on the brink of a coming time, to more fully join the revolution of revolutions – to more properly join in and live for my Lord in pursuit of each fellow man. I pray for patience, I pray for wisdom, I pray an open heart, and above all, I pray that not my will but Yours be done. Amen.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of confusion amongst people – Protestant and Catholic – about what the two are. That’s understandable – they are a bit muddled. This is because the theology Total Depravity builds on top of the theology of Original Sin.
The theology of Original Sin says simply one thing: Adam’s sin has removed mankind from the grace of God’s presence – from communion with God. The theology of Total Depravity says two things more: Adam’s sin has perverted mankind and destroyed mankind’s freedom. The theology of Original Sin can lead you towards a theology similar to Total Depravity, but it won’t lead you all the way there. At some point, you have to take the theology of Total Depravity on faith.
So, instead of doing all of this now, I intend to develop the differing theologies over a few posts. Hopefully this will help clarify some of the language I see folks using in talking about their theologies/faith as well as further educate myself on these particulars of faith and my abilities to communicate them.
For most of my life, I’ve participated in music. I sing, I play, and – though you’ll never hear a lick of it – I tinker at composing.
The thing about music is that it’s creative and beautiful. The beauty can be a single simple melody, but I’ve never heard a single simple melody that cannot be made yet more beautiful by other musical parts.
And it’s here in the communion of musical voices, each moving and dancing harmoniously in their respective ranges, resonances, and tones, following the beating measure given by the director, that heaven is captured and gives us here in the present moment an opportunity to glimpse into the way things were created to be. Music very readily explains it all for us without needing word or reason except simply to be and follow freely within our part, with our own expression while remaining within the spirit of the score.
(more…)
In elementary school, I can remember whining to the teacher when someone kept poking me or kicking me or incessantly bumping me with an elbow… and I can remember this happening to a whole lot of other kids, too… and it always produced the same kind of effect: a hand shoots into the air, waves down the teacher, and then, “Mrs. So-and-so… Jerk-boy won’t stop touching me.”
Right. Well. Apparently this phenomenon is not left alone for children. Apparently it remains a problem even among adults. In fact, it’s an area of considerable concern among Catholics.
You see, unbenknownst to me, it’s a relatively knew liturgical practice for congregations to join hands during the Our Father (aka the Lord’s Prayer) which is prayed at every Mass. Prior to this practice, people pretty much never as much looked at their neighbor in Mass. Not even to shake hands during the Sign of Peace. Again, a new revelation and surprise to me.
So, instead of everyone adopting the new practice, a lot of people have started whining (surprise, surprise… I’m not really surprised, just find it interesting… and I have my opinion… on with the show!!). It’s amazing to see the extent some of these people brag to not hold hands. Astounding. “I sneeze in my hand just prior to the prayer,” says one. “I just refuse to give it up,” says another. Some people are more charitable, “If someone comes reaching, I’ll give in” or “I adopt an ‘when in Rome…’ attitude.”
…but woe be it to him – such as me or Jason – who would come along and say, “Ya know… I kinda like it. I mean, the Mass is a communal celebration, a communal meal. Why must community be left to singing and the fact that we all go through the same motions? Why can’t I (and the whole parish for that matter) actually join with my neighbor in an act of visible prayer similar Sign of the Cross?”
The way I look at it, the Our Father is a communal prayer. I understand that Jesus says, around the same time that He gives us this prayer, that we are to pray in private… but I don’t think Mass counts as a public exhibition of my prayerful piety: I’m surrounded by a bunch of people doing the same thing. Not only are they doing the same thing, but they are (suppose to be) doing it for the same reason. So why not join hands as an outward sign of the very thing we are preparing for inwardly – namely, being one Body through the consumption of the flesh and blood of our Lord.
Some don’t like it because they’re now distracted from the prayer. Some people don’t like it because they don’t know whose hand it is they are holding (Lord help them if they are Eucharistic ministers). Some people don’t like it because it’s icky. All of those reasons pretty much look selfish in my book – it’s essentially saying “My neighbor just plain ain’t worth it.”
The first objection is pretty much the only one worth consideration… and my consideratoin goes like this: the whole Mass, you’re praying, listening, responding all in your happy isolation. I do not see it unreasonable for a little variety in your prayerfulness in having to join visibly with the community in a single prayer that doesn’t last more than a minute. As a matter of fact, I think it’s good for you. That’s right. Farty Marty to your left is your brother, you’ve got love him regardless of his oderous magnificence, you’ve got love him while loving God foremost, and this is one way you can show that’s true. It’s the small things that show the truth. This is a small thing. Such a small thing that I imagine with time, it’ll probably lose some of its meaning to you through routine and repition. What else is new. That doesn’t discredit the idea. Otherwise, a lot would be discredited today. And it means a lot. It meant a lot to me when I started to attend Mass as a Fundy Protestant.
I won’t be heart broken if the bishops get their act together and decide to squash the practice… but I imagine I would be disappointed. It is such a beautiful sign.
Thus concludes my friendly rant. Inspired by Him, some stuff tangential to what this guy said, this guy, too, … and I think that’s it.
The Webboard makes the Baby Jesus cry. Every time I go there (particularly the theology board), this sentiment is confirmed for me.
The thing I hate most about Reformed theology is the separation/distinction in what the Gospel means and what the Gospel does. This epitomizes the kind of thinking prevalent on the webboard. The Gospel means: if I believe in a few dogmatic things about Jesus, I’ll be saved. As a fruit of belief, I will then… pick something good: help the poor, be courteous to my enemy, tell other people about the good news. But it’s wholly random and doesn’t mean a whole lot as it could be anything and the lack of something shouldn’t be too much cause for concern.
Then you’ve got folks who for all intent and purposes are on these classic webboarder’s sides yet exhibit a deep unrest about the whole approach – as though there is to be more unity and less dichotomy between what Christ did, our “faith” in that, and what we do.
Yet another reason why I’m happy to be Catholic: the Church has always taught that Christ’s story is our story. We don’t believe apart from Christ’s narrative – we enter into it. So what we believe and what we do are all tied up together. There is no dichotomy: just one way to be: a way of believing and living together as one. You’d think for all the unity and one-ness that we find called for in Scripture, you’d find it in our lives as well.
Mary. Yeah, you know her. Jesus’s Mommy. Jesus’s Mommy. So why is there such a controversy surrounding Mary? What’s there to not like about Mary? She is Jesus’s Mommy. We should love her as Jesus loves her – because we are called to love as Jesus loves.
The problem is Protestants don’t think about Mary like that. Before they can really consider anything concerning Mary, they see Marian devotion in the Roman Catholic Church and see that people are putting Mary up on a pedestal like they should be doing with Jesus – and Jesus alone. Well, the perception is wrong and over-reactionary… but I’ll get to that later. Protestants then wonder: How can a Christian Church put emphasis on someone other than Jesus? And if it were just devotion, that would be one thing… but they also have Traditions and theologies surrounding her.
But the thing of it is… …it’s really not that crazy.
Consider this:
Jesus is the most perfect person who has ever lived. Perfect such that He fulfilled the Law as no other human has. Perfectly obedient to the Moral Law which includes the commandment “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.”
Now, before going further, it’s important to understand this commandment a little more contextually – namely, the Jewish context. I will point you here for a brief explanation of the commandment as it appears in Hebrew. The short of it is that the commandment calls for us to not just honor in the sense of “giving good reputation to” our parents but to also revere our parents. To, in a sense, bestow glory upon them from within ourselves as well as in what we do.
So, from this we enter into Marian theology. We enter into it because we are forced to ask: How do we reconcile Jesus, the perfect fulfiller and obedient follower of the law, and His relationship with His mother? If Jesus is to have a proactive reverence in heart as well as in action towards His mother, how would that be manifested… how far would He go?
And thus we enter into the Marian mysteries: the Immaculte Conception – that in the moment of Mary’s conception, the stain of original sin did not afflict her, and so she was born perfect – and her Assumption into heaven – that her body did not fall into decay and ruin but was assumed into heaven just as Moses and Elijah’s bodies.
Why am I writing about this? Well… this is something I’m not personally very clear about, so I’m trying, as I can, to put the teachings I know into my own words. And so that I can have a deeper appreciation of the Marian devotions I participate in. And so that, hopefully, as I make clear(er) these teachings and mysteries for myself, I can make it clear(er) for you, dear reader.
…and plus… I started thinking about it because I saw this recently: A RCC/Anglican ecumenical commission came out with a statement surprisingly and largely agreeing with the RCC teachings