tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37527932024-03-13T21:10:09.348-05:00Safe HavenA Christian blog, because: "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." (Romans 11:36)Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.comBlogger3005125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-30037403786276481822023-01-25T17:01:00.000-06:002023-01-25T17:01:39.246-06:00A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle<p> I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.)</p><p>Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest.</p><p>I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the pious tradition that a woman named Veronica (St.) had wiped the Lord Jesus's face with a cloth, after the scourging by Pilate and his soldiers. (It is amply and beautifully depicted in the film, "The Passion of the Christ.") My friend said, "Where is that in the Bible?" She tells how she searched and searched, and obviously didn't find it in the Scriptures. She (tragically) concluded that it never happened, and absorbed the assumption that <i>only </i>what is found in the Scriptures is the total truth about Jesus.</p><p>At this point, I need to say that I remain blessedly obsessed with the Bible. How could you not be? The Bible as we received it is--among other things--truly God's love letter to humanity, and to every single person who lives, and has ever lived. Even so, I think some elements of American Catholic culture conspired to make it easier for some Protestants to dismiss Catholics as ignorant (unsaved) fools. Namely this: Most Catholics don't know the Bible very well. You're gonna lose every Bible "gotcha" game, if you don't know it, chapter and verse. Now, I think some interpretations folks throw out in those games are weird, silly, and sometimes dangerous. But if we Catholics don't <i>really </i>know our own Bible--and I'm perfectly willing to say no one anywhere would even have one, without the Catholic Church--how are we going to know? We Catholics are aiding people's "evangelism" of us, by being ignorant of Scripture!</p><p>In my journey toward the Catholic Church, the mechanism of that happening was actually thinking about church authority structures. Anybody Christian that you care to associate yourself with answers to someone, church wise. Denominational meetings, church courts, committees, you name it. Sometimes, they don't just deal with the mundane and the practical; sometimes, a minister somewhere runs afoul of the set of dogmas he is supposed to profess. Heresy trials still exist today, and they should. To keep it brief, I had this realization: <b><i>If none of these church structures are infallible, we can't actually separate what's true and false--what's from God, and what's from man--if and when we need to.</i> </b>That was supposed to be the "gift" of the Protestant Reformation: that no assembly of men speaks infallibly at any time, with the word of God. That might seem to be a good outcome, if some people ask you to believe weird, harmful things; it's not good at all, when you need to know what God has said.</p><p>Meanwhile, most people don't worry about it that much; a lot of average people just want a community of good people, who will help them in trouble. It's a bonus, if they happen to believe in eternal life, because most folks aren't too terribly worried about judgment and Hell, even though there really is plenty of talk about those things in the Bible.</p><p>Anyway, I couldn't afford to be casual about any of it, since I was intending to make it my entire life. I also think that if a person finds a church community small enough, he or she has the luxury of completely ignoring the Catholic Church, and its more than 1 billion baptized members. Still, any serious claim of truth that's binding on the conscience has to take account of Christian history,--an account of the Church--<i>as something Jesus is doing, saying, guiding, and preserving, </i>as a part of reaching everyone He loves, and wants to save. It's right there that the Catholic Church starts to win some arguments. Pastor Jeff from Somewhere Community Church can't claim your allegiance totally, if he or someone like him wasn't there at the beginning. Somewhere in our hearts, a lot of us know this. Heck, some folks find the Catholic Church--or something close--attractive, precisely because it is old. I don't think that's enough, but I understand it. And I guess I'm not too upset about the (insufficient) attempts to claim the early Church as one's own, since I'll be preaching in a Protestant pulpit soon enough. We should just know that what we believe matters, and that following God will cost us, sooner or later. </p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-85894726876496703872022-10-17T14:45:00.003-05:002022-10-17T14:45:25.313-05:00Jesus's Skin Color (Again)<p> Someone shut down a discussion--and potential veneration--by stating, "Jesus wasn't White." Which I could easily grant, especially for the sake of argument. But what does "White" mean? How dark would He have to be, before this Marxist-adjacent person would adore Him as God? Or at least allow the discussion to progress? Was it simply a way to invalidate all White perspectives?</p><p>It seems to me that the universality of Jesus and the gospel message is a threat to certain kinds of essentialism. If there were value in say, "de-centering Whiteness," it would have to be in drawing out the richness of a cultural expression, and <i>adding it </i>to that which is universal. If there is therefore no access to the universals, or no relationship between the universal and the particular, then nominalism, solipsism, and relativism has won. On the other hand, part of the offense of Jesus is that he dared to take on a particular human nature, in a particular place, at a particular time. Nevertheless, He asserted that his message was and is universal and binding upon all.</p><p>Practically speaking, Jesus could have become incarnate in modern-day Beijing, or Istanbul, or Compton, CA. If I commit myself to the worship of Jesus, and the worldwide expression of that, I commit myself to the counterfactual possibility that any one of those cultures could have belonged uniquely to Our Lord (and Our Lady). The Holy Family is not ashamed of any place, or any culture. This is the beauty and the power of the Incarnation: He became one of us, and in so doing, He embraced all of us. May we not be so eager to throw bricks that we miss the Love that is more than skin-deep.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-9174908466689885632022-10-14T20:05:00.000-05:002022-10-14T20:05:04.860-05:00Integralism's Fatal Flaw<p> I'm no expert on these questions, or related issues, but as a theologian and a person wanting to understand and submit to the Catholic Church on the questions of <a href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html">religious liberty and conscience,</a> I think that the Church has decided that, while a free conscience in error in questions of faith or morals isn't completely free, in light of the soul's true end, the possibility of error is preferable to compliance by compulsion. That is, assent compelled--either to the dictates of right reason, or to those of revealed truth--is itself contrary to charity.</p><p>The existence of error, and the willingness to tolerate it in some sense, is not to say that truth and error are indistinguishable. Also, "Ultimate truth does not exist" is a statement expressing epistemic skepticism, and is not equivalent to, "People are free to make their own decisions and moral choices." Acknowledging the plain reality of misused freedom is not the same as endorsing freedom that has been misused.</p><p>(This week, I have been watching diversity compliance videos, and reading "A Wrinkle In Time." I should only desire a uniformity of thought freely entered into.)</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-57547217165457933112022-10-02T21:18:00.004-05:002022-10-02T21:18:44.668-05:00Waino, Yadi, Albert<p> Today was the final home game for the St. Louis Cardinals. Accordingly, it was the final regular season home game for Yadier Molina, and Albert Pujols, who have both made it clear that this season is their last.</p><p>As you may or may not know, Adam Wainwright and Yadier Molina now have the all-time MLB record for most starts as pitcher and catcher. It's possible that, given the great caution with which those players are handled, this record is completely unreachable. We will see. I do know that Wainwright is the best pitcher never to win a Cy Young Award as the league's best pitcher, and that he's within hailing distance of consideration for baseball's Hall of Fame. (In point of fact, he has carried the Cardinals this season, and has for several years now, despite celebrating his 41st birthday about 2 months ago.)</p><p>You can't say enough about Yadier Molina. Once considered a light-hitting catcher, he's just finished his regular season career with a batting mark of .278. He hit .300 5 times. He's collected over 2000 hits, along with 176 career regular season home runs. He won a Silver Slugger award, as the best hitter at his position. He's had 2 seasons back-to-back in the top 5 of MVP voting. I haven't even mentioned defense yet.</p><p>The greatest defender of his generation, Molina has collected 9 Gold Gloves, second-most all-time at that position. 4 times, Yadi was awarded the Platinum Glove, as the best defender on the diamond, among all Gold Glove winners. And not only has he thrown out runners attempting to steal at a rate above 40 percent, but the Cardinals have had the fewest steal <i>attempts</i> against them during this period, by far: fewer than 1000, while the next-closest team has nearly 1500 attempts against them. The upshot: Teams are so afraid of getting thrown out by Molina that they don't even try. (Molina is now 40.) In short, I can't choose between Wainwright or Molina as my favorite player. It's as if they are one, as the starts record amply attests.</p><p>Pujols. The most feared hitter of his generation, Pujols collected his 702nd career home run today--4th all-time, behind Bonds, Henry Aaron, and Babe Ruth--and pulled even with Ruth in career RBI, with 3 games left, for second-most in the history of baseball. The 42-year-old has 24 home runs this season alone. If I am honest, I will tell you that it felt absurd to "root" for Albert; in baseball terms, he never really struggled; he's an icon, a baseball "saint" if anyone ever was. And in a sense, beyond us. Yadi and Adam worked to be great; their efforts were as obvious as the chalk lines. Albert made it look easy, as if he invented baseball himself.</p><p>Today, in the fifth inning, all three legends, three brothers, left the game together. They left the Busch Stadium field during a season for the very last time. Those pictures will sell for an unreasonable amount of money. I might have cried, on any other day. But the game still hung in the balance; individual accolades come after team wins. They taught us that, and we have learned it well.</p><p>Time is passing, to be sure. But for these men, time seems to freeze. And we are frozen in their greatness; every play has felt like a milestone, even before they earned the respect that milestones imply. I don't even know what Cardinals baseball will be without them. But Cardinals baseball has been built by men who don't play for only themselves. And so it will be, always. </p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-90661358905113392882022-09-26T18:59:00.004-05:002022-09-26T19:04:33.559-05:00I'm "Non-Affirming": An Explanation<p> This covers homosexuality/gender non-conformity, and anything related you can think of. Why? It starts with this simple assertion: Our bodies and our organs are for something, and that something is not exhausted in personal pleasure. </p><p><br /></p><p>Sex is for creation. To be more specific, procreation. That's what it's for. To create new people is the reason we've been given this gift. To be sure, it gives pleasure. Most likely because people will not always do the things we ought to do, if none of it was pleasant.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why does it matter? If we were to say that "parents" were any two people, and that a "family" is whatever we say it is, we <i>necessarily </i>say<i> </i>that the traditional view is wrong. Suppose we all chose to believe this, and acted accordingly. The human race would cease to exist. It's no longer about being tolerant of a rare variation; if various radicals are correct, everything we ever believed in is wrong. But we know better.</p><p><br /></p><p>We are seeing that transgenderism rigidly reinforces sex stereotypes; Bruce Jenner couldn't simply be a woman; he had to be his idea of an alluring, attractive, almost unattainable woman. It's staring us in the face: why? Did he feel ashamed of homosexual tendencies? Was there a trauma that caused this? And speaking of trauma, I remember when clinicians tried to heal trauma; they did not offer mutilation instead.</p><p><br /></p><p>A large portion of what we see is teenage social contagion. Take away the phones and the apps. Being a growing youth is confusing and scary. I don't really believe most kids are confused in a new way; it's the same confusion, turbocharged by listening to other confused kids, for hours on end.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Parents are obligated to their children, even if they don't want to be parents.</i> Sex has been severed from marriage, and severed from procreation. Abortion is the murderous end-point of this. We could argue endlessly about whether politician X understands the negative implications of law Y, but it obscures the reality that abortion takes the life of a human being. I think most people know this, deep down. But distraction is easier.</p><p>Conflating tolerance and compassion is a fun trick, too. I know the easiest way to hate someone is to lie to them. If you know a person is trying to re-create an ideal they never had, why do you celebrate that distortion? Why are we celebrating lies? Is it actually kinder to let someone hurt themselves? We rightly fear and discourage suicide, but in other ways, we let people commit suicide in slow motion.</p><p>Finally, the kids are not alright. They are <i>owed </i>two parents who stay married, because mommies and daddies who don't stay married--if at all possible--have done the wrong thing. Maybe our own pain as children of divorce blinds us to the harms of other things, but harm people they do.</p><p>I'm already going to the re-education camp, so I don't care. I mean, I do, but I know I can't please everyone.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-36115093169736967702022-09-12T17:18:00.000-05:002022-09-12T17:18:30.796-05:00I Love The Diverse Re-Boots<p> I had to stop watching the Twitter thread of the little Black girls, watching the trailer for next year's re-boot of "The Little Mermaid." It really does matter, and you can see it in their faces. I had to stop, because I had to teach; I can't be crying in the middle of the school day. (And if we are honest, "The Little Mermaid" could benefit the most from a re-imagining. Be honest with us, and yourself.)</p><p>It got me thinking back to high school, when Disney re-did "Cinderella," live-action, with a predominantly Black cast, including my first celebrity crush, Brandy Norwood--noted R&B singer and actress generally known simply as, "Brandy." I watched it less than 2 years ago; it was like I was 17 again. I love her. The End. Anyway, in those simpler times,--before everything folks didn't like was "woke,"-- most people went, "Wait, what? We've never had a Black Cinderella?" And it was pretty great. Pete's sake, her fairy Godmother was "Queen" Whitney Houston herself! Who else would it be? [You forgot to tell people they can watch it on Disney+ right now, or any time.--ed.]</p><p>I guess the only points I want to make are these: We White people have most things; it's not like we will lose our grip on all power, if there is a Black movie. I will readily concede that "progressives" can find a way to ruin or suck all the enjoyment out of anything. A sort of race essentialism, that thinks people should be separate, and generally hostile, has indeed taken hold in some places. The White racists of ages past couldn't dream of the thought-space some alleged White "anti-racists" have gotten themselves into. Even so, some of us are so afraid of "leftism" that we can't even celebrate little kids feeling a little less alone in the world. Suffice to say, I never wanted to be that kind of "conservative."</p><p>I think most normal people can look forthrightly at the histories of racism--I say "histories," because almost every people group has a story of being excluded, and/or actively harmed--and say, "Let's learn from this, and do what we need to do to prevent repeating these things." That's altogether different from someone saying, "It's your fault for this, and you must be punished." (On the other hand, if people are actively doing racist things, and cultivating racist attitudes, well, maybe it is *their* fault.)</p><p>I have been telling my students that they probably have been dealt some bad cards along the line. And yet, no one will hand you anything in this world. You have talent, and something important to do. And that I love them, and would do anything within reason to help them achieve their goals. If a Black Ariel helps them to believe that, and to believe in themselves, count me in.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-34137048906864848112022-07-14T13:49:00.002-05:002022-07-20T09:26:59.651-05:00Even If They Are "Crazy," They're Right About Marriage<p> I haven't watched Fox News intentionally since 2008. It got weird after Obama got elected. By the way, "Some of this criticism is racist, and reflects structural racism" does not mean, "You are a racist," or, "All criticism of Obama is racist." Anyway, sidebar. Apparently, someone made a mistake over there, posting a picture of a couple ostensibly getting married, one dressed as a groom, and the other as a bride. It was part of a piece defending traditional marriage. The only trouble was, the couple are lesbians.</p><p>And I know how it goes, OK? Fox News says batty things routinely. Our "package deal" partisanship makes it easy to jump on and laugh at everything from hypocrisy to mistakes. But...</p><p>Marriage can only exist between a biological man, and a biological woman. That's true, and the thing is, even if you want to argue, you <i>know </i>this. It's tragic that in the name of tolerance or inclusivity or whatever you like, that people are wasting energy looking for another definition of "man" and "woman." "Live not by lies," as we say. How should I handle people who are struggling with gender identity, or (ostensibly) not struggling at all? I don't really have a firm plan. But it becomes necessarily political, when it involves law and rights. It's funny; people accuse others of "playing politics" when they don't agree with the political implications. Still others, engaged in the rhetoric of saying, "It doesn't affect you!" are now engaged in pretending that the massive effects that it has on every facet of society aren't really there. Someone is lying. Moreover, it's not my job to decide who the bigots and idiots really are, but I know I will still claim to exist, even if you reject my identity. Catering to trauma-induced delusion on the basis of sophistry and sentiment is pretty stupid. More generally, is depression and suicide rising among this vulnerable population because they lack an affirming community? Or are they depressed and suicidal for other reasons, including gender confusion? It doesn't shock me that teens are confused about who they are; that's definitional of the group. We have to decide if mutilation and sterilization are the ethical responses to that confusion. I say, "No."</p><p>Broadly speaking, it goes back to the question, "For what does human sexuality exist?" What is a family? What is not a family? If we say it doesn't matter, we're probably lying, or willfully ignoring the social consequences of pretending not to know. And I think so many people have been conditioned with everything from "less-than-ideal" to, "horrific nightmare" that they can't even really consider the question. People think they're being generous and open-minded. But people have to actually live with the consequences. Most public intellectuals today are insulated from their pronouncements. Lucky for them. Too bad we don't swap out public intellectuals like we do politicians!</p><p>Referring to the "right/wrong side of history" is a curiously theistic pronouncement from those who claim we are in danger from religious nuts. We're likely more in danger from those who believe we have no limits. </p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-46525306818895880372022-06-28T02:31:00.001-05:002022-06-28T02:33:36.912-05:00Contraception and Erectile Dysfunction Treatment Are Not The Same<p> You often hear this sloppy comparison, when regulating abortion is discussed. How are they different? Erectile dysfunction treatment <i>aids </i>reproduction, while contraception by definition <i>thwarts</i> reproduction. According to a traditional sexual ethics, such as you might find in Christianity,--represented most visibly by the Catholic Church--as long as the sexual act(s) are ordered to reproduction, (and the union of the spouses) aids in that process are licit. Of course, such aids can be used illicitly--like Viagra used in service to an orgy--but that's a licit means to an unjust end. On the other hand, contraception has an intention that can be just--the prevention of pregnancy--but the means thwarts the design and purpose of the sex organs, and the sexual act.</p><p>Contraceptive sex is by its very nature fundamentally opposed to the purpose of human sexuality. Moreover, anything that has sexual pleasure as the primary or sole end would be out of bounds. Does this mean that the traditional ethics is opposed to sexual pleasure? No, as long as pleasure is not an end in itself. If the design of our bodies is purposeful, then pleasure is a gift that is an incentive to "be fruitful and multiply."</p><p>I think that certain feminisms rest upon unending hostility between the sexes, so ED treatment seems to benefit men and their pleasure, and it must be opposed. Part of that unending hostility would be to deny that women have any legitimate interest in preventing ED. </p><p>Things like in vitro fertilization separate reproduction from the unity of the spouses in the marital sex act. It's in a way the opposite problem as contraception, but it's also out of bounds.</p><p>To be direct, there could be some weight to the idea that sexual "liberals"--like LGBT+ advocates and feminists--have political-cultural reasons to take an interest in each others' concerns, but each also at the extreme share the belief that one sex--whether male or female--is not necessary. I also think that the extremes of gender ideology reflect an attempt to deny the natural design of the male-female binary. </p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-23707174518510950832022-06-25T11:18:00.000-05:002022-06-25T11:18:01.339-05:00Further Thoughts About Life<p> One of the interesting things about the regime of legalized abortion under Roe is that we have pretended that “When does life begin?” is an intriguing question for which we do not have an answer. It’s not only that the decision imposed an answer, though it certainly did, but that the answer was wrong. Any other answer besides “at conception” creates huge ethical problems that our most intelligent people can’t solve.</p><p>Think about what happens when we say the unborn is “potential life”: that means at any time up to birth,—and after—we could argue that there is some achievement of independence or consciousness that the person has yet to reach. Before that, it’s said that there is no problem in killing the product of conception. You’ll have to forgive me; we have to deal frankly with the implications of arguments. We see that “potential life” essentially talks about the living being in terms of its ability to defend itself, or to be defended by someone else. In contrast, the “conception” answer treats all the skills and abilities of the nascent person as capacities they already have, even if they can’t use them. Personhood and its dignity isn’t a life stage to be reached; it’s a descriptive quality of being a human individual. We don’t say that a person missing an arm is not human; we say there is a defect. Human beings are supposed to have two arms, et cetera, and anything else is a special case. Do we protect the vulnerable—as often we rightly do—or do we decide that only the strong deserve to live? We were all once these vulnerable people; are we really going to say we don’t know this?</p><p>The question does get stickier, in the sense that human sexuality can be abused, and forcibly taken. Rape. I suppose saying that product of conception deserves to live would be painful for some, but no more so than looking into the eyes of the person thus conceived, and saying, “It would be better if you were dead.” These are the stakes, for those exceptions to abortion laws, which we think are so noble and wise. They are not.</p><p>This absolute reproductive freedom, begun about 60 years ago, codified in Roe nearly 50 years ago, has made us think that our sexuality carries no responsibilities or duties. This is of course false, but we have killed the results of our choices, before they had a chance to remind us.</p><p>I want to reaffirm that I don’t actually believe women are servants, or any such thing. People are right to say that motherhood and fatherhood are limiting. We make choices all the time which cannot be unmade. We maybe ought to respect the power of our sexuality, instead of making others pay the price for us.</p><p>One of my favorite shows is called, “Broadchurch.” In it, a young family copes with the murder of their young son. The father, Mark, spends most of the series consumed by grief and anger, unable to move forward. His wife Beth finally says, “You need to decide if we matter enough for you to change.” Mark replies, “What if I can’t?” She retorts, “You’re acting as though life is something that just happens to you.” Let’s make the point: if you can choose to kill, you are certainly not the helpless victim of a baby, at least not in almost all cases. The true patriarchy is the abortion regime. It treats pregnancy like a disease, like the common cold. I can almost hear Jerry Orbach saying, “You’re the one who got Penny in trouble.” The film “Dirty Dancing” is the most patronizing, misogynistic claptrap I have ever seen, and it’s essentially a commercial for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services.</p><p>Contemporary feminism is playing word-games now, so that “male” and “female” are whatever you want them to be. Ironic that a movement begun to advance the rights of women is unwittingly erasing women, or at least the frank acknowledgment of their embodied existence. That’s another issue, but is it any wonder that most of abortion’s young victims are girls? Which regime hates women? Not mine.</p><p>I could say more, and perhaps I will, but I need to handle the rest of life.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-34064438303250605122022-06-24T20:48:00.001-05:002022-06-24T20:48:37.811-05:00I’m Not Ambivalent About Today<p> I’ve heard some left-of-center Christians say something like this, and I confess, I don’t understand it. I was never bruised by the “culture war,” and I am not ashamed of it, except perhaps to say that if total culture war is opposed to living in community, then and only then do I oppose it. Because the fact remains that I have been on the “wrong” or losing side the whole time. To oppose the fight itself would be to say that those who fought had illegitimate concerns. I can’t say that. Truthfully, something is only a “wedge issue” to those who disagree, and lack the courage of their own conviction. I believe this is true for other things as well, but abortion is front and center today.</p><p>If I have disagreements with the “Christian Right,” it’s over tactics, partisanship, and exaggerated apocalypticism.</p><p>Moreover, people could simply say, “I value other things more highly,” and move on. Yet it seems that bad faith and posturing is more valued than frank honesty.</p><p>The people know that popular culture leans Left socially, and perhaps economically, also. As much as I love Stephen Colbert—and the residual Catholicism of all three major US late-night hosts/comedians—all three have really bad ideas about ethics, and no amount of parish fish-fries and Catholic school makes them devout, strictly speaking.</p><p>You know that I’m more fond of President Biden than most of you, but he says foolish things about abortion and sexual ethics every single day. Pelosi shouldn’t—and hopefully won’t be the only Catholic to be denied Holy Communion, Biden included.</p><p>All that said, there is nothing explicitly religious or Christian about today’s decision. Plenty of atheists and agnostics also agree with what the Court has done. Natural law, and reason are more than sufficient to understand it. In that light, we can understand religious pro-abortion arguments and activism as sentimentality masking barbarism. “What is a person, and what do we owe them?” No amount of purported holy water and clerical nattering on or near the machinery of death alters the fundamental reality of what abortion is and does.</p><p>I personally have no desire or zeal for imposing my religion on anyone, for one thing. The true glory of Christianity is that of the whole self, given to God and others, freely and without compulsion.</p><p>I suppose I must be ready to gently convince and persuade, but I admit that when I hear an invocation to “listen” to those who are upset today, I am unmoved. We have listened to half-baked arguments, tortured analogies, and paranoia about abortion for decades. I don’t go a week without being accused of wanting to “control women” or their bodies, and that’s just nonsense. I don’t want women to be the victims of male predation, and lack of concern, for starters. The true victims of “sexual revolution” have always been women—not even counting the children—and only my awareness that many pro-choice men are simply ignorant fools keeps me from regarding them as intentionally evil.</p><p>Think of it: corporations will now pay one to cross state lines to abort a baby, because it’s cheaper than paid leave, and paid support for large, intact families. All these alleged haters of capitalism have been carrying water for The Man for decades, but Heaven forbid anyone carry a baby to term. It would be funny, if it weren’t so obviously sick.</p><p>I’m still very much open to a renewed discussion of public support for children and families—in light of my rigid pro-life stance—but if “Roe is on the ballot,” people are going to make it really tough for me to vote Democratic. I often accused them of being a one-issue party; please don’t prove me right. Republicans today disgust me almost as much as abortion does.</p><p>I probably could write about this for hours, but I’m going to stop, for now.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-39368071253236729052022-06-24T11:34:00.002-05:002022-06-24T11:34:38.439-05:00Roe and Casey Down<p> You don’t need the breaking news; let me get right to the point: “Liberal” Christian, you are more than free to say that some group of politicians doesn’t have a complete view of the world, or even doesn’t actually care about truth or justice, but the only way this decision “has nothing to do with truth or justice” is by excluding the act of aborting a young human from the consideration of what counts as “truth and justice.”</p><p>In fact, now we can get back to arguing in justice about what human dignity deserves and requires, especially with respect to an elected government, because the emotional blackmail of poisoning the well in service to child murder has been (largely) removed.</p><p>And understand that the pro-life cause as a political movement has sought exactly this, because laws forbid and create barriers to something undesirable. The hardships faced by women seeking abortion in the process of seeking one are part of the point: a merely symbolic law doesn’t function as a law. That’s why the alleged harms of abortion laws don’t move many pro-life advocates, because precious few people even register the harm and murder of the unborn child as a harm.</p><p>In the end, the question still lingers, when looking at a fetus, or at least thinking about them: “What is this?” And, “What do we owe this living being?” We owe them at least the right not to be killed on a whim, or as an inconvenience. We owe them a lot more, in my view, but I am astonished at some people, willing to moralize, whilst standing on the weakest possible ground. How hollow is universal health care, when a huge number of its putative recipients will never see the light of day? And I have been dismayed by the prevalence of political violence and outright genocide over decades, but what of this one?</p><p>Until you have considered it, and answered correctly, you and I will be at an impasse. Human dignity grants no cover, no room for self-satisfied posturing. Yet the truth is that we have “un-personed” perhaps hundreds of millions of people, because we were unwilling to face the demands of their dignity upon us. People deserve better than to be lost under a blizzard of euphemisms. And certainly they deserve to live. </p><p>I rejoice today, still knowing the work isn’t done. It may never be, but truth and justice do have a small beachhead today.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-83456650258180347782022-05-26T14:23:00.002-05:002022-05-26T14:23:54.904-05:00Babies In The Womb Are People<p> I want all the kids to be safe at school. But even if "the government is bold enough to force you to have a kid, but not keep them safe at recess," you can't grandstand about kids, if you're only advocating for them to die sooner. Elective abortion is the weak point in the whole "progressive" project, precisely because human dignity shines through, demanding the person of conscience defend it in <i>all </i>cases.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-81339580061525046492022-05-25T15:39:00.003-05:002022-05-25T15:39:21.277-05:00A Few Thoughts About Guns (Again)<p> I wasn't going to say anything public about the tragedy in Uvalde, TX, or about gun rights/control, but I noticed my friend Bryan Cross had added to a thread about school shootings, and I had a thought worth sharing, I think. In terms of my feelings, I will only say that I intend to intercede for all concerned, appropriately, as is my Christian duty, when death comes for any and all of us. I'm sad in the way that lingers beyond a momentary outpouring of emotion. I am seeing their little faces, and imagining them, when I don't necessarily want to.</p><p>Beyond that, my thought is this: we often hear this trite piece of garbage when shootings happen: "We don't have a gun problem; we have a sin problem." Let's actually take this seriously, and then think about it thusly: <br /><br /><i><b>If people and the culture at large are less virtuous, it would make sense not to allow bad people (which Christians assert at various times to be all of us) unlimited access to death-dealing weapons on an unprecedented scale.</b></i></p><p>I have been in and around the politics game long to know what will, and will not fly, with particular people. That's just it, though: If ideology limits your options for solving problems, you remain mired in the problems, and in this case unnecessarily.</p><p>And I was confronted in Dr. Cross's old thread with the prospect of essentially a never-ending arms race, not unlike the one among nations with nuclear arms. The race is itself a threat to peace, and a violation of that peace which human beings, by virtue of their dignity, are entitled to possess.</p><p>But we can actually choose how we want to live. We're often offered some sort of false choice, between tyranny on the one hand, and senseless violence, on the other.</p><p>If guns are tools--and that, they are--for what sorts of things will we use our tools? In light of our weakness and evil, are some of the tools just not worth it? That is, part of a life of flourishing for all people? My answer is yes. </p><p>If someone is not overly fond of say, the federal government regulating the use of firearms, fine. But someone very much should. And government at some level is charged with the common good. I don't think being safe at school--for anyone involved--is asking too much.</p><p>I'm going to bring up abortion, and the pro-life movement, not to shame anyone of that conviction, (for I would be shaming myself) but to point out that a central contention of the pro-life movement is that the legality and permissiveness of abortion, and laws to that effect, coarsen people, discourse, and the public awareness of the dignity of pre-born children. If reversing such laws is an indispensable part of creating a culture of respect for all life, then <i><b>the same logic should hold, for the regulation of firearms.</b></i> This is so, even as I grant that using a firearm is not intrinsically evil, while elective abortion is. Even so, we have seen enough evil with firearms in these particular circumstances that we should change many of the circumstances.</p><p>Thanks for reading.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-1530409423212285212022-04-11T18:37:00.000-05:002022-04-11T18:38:20.628-05:00The Intensity Of A Great Love<p> Palm Sunday, 2022. I went to church, and I recall thinking that it was very emotional. I remember one moment during Holy Communion, and I got a picture in my mind of the crown of thorns. Jesus pierced with the crown of thorns. I have said before that it seems as though Jesus likes to look right at me, with the same intensity and the same love that he had for Peter, when Peter had denied him three times. The compassion that cuts you to the very heart. In some real sense, I am not Peter. But if Jesus can look upon me with compassion, in a way similar to what he did with Peter, I have no right to deny Him, to tell him that his mercy is no good here.</p><p>We don't recognize the more subtle form of pride, which fears the judgment of God. That is what it is, if in fact we have believed, and we are courageous enough to accuse ourselves before his tribunal of mercy. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."</p><p>But that is the great tragedy of life, when people cannot accept mercy and grace, offered at the price of Christ's own blood. When we look at it this way, we take a slightly dimmer view of the idea that we must do something, other than accept what God has already offered.</p><p>As we go into the holiest week of the year, let us recognize the nearness of Christ, and not dwell upon the sins which have dragged us down in the past. He loves us, and not theoretically, or abstractly. The only challenge for us is to agree with his love, and to make ourselves available to his love by responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.</p><div><br /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-66376049297584344102022-03-25T13:53:00.003-05:002022-07-05T12:02:53.818-05:00I Would Vote To Confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson<p> She's one of the most qualified nominees in our history, perhaps the most qualified. Her experience as a public defender is a huge plus for me. She attended public school, before making her way to Harvard. She's paid her dues as a judge, doing all the things we should want Supreme Court nominees to do. The fact that I might disagree with many of her rulings is beside the point. Is she qualified, and free of major temperamental concerns? Yes.</p><p>These things are always a circus, but all I needed from Judge Jackson was the assurance that she understands the limitations upon her power come from the text of the Constitution itself. When she said this herself, I was assured. </p><p>I generally believe that the president is entitled to deference in these matters, absent a major concern. Our Senators like to hear themselves talk, and rarely ask anything informative. They could illuminate the differences in judicial philosophies, informing the public, instead of inflaming them.</p><p>I would probably ask Judge Jackson about the conditions which would have to exist, in order for her to outlaw the death penalty. I might ask her about the interaction between legislatures, the US Constitution, and remedies and relief in individual cases, in general. </p><p>I personally would have no statements to make, and I would do my best to ask questions the nominee could and would answer. It's almost as though the person before them is simply a prop in their ideological battles against one another. That's a real shame.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-46127688966246994682022-03-03T07:20:00.000-06:002022-03-03T07:20:22.064-06:00To The Last<p> I’m spending my next few days in the hospital, and it’s been a lot already. Don’t worry; my problems are orthopedic. Anyway, there’s a rhythm to hospital life that I don’t think exists anywhere else. Maybe prison is the same way, in the sense that you are not totally in charge of your life. Someone says, “You must do this,” and you do it.</p><p>One of the irritating and possibly painful aspects of it is the frequent blood draws. Every now and again, if you go to your doctor in the course of ordinary life, she may request this. But in a hospital, it’s much more frequent.</p><p>I have admired some recent roommates, in their chutzpah to refuse medications and blood draws. It’s all technically voluntary, but personally, if a doctor who seems competent asks me for blood, or to take a drug for my well-being, it’s not proud hero-guy time.</p><p>I beg your indulgence if it’s too fast a transition, but Jesus didn’t refuse any of the humiliation and violence that culminated in the Cross. He did it all willingly, for us.</p><p>I think we think of the Cross sometimes as punishment. While that’s not totally wrong—the Romans certainly meant it that way—it’s much more. Jesus loves you, and me. And he didn’t want to just tell us; he wanted to show us. And to think that one drop of His blood would be enough to reconcile us, but God wants us to know for sure. And so it was to the very last. He loved us to the end. You have to see Love, when you look at the Cross. If you don’t, start over.</p><p>A friend said to me last night, “I think God wants you to know that you have access to God’s compassion, more than others do.” Without prejudice to that word, and to its part in my life, I think we all do; we just don’t realize it all the time.</p><p>Dear God, help me to believe and see Your nearness and love today, especially when I feel like I don’t deserve it. You are nearer than we know. All we need is to be touched by You. Heal us, we pray, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-23915498671549949392022-03-02T11:23:00.000-06:002022-03-02T11:24:34.946-06:00Thoughts On The State Of The Union <p> I’m receptive to the idea that it’s a pointless partisan exercise, gilded with fake pageantry and dignity. But in light of the fact that the corrosion of civil society is partially aided by the cynicism concerning the same, I wanted to watch and listen.</p><p>The first 12 minutes roughly was about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is a large amount of agreement between our leaders on both sides, and the president ably pointed it out. I have deep concerns that these sanctions are simply going to hurt Russian citizens, and not Putin or his enablers. I don’t think war is ever preferable, but we shouldn’t think economic sanctions are cost-free.</p><p>I have to say that I don’t have strong opinions about traditional economics, but when the president turned to domestic policy, a little voice kept replying, “I don’t know if that’s going to work.”</p><p>There’s an inherent tension it seems, between economic growth, and the shift to renewable energy. From a moral perspective, I think policymakers should simply do the latter, and absorb the consequences, in terms of public spending on social support. I’m not of the opinion that climate change concerns are exaggerated, or fictitious. In fact, the problem is urgent. There aren’t enough silly progressive pieties to wish this away. We have to do better than cultural sniping. On the other hand, a good number of folks have decided that not getting a life-saving vaccine to “own the libs” is preferable to reality. Clearly, we have a long way to go.</p><p>But speaking of silly progressive pieties, the most significant is the idea that abortion is health care, and that it is morally neutral, or even good. The grisly reality is the destruction of an innocent person. It’s the gravest moral crime against our common human dignity.</p><p>The rest of sexual politics—including everything that attaches to “gender theory” or gender ideology—is actually related to abortion. Abortion is actually firstly an affront to the social dimension of human dignity, because it destroys families, the foundation of society. It’s a strike against the notion of non-negotiable obligations to others. We’re seeing sexual politics play out this way, because we have become convinced of the idea that only individual self-actualization matters.</p><p>I’m not the one to tell a bunch of people that their sexual self-expression is the shirking of obligation, and the fractured attempt to find a truer identity that has been lost in trauma and pain, but someone should.</p><p>The rest of Biden’s speech was the usual laundry list of policy promises. Someone described it as “deft,” but I don’t apply that word to things that bore me.</p><p>Which is not to say that I found the Republican response any better. It was vicious, partisan, and pointless. And much too long. I would immediately vote for her opponent, out of spite, and simply to avoid a speech like that again. I’m glad I don’t live in Iowa. If that’s “Iowa nice,” I’ll pass.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-76344382272462448242022-01-14T17:02:00.000-06:002022-01-14T17:02:32.141-06:00This Virus Is Still Really Bad<p> I checked the COVID cases and deaths this morning. Over 2,200 people already, dead. I hear people saying that we're overreacting, that somehow, we're "living in fear." I just have to suppose that some folks cannot handle "9-11" nearly every day. What mental gymnastics do you have to do, to persuade yourself that it's "no big deal"?</p><p>I've had 3 doses of the Pfizer vaccine, so I'm not overly concerned about being harmed personally. What I did, I did partly for others. I've lost a lot of friends and loved ones in this life, and suddenly. Death comes for us; it is our fate in this world, we could say. I don't understand why we would want to bring it more quickly, and for no sensible reason.</p><p>A lot of my friends and family are just stubborn, gullible, or some combination of both, I guess. If that offends you, good. I'm over 40; if people's love for me is conditional at this point, I don't need them. We won't be here forever; we don't have time to lie to each other about important things, for the sake of politeness.</p><p>I have to assume that I've been among the especially vulnerable this entire time. I used to fancy myself ever and always just an individual, but I think about myself as part of the community of the severely disabled now. If friends and family of the vulnerable ask me to wear a mask to keep them safe, no problem. If they don't want to associate in person with the unvaccinated, I get it.</p><p>People will say that it's easy for me to "virtue signal" and hide in my house. Well, as long as I'm guilt-tripping people, you haven't made a society too easy for me and others to live in, anyway. A lot of people have been bound by the selfishness of others our entire lives. One doesn't realize how much anger one has about this, until one tries to live normally, and meets the peculiar roadblocks of "otherness."</p><p>I have no mandates to impose, beyond my obvious disapproval of selfish and ignorant choices. Maybe people even know they're being foolish, because they compare something barely more onerous than the obligation to have car insurance to the most vicious tyrannies in human history.</p><p>Funny thing: We never seem to tell these melodramatic serial exaggerators to stop "living in fear."</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-85512919759034690892021-12-19T12:19:00.004-06:002022-07-05T12:04:43.113-05:00I’m Thrilled To Be Vaccinated<p> I have a loose acquaintance who has a frame on her Facebook profile picture that says, “I don’t care that you are vaccinated.” There have been plenty of reactionary spoofs like this, related to COVID. I think people still think that it’s OK to play politics with the virus, or that if there are any undeniably political elements to safety and care in a COVID world, that opposition is morally neutral or good.</p><p>It’s an act of charity, to protect yourself. It’s an act of charity to protect others. I hope that “political” isn’t just “anything I don’t happen to like,” and that it’s not consequently synonymous with “social.” If there is no “we,” eventually, there is no “I.”</p><p>I won’t say that every vaccine refusal is illegitimate, obviously. Some of us literally cannot safely take it. But most are. And the facts are that this thing mutates, the more people it infects. With more mutations brings the possibility and even likelihood of greater lethality.</p><p>If some people might rightly argue that there has been paranoia about the virus, that presupposes another measure of legitimate concern. If you can’t identify an expression of legitimate concern—especially greater than your own—you have no basis to say that someone else is fearmongering.</p><p>I’ll be up front, and say that I don’t think forced vaccination would be illegitimate for the government to do. It may not be urgently necessary right now, but “unnecessary” and “illegitimate” are not synonymous. I do not prize my individual freedom over the good of others. You may not assume I don’t value my freedom at all. It’s this inability to see the limits of freedom that now threatens freedom. At least here on Earth, there is no freedom in death.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-47731874302489706452021-12-09T15:21:00.001-06:002021-12-09T15:21:59.920-06:00A Few Notes And Questions About (White) Evangelical Deconstruction<p> Let me get some potentially hostile questions out of the way. Is this deconstruction premised in philosophical skepticism? If it is, no one will be able to know when they have arrived anywhere meaningful, because it starts an endless loop of interrogation concerning one's own conclusions.</p><p>One obvious requirement, if someone wants to remove unnecessarily particular cultural baggage from an expression of Christianity, is that one be able to distinguish between that cultural baggage, and something that is universal to all, or fundamental to the Christian message. Is anyone actually able to make that distinction in a principled way? I haven't seen it.</p><p>And then we must deal with that troublesome word: "evangelical." I still don't always have a handle on what it means, but let's do the best we can, and give it a meaning that its proponents seem to agree with. "Evangelicalism" is a socio-cultural movement within Protestant Christianity, that emphasizes personal conversion, biblical inerrancy, and the historical fact of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Obviously, there is some overlap with the rest of Christianity as expressed by its adherents. We could criticize evangelicalism for lots of things, and plenty do, but I thought it would be most wise to define it positively, insofar as that is possible.</p><p>"Deconstruction," on the other hand, has meant a few things in different academic contexts. In practice, when I was a college student, to "deconstruct" something or someone meant using a Marxist framework to determine all the privileges that would render whatever this individual said as invalid, at least in terms of allowing the truth value of something they said to change the minds or perspectives of the students. If there is anything consonant with this admittedly loaded definition in the current use of the word "deconstruction," its advocates should give serious thought to choosing a different word, if in fact the stated desire to have a healthier, truer Christian faith is genuine.</p><p>One of the things getting expressed at the popular level to the whole concept of "privilege" is an opposition to the term, because it seems to imply that a speaker who has some sort of privilege is no longer supposed to be aiming at the truth in his or her speaking, but the possession of power. I personally have no objections to examining power relationships between people, and I have no objection to using a Marxist framework at least part of the time to examine aspects of our society, with a view towards improvement. However, fallacies and uncharitable interpretations dressed up in academic language remain what they are. If objective truth is not accessible or knowable, then this relativism boomerangs back upon those who would interrogate the present structures. There must be a common ground of definitions, and a possibility of truth that can be shared and held in common. There is something about true knowledge that creates an impulse for it to be shared. Or as St. Thomas Aquinas might have said, "the good is diffusive of itself."</p><p>Also, what is the relationship between evangelicalism, and the rest of Christianity? Is there a known scenario where evangelicalism would happily cease to exist? I think a lot of Christians do not even ask themselves this question. There is a lot more I could say, but I will leave you to consider on your own the profound implications, implied, but not stated.</p><p>A premise implied in my title here is that evangelicalism has not included nonwhite Christians in large numbers. Is assimilation into this subculture the only way to be an evangelical? Are there nonwhite expressions of it that fit under its umbrella?</p><p>I don't have any answers for you; I only have questions. Some of my questions might be argued to be assertions that appear to be questions, and that is fair enough, I suppose. In any case, I think people should start talking about them, instead of emoting on Twitter.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-17977713847176541052021-12-04T14:38:00.000-06:002021-12-04T14:38:38.937-06:00Moment To Moment<p> I always get a little jumpy, when I hear someone say they want to do great things <i>for</i> God. God doesn't need us to do things for him. We need to find ourselves <i>in</i> Him.</p><p>Have you ever had the thought that the moment that just passed was the moment that made your destiny? Even if it was mundane, that's a possibility. Lewis's devils in The Screwtape Letters seem to think that slow and steady wins the race for them.</p><p>I don't fancy myself a too impressive follower of Jesus, but if I can claim one moment for the good, if I can steal one moment of contemplation of the goodness of God, that is one moment less for evil, and one moment less of my participation in evil.</p><p>I have an awareness of my own failures enough to know that I haven't won anything; the forces of evil never stop, and they will never surrender. Yet I have an opportunity to string lots of little moments together, to make a life of goodness and charity.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-56888532871606877552021-12-03T20:19:00.000-06:002021-12-03T20:19:04.899-06:00Mitch McConnell Is An Unprincipled, Scheming Twerp (But Down With Roe)<p> It was dishonorable to sit on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland for over a year, and then hypocritically rush Justice Barrett through the process before an election.</p><p>Dishonorable, but not illegal.</p><p>I don’t think the seats were “stolen,” therefore; the Democrats got beaten at the game they started. Unless the confirmation process itself was illegal, no one on the Court sits illegally, and any noise to the contrary is just that.</p><p>And if Roe v. Wade goes down, there won’t be any sad tears here. My dislike for the GOP and President Trump notwithstanding.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-35454656269155206182021-11-30T21:07:00.005-06:002021-11-30T21:18:16.017-06:00Deep Thoughts, With Fall Out Boy<p><br /><br /> "They say the captain goes down with the ship So, when the world ends Will God go down with it?"<br /><br />--Fall Out Boy, "What A Catch, Donnie," (2008) "Folie a Deux" LP.</p><p><br /></p><p>--</p><p>It's a solid question, actually. The answer is surprising: yes. God did, in a sense, go down with the ship. We could see the world as we know it after the fall of mankind as in a certain way dominated by evil. God had of course promised to redeem, right from the beginning, but until the death of Christ, the great blow against evil had not been struck.</p><p>From one angle, the crucifixion of Jesus is the high point of the work of evil in the world. That's why his glorious resurrection is so important: if evil can't win there, evil can't win. Jesus consented to let the powers of evil do their worst to him. In the new world created by his resurrection, we want and expect good to take the place of evil. I won't sit here and say that it's going to continue to get better until the end, but the Cross (which implies the resurrection) tells us that we are winning, and have won.</p><p>Seen in another way, the world has ended multiple times. The people of God must have thought the world was ending when the Temple was desecrated and destroyed. The flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 sure looks like the end of the world, for those who experienced it. When the rebuilt Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. it must have seemed like the end of the world again.</p><p>We can read the so-called "Olivet discourse" in Matthew 24, to see specific language that sounds like the end of the world. Yet somehow Jesus knew that what he would do at the Cross would set things right, because he said, "Behold, I am making all things new!"</p><p>Honestly, I don't think even churchgoers really understand how radical Christianity is. A pastor friend of mine was talking the other day about how Christians, if they understand the story that God is telling correctly, they don't have to be afraid of the end of the world. Jesus redeemed us so that we were not afraid of the end of the world, but we could welcome it. The only way that it's truly going to work is if we are spiritually awake and alert, because we don't want to be ashamed, when he comes to find us.</p><p>Regular readers by now are becoming accustomed to my familiarity and affection for popular music. Really, I just do it to make Bryan Cross think that he might be missing out on something. Perhaps he is, at that. I would like to think that even my leisure time of listening to music can be taken captive to true reality, and these lyrics caught my attention. It was worth a note.</p><p>For the simple sake of enjoyment, I can say that I really enjoy the singing of Patrick Stump, the lead singer of Fall Out Boy. They sound like a soul singer started a hard rock band. You can definitely do worse. Daryl Hall from Hall and Oates sang with him. He certainly didn't do too bad, covering their songs. </p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-47169991432454412202021-11-21T13:07:00.002-06:002021-11-21T13:07:15.940-06:00Christ The King<p> That's what we celebrate today. It's a bit like Church New Year's, and that makes sense, because after this is Advent. As I think back over the year, it's a lot. We have much to be thankful for, but we have much to weep and cry about.</p><p>It's so hard to be a Christian, and I don't mean just in the usual spiritual ways. It is the hardest when the people who are supposed to be like Christ to us fail in some heinous way.</p><p>I honestly can't blame anyone who goes through the darkness of unbelief, if their spiritual leader does something truly evil. It goes beyond the forgiveness that Jesus requires of us in "normal" life. If we lose our temper, or we forget something important, or we say something hurtful, these are things that are normal, almost routine.</p><p>And then some things are much, much worse.</p><p>It's natural to wonder if God is watching, and if he is watching, why isn't he doing anything?</p><p>Tim and I were talking about this the other day, and I recalled that forgiveness according to the Hebrew mind is multifaceted. There is one forgiveness that expects and requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and restitution. And we know in the cases of many evildoers, that this acknowledgment and restitution may never come. Yet there is another kind of forgiveness, almost given as a gift to ourselves, so that we are not consumed by anger and bitterness. It is unilateral, and it does not depend upon what others do, or fail to do. Neither forgiveness is easy to offer. Yet we might even realize that we cannot stay in a certain place. To carry burdens, we have to take them somewhere, to someone. We're not meant to hold them in place. Suffice to say, life is a journey, and some parts of the journey are extremely hard.</p><p>If I can will the good for someone else, then I love them, even if we're not going to have dinner or a beer together. And in some cases, we really shouldn't. So on this day when we celebrate Christ as King, I think we should proclaim him as Prince of Peace as well. It's a peace that we may be struggling to obtain, but it is a peace that we truly desire.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3752793.post-43168362990094849082021-11-13T13:27:00.000-06:002021-11-13T13:27:13.483-06:00Subsidized Insulin And Chemo? Do It. (A Response To A Silly COVID Vaccination Meme)<p> The reason why the vaccines against COVID are being provided free of charge to citizens is that a large group of citizens that are unvaccinated poses a serious health risk to everyone, not just to themselves. Of course, this shared burden of risk is why "I'll take my chances" is an incredibly selfish reason to refuse the vaccine.</p><p>And you would have to believe that a good socialist or a social democrat is going to call this bluff, if you somehow argue that diabetes or cancer treatment is more worthy of being paid for by the government. The person who posted this foolish meme is now in the process of backtracking and denying that she favors "socialism," but the clear implication of the argument, such as it is, is that she favors public funding for the things that she worries about, and not the things that you might worry about, like catching the virus that causes Covid-19. If this strikes you as inconsistent, well, it is.</p><p>For my part, the only thing more galling about what passes for "conservatism" today is when that same system of thought is covered in a "spiritual" blanket.</p>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05095369621205684858noreply@blogger.com0