"...but they assume ... not create the nature of marriage"

Continuing a theme I've been, okay, harping on for several years: the Archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George, OMI, recently offered some "Reflections on 'Chicago values'." Notice where this Christian teacher's reflection on marriage begins:

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Both Church and state do, however, have an interest in regulating marriage. It is not that religious marriage is private and civil marriage public; rather, marriage is a public institution in both Church and state. The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society....

People who are not Christian or religious at all take for granted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of family and, of its nature, for life. The laws of civilizations much older than ours assume this understanding of marriage. This is also what religious leaders of almost all faiths have taught throughout the ages. Jesus affirmed this understanding of marriage when he spoke of “two becoming one flesh” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Was Jesus a bigot? Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more “enlightened” if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free. Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage....

Read it all here at the Catholic Chicago Blog.

Leroy Huizenga used this on Thursday over at First Things' "On the Square" to offer a cautionary word to both those of us who desire to conserve marriage in our culture and those who desire to re-cast it into something new:

Because of the harmony of faith and reason, thoughtful Christians can speak of marriage in terms of both categories. And we sometimes confuse categories, and that proves confusing to the general public. But make no mistake: Our defense of marriage is no act of legerdemain, in which we try to force what we know solely by revelation on the public. (Observe no one is pushing laws forcing participation in the sacraments or forbidding participation in a particular faith.) Rather, we are concerned for the common good, a rational concern motivated by our very faith. Convinced that reason and nature teach us the truth about marriage, we will continue to make arguments in the public square about the public goods of marriage, for no society or person can long thrive kicking against the goads of reason and nature.

Read it all here in Huizenga's post, "Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious." And note that I've linked a definition for "legerdemain" in that quote.

Hat tip to Joe Carter at "Mere Comments," the Touchstone blog.

The HHS Mandate: What's at Stake?

"We don't ask people for their baptismal certificate, nor do we ask people for their U.S. passport, before we can serve them, OK? . . . We don't serve people because they're Catholic, we serve them because we are, and it's a moral imperative for us to do so."

That's Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, in James Taranto's "Weekend Interview" in The Wall Street Journal entitled "When the Archbishop Met the President."  You can read the entire article here (unless it gets hidden behind the Journals paywall).

In the interview Cardinal Dolan speaks of his conversations initiated by President Obama regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's new mandate that all forms of birth control be covered by medical insurance plans, including the plans of those for whom some (or all) forms of contraception are morally repugnant.

Mr. Obama knew that the mandate would pose difficulties for the Catholic Church, so he invited Archbishop Dolan to the Oval Office last November, shortly before the bishops' General Assembly in Baltimore. At the end of their 45-minute discussion, the archbishop summed up what he understood as the president's message:

"I said, 'I've heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?' [Mr. Obama] said, 'You bet it does.'"

The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. "You don't have my permission, you've got my request," the president replied.

"So you can imagine the chagrin," Archbishop Dolan continues, "when he called me at the end of January to say that the mandates remain in place and that there would be no substantive change, and that the only thing that he could offer me was that we would have until August. . . . I said, 'Mr. President, I appreciate the call. Are you saying now that we have until August to introduce to you continual concerns that might trigger a substantive mitigation in these mandates?' He said, 'No, the mandates remain. We're more or less giving you this time to find out how you're going to be able to comply.' I said, 'Well, sir, we don't need the [extra time]. I can tell you now we're unable to comply.'"

Cardinal Dolan has more to say about controversy that has ensued, both within the Catholic Church and the nation in general, particularly regarding what appropriate and proper "ministry" of the Church is in our land.  

The archbishop sees a parallel irony in his dispute with Mr. Obama: "This is a strange turn of the table, that here a Catholic cardinal is defending religious freedom, the great proposition of the American republic, and the president of the United States seems to be saying that this is a less-than-important issue."

Strange indeed. Alas, that is also the current state of the Republic. Again, read the interview here -- it's really important.

Tip o' the hat to James Kushiner at Touchstone's "Mere Comments."

"Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge..."

The Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, reflects on further on the New York legislature's re-definition of marriage in his blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age. Note especially his reminder of something the media and proponents of this change keep steering us away from, that marriage is "at the very foundation of civilization, which the state has the duty to defend and protect, not to mutate." That sort of statement ought not surprise any of my readers. Archbishop Dolan says a lot more, and I encourage you to ponder his words -- all of them.

Hat tip to Touchstone's Mere Comments.

Some Afterthoughts

Almost two weeks ago — hauntingly, on the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist, whom King Herod would behead because the saint dared to defend the God-given truth about marriage — our state sadly attempted a re-definition of marriage. Is there anything left to say?

Yes.

For one, thanks to those courageous millions who valiantly fought this unfortunate project of social engineering. You can hold your heads high. Sanely, civilly, thoughtfully, vigorously . . . you did not cave-in. The forces on the other side were a Goliath indeed — with tons of money, “glitterati” from entertainment circles, political powerbrokers, and the media — but you proved a worthy David.

You will understand my special word of gratitude to people of faith — evangelicals, Mennonites, Jews, Moslem, Catholics, Amish, and so many more, led often by African-American and Latino believers — who simply believe that marriage is a given, at the very foundation of civilization, which the state has the duty to defend and protect, not to mutate.

My brother bishops of New York were particularly prophetic. When I arrived here a little over two-years ago, they told me realistically that we faced a looming battle over the defense of marriage. They advised me that the odds were not in our favor, and that some experts were even suggesting that we give-in and not put up a fight.

But they were also resolute in their conviction that such would have been a dereliction of duty. As Blessed John Paul II often commented, the Church is “counter-cultural,” like Jesus, often at odds with what passes as chic, enlightened, and progressive. In their writings, sermons, personal lobbying, interviews, and our common statements — backed up by indefatigable efforts by our New York State Catholic Conference, bolstered by ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and, especially, supported by countless thousands of our faithful Catholic people (one legislator told me he received 47,000 e-mails against the measure from the Catholic Advocacy Network) — the bishops were on the frontiers. We have been bloodied, and bruised, and, yes, for the moment, we have been defeated. But, we’re used to that. So was the Founder of our Church.

Two, the Church neither has nor wants political “clout.” As Cardinal John O’Connor commented, “The only ‘clout’ the Church really has is God’s Truth, the assurance of His grace, and the simple yet sincere conviction of our people.” Blessed John Paul II again reminds us that “The Church never imposes, she only proposes.” And as our current Holy Father has often observed, all the Church wants is its freedom to serve humanity by bringing the light of the gospel to the world.

But, three, we do worry indeed about this freedom of religion. Editorials already call for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty, with crusaders calling for people of faith to be coerced to acceptance of this redefinition. If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world.

Four, the real forces of “intolerance” were unmasked here. The caricature, of course, is that those defending traditional marriage were the right-wing bigots and bullies. However, as one out-of-state journalist, who was following the debate closely, commented to me, “From my read of the columns, blogs, and rhetoric, it’s not your side that’s lobbing the grenades.” A Catholic who wrote to criticize me for my defense of marriage still conceded, “But I must confess that I am sickened by the amount of anti-Catholic venom that has surfaced in this debate.” As one respected columnist has observed, the problem is not homophobia but theophobia — a hatred by some of God, faith, religion, and the Church.

Five, though, if we did hurt anybody in our defense of marriage, I apologize. We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never anti-gay. But, I’m afraid some within the gay community were offended. As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, “Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message. If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.

Point six, the Church has always stood-up for marriage — one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love, leading to new life in children – whenever and wherever it was in danger. Veterans my age and over can remember sixty years ago when we fought widespread, no-fault divorce, convinced it would lead to a cheapening of the marriage bond and harm our kids (as, of course, scholarly studies now report has, indeed, happened). Recall how the Church resisted the “contraceptive mentality,” fearing it would rupture the sacred bond between love and the procreation of children. Then, remember how the Church sounded the alarm over rising rates of promiscuity, adultery, pre-marital sex, and cohabitation prior to or instead of marriage. And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!

Let me say it again. None of this is anti-anybody, but simply pro marriage.

(By the way, as Professor Robert George at Princeton University eloquently points out, in warning about promiscuity, divorce, cohabitation instead of marriage, adultery, and “same-sex marriage,” the Church is hardly some shrill, bitter, reactionary, naysaying prude, but actually prophetically right-on-target. Recent studies by people such as Myron Magnet and Kay Hymowitz show that the weakening of stable marriage and families is the cause of most social and cultural woes, especially burdensome on poor women and children.)

Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes. We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality. Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth. (Although I still believe most people do; thus the fear of a referendum on the issue by those who still claim this is a “grassroots movement” sweeping the nation.) Yes, we do have our work cut out for us, as even some Catholics, and, scandalously, even political leaders who claim to be Catholic, tell us the Church is “out of it,” and has no claim on truth.

So, we try our best to witness to the truth, encouraging our married couples and their kids to be loving, radiant, “lights to the world.” We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right. Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 7th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Thank you, Archbishop Dolan, for your continued forthright teaching.

Revitalizing the Mainline?

Arrrgh! Why did I not find out about this until just now? Looks like a good conference near Chicago, starting Friday, for those of us who are are not leaving our mainline (oldline, sideline) denominations. Hat tip Mere Comments.

ANSWERING THE CALL - Chicago - Aug 6-8

Conference on Replanting, Revitalizing and Pastoring the Church

Do you believe that God is calling you to reach out to a community with the message of Christ? Do you have an unshakable love for Christ’s church even with all her flaws? Do you desire to transform a church towards being missional in all it does? Does the idea of church replanting intrigue you? Are you interested in reaching new American mission fields with the gospel? Do you long to energize the local church with a passion to reach the world for Christ?

One of the emerging ministry opportunities is open pulpits in mainline^* churches. There is a mainline church at the center of almost everyone town in America. They provide a great opportunity to reach communities with the message of Christ starting from the center of town.

Keynote Speakers:

• Ed Stetzer - Being Missional in your Community
• John Hull - Being a Servant Leader
• Jim Tomberlin - Leveraging Multi-Site concepts for church growth
• John Armstrong - Your church is too small: Missional Ecumenicalism

Practical workshops on the “how to” aspects of church replanting/revitalization

Pre-Conference Church Replanting Bootcamp

• Why Replant Churches
• What Does a Church Replanter Look Like?
• Church Replanting Is Not A Tweak – Setting Vision & Leading Change
• Church Replanting Is Not A Task - Understanding Culture and Working with People

This conference is for pastors, laity and students interested in learning how to minister the gospel in the mainline. August 5-7, 2010 in Chicago, Il at Elmhurst College. This will be a great time to think, learn and discuss how to apply the scriptures to the task of sharing Christ in our communities via mainline churches.

For more details

• Website: www.mainlinecall.org
• Registration: mainlinecall.org/registration/
• Download the brochure

See you this summer in Chicago!

^*Mainline churches typically include the American Baptist, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church.

Dr. Tiller & the Visitation

Note: I deliberately held off a week before posting this.

The in-church murder of the notorious Kansas abortionist George Tiller happened as the congregation was about to begin its worship for the Day of Pentecost, which being always the 50th day of Easter, is a movable feast. Most other Christian feasts (Christmass and Epiphany are the most prominent examples) fall on fixed dates. As one of the most major festivals, Pentecost is able to "push around" festivals that aren't quite as, well, major. So with Pentecost falling on Sunday, May 31, the festival assigned to May 31 got a rather short shrift. In fact, the Church's practice in this sort of situation is usually to transfer the celebration to the next day. (That's what we do in the Lutheran church -- except that few actually had services of any sort on Monday, June 1.)

Over at Touchstone's Mere Comments, Robert George noted the, uh, irony of this despicable act happening on the festival called The Visitation, the day the Church commemorates the pregnant Blessed Virgin Mary's visit to her older, pregnant cousin, Elizabeth.

Dr. Tiller & the Visitation

Alas, notorious abortion "doctor" George Tiller went to meet his Maker today, the victim of a homicide. In the foyer of his Lutheran church in Wichita, Kansas. The alleged murderer has been caught, according to report. God have mercy on both.

I note what is, to me at least, a strange irony, that today is May 31. It is the fixed date for Western Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin. Mary, soon after the Annunciation, with Child, goes to meet and greeted Elizabeth, six months with child, and the babe in the womb of Elizabeth--John the Baptist--leaps for joy at the sound of Mary's voice, and Elizabeth, too, responds in wonder at the fact that the "Mother of my Lord" has arrived and greeted her. Two women with child, one a Virgin and the other past the years of child-bearing, meet, and John and Jesus are there, with John, as it were, beginning his ministry of announcing Jesus the Christ in the womb with leaping. For years friends and I have advocated that the Sunday in May closest to May 31 be observed in chuches as "Sanctity of Life," also somewhat in connection with Memorial Day and its remembrance of lives lost in war. Of course, we have a Sanctity of Life Sunday already, in January because of the date of the U.S. 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which opened the floodgates for the Dr. Tillers and other "abortion providers." It would be better to observe Sanctity of Life Sunday not only in the US but elsewhere in connection with the Gospel of the Visitation. It is a rich and significant Gospel that the churches, including Dr. Tiller's own Lutheran church, apparently, ignore.

Too much blood, too many victims. Dr. Tiller's many, many victims. His own life ended in cold blood. Roe opened this door and he went through it. I've written elsewhere about how bad laws make bad men. There will always be bad men (who of us is without sin?) but laws can make us worse, and abandoning the respect for human life in the womb cannot but make a nation worse. The children of Roe are rising up. Lord, have mercy.

Shock Value

What is more shocking? The things that shock us or the things that don't?

The current issue of Touchstone arrived yesterday and, fortunately for you, the article Shock Value is available on this fine magazine's website. Subtitled Pro-Life Transgressions of the Avant-Garde, author Micah Mattix juxtaposes the responses on the campus of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to two events that happened one week last fall:

a “gender-bending” play that would push the limits of experimental drama in its exploration of human sexuality

and a display where:

Carolina Students for Life erected several large Justice for All placards on campus, which contained pictures of unborn children being aborted.

Mattix concludes,

In theory, at least, one of the goals of the avant-garde has been to attack the tastes and moral sensibilities of the bourgeois. It has thus presented works containing subject matter that was indeed considered shocking at the time, works that were created out of relativistic theories of composition. Gone was the notion that art represented, in imaginative form, images of beauty and truth. These were replaced—once again, in theory—with works that presented beliefs and morals as constructed.

The avant-garde theater at Chapel Hill, however, no longer attacks the sensibilities of the students, but rather provides them with the sort of work they want to see in the first place—work that does not challenge their moral paradigm, but confirms it—because the moral paradigm implicit in the avant-garde has now become the moral paradigm of much of the middle class. This, of course, is done in the guise of carrying on the tradition of the avant-garde. What is really avant-garde today, in the original, combative sense of the term, is to stand for life, for beauty, and for truth. Nothing shocks us more.

Read it all here.

Better, run to your newsstand and get the whole issue. And if you don't already subscribe to Touchstone, why not?

Shared via AddThis

What Do They Want?

Continuing the line of thought from my previous post... Olmsted writes,

What we’re looking for, in my opinion, is validation.

We want the state to affirm that our relationships are equal to heterosexual unions, but we reject the state’s response as inadequate, because it is lacks the societal imprimatur of marriage.

In fact, what is lacking is the psychosocial approval inherent with the association of the religious bodies that have traditional overseen this realm.

I could have sworn that my coming out as a gay man, my inner self-affirmation, came about precisely as a result of the rejection of the principle whereby what I thought of myself was a function of what society or the church said was right and good.

Aren’t we barking up that same tree now? If we claim to know our relationships are equal to theirs and as sacred, why are we insisting on their benediction?

This morning while reading the October issue of Touchstone, I took note of David Tubbs' review of Prof. David M. Halperin's 2007 book What Do Gay Men Want? entitled "Sodom on Itself." Prof. Tubbs notes that the book isn't particularly about same-sex marriage, but it offers some insight into gay liberation. He writes,

The book is an extended essay, and among its purposes is a defense of male homosexuals from the charge of dangerous, and potentially suicidal, conduct during the AIDS epidemic. Halperin is candid about the promiscuity of many gay men, even those in "committed" relationships, and he would seemingly (his arguments are sometimes maddeningly qualified) resist any attempt to "domesticate" them.

He argues that the key variable is whether the sexual partners have the same "serostatus." Thus, two men who are HIV-positive (or HIV-negative) should not automatically be criticized for having sex without condoms, even if they are stranger to each other.

He also argues that heterosexual men and women deserve equal criticism for risky sexual behavior, pointing out that "gay sex" accounted for only one-third of the new cases of AIDS repported in the United States in 2005. (He knows that American homosexuals do not constitute anything like one-third of the population, so the problem with this argument will be evident to may readers.

Acknowledging the realities of the "gay" life, Halperin admits that some men may not know if they are HIV-positive. A homosexual man who is regularly tested for AIDS—say, once every three or four months—may also regularly have "unprotected" sex between tests and be coy about revealing his behavior to others, including his live-in partner.

Halperin is loath to criticize such men. He insists that sexual intimacy without a condom is more pleasureable, and that homosexual men are not "crazy" to accept the risks. Much depends on individual temperament, including a man's tolerance for risk and the motives for his behavior. Crucially, he rejects—as naïve and "antiquated"—an unfailing use of condoms as the best strategy to eliminate the spread of AIDS.

This matter takes us to the heart of the book. Halperin wants to promote some kind of comprehensive inquiry into the inner lives of male homosexual—their "subjectivity," or (less pretentiously) "what gay men want," with special reference to their propensity to engage in risky sexual behavior.

Psychology would seem to be well suited to answer such questions, but homosexual people widely distrust it. As an academic and therapeutic discipline, psychology long deemed a romantic attraction to persons of the seme sex as illegitimate or abnormal desire. For that reason, Halperin wants to go elsewhere.

The inquiry he favors should avoid the "judgmental" tendencies of psychology and not assume that gay men engage in risky behavior from low self-esteem, doubts about their sexual identity, or a dangerous impulsiveness. Instead, researchers should try to discern their motives for engaging in risky sex and affirm those motives.

Above all, researchers ought to recognize that these motives can be "transgressive" in roughly the same way that queer theorists say the entire "gay" life is trtansgressive. By this, Halperin means an unwillingness or refusal to be "proper and good." His views amount to a deep disdain for traditional sexual ethics and the moral norms needed to sustain marriages and families.

If public health officials recognize the legitimacy of transgressive motives and impulses, Halperin argues, they can devise kmore workable strategies against the spread of AIDS. The goal is not "safe sex," but "safer sex." The latter, naturally, is more permissive than the former.

Halperin's program to conquer AIDS through "safer sex" rests on his reading of other queer theorists and his review of much social research, but the weakness of the book's central argument should be plain. Put aside his high-brow references to Michel Foucault, psychoanalytic thought, and gay "subjectivity," and you will find a very egalitarian liberal.

When defending risky sexual practices, he sometimes writes as a rugged individualists, a man who accepts the consequences of his actions and has no need to curry favor with the public. Yet he cannot ignore the American public.

He cannot ignore it because it allegedly owes gay men substantial resources to stop the spread of AIDS, as well as approval and support for their way of life. It owes them, he declares, "support for a vibrant, sophisticated and safe gay sexual culture as well as . . . reliable, appropriate, and practical information about how to prevent HIV infection."

Is this reasonable? Since he promotes and applauds "transgressive" conduct meant to destroy real marriages and stable families, why should the body politic extend its hand to him and his peers? What does it owe them? Halperin would at one moment spit on that hand, and in the next moment grasp it for support.

For the reasons that Buckley gave, it is hard to know if Halperin speaks for a majority of American homosexuals. But "queer theory" is increasingly respectable, as evidenced by the publication of this book by a prominent state university press.

Despite the weakness of the book's main argument and its endorsement of sexual anarchy, Halperin and his allies may be winning the war to define marriage. This portends grave consequences for the rest of us—but perhaps for them as well.

Alas, the entire review is not (yet?) online, but you can find it in the October 2008 issue of Touchstone magazine.

Think of that as you digest reports of demonstrations in our streets (and church conventions).

Enemies of the Permanent Things

Decisions, decisions. Do I post this on my seldom read (and rather infrequently used) 21st Century Whig blog, or here? I try to save my more overtly "political" thoughts for the other blog, but in this land of "separation of church and state," and even as a pastor who follows Luther's distinctions of the Two Kingdoms, making the distinction is not always very easy. Well, if Touchstone and First Things can easily set aside the distinction for the sake of commentary, I suppose I can on occasion, too. After all, both Kingdoms are ruled by God. So, here goes.

Over at Touchstone magazine's Mere Comments (listed first in my "Blogs for Faithful Churchmen" because it is the most ecumenical of them), Anthony Esolen writes about what's been going on in his mind has he promotes his The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization while in the midst of reading Russell Kirk's essay collection, Enemies of the Permanent Things (out of print, but do click that link to Kirk).

Esolen concludes this post with this:

I have wanted to say, "When a high court overthrows over two millennia of western tradition, all English common law, and the express will of the people, to engage in an unheard of experiment touching upon the most intimate matters of human society -- marriage and the family -- and when the people supinely put up with it, at best hoping to tweak the decision or overturn it in some vainly hoped-for election, then it is not the case that civic liberty will soon be lost. It already has been lost. Quit looking at the ephemeral! Your forefathers rebelled over a few high-handed taxes without parliamentary representation. They and their descendants for a hundred and fifty years would have tarred and feathered the silly members of that court, denouncing them as fools and tyrants, and putting them back in their place." Tarring and feathering, by the way, if carried on with a due consideration for sex and age and physical debility, need cause the honoree no permanent physical damage, and yet it is an excellent deterrent.

To one host I did say, as I've said in my book, that I believe that the ideals of western civilization will not pass away, because they are based upon truth, and guaranteed by Truth Himself, the one who keeps His promises. Whether those Permanent Things survive in a nation called The United States (or the Corraled Geldings) is another question.

Yeah, it may belong there a bit more than here. But either place it's something to consider in this (apparently) revolutionary time.

Just Asking for It

At the top of my "Blogs for Faithful Churchmen" is Mere Comments, the blog for Touchstone magazine, to which I've subscribed since 1999 and which I often read cover-to-cover. I list it first because it is explicitly ecumenical in perspective. The others have varying ranges of ecumenical content, but also have a more particular perspective -- Anglican, Catholic, and Lutheran. I believe all of them are worth reading for anyone, even non-Christians, but Mere Comments/Touchstone specializes in "mere Christianity" that crosses churchly boundaries.

Ecumenical does not, however, mean mealy-mouthed or watered down -- to which the slogan shown here on their coffee mug attests. No, it's "caffeinated Christianity" and, like the Lord and his Apostles, it's bound to occasionally offend those of delicate sensibilities.

Today's post by Touchstone Executive Editor James M. Kushiner is one of those entries. Upon reading it might wonder how it would come to pass that an ELCA pastor would even make reference to it, much less do what I'm about to do here. Well, his initial reference to St. Barbara reminds me of the lovely city near my home named after her, the California Mission in that city named after her, and my association when I was in seminary with the Franciscan School of Theology (founded with that Mission) -- run by the St. Barbara Province of the Franciscan Friars. And when reading the article I just had to put it somewhere where I could never lose it.

Some of you may object to it; others will give a rousing "Amen!" Either way, I post this in its entirety and intend to just leave it at that. It is worth pondering, though.

Women Who Are Equal

Scholars have discounted the existence of St. Barbara, an early Christian martyr, according to the stories, traditionally commemorated on Dec. 4 in the East and West. Hence she was "supressed" in the West in 1969. This is not the place to discuss the details of her case, but in looking at her story and reading a recent article about female saints, I was struck once again by the role of women saints in the history of the church. The sheer number of them belies claims that women were generally suppressed or oppressed in the Church, second-class citizens so to speak. I'd like to focus on one bit of phraseology that I find suggestive, one that has informed my own view of the place of the fairer sex in the company of the saints.

The phrase "equal to the apostles" is used of certain figures in church history considered of great importance in the spread of the Faith: hence in the Orthodox churches we find Prince Vladimir "Equal-to-the-Apostles," enlightener of the Russian land (July 15), for example.

This phrase also has been applied to women saints: Mary Magdalene (July 22) "Equal-to-the-Apostles," St. Nina Equal-to-the-Apostles, (Jan. 14) enlightener of Georgia. The martyr Rhipsime (Sept. 30), while not given this title, is still credited with helping to introduce Christianity to Armenia. Women are found in the calendar throughout, from various times and places: There is the Prophetess Huldah in the Old Testament (2 Kgs. 2:14) (April 10); Mary of Egypt (April 1) is featured in some of the Lenten services. Six women are included in this partial list of those Equal-to-Apostles.

The role of women in the "patriarchal" church has been robust, if not as visible as that of men. So why not just allow them to be Apostles--or bishops? When it comes to "office" and the wearing the uniform of headship in the church, only men are given that role because--in my opinion--men need uniforms, a defined office, a duty to take on, to put them in their place, to keep them in line. Experience shows that when you start giving the uniform to the fairer sex, the men start to drop out (e.g., the dearth of altar boys when girls are included). That's just the way it is, and I don't see how any re-education would ever change that. Besides, there are some churches now with female bishops and do we really want to go there? A happy breakthrough? An inspired innovation? Hilda of Whitby would be appalled.

Yeah. I'm just asking for it. Read the responses here. Or make your own here or in private.

Remember this during the debate...

Okay, I just couldn't resist. Thanks to Touchstone's Mere Comments for pointing me into yet one more helpful (okay, they describe it as "brutal") direction.

For more similarly inclined, uh, motivational posters click here. It's a good thing these weren't around when I was in seminary....

Jesus' Body Found!

It's Lent, the season Christians prepare for the remembrance of Christ's Passion and a time for the media go wild over the "latest new find" showing that the death and resurrection of Jesus are nonsense. This time it's a Discovery Channel "documentary," The Jesus Family Tomb, along with a book, brought to us by the director of The Titanic.

James M. Kushner over at Touchstone magazine's Mere Comments offers a most succinct response:

Funny that when evidence against Jesus's Resurrection was most needed--during that time when several hundred witnesses were openly squawking about it--those interested in such evidence (his alleged bones in a box even conveniently labelled as such) somehow missed the boxes right under their noses. They could've nipped his religious movement in the bud, having failed the first time on Good Friday.

Unbeknownst to James Cameron, but obvious even to Time magazine Christians have been visiting the tomb of Jesus since the days of Roman Emperors. I visited it myself in 1985!

As for His Body, you will find it at Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church of Peoria and lots of other churches. Come on by, Mr. Cameron, and I'll show you.