Is God Punishing America?

"When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. Then the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home."


Genesis 18:16-33

We love to focus on the negative aspects of American society. Abortion is rampant, divorces are rising, kids are getting into drugs, there is gang violence, corrupt politicians, pornography, murder, obscenity, blasphemy, slander and do not get me started on what people watch in movies.

When we are done lambasting society we turn to the Church. Doctrine is awful, the Bible is disregarded, clergy earn too much, this or that movement is a sign of the times, congregations are too big or too small, we do not give enough, tithing is unbiblical, we do not talk about sin, we do not show enough love and do not get me started on worship music.

It would seem that the USA is ripe for a little fire and brimstone. And every-time tornado season comes around that predictable vocal minority gleefully preach “God is judging America!” I shan't comment on the validity of this claim but I think we could all use a break from the USA painted by the aggressive pessimists. I will briefly encapsulate the America I see.

For every baby murdered there are a loving parents who worship God through tear filled eyes praising Him for the blessing of a child. There are even potential parents pleading with all they have for a baby, not a healthy baby, or a baby of their race, or even a baby from their genetic code, just a child that they can give their all to. For every divorce there are devoted spouses celebrating every wonderful day together. There are also struggling couples trying desperately to solve their problems and are often accompanied by those who went through the struggles and came out holding hands. For every kid getting into drugs there are parents willing to cut out their own heart only to save their child. Every kid in a gang has a counterpart in college, both have Grandmas praying for their souls. Every corrupt politician is disgraced only because their constituents believe morality is an essential quality in Leadership. Many young people grappling with porn have a parent or pastor who guide them from their temptation with non-judgmental love. We all ask what caused Seung-Hui Cho to murdered twenty-five people at Virginia Tech; but do we ask what caused Liviu Librescu, a holocaust survivor, to forcibly prevented Cho from entering the room by holding the door closed until most of his students escaped through the windows.  Librescu died after being shot multiple times through the door.


There are vile doctrines permeating from the Church and I know they are growing. But this is nothing new. I know many heretics but I know many people who go against the religion of their entire family in order to follow God in truth.  Some are putting down their Bibles and picking up their i-Phone but just around the corner there is a child bagging groceries to raise money for Bibles in China, there are designers who are bringing the Bible to the i-Phone, there are still people learning their favorite verses verbatim so they can turn to the Lord's promises in times of need. Affluent and impoverished alike find some obscure justification for a tightfisted approach to money but I have met the widows who go without food in order to send that extra $5 to the destitute. I know the unsung minority who hire surplus staff just so that person can have the dignity and resources to feed themselves. There are Pastors with exorbitant incomes but there are a humble few who live in trailers and pick up cans at the side of the road in order to pay rent and buy their kids a stick of gum.


God promised to save Sodom if there was a tiny population of good people, just a few, and Sodom would have been saved. Well guess what people...America is full of heroes of the faith. At times they are quiet, humble, unremarkable, or even socially unpresentable but God views their devotion. There are more than five or five thousand or even five million and they are all around. They are present and beautiful. Before we jump on the critical bandwagon remember the prayer of old that adjourns the Catholic Mass,


“Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your people.”

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

Women Preachers being Silent in Church

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1st Timothy 2:9-15 (King James Version)

Paul's comments about women in 1^st Timothy chapter 2 are, in and of themselves, misogynistic, prejudiced, and violate egalitarian principles put forward in other Pauline literature; but by recreating the contemporary worldviews of Paul's day we may be able explain this apparent contradiction. The powerful emotions that gender based vocations arouse in people color their exegesis. For example, feminists do not accept these verses as authoritative, whereas a male chauvinist uses 1^st Timothy as the hallmark of his philosophy. These positions do not seek find the author's original intent but rather to have their worldview inserted unnaturally into the text. If we want to know the author's original intent we must demystify the text by crossing the barriers that separate us from the author's thought process. The barriers of time, culture, distance, and language can be diminished if we examine the text retrieving the historical-cultural background. By doing so we see Paul was attempting to counteract the effects of a popular heresy. This heresy is not only a one-time occurrence but also rather a particular religious persuasion that has produced predictable results throughout the church's history. Paul's situation may have been unique but the evil he sought to destroy has consistently reappeared and produced similar results as that which occurred in Ephesus.

There are several clues in the text that give us hints as to what problems needed to be solved in the Ephesian church. Gordon Fee reasons that a heresy had arisen (Fee, 1991, pg 55). Fee deciphers the heresy had elements of exclusivism due to Paul's seemingly unwarranted mention that Christ died for all and wants all to be saved (1^st Tim 2:4-6) (Fee, 1991, pg 57). It is likely that Paul was addressing a heresy that was an early frontrunner to the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. A first century alternative to this “New Doctrine” was Gnosticism. The Gnostics were extreme fatalists; they dismissed free will and taught that humanity's salvation could not be effected by choice. Again, we can see the early traits of Calvinism in the teaching. It would be a logical step between God not wanting to save some and Christ not dying for all people. There are further clues in the text that Paul was chastising Gnostic teaching:

1. In 1^st Tim 1:4 Paul advises against studying “fables and endless genealogies”. The Church Fathers believed the studying of speculative genealogies to be a Gnostic characteristic. (Twomey, 2009, pg 19)
2. 1^st Tim 2:4 instructs his author to come to “knowledge of the Truth”. The word Gnostic comes from the Greek word γνωσις (Lindell, 2003, pg 144) meaning knowledge. Here Paul is using a pun, for he uses ἐπίγνωσις meaning full knowledge (Lindell, 2003, pg 249). He also qualifies ἐπίγνωσις with truth, hence emphasizing that the Gnostic's knowledge was false and should be abandoned for true and full knowledge.
3. 1^st Tim 2:5 emphasizes there is one Mediator between God and man. This declaration of Christ as mediator is uniquely Pauline (if Paul wrote Hebrews). In this instance it seems out of place. Augustine, a former Gnostic, taught there were two mediators between man and God, one being Christ and the other being sin (Twomey, 2009, pg 39). It may be that Augustine was attempting to Christianize a pagan doctrine he was familiar with. Augustine was also a fatalist, who prescribed to limited atonement (Twomey, 2009, pg 13). It is noteworthy that a former Gnostic disavowed two major tenets of one chapter of 1 Timothy.
4. Most Gnostics practiced asceticism, so it is unlikely they would need to be warned on appropriate attire as Paul does in 1^st Tim 2:9. History, however, provides a window to the behavior of the Gnostics of Paul's day. Irenaeus tells us of the sexually promiscuous behavior of Gnostic leaders, who were particularly attracted to the best-dressed and wealthiest women (Logan, 2004, pg 177). It is conceivable that women were dressing provocatively in order to attract Gnostic leaders. In order to gain acceptance into this exclusive sect the women were likely attracting the male leadership with ornate dress.
5. 1^st Tim 2:11-12 tells women to be silent in Church and forbids them to teach men. In Tertullian's critique of the Gnostics he mentions women's predominance in the church, that they were "bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures— it may be even to baptize. Their ordinations, are carelessly administered, capricious, changeable" (Tertullian, Chap 41) . The fact that women adopted preaching duties builds the case that Paul was referring to a specific problem and group.
6. In an apparent justification for diminishing women's authority, Paul relies on Genesis to establish a hierarchy based on birth order. Yet I propose that 1^st Tim 2:13-14 is in response to Gnostic teaching. The Gnostic creation accounts differs drastically from the Biblical account. For example, in one of the Gnostic creation accounts Eve brings Adam to life and then instructs him (Pagels, 1989, pg 31). I propose the Gnostics were teaching that women had authority to enlighten based on their version of the creation account. Paul was not telling women to be silent in Church, but rather retorting how women do not have authority based on the Genesis account. Paul was smart enough to realize that being created first was not a stamp of authority. If it were, a fish would hold greater authority than humanity. Paul counteracts such nonsense by telling us “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” 1 Cor 11:12
7. Paul's controversial statement on childbirth is difficult to elucidate, but through the light of Gnostic doctrine certain elements are illuminated. The Gnostics believed that children were born evil and procreation “ increased the number subjected to evil angels,” hence sex and procreation were wicked (Yamauchi, 2004, pg 31). These dogmas were later synchronized into Church teaching via St. Augustine (Khan, 1990, pg 58-59). St. Augustine promulgated the principle that sex was wrong and children were inherently evil in the Church. It is likely Paul was referring to an early form of this teaching. This is further evidenced by the later passage 1^st Tim 4:3, where Paul mentions a demonic sect that “forbids marriage”. I propose that Paul's strange statement in 1^st Tim 2:15 was a call to repentance. The women of Ephesus had likely become anti-procreation due to their Gnostic indoctrination. Paul was calling them to repentance by instructing the women to abandon this doctrine by practicing the alternative. Hence, the women were not saved by childbirth but rather by their practical repentance, which in this case was childbirth.

These elements show that Paul was compiling a vice list, not just moral failings but theological also. The evidence for Gnostic infiltration of the Ephesian Church is compelling. We can safely say that Paul's writing was responding to a unique situation, but this is by no means culturally limited. Elements of Gnostic teaching and their practical ministerial outcomes have plagued Church history. Hence, while 1^st Tim cannot be understood without the historical cultural background, once understood it provides absolute and timeless principles.

Many Christian denominations use this text to prohibit women entering into certain ministerial roles, but was that the spirit in which Paul wrote it? The evidence that Paul was addressing the Gnostics is ample; hence the true spirit of this letter is to guide the deceived from their heretical practices. The fact that one justifies sexism with a letter intended to counteract a doctrine of exclusivism is egregious indeed. Timothy had a specific calling over his life (1^st Tim 1:18-19); Irenaeus taught that this was defending the church “against the madness of the Gnostics” (Twomey, 2009, pg 112). Paul instructs Timothy to recall the individuals who had departed from the faith (v 18), but follows such a noble task with the brutal methods needed to achieve such ends. (v. 20). The verses in question are the stringent methods Paul wants Timothy to execute to lead the Ephesians to practical repentance.

It would be erroneous to dismiss 1^st Tim 2:9-15 as belonging to a specific period. One of the major problems the Gnostics fabricated was disunity among genders; the idea that one gender was superior in some respects due to a certain spin on scripture. Gnostic-like gender prejudice is present in the Church today. In Paul's day abrogation of Biblical texts led to an unnatural elevation in women's ministerial roles, yet elevating male roles by the same process has been the prevalent practice throughout Church history. Gordon Fee reasoned that an exclusive dogma similar to limited atonement permeated the Ephesians’ Church. The doctrines of exclusivism, the belief that one group is superior to another by virtue of elements out of their control (such as race, gender or divine declaration) would likely produce prejudice. In religious terms, the teaching that you are a member of an exclusive group that the preponderance of humanity are banned from seems to be prejudice by definition. This is apparent in the modern church. Recent studies show that those who ascribe to the doctrine of limited atonement are thirteen times more likely to endorse a patriarchal dogma than those who hold to egalitarian ministerial roles (Horton, 2009, pg 79). It cannot be escaped that the practice of teaching that salvation is closed to all but an exclusive minority is tied to sexism in practical ecclesiastical duties. 1^st Timothy can function as a guide against these ideas as it was written in the spirit of defeating sexual discrimination. But in seeking to route out the modern equivalents to ancient heresy we must recognize Paul's strategy: a change of mind is not sufficient, but practical symbols of repentance must be adopted.

If we ask “What principle did Paul wish to communicate in his writing?” we will force others to plunge into understanding the world Paul inhabited. By doing so we can show that Paul was not endorsing a timeless ethic of misogyny, but rather speaking against manipulating the scriptures in order to promote one gender above another. But this alone is not a complete case. It is not enough to disprove by exegeting potentially prejudiced verses. We must construct a positive case. If we read Pauline literature horizontally, we see that verses like Gal 3:28 promote equality between sexes. We also see Paul named his “sister Phoebe a deacon of the church in Cenchreae” Rom 16:12. Paul was not opposed to female leadership, or he would hardly request the Roman Church to “receive her in the Lord”. We can also use appeal to relevant biblical arguments; Peter's teaching in Acts 10:47 promotes the ideal that the Holy Spirit works through all people, and Peter accepts those of a different people group based on the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Could we apply similar criteria to women in ministry? No one can deny that women have done incredible work for God. Can we say that God did not lead female pioneers such as Deacon Phoebe, St Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, Lillian Trasher, Gladys Aylward or countless others whom history have neglected but heaven recalls? To develop change within our ministry context we can promote correct hermeneutical principles. For example, we must attempt to discover what the Biblical writer was saying, recreating the world they inhabited. We must follow their lead with respect to female leadership, and adopt the criteria for recognizing divine approval as Peter did.

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

REFERENCES

1. Bruce B. Barton, David Veerman and Neil S. Wilson, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Life 
   
   
   
   
   application Bible commentary, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Il, 1993.

2. Fee, Gordon D., Gospel and Spirit, Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Hendrickson 
   
   
   
   
   Publishers, Inc. Peabody, MA, 1991

 

     3.    Horton, Dennis J., Resurgent Calvinism among Young Conservative Christian Leaders and Its 

           Implications for Women in Ministry, www.envirecon.com/ASSRProceedings2009.pdf, (date 

           accessed, 6/16/11).

     

4. Khan, Ali, The Hermeneutics of Sexual Order, Santa Clara Law Review, 31.1, 1990

5. Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical 
   
   
   
   
    Interpretation. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, TN, 2004.

6. Lindell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2003.

7. Logan, A. J. M., A. J. M. Wedderburn, Ed. New Testament and Gnosis, New York, NY, T&T 
   
   
   
   
    Clark International, 2004.

8. McGrath, Alister. Iustitia Dei: a History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge 
   
   
   
   
   University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.

9. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Random House, New York, 1989.

10. Tertullianus, Quintus Septimius Florens, Prescription against Heretics, 
    
    
    
    
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm, (date accessed, 6/16/11).

11. Twomey, Jay, The Pastoral Epistles through the Centuries. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK, 
    
    
    
    
    2009.

12. Yamauchi, Edwin M., Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, First Gorgias Press Edition, New 
    
    
    
    
    Jersey, 2004.

 

Thy Will Be Done

Bible believers hold that their Holy Creator is indeed Holy and their creator; musing on these immutable tenets of faith begs the question, can evil originate from God? From tohu a bohu (nothing) God spawned the foundational building blocks of the cosmos into existence. All our eyes behold are the corporeal elements whereas the physical is subject to the invisible laws of the universe. St. Basil the Great once wisely scribed

“You will thus find ... that the creation of the heavens and of the earth were like the foundation and the groundwork, and afterwards that an intelligent reason ... presided in the order of visible things.”

Every element is constructed so as to compound perfectly with other elements and synergistically fashion all material in the universe. Even the indispensable emotional make-up and psychological activity flow from such natural governances. Man's ability to process cognitive thought, their desire to love and be loved, and even the most fundamental impulse for self-preservation all flow from the Laws of Nature implemented by God almighty. We must also be cognizant that the mission of creation was undertaken solely by God. The universe was created void of unsought or impure influences. Creation is the handiwork of Solo Deo (God alone). It would seem the material universe is like a violin, and the laws that govern it are the notes on the stave. God is the virtuoso serenading Himself with self-scribed composition from His own assembled instrument. We, with our fellow creatures, are the unwitting and unresponsive melody sung by the celestial orchestra. If God puppeteers the hearts of men and astronomical flow then every action is the sole result of His pleasure.As John Calvin once said

“creatures are so governed by the secret counsels of God, that nothing happens but that what He has knowingly and willingly decreed.”

This manipulating melody may cause one to imagine that action, decision, birth or death, sin or salvation occurs by the will of God. Is a view of God puppeteering all we see in keeping with logic and biblical soundness?

As pious and scared as these psalms are perceived, they trigger a theological conundrum. If God originates all maneuvers is He the engineer of evil along with good? For although God bestowed on His creation a habitat brimming with love and spectacular wonders it shan't be disregarded that evil prevails in abundance. Few spiritually attentive mortals fathom fallacy in praising God for their capacity to love their fellow man and for the means to furnish blessing on those less fortunate. Whereas blame for their shortcomings are pronounced upon the heads of the perpetrator or at least, the bloody Devil! The noble few who sojourn to know the almighty through mysticism or scared texts are struck by the awesome power of God's holiness. The Bible itself makes bold statements in relation to God's character

“For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy” Lev 11:44.

But if God authors sin and goodness in heavy measure then such Biblical truths require redrafting for Biblical holiness has been abrogated. Even so, a person who lavishes every waking hours in prayer, study of scriptures and altruistic enterprises would find themselves as prone to evil as those who neglect spiritual ventures entirely. For when good and evil are the yearning of the composer of the universe those who seek after His will produce good and evil in the measure they exist. For if God forms either sinful or righteousness impulses and deeds al from the most humbled saint to Satan himself would be a servant of the most High.

As contradictory and appalling as such a theology reveals itself, it is wholeheartedly embraced by myriads. Attempts to conciliate this clash against orthodoxy is purposed by those who conjecture that being surrounded by patterns of evil generates greater glory to God. This response is advocated by John Piper:

“But I choose to trust him that his way of managing the devil and managing evil

that comes at me is wiser than the way I might choose to manage it.”

The conjecture that God manages the devil makes Satan a devout servant; since Satan cannot disobey God, as God forcibly forbids such choice. Each action is obedient to God. The Devil may not worship God because God won't allow it; in this case God forbids worship in order that He can receive more worship? This is confusing. Piper also states that “God has ordained that Satan have a long leash—with God holding onto it.” Satan is now the devoted lap dog of God, the servant through whom God wreaks evil and all manner of abomination through his depraved minion. What an unthinkable departure from Christian orthodox understanding. It purposes an individual will witness such desolation and tyranny and pledge to dissociate themselves from said evil in favor of worshipping the author of the initial desolation. It would hardly take Socrates to discern how moronic and two-dimensional this speculation is. But can such a deal be justified if God is always content?

The Bible speaks of only God's handiwork and tohu a bohu. If all actions emerge from God and no power manifests from the Tohu a bohu then naught lives to controvert God's will. If everything is at the will of God then He can never be unhappy or disappointed. There are no external influences to contradict God's every whim.

As with all theological propositions the primary foundation for theories must emanate from scripture. Hence if God manipulates the entirety of terrestrial motions, the Bible would leave record only of God's infinite pleasure. Alas for God, this is not the case:

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”(Gen 6:6)

“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” (Mark 3:5a)

“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph 4:30), “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation,” (Psa 95:10a)

“Wherefore I was grieved with that generation,” (Heb. 3:10).

To be grieved one force must successfully contravene your desires, essentially something happens that you don't want to happen. If God is the be all and end all then no action can occur in conflict with Divine desire and no consequence can vary from that which God has chosen. How do we overcome this apparent contradiction?

A highly plausible theology purposes God devised a force that operates independent of His divine will. This force is capable of pleasing and grieving God yet independent of being manipulated by Him. It cannot be a force that compels holiness because that cannot grieve God and it cannot be a strength that coerces evil because that cannot please God. Rather something that can achieve both ends but tied to neither. God accomplished this incredible freedom through Free Will. God given free will enables us to choose our actions. It is the incredible mental procedure that sanctions us to bring to mind relevant information relating to a decision and to resolve upon said course of action based on the information. Incredible! Through this process one can choose to reject evil and follow God or vice-a-versa.

Hence it is our free will that enables us to follow Christ:

Rev 22:17b “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

Josh 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

Matt 23:37 “how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Deut 30:19b “that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life”

I desperately want to conclude this article with an independent inspiration. Conversely, if my studies have proven one thing it is thus; I have had no unique theories, and each I surmise has been recounted finer than I can manage. Hence, I will draw to close with a quote from St. Clement of Rome that beautifully paints the magnitude and ability of the sensational gift of free will.

“But, you say, God ought to have made us at first so that we should not have thought at all of such things. You who say this do not know what is free-will, and how it is possible to be really good; that he who is good by his own choice is really good; but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice. Since therefore every one's freedom constitutes the true good, and shows the true evil, God has contrived that friendship or hostility should be in each man by occasions. But no, it is said: everything that we think He makes us to think. Stop! Why do you blaspheme more and more, in saying this? For if we are under His influence in all that we think, you say that He is the cause of fornications, lusts, avarice, and all blasphemy. Cease your evil-speaking, ye who ought to speak well of Him, and to bestow all honour upon Him. And do not say that God does not claim any honour; for if He Himself claims nothing, you ought to look to what is right, and to answer with thankful voice Him who does you good in all things.”

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

St. Patrick's contribution to Ireland, and Father Jack

A few months ago a came across an opinion piece entitled “Did St. Patrick do Ireland such a favour by bringing Christianity here?”. While this article considered minimal innovative consideration it reflected a popular persuasion among Irish people, riding the wave of New Atheism evangelizing the agnostics of the Western world. The premise of the piece catalogues the pains brought on the Irish by the Christian church and concludes the faction spawned by St. Patrick birthed greater suffering than contentment. Is such a conclusion justified?

Modern headlines cannot long avoid a clerical scandal. The scandal triggered from Bishop Casey's sexual and fruitful relationship with an American divorcee, that came to light in the early 90's, was unsettling but at least humorous. Later when the horror stories relating to the Magdalene Laundries began to surface no one was laughing. The thought of young ladies forced to labour for the profit of heartless Nuns caught the attention of the media elite. For a brief period songs, movies, books, articles and T.V. Dramas concerning these disregarded destitutes dominated the media bulletin. As horrific as these institutions were portrayed they were dwarfed by the revulsion brought on by the Ryan Report. The Ryan Report relayed heart wrenching accounts of the most heinous abuse of innocent children. Abuse being so epidemic it has been referred to by some as Ireland's Holocaust. The idea that the Catholic Church, who represent the God of love, mercy and justice could employ an army of clergy who raped and assaulted their necessitous children should rock the faith of the devoutest of congregants. While these abuses focus on Catholicism, Protestantism has faired little better. Ireland's most famous protestant, Ian Paisley, preached his personal theology of bigotry, heresy and hatred for decades to tumultuous applause. This repugnant calvinist brought the religious flavor to the Northern Irish conflict that devastated the province for decades. Or dear Iris Robinson who famously declared “just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God”. All the while, married Mrs. Robinson was illegally funding her 19 year old lover's business, as long as he gave a cut to the church. Infinitely more influential was cultural icon, Father Ted; as the Catholic Church lost it's moral high-ground the final authority on all matters, sit-coms presented the clergy as drunken, half-witted, immoral, non-chalant agnostics. Hey, it made us laugh, so it must be true! Maybe the Church was a bunch of power hungry, bacchanalian, fascist pedophiles, who fired out “that would be an ecumenical matter!” in between bouts of drunkenness. In a few short years Irish Christianity seem to evolve from St. Bridget to Father Jack Hackett.

The enumeration of ecclesiastical atrocities adds credence to the ideal that Ireland would have been better off if St. Patrick left the Celts alone. But this ideal fails to acknowledge that St. Patrick didn't land on Ireland; Ireland landed on St. Patrick. Patrick came from comfortable surroundings in Britain, with a loving family to raise him. In his youth Patrick was an agnostic who regarded Christian Priests as “silly”. As a young man Patrick would have fitted in with the New Atheism his critics espouse. He could have happily grown, matured and died in his homeland foregoing his providential consequence. But a catastrophe befell adolescent Patrick; as he slumbered in his family home, thieves of children snuck in through his window and abducted the teenager. One can barely conceive the horror endured by young Patrick's parents when they awoke to discover their precious child shanghaied. Or the waking nightmare Patrick underwent as he was spirited away to a foreign land. At the time Ireland's predominant enterprise was the slave trade; Patrick was a victim of human trafficking. He feel prey to the most vicious slave traders of the time, who amassed their fortunes in the destruction of innocence and rupture of the family. But such is the obvious by-product of a culture build around cruel tribal warfare and hierarchy fashioned to oppress the masses. Before reckoning how Ireland may have evolved without the Christian message we must appreciate Patrick brought Christ to Ireland because Ireland brought Satan to Patrick.

By the time of St. Patrick's death Ireland transformed from a haven of violence, tyranny and slavery to a place of peace, civilization, equality and altruism. Within one generation, in the spirit of Christianity, slavery was abolished. While other European nations would take nearly one and a half millennia to abandon this brutal trade, the God who Patrick worshipped inspired the most vicious slave traders to spear head one of the earliest movements to recognize divinely appointed human dignity. The transformation was void of legislative imperatives but epitomized a metamorphosis of the very soul. The populous of Ireland deprived themselves of their established economy and embraced poverty because the deplorable trade was an offense to God. What never before convicted the Irish was now intolerable; they loved Christ, Christ loves everyone, how can we abuse those whom Christ loves? And in that simplicity Ireland repented. The spiritual fervor led to terrestrial woes but the Celts were firm in their resolve “no earthly pleasure can compare with the jubilation of being Christ's servant”. This truth grasped by the Celts of old was as true to them as it is to their descendents presently. Alas another truth is as timeless; renewals of man's natural goodness inspires negligible communal observation whereas expressions of depravity entertain us indefinitely. An abusive priest or financial mismanagement will dominate headlines but clergy who steers couples from the brink of divorce to marital bliss rarely captures media attention. Yet all personify a spiritual selection: do we embrace Christ or reject His plan? It seems modern times have produced an explosion in those who embrace worldly fruits and forfeit the ways of Heaven. Nevertheless, the ways of Christ are as jubilantly beyond comprehension presently as millennia before and many still walk in the light. For every abusive priest there are legions of unsung clergy who would readily decapitate limbs before raising them to assault. There are those who institutionalized for nefarious reasons but the preponderance of the cloths sought to serve the 35,000 impecunious who had none to care for them. For every deep-throated heretic touting God's hatred as a given for their political enemies a hundred more sang the sublime truth God Loves All. For the individuals scarred by the crimes of these notorious minority there exists battalions, inspired by the unconditional love of Christ, who have become fixated with eradicating pain in all of creation.

For those who place primacy on their relationship with God, abuse of any form is repugnant; for those who place primacy on terrestrial pursuits ecclesiastical sins serve as excuses to persevere along their preferred path. The latter, sees sinners as reflections of Christ and hence reject the word they offer. Yet everyday millions of congregants pray in unison “look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church”. The Christian message is not an invitation for good folk to be part of the groovy holy gang but for sinners to look to Christ's perfection and sacrifice for fulfillment. The building blocks of the Church is sinners, the Devil's rejects. Should we be shocked to find elements of this menagerie struggling to achieve perfection? And as these combatants, of which I am a member, find solace in the sinless life of Christ and the Holy Spirit's persistent assuaging of selfish inclinations; spiritual dilemmas of fellow strugglers fail to quake our faith. St. Patrick's message was of Christ, not the greatness of the Church. St. Patrick desired for the Irish an unnewsworthy revolution of the heart; for individuals to conform to Christ's perfect image. A social revolution began in St. Patrick's day, but an individual revolution begins for every soul that turns from their current path and starts toward heaven. For every human that occupies their ephemeral moment of this earth looking at their own body and how best to serve it will come imminently close to unraveling why Priests abuse children and Preachers spout self-serving hatred. For every one whose face turns its eyes to the Celestial Throne and who spend their lives traversing towards the source of all love are those who are thankful that St. Patrick returned to his captors and oppressors to share the love he learned, not in aloof Seminary, but on sloping, green hills of Antrim (the county of my birth) tending the cattle of those who robbed him of the opportunity to be a comfortable, indifferent, agnostic.

 

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

The Active Choice of Salvation...

Heavenly salvation is inconceivable. What set of terrestrial circumstances can equate to a mortal man savoring in Heavenly delights for all eternity? Could such unimaginable joy be a reward for a lifetime of do-gooding. Inept as I am to unravel the mysteries of eternity I concur with the Apostles of old who deemed it impossible to attain such wonderment through a life of religious observances: Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” How implausible it seems that everlasting joy could be bestowed as a gift. A benefaction beyond all belief should inspire the upmost humility and reverence and possibly confusion.

There have been those who were naturally inclined to contribute unto this gift. Historically many have been accused of formulating religious dogmas that equated to a works based salvation, essentially concocting religious methodology in order to be co-contributors of the gift they received. An opposite extreme was birthed by those who sought to alienate themselves from this perceived error. This next group viewed salvation as completely irrelevant to human actions, so much so that not even human will is a factor. The underlying thought was that consent equated to work and as the gift of salvation had to be void of work to be valid, then consent forfeited the requirements. This reactive assembly taught that God saves by forcibly bypassing His subjects' will in order to bestow this gift.

This conflict begs the question “does man save himself by consenting to be saved?” or another way to ask, “is choosing to be saved a works based salvation?” Let us use the fine art of etymology to shine some light on our query. Picture yourself on a beach, suddenly you spy a distressed body in the water, whaling and beckoning for immediate help. Promptly a toned Baywatchesqe lifeguard zips by with beeline precision and swift motion into the water, pounces on the engulfed fellow, locks the drowner in his muscly arms and drags him to shore. The lifeguard gently lays the limp body on the sand; the quick thinking lifeguard descended his square jaw and perfect teeth to puff life into the suffocated sufferer. After moments of powerful CPR the limp body jumps to life sucking precious air and a crowd of onlookers cheer for crisis averted. The half-drowned fellow is saved thanks to the trained efforts of our lifeguard. Later that night a crowd gathers as the lifeguard regales all with his tale of heroic bravery. Just as our hero winds down from his climatic conclusion a frail voice interrupts

“yeah, well, you may have pulled me from the water but, seriously, I totally didn't resist you. Like, had I have started kicking I would have been in big trouble. And, yeah, you may have given me CPR but once I started breathing I kept on breathing, I mean, that's the key right? If it wasn't for me I'd be dead. Sure, you helped but, strictly speaking, I probably saved myself.”

Such a conclusion could not be the mental fruit of any rational individual. Approbation is not a saving action. The victim may have vehemently resisted and lost his life doing so but his unimpeded submission is hardly saving oneself. The retrieved swimmer should have been kissing the feet of his rescuer; acknowledging that his salvation was the sole product of one individual and it wasn't himself. The approval to save is not part of the saving. The individual is having an action done onto to him, 100% of the saving action is committed by the deliverer. If party A saves another party B, then party B has been acted upon. If party A gives party B a gift, party B is strictly a beneficiary and party A is strictly the benefactor. In relation to being saved in the Christian sense, we can safely say that God is the sole author of salvation regardless of consent. God gives the gift and we are merely the donee. Our will is not a contributing factor in the gift of salvation but it is necessary to exercise. The gift is composed without it but received upon it. God has this gift for all, we have only to accept; and know the limitless love of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

Condoms and Eighth Layer of Hell

Great Buzz has been generated by the Pope's recent and revamped statement on condoms. Historically the Catholic Church has been an unwavering opponent of the use of artificial contraceptive devices. Whether from Naturalists, Liberal Theologians, Eugenicists, or Moral Liberals, criticism of this controversial position has never been in short supply. In recent years the devastation that AIDS has wrought on the world has opened a recent wave of attacks on a Church, who have sought to align themselves with the poor and oppressed. Some quarters suppose education and condom use would reduce the spread of AIDS and the Roman Catholic Churches opposition is hindering the noble cause. Coupled with a changing world that views monogamy or large families as irresponsible or a hindrance, even in Christian circles, few adamantly avoid all artificial contraception. Condoms are no longer illegal in countries with a Catholic majority and the social taboo has come full circle. With a diminishing list of allies it seems the Pope's statement is welcome by all, though some see it as too little too late.

The Papal quote was as follows:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” So now male prostitutes near and far breath a sigh of relief that their vigilant efforts are justifiable. If the last sentence seemed odd, that's because it is. The Churches previous position was actually an impenetrable protector against the spread of sexually transmitted AIDS. A devout Catholic would have no need of condoms, from a protective standpoint as they would abstains from brothels, elude casual sex and only have sex with their spouse throughout their lives. I have yet to meet the small band of ill-informed Catholics who unashamedly partake of orgies and brothels, but Heaven Forbid they use a condom! I mean male prostitutes are sinful enough, but CONDOMS! Oh no! I can just see St. Peter at the pearly gates:

“OK, you cheated on your wife nine times … no biggy, spent a week in Fillipino brothel with young boys, we'll let that one go, but...wait a second... this can't be ri...? You used a CONDOM!!?!??! DENIED! Eighth layer of Hell for you buddy!”

An individual possessing Catholic leanings and enough laxity of morality to contravene the rules of abstinence should have the foresight to ignore the dogmas of artificial contraception. One who puts themselves at risk for sexual transmitted diseases has a soul in jeopardy regardless of condom use. One is not extra-super-duper sinful for employing a latex barrier.

While I shan't conjecture if condoms will indeed reduce the spread of the AIDS virus I will theorize on a pestilence more deleterious than any STD's known to man. A major symptom of this disease is the existence of the prostitutes spoken of by the Pope. Prostitution exists because there is a demand; enough people are convinced that they can use fellow members of humanity solely for sexual gratification. Enough people find it not only tolerable but advantageous that their siblings in humanity are subjected to such degradation. This group may find condoms shield them from certain disease but it appears that these shields have evolved into an unholy cataract. This cataract will not blind the individual from the sultry seductions of the flesh but instead conceals the basic beauty and dignity that shines from every creation of God. This cataract is actually tumorous, a cancer of the soul. Worse than a disease of flesh, this cancer devastates that which makes us human, which makes us beautiful. As St. Augustine once said “Therefore, the prostitution of women for the gratification of sinful passion, is condemned by the divine and eternal law. To purchase the degradation of another, disgraces the purchaser.” While STD's may prematurely end our time on earth, cancer of the soul follows us into the next life. Alas condoms are impuissant against such maladies.

Protecting the world from AIDS is noble but contraception is a bandage whereas holiness in an inoculation. Even those currently infected with cancer of the soul can rids themselves of this disease by asking forgiveness from the Father of the children they degraded. Their Father in Heaven is God almighty; not only will He forgive people of their wrongdoing but also heal them of their cataract and guide us to view our siblings in humanity as God sees them, beautiful and dignified. I will finish with a quote from the great Christian author Lacantius:

“But if God only were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars, since men would know that they are the sons of one God; and, therefore, among those who were connected by the sacred and inviolable bond of divine relationship,... here would be no adulteries, and debaucheries, and prostitution of women, ... Nor would necessity, compel a woman to dishonour her modesty, to seek for herself a most disgraceful mode of sustenance; since the males also would restrain their lust, and the pious and religious contributions of the rich would succour the destitute... How happy and how golden would be the condition of human affairs, if throughout the world gentleness, and piety, and peace, and innocence, and equity, and temperance, and faith, took up their abode! ... But now men are wicked through ignorance of what is right and good.”

 


God Love You -- Rev. Sheen

A Christian Response to Being Born Gay..

Few issues ignite such a motley of reactions among the religious as the proper and holy response to homosexuality. From the embracing Anglicans who elects openly gay Bishops to the vicious bile of the Westboro Baptist Church who spew there heinous rhetoric to grieving families. The lines are being drawn and the Iron curtain is rising. Many a book has been written on the subject (very few are any good) but one element is the focus of our discussion today: what is the Biblical reaction to the concept that people are born gay?

I disputed the conjecture that individuals are born gay one day in college. A young lady irately retorted “If people were born gay then it would be gone within one generation because they don't have kids to pass the gay gene on to.”

This enlightenment was so stupefying that I was speechless. For those of you unaware no one suggests that there is a genetic predisposition towards same-sex attraction. Most theories revolve around fetal development. For example one theory suggests that a woman's body treats a male child as if it were an invasive foreign body. To compensate the woman's body increases estrogen production, and hence the child is prone to effeminacy. There are some tremendously scholarly folk who trace homosexuality to this process. The validity of this hypothesis and others is for wiser men than I to substantiate.

First we will demonstrate what it means to be born a certain way. There are two categories of birth traits: physical and tendencies. Physical traits relate to a persons anatomical make up, things such as eye color, skin color or even the size of your nose. Those traits can be inherited, such as big ears whereas others are not inherited but are still present in our DNA such as Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome).

Tendencies are the ways in which we respond to our genetic make-up. For example one may inherit strong lungs and vocal chords, symmetrical nasal passages as well as exceptional ear drums. Mix this with consistent exposure to the arts and our subject will have the makings of a fine singer. Now this individual was not born a singer but had a tendency toward such. A singer is someone who sings but until our subject produces melody they are no vocalist. In a similar fashion a pile of bricks is not a house although such a structure maybe itching for construction.

Let us reapply this observation to a negative situation. Our next case was born with a hormonal imbalance that will lead to depression. Their imbalance diminish their abilities to rationally alter their negative emotions. If our subject matures among individuals who handle the same infirmity with consumption of alcohol this unfortunate is a prime candidate for alcoholism. But they were not born an alcoholic, fetal alcohol syndrome aside, no title could be thus endued on fetus who never set eyes on drink. The descendant of an unbroken chain of addicts is not an addict until the day they decide of their own volition to abandon bulwarks and embrace the folly of their family. The same individual may indeed chose to renounce the tendencies of their flesh and live a life of sobriety. Our dauntless subject can never be ordained an alcoholic, their physical form is unchanged but their tendencies are thwarted.

A person with an uncommonly high level of testosterone is not a sex addict but if this person surrenders to every sexual impulse they are a pervert. The same creature may anger easily but is only abusive when they choose to give in to such anger. They yet again may forbear and will be a virtuous and patient soul. From this we establish that physical traits are inescapable whereas tendencies influence our choice to actions committed of our own volition.

From a Biblical perspective there exists no spiritual hinderance of ANY nature that corresponds to our anatomical make-up. No human was ever judged for their genetic assembly; from the strongest brain to the demented imbecile, from the chiseled beefcake to the incapacitated quadriplegic, all our equal in the eyes of God. As the old hymn goes “red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight”.

Returning to our original question “what is the Biblical reaction to the concept that people are born gay?” If there exists a genetic or physical cause for homosexual attraction such a cause does not make one a homosexual. Not until one has a sexual relationship with an member of their gender is such a person a homosexual. The action to enter into such an affair was done by their free will. Under our definitions we find homosexuality may be a led tendency as oppose to a physical trait. One is no more gay at birth than an alcoholic in the womb. But if one is born with homosexual tendencies then they are not condemned. For the desire to sin is not a sin but it is committing a sin that condemns one.

With such considerations the question of being born gay slips into irrelevance. One might indeed be born void of attraction to the opposite sex and a strong attraction to one's own. But these tendencies are void of spiritual ramifications. The Christian response to being born gay is

“So what? It is our faith and actions that are of importance”

Even so, God is good and so loving. We coldly dissected the poor child born amongst depraved alcoholics but in the eyes of God this infant is purely innocent and precious. Our Lord is more aware of his state than we are and will endow upon all who so choose, the powers of all heaven to subdue the sinful desires of our flesh. God knows where you've come from and knows where you're going. He knows the pains we suffer everyday but will always be there for those who turn to Him.

God loves all and Christ died for all. Christ will save all who call on Him and will guide us to resist all that leads to unholiness, whether we were born with such affirmatives or choose them of our own accord.

God Love You

--

Rev. Sheen