Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Claims are up–because workers are better informed.

NBC’s Super Bowl Hypocrisy

NBC rejected a pro-life ad because it was “advocacy.” But they didn’t tell PETA they had such a policy–the told PETA the only problem with their ad was that it was too sexually suggestive (since when was that ever a problem for a major network?). NBC therefore doesn’t have a problem with advocacy–it has a problem with babies.

Lutheranism Re-Examined

In writing my recent article on the Eucharist, I had to consider how my current thinking differs not only with the positions I held as a Catholic, but those I held as a Lutheran. The Eucharist is one of those areas. If I have to put a label on my Eucharistic views, I would say they come closest to those of Calvin, especially as expressed in the Consensus Tigurinus, which united the Reform movements of Zurich and Geneva.

I’ve also moved from the “Confessional Lutheran” view (that embraces the whole of the Book of Concord) closer in many ways to the position of the founder of my seminary, Samuel S. Schmucker, as expressed in various publications, including American Lutheranism Vindicated.

Of course I am not now a “Lutheran” in the sense of a member or a pastor of one of the Lutheran churches. I believe in Sola Scriptura, without any need to distinguish between norma normans and norma normata. The test for us cannot be what any individual or collection of individuals in history may have thought, but what does the Scripture say. I believe Luther uncovered tremendous truths of Scripture–but Zwingli and Calvin went further, the Anabaptists went further still on some points, as did Wesley, and others since.

So this article is for my own benefit; it’s a reflection on the path I’ve taken, and how I now see things differently as a result of that journey. I look at Schmucker because I went to the seminary he founded in Gettysburg. When I was there we laughed at him, and referred to his theology as “Schmucker’s Jam,” because we considered ourselves to be better Lutherans than he was. Now I turn to him and find a kindred spirit. In addition to the already mentioned American Lutheranism Vindicated, you may also find on-line his Elements of Popular Theology.

Schmucker produced what he called an “American Recension of the Augsburg Confession,” which was subsequently adopted by some of the Lutheran synods in the US (it is not used by any Lutheran group today). He eliminated the following elements that he saw to be contrary to Scripture:

1. The approval of the ceremonies of the mass.

2. Private Confession and Absolution.

3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath.

4. Baptismal Regeneration.

5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the Eucharist.

I think several of these points are self-explanatory. I’m going to flesh out where I think Schmucker was on the right path, but didn’t go far enough.

The Augsburg Confession treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish institution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety of our retaining the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the churches for the convenience of general convocation….

Our American churches, on the contrary, as well as some few in Germany, believe in the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day, convinced that the Old Testament Sabbath was not a mere Jewish institution; but that it was appointed by God at the close of the creative week, when he rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and sanctified it, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) that is, set it (namely, one whole day in seven,) apart for holy purposes, for reasons of universal and perpetual nature, Exod. xx. 11. Even in the re-enactment of it in the Mosaic rode, its original appointment is acknowledged, ‘Remember the Sabbath day–because in six days God made heaven and earth–and rested on the seventh; wherefore he, (then, in the beginning,) blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.’ Now this reason has no more reference to the Jews than to any other nation, and if it was sufficient to make the observance of the Sabbath obligatory on them, it must be equally so for all other nations before and after them.

‘Since therefore the observance and sanctification of a portion of his time, is based on universal reasons in the nature of man, especially as a religious being, and the proportion of time was fixed at a seventh, by the example and precepts of the Creator in the beginning; the Sabbath or religious observance of one day in seven, must be universally obligatory, and the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, can at most only repeal those ceremonial additions which that ritual made, and must leave the original Sabbath as it found it.

Had Schmucker simply stopped there, I would be in agreement with him–except that he says the Bible enjoins merely “one day in seven,” whereas Scripture itself specifies the seventh day. Since he adopts the unscriptural notion that any day will do, he goes on to claim (without Scriptural evidence) that the apostles had authority to change the day to Sunday.

On baptismal regeneration he says,

In the case of all adults, the Scriptures represent faith in Christ as the necessary prerequisite to baptism, and baptism as a rite by which those who had already consecrated themselves to Christ, or been converted, made a public profession of the fact, received a pledge of the divine favor, or of forgiveness of sins, and were admitted to membership in the visible church. The same inspired records also teach, that if men are destitute of this faith, if they believe not, they shall be damned, notwithstanding their baptism. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned,” Matt. xvi. 16. And Philip said to the eunuch, “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest be baptized,” Acts viii. 37. “Repent and be baptized,” Acts ii. 38; viii. 62; xviii. 8. Hence if baptism required previous faith and repentance, or conversion in adults, and if, when they were destitute of this faith or conversion, they were damned, notwithstanding their baptism; it follows that baptism was not, and is not, a converting ordinance in adults, and does not necessarily effect or secure their regeneration.

Now that baptism cannot accomplish more in infants than in adults, is self-evident; hence if it is not a converting ordinance in adults, it cannot be in infants.

This very argument nullifies infant baptism–but Schmucker doesn’t see that. He accepts infant baptism as a tradition, and does not think to question it.

In Elements of Popular Theology (1834) Schmucker takes exception to the Augsburg Confession’s position of amillennialism, preferring instead a postmillennial position. He says (p. 289),

… [T]he millennium will consist of an extraordinary and general diffusion of Christianity successively among all the nations of the earth, effected through the increased application of the appointed means of grace in all their legitimate forms, by professing Christians, accompanied by extraordinary effusions of the Holy Spirit.

The best argument that he can advance for this unscriptural notion is that “It is probable from the very design of the gospel” (p. 290). He thinks the time for its commencement can be deduced from Scripture, and he references the 1260 days, counting them as years, and supposes the start is either the accession of the Roman power or the Islamic. I haven’t read anything he may have written about William Miller; he certainly shared his hermeneutical principles on these points, but had a very different view of the millennium, being unable to see the Scriptural truth that Jesus will return before the millennium.

Later in his section on eschatology he professes his belief in the immortality of the soul, dismissing those who would reject it as “infidels and materialists.” His sole proof is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; he doesn’t look at any of the Scriptural evidence for belief in conditional immortality.

So there are areas where I would go further than Schmucker, and areas where I think he properly went beyond the Augsburg Confession. But there is one area where he, I, and all strict “Confessional” Lutherans must agree, and that is on the primacy of justification by faith alone.

As it is put in the Augsburg Confession:

Article 4–1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

And in the Smalcald Articles:

The first and chief article is this,

1] That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.

2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f

4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

5] Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.

Likewise, in Article 13 of that same document:

1] What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.

2] And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ’s sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. 3] Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1:31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. 4] We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.

This is the firm foundation of the New Testament and of the Reformation. This must be maintained, though all else fail.

L’Affaire Williamson Update

Canadian Catholic bishops speak … as does Williamson.

Vatican Official Slams USCCB

Archbishop Raymond Burke says the USCCB is to blame for Catholic confusion.

Infanticide in America

An example of “choice.”

Antisemitism in Venezuela

The Wiesenthal Center reports on the growing tide of antisemitism in Venezuela.

“Since the events in Gaza … the government has adopted an aggressive and dangerous tone never previously heard clearly inciting against the Jewish Community …. government’s supporters picked up on the government’s lead with clearly anti-Semitic expressions – with no effort whatsoever by government to stop them. The expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador followed, and subsequently, a final breaking off of diplomatic relations,” alerted the Jewish Macabi Latin America Confederation.

	“Jews – Damn Assassins”

“There is a well-orchestrated campaign on TV, radio, print and Internet media owned by the government, openly questioning Israelis right to exist, even including publication of such anti-Semitic materials as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A group of pro-government journalists is urging the population to boycott of businesses owned by Jews in Venezuela,” they added.

Most frightening was a ’plan of action’ published in a pro-government digital newspaper, Aporrea.org, giving direction against Venezuela’s Jewish community which included:

- publicly denouncing by name, the members of powerful Jewish groups in Venezuela, names of their companies and businesses in order to boycott them

- avoiding products, stores, supermarkets, restaurants, and where Kosher food is sold which either belongs or has links with ‘Zionist Jews’

- questioning the existence of Jewish educational institutions

- shouting pro-Palestine and anti-Israel slogans at Jews on the street

- inviting anti-Zionist Jews living in Venezuela to publicly express their disassociation from ‘Zionist war crimes’ and the imposition of artificial State of Israel on Palestine

- nationalization of companies, confiscation of properties of those Jews who support the Zionist atrocities of the Nazi-State of Israel, and donate this property to the Palestinian victims of today’s Holocaust

- sending all type of aid to Palestinians including weapons

- hacking pro-Zionist websites including governments or institutions that have relations with Israel

- organizing an international conference about the creation of the theocratic – Nazi state of Israel as a genocidal European colony, and about the myths and facts of the alleged Jewish Holocaust or Holohoax (a blackmailing industry)

- support the dissolution of the artificial State of Israel

Time Warp

Article about the first Tridentine mass to be offered in Altoona. I wonder if this is what will be done in other dioceses–offer the Tridentine mass as if the liturgical reforms of the 20th century, in the decades prior to Vatican 2, had never happened. That’s what’s happening in this place. Only the altar server responds, everyone else is quiet. Or the choir sings over top of their responses. This is totally contrary to even what was being promoted in liturgical circles well in advance of VC2, encouraging the laity to sing along with the choir, and to join in the responses. That’s how it’s done at Annunciation church in Houston.

So here’s the question–if they’re going to ignore a century of liturgical progress, why should we surprised that many of those attracted to this piety also want to ignore decades of progress in Jewish-Christian relations?

The Eucharist

One of my Catholic friends asked me a question some time ago, and has been waiting patiently for an answer.

Regarding the Eucharist, did you (a) once believe and then stop believing, or, (b) never believe in the first place?   Bonus question:  if (a), what caused you to stop believing?

I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while, wondering how I would respond. It isn’t a simple question, because there are many facets to Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. Influenced by postmodernism as I am, I’m going to have to couch my response in narrative form.

(Some of this first section I’m copying from something I wrote in 2007.)

My earliest childhood memories of communion services in the Seventh-day Adventist churches in which I was raised recall a somber affair.  Men and women would separate for the washing of feet, after which we returned to the sanctuary. The pastor and elders sat on one side of the communion table, upon which the elements were covered with a white cloth. The deacons sat in the front pew, facing them. The deaconesses, wearing black dresses with hats and white gloves, entered silently and removed the cloth, slowly and carefully folding it like a color guard folding a flag. The pastor gave a short exhortation, then read 1 Cor. 11:23-24. An elder offered a prayer of blessing. The pastor passed the plates of bread to the elders, who passed them to the deacons, who passed them to us. When we all had a piece the pastor said, “Let us all eat together.” We did so in solemn silence. Then the pastor read 1 Cor. 11:25-26, an elder blessed the unfermented wine, and the deacons passed the trays of cups to us. We all drank together.

It was a somber occasion. It was a remembrance of the death of Jesus. It was a Good Friday experience.

What Thou, my Lord, has suffered
Was all for sinners’ gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression,
But Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Saviour!
‘Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor,
Vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

It was, dare I say, a sort of “funeral service for Jesus.” I remember one elder in particular who invariably would get choked up as he ate and tears would come to his eyes.

Seventh-day Adventists haven’t spent much ink debating the nature of the Lord’s Supper , focusing instead on simply following Jesus’ command, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and making sure that we fulfill all that entails: breaking of bread, sharing of the cup, and washing of feet. And yet Adventists have written much that is contrary to the practice I knew as a child. Two sentences leap out from the 1980 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs as being at variance with my early experiences of how we did it:

In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.

This is to be a joyful experience, not one of funereal somberness. The Jesus whose death we proclaim has risen, is now “present to meet and strengthen His people,” and will come again. We come to his table having confessed our sins to one another, having washed each other’s feet, now to declare through our eating and drinking the good news in which we place our trust. We share here a foretaste of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

When that statement was approved in 1980 I was about to begin my theology studies at Atlantic Union College. But it didn’t sink in. Neither did Ellen White’s emphasis of these same points from Desire of Ages. I don’t recall the subject being presented in this way in my classes on theology or pastoral ministry. I had to discover the joy of the Eucharistic presence of Jesus in other ways.

I think it was Christmas 1983 that I went with my mother and my sister to the midnight service at Trinity Church (Episcopal) on the New Haven Green. It was a traditional Anglican liturgy with all stops pulled out. What Ellen White said of Catholic liturgy in The Great Controversy certainly fit what I saw there:

The religious service of the Roman Church is a most impressive ceremonial. Its gorgeous display and solemn rites fascinate the senses of the people and silence the voice of reason and of conscience. The eye is charmed. Magnificent churches, imposing processions, golden altars, jeweled shrines, choice paintings, and exquisite sculpture appeal to the love of beauty. The ear also is captivated. The music is unsurpassed. The rich notes of the deep-toned organ, blending with the melody of many voices as it swells through the lofty domes and pillared aisles of her grand cathedrals, cannot fail to impress the mind with awe and reverence.

But it was the Eucharist itself that most impacted me. It was celebrated in joy, not in sorrow! It was celebrated as a feast with a friend (indeed, in that context, as the birthday of a king), not as his funeral. And the liturgy itself gave me a sense of connection to Christians of prior ages.

That was the time in which I was making my break from Adventism. I was searching for a new faith home, and settled on Lutheranism, partly for its historic emphasis on justification by faith, but partly for its liturgical life as well. Luther emphasized Augustine’s definition of the Eucharist as a “visible word”–a visible embodiment of the good news. It isn’t enough for us to hear that we are forgiven; we also need to have that broken bread, and the specific words, “This is my body, broken for you … for the forgiveness of sins.” My appreciation deepened during my years at Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary and as a pastor.

I had questions in seminary, however. How could Jesus’ physical body be here, “in, with and under” this bread, if he was also in heaven? Luther’s idea of the ubiquity (omnipresence) of Christ’s body didn’t satisfy. Instead, I accepted Luther’s main emphasis that we simply cling to the word of Christ, “This is my body,” and trust him, even if our senses and our reason would lead us elsewhere.

The Eucharist was critical to my entry into the Catholic church–not just as a belief in the real presence, but in the connection it made to the “communion of saints” of all ages.  I had a longing for this connection, and this intensified whenever I visited other churches. And then I joined John Michael Talbot’s ecumenical (at the time) Franciscan community, the Little Brothers and Sisters of Charity. And I went to conferences for priests, deacons, and seminarians at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. And in these places I longed for communion–but was kept from it because I was not in union with the Catholic church. And I wept with my brothers and sisters.

That’s what the Eucharist meant for me on the road to Catholicism–connection to others, past and present. This emotional need for connection was particularly strong, I can understand in retrospect, because I was still grieving my separation from the Adventist church in which I was raised–and from my wife.

Of course, the closer I was drawn to Catholicism emotionally, the more I had to grapple with Catholic teaching about the Eucharist. And this came gradually. Here, too, the emotional impact was strong, especially regarding the question of the perduring presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is the basis for Catholic devotion to the Eucharist outside of mass, including the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle (primarily to take it to the sick), and worship of the Eucharist in the form of Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and Corpus Christi processions. My first experience of this was at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. When I was a student at Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, we were encouraged to take classes at other seminaries in the Washington area. We would go down in a van, and we would meet at the end of the day at the National Shrine, a prominent landmark on the campus of Catholic University of America. I wandered its crypt and many chapels, and always was drawn by the silence and beauty of the Blessed Sacrament Chapel, where I would kneel and pray. Then, as a pastor attending those Steubenville Conferences, I went to Holy Hour for the first time–and that emotional experience pushed aside all questions and debate. I accepted what a priest friend said: “When God gives a gift, he doesn’t take it back.”

As a Catholic, these Eucharistic devotions were a core part of my devotional life; I encouraged them in my ministries to young adults and college students.

Let me step back from the personal narrative now to consider several key points that distinguish the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist from the Protestant.

First is the belief in Transubstantiation, that the substance of bread and wine are fully changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus, while retaining the accidents of bread and wine (appearance, smell, taste, etc.). While the affirmation in Christ’s presence can be argued on the basis of Scripture (as Lutherans and Calvinists do), this cannot. This definition, explained using terms of Aristotelian philosophy, goes beyond Scripture. I accepted it as a Catholic because I accepted the Catholic Church as mater et magistra, mother and teacher.

Second is the belief that the Eucharist is a sacrifice that can be offered for the living and the dead (the payment of a stipend–usually set at $5 or so–is encouraged when requesting a “mass intention”). While early Christians spoke of the Eucharist as sacrifice, I think they were using the term in an analogous fashion at first … but they came to adopt a pagan understanding. In the Middle Ages most of the abuses centered on this understanding of the Eucharist, as something that could be bought and sold and offered up in place of simple faith in Christ. Again, there is no Scriptural basis for this–it is rooted solely in Catholic tradition. As a Catholic, I accepted the Church as a teacher, as I’ve said, and so acceptance of this followed.

Third, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist entails a specific understanding of ordination. It becomes a means by which a man is imbued with the power to confect the Eucharist. Without this power, there can be no Eucharist. So if a group of Christians were exiled on an island with no priest, they could not just designate one of them a priest (as Luther argued), but must be forever without the Eucharist. Giving the priests this power also sets them apart ontologically, through an “indelible character,” from the laity, and is the root of clericalism.

Fourth, I’ve already discussed Eucharistic Devotions, including the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament and its worship. I was drawn to Catholicism in part through this–and then found myself in campus ministry, where many of my fellow campus ministers considered these devotions as relics of the days before Vatican 2. While working at the  Catholic campus ministry at UCSB, I had to seek out other Catholic churches in the area to find what is really a basic of Catholic life. When I came to Houston, I found that I was working for a bishop who appreciated and encouraged these devotions. But I also experienced extremes, especially through LifeTeen and the Youth 2000 movement. For these groups, Eucharistic exposition was at times accompanied by unrestrained emotional enthusiasm–weeping and shouting and falling on the ground. But this happened only when the Eucharist was in the monstrance, and you could see it. When it was moved 20 feet away to the tabernacle, the youth passed by oblivious. They were caught up in an emotional moment, but they had not thought through the theology so that their practice was consistent. I began to be aware of how much emotionalism had played into my own attraction to these devotions.

Another element of Catholic teaching, rooted in “private revelations,” is the “Eucharistic Reign of Christ.” This is the idea that before Christ physically returns there will be a period of peace in which Christ will reign on earth through the Eucharist. This is the idea behind the spread of perpetual adoration, in which churches set up chapels where the Eucharist is exposed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and constantly attended by worshipers. A critical point will be reached where Christ is worshiped and adored throughout the world (and there will be supernatural manifestations, signs in the heavens, days of darkness, perhaps also including bodily apparitions of Christ), and the world will be transformed; Catholic teaching will guide society, and evil will gradually disappear. This is not Catholic dogma; Catholics do not have to accept this. But no pope has ever cautioned against it, or the practice of perpetual adoration, or the excessive Marian devotion that is wrapped up with it. This is something I never accepted–indeed, it frightened me–and still does. Scripture speaks of Satan being transformed into an angel of light, and of false Christs in the end time. Here’s a way that could easily happen. Yet Jesus himself warned, “If they say he is here or there, or in a secret place, don’t go.”

As I’ve noted several times, these teachings are not based in Scripture, but are rooted in either the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic church or, in the case of the last mentioned item, in private revelations (which are optional). When I came to the point that I no longer accepted the teaching authority of the Catholic church, then these teachings based on that teaching authority simply collapsed.

I also became increasingly aware of how the emphasis on the physical presence of Christ here and now detracts from two clear Scriptural teachings–Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (the Book of Hebrews) and Christ’s return in glory. Scripture teaches that Christ, having been sacrificed once, sat down at the Father’s right hand and now intercedes for us. We are to direct our faith heavenward, “within the veil,” not to anything or any “manifestation” or “presence” on earth. We are not to look forward to a slowly manifesting Eucharistic presence, but to the disruption of history when Jesus comes in the clouds–that is the only event that will destroy evil and usher in peace.

I had a longing for connection with Christians of all ages. I still do. But instead of linking that with an emotional experience of the Eucharist, I link it to our common faith in the Risen Jesus, and our common baptism into one Spirit.

At the time I became Catholic, I accepted the position of Richard John Neuhaus that the battles of the Reformation era over Justification by Faith alone were resolved. I believed that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999, and earlier agreements, had rendered it a moot point. Or, put a better way, that one could lift up the Reformation doctrine within Catholicism today. But as I restudied that Joint Declaration in recent years I saw that it really resolved nothing. It was not proclaimed within Catholicism after 1999–it was set on a shelf as a past achievement, and nothing in Catholic practice was examined in its light. And justification by faith must call into question today, as it did 500 years ago, the Catholic practices of indulgences and Eucharistic sacrifice. I’ve written about that here.

John Dunne (The Way of All the Earth: Experiments in Truth and Religion) compared inter-religious dialogue to the hero’s mythic journey, “passing over” into another tradition, learning from within its framework, and then “coming home,” enriched. I did come home changed.  Likewise, Ewert Cousins (Christ of the 21st Century) said that when we encounter an experience in another tradition that resonates with an experience we have had, we may discover aspects of our own tradition that we have overlooked or neglected. The inter-religious encounter then becomes a mirror against which we may come to appreciate aspects of our tradition that had never before made sense to us.

I returned home enriched by my experiences in Lutheranism and Catholicism. I came to see that I had overlooked teachings in my own tradition, notably the affirmation of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and the joy that should characterize this celebration. Here’s the full statement of Adventist belief:

The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour. In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again. Preparation for the Supper includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The Master ordained the service of foot washing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to serve one another in Christlike humility, and to unite our hearts in love. The communion service is open to all believing Christians. (1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23-30; Matt. 26:17-30; Rev. 3:20; John 6:48-63; 13:1-17.)

Though some have said Adventists share a Zwinglian belief that the Lord’s Supper is a mere memorial, I think this clearly expresses Calvin’s belief that “Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people.” And I think this is clearly affirmed by Scripture. Do we need to explain it by recourse to pagan philosophy? No. Do we need to invent categories like “ubiquity” or “transubstantiation”? No. We can simply take Christ at his word. He is present–but it is not a physical presence. He has ascended to heaven. He is “within the veil.” He is present now, every day, and in every circumstance, but especially in his supper, through his Holy Spirit (John 14). It is this Spirit that connects all who are baptized in his name in one body (1 Cor 12-14). It is this Spirit that calls us to cry out, “Come, Lord Jesus!”

Let me conclude for now with a quotation from Ellen White, The Desire of Ages (pp. 658ff). Not as a dogmatic proof–but for the benefit of my fellow Adventists to show that what I’m describing is not unknown within Adventism.

Christ by the Holy Spirit is there to set the seal to His own ordinance. He is there to convict and soften the heart. Not a look, not a thought of contrition, escapes His notice. For the repentant, brokenhearted one He is waiting. All things are ready for that soul’s reception. He who washed the feet of Judas longs to wash every heart from the stain of sin.

None should exclude themselves from the Communion because some who are unworthy may be present. Every disciple is called upon to participate publicly, and thus bear witness that he accepts Christ as a personal Saviour. It is at these, His own appointments, that Christ meets His people, and energizes them by His presence. Hearts and hands that are unworthy may even administer the ordinance, yet Christ is there to minister to His children. All who come with their faith fixed upon Him will be greatly blessed. All who neglect these seasons of divine privilege will suffer loss. Of them it may appropriately be said, “Ye are not all clean.”

In partaking with His disciples of the bread and wine, Christ pledged Himself to them as their Redeemer. He committed to them the new covenant, by which all who receive Him become children of God, and joint heirs with Christ. By this covenant every blessing that heaven could bestow for this life and the life to come was theirs. This covenant deed was to be ratified with the blood of Christ. And the administration of the Sacrament was to keep before the disciples the infinite sacrifice made for each of them individually as a part of the great whole of fallen humanity.

But the Communion service was not to be a season of sorrowing. This was not its purpose. As the Lord’s disciples gather about His table, they are not to remember and lament their shortcomings. They are not to dwell upon their past religious experience, whether that experience has been elevating or depressing. They are not to recall the differences between them and their brethren. The preparatory service has embraced all this. The self-examination, the confession of sin, the reconciling of differences, has all been done. Now they come to meet with Christ. They are not to stand in the shadow of the cross, but in its saving light. They are to open the soul to the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. With hearts cleansed by Christ’s most precious blood, in full consciousness of His presence, although unseen, they are to hear His words, “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” John 14:27.

Our Lord says, Under conviction of sin, remember that I died for you. When oppressed and persecuted and afflicted for My sake and the gospel’s, remember My love, so great that for you I gave My life. When your duties appear stern and severe, and your burdens too heavy to bear, remember that for your sake I endured the cross, despising the shame. When your heart shrinks from the trying ordeal, remember that your Redeemer liveth to make intercession for you.

The Communion service points to Christ’s second coming. It was designed to keep this hope vivid in the minds of the disciples. Whenever they met together to commemorate His death, they recounted how “He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” In their tribulation they found comfort in the hope of their Lord’s return. Unspeakably precious to them was the thought, “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.” 1 Cor. 11:26.

“I Heard an Old, Old Story”

And he’s been singing it for a long, long time. George Beverly Shea is 100.

“The Shack” = Modalism

That’s the critique of a Southern Baptist pastor.

Door-to-Door Evangelism

Not very effective, says Monte.

Shocked in LA

The archbishop of Los Angeles is shocked–shocked!–that the government is looking into how he handled abusive priests. Lee Podles; Commonweal; Rocco.

Commonweal asks, “Should the government be able to determine the proper relationship between a bishop and his flock?”

If that relationship involves sending them priests he knows are molesters, I say yes. The state’s job is to protect all–from their bishops if necessary. The wall of separation of church and state does not give the church immunity from state prosecution (as the Catholic church’s church/state theory has always wanted).

But as Lee notes, Mahony is slippery enough that he’ll probably wiggle out of this.

Some wonder whether the “honest services” law should apply. Commonweal says,

The “honest services” law was intended to help prosecutors combat sleazy politicians who couldn’t quite be reached with bribery and exortion statutes.

Does that apply to Roger?

Labor Unrest in Europe … Will It Spread?

Massive labor demonstrations across France and Germany. Of course these are not spontaneous. Will they spread here? If unions stir workers up and cause unrest, they might.

Here’s a place to keep an eye on–International A.N.S.W.E.R. These are the radicals behind the anti-war protests. They don’t like violence or racism or war … that’s why they also sport Che Guevara t-shirts. They are radical Stalinists … the sort that have always loved to stir up trouble.

Blagojevich

David Broder, Blagojevich’s toll on Illinois is no joke.

Update: It’s over. 59-0.

Other commentary:

• Richard Roeper, Blagojevich’s sad denial tour ends predictably
• John Nicholds: Blago Removed–After Mounting a (Really) Lame Defense.

Penn Jillette on Witnessing

Penn Jillette reflects on an incident when someone gave him a Bible after a show. He’s an atheist–but he respects this guy as “a very, very, very good man.” He says if you are going to believe, you need to witness to be consistent.

Arthur Waskow v. Benedict XVI

Spectrum, a publication of liberal Seventh-day Adventists, gives space on its webpage to a commentary by Rabbi Arthur Waskow on Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops.

It’s unpleasant reading. Waskow slams the pope for “pissing on our confreres in Islam” and for being the “enemy of liberation theology” which he opines was “the best hope of Christian ‘renewal’ as well as the best hope of the poor in Latin America and elsewhere.”

So that let’s you know where Waskow’s coming from. He’s an angry Marxist-sympathizer who can’t understand why Christians would not embrace Marxism as “the best hope of Christian ‘renewal.’”

As for “pissing on our confreres in Islam”–he elaborates: “Then Pope Ratzinger quoted a medieval Christian scholar calling Islam irrational and violent.”

Let’s pause and look at what Benedict actually said in his 2006 Regensburg lecture:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

Waskow concludes: “He was a villain before he became Pope, and he is a villain still.”

This melodramatic invective left me humming a tune from “Oliver!”–”Once a villain, you’re a villain to the end!”

On Keeping the Sabbath

EthicsDaily has an article about “The Ethics of Working on Sunday.” It tells the story of a group of church members who went into a restaurant after their Sunday evening service and told the waitress they wouldn’t be giving her a tip because she was working on Sunday. Another waitress said, “We wouldn’t be working on Sunday if so many of you didn’t come here on Sunday.”

It reminded me of Jared Wright’s article about the long lines at the Souplantation (Sweet Tomatoes) near Loma Linda on a Sabbath after church. He rightly observes there’s a matter of justice involved. The Sabbath commandment is not about you taking it easy–it specifies that you, your servants, and your animals should all rest.

Lots of people seem to think resting means they go out to eat–not thinking that this requires others to work to satisfy their needs. If your “rest” requires someone else to work, you’re not keeping the Sabbath.

“Frozen in Indifference”

In Detroit, no one cares about a dead body in a block of ice–not the homeless people who wander by, not the police on the street or the 911 dispatcher.

Mater et Magistra

It’s 50 years since Pope John XXIII announced his plans for the Second Vatican Council. One of the hallmarks of that council was that the Catholic Church came to accept religious liberty as an ideal–it saw that it had to, if it was going to protect its own members liberties in secular and communist societies. But it never did accept separation of church and state–as defined and celebrated in the American experience. That was reiterated in a talk last fall by Cardinal F. James Stafford.

Dignitatis Humanae makes this distinction very clear:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

The Catholic church says the state can’t coerce it or the believer–but it has a right and a duty to teach the state and to work towards the establishment of the Social Reign of Christ the King (the theme of Pope Pius XI’s 1925 encyclical Quas primas).

But how to do that? There is a clear division within the Catholic Church. On the one hand is the position taken by Opus Dei (supported by Vatican 2 documents) that it’s the obligation of the laity to sanctify the temporal sphere by their ordinary work. Priests and bishops must form their consciences, but they are the legislators, the judges, the businessmen, the housewives, the nurses, the doctors, etc. The laity, doing their jobs faithfully and well, and guided by their own conscience, are the salt and light that will influence the world for the better.

The other position is that taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and a host of state and regional bishops’ conferences. This is a clericalist vision, which sees the role of influencing the state as belonging to the church per se. In this vision, the bishops become experts on every detail of social policy, and spell out in great detail what they expect “the lay faithful” to do, and spend great sums in lobbying to get their way. Check out the “Social Justice Issues” in the menu column of the USCCB webpage. The range of issues  upon which the USCCB has official positions is breath-taking:

•  Arms Control
•  Campaign/Human Development
•  Catholic Social Ministry Gathering
•  Catholic Social Teaching
•  Debt
•  Death Penalty
•  Domestic Issues
•  Environment
•  Faith-Based Initiative
•  Faithful Citizenship
•  Housing
•  Government Liaison
•  Immigration
•  International Issues
•  Iraq
•  Justice, Peace & Human Dev.
•  Labor Issues
•  Middle East
•  Migrants & Refugees
•  Nonviolence
•  Poverty
•  Social Dev. & World Peace
•  Social Security
•  Trafficking
•  Welfare

While denounced by some leftists as being part of the “Religious Right” because of their opposition to abortion, the Catholic Church is really the heart and soul of the Religious Left. Aside from its positions on abortion, stem cell research, contraception, and school vouchers, the USSCB agenda mirrors the agenda of the Democratic party and the labor unions with which it has long been entwined.

And of course it is not content to teach and to preach and to operate its own charitable agencies, it wants government money to fund its activities.

No wonder “the wall of separation” is anathema.

Compare the page of a state Catholic Conference, like Texas. You see the same broad range of issues.

What was Jesus’ legislative agenda? What issues did he address in his petitions to Pilate, Herod, and Caesar? What issues did he request tax dollars to support? None, of course. Instead, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Traditional Anglicans to become RC?

Report that the Traditional Anglican Communion has been offered the status of a personal prelature. HT Tito.

Update: Vatican denies the report.

Feds Investigate LA Archdiocese

It’s about time: a major federal investigation of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church and how a bishop handled it. And they’re starting in the right place–Los Angeles.

Fox to Finance Dawn Treader

Disney bailed on Walden after “Caspian,” but Fox will pick up “Dawn Treader.” Hopefully Fox, unlike Disney, will respect the integrity of the books.

Free Speech Vindicated at City College of San Francisco

Another speech code found unconstitutional, this one in Jews for Jesus v. City College of San Francisco.

Adoption in Scotland

Sad story.

Did Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Cuts Vatican Ties?

A report claims the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has severed ties with the Vatican in response to the restoration of communion with the SSPX bishops.

Update: Nasty reactions from the loyal readers of Fr. John Z’s blog.

Update: Head of the Chief Rabbinate appreciated Pope’s words at Wednesday audience.

Update: The head of the Chief Rabbinate says they just asked some questions–and they got good answers. No change in the relationship.

Religion in Daily Life

Some people think it is important, some don’t.  Gallup survey maps the US as to how people answered the question.

The least religious states are in New England and the west:  VT, NH, ME, MA, AK, WA, OR, RI, NV, CT.

Most religious? MS, AL, SC, TN, LA, AR, GA, NC, OK, KY, TX.

Map looks an awful lot like the red/blue political map.

Update: Shawn Brace posted some theories back in November about why New England might be so secular.

From SWAU to American Idol and Back Again

SWAU webpage interviews Ricky Smith, who was on American Idol a few years ago (got to number 8 the year Clay Aiken won came in second to some guy named Ruben Studdard).

The Pope Speaks

And explains his reasons for desiring reconciliation with the SSPX.

RIP Leon Klenicki

Rabbi Leon Klenicki, former director of interfaith relations for the Anti-Defamation League, has died. Rocco has a good reflection. I got to know Rabbi Klenicki during the last National Workshop on Jewish-Christian Relations, held here in Houston in 1999. And that reminds me that we haven’t had one in ten years!! They used to be held every couple of years.