Home

  • Month of Sundays: Suffering

    What credit can you claim when, after doing wrong, you take your punishment for it patiently? But, on the other hand, if, after doing right, you take your sufferings patiently, that does win the approval of God. For it was to this that you were called! For Christ, too, suffered–on your behalf–and left you an example, that you should follow in his steps. (1 Peter 2:20-21)

    Back in the 1970’s I attended for a brief time a church whose pastor was one of the foremost “prosperity teachers” of his day. One constant refrain in his sermon was his making fun of those who claimed they were “suffering for Jesus.” His idea was that Jesus didn’t make anyone suffer and that, if they would adopt the “God kind of faith,” they wouldn’t be suffering any more.

    Evidently he hadn’t thought through a few things.

    Reading the scripture above should put an end to the idea that Christians never suffer. Our Lord did so while on this earth and promised that his followers would experience persecution and suffer for being his followers, just as he suffered for being who he was.

    But the truth is that, although some in the congregation were really suffering, others weren’t. They lived in a prosperous Texas city; had they driven far enough south, or even in parts of their own metro area, they would have seen real poverty and suffering.

    And for those who were suffering, we must ask: were they really “suffering for Jesus?” Or were they doing so because of their own mistakes? Were they experiencing poverty for the Savior, or were they just careless with their money? As the scripture says above, we can’t take credit for suffering for bad things we’ve brought on ourselves.

    Too much of what is taught these days tells us that we can live a pain-free life. But Our Lord never made such a promise.

    “I have spoken to you in this way, so that in me you may find peace. In the world you will find trouble; yet, take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33)

    ,

  • To Stay Out of Purgatory, Read the Bible

    While out and about on holiday earlier this week, I purchased at an antique store a copy of a family Catholic Bible from the early 1950’s.  In addition to translations that have fallen out of favour (even in the RCC) it contains several fascinating aspects that you don’t see any more.

    First, it gives an overview of Roman Catholicism in that era, which I found interesting since I didn’t convert until 1972.

    Second, it used for its illustrations the paintings of J.-J. Tissot.  These also were used by the very non-Catholic author William Simmons (well, he used to be Catholic) in his book Peoples of the New Testament World, which I reviewed a few weeks back.

    Third, at the very start it quotes from the Enchiridion (Handbook) of Indulgences (694) as follows:

    To the faithful who read the books of Sacred Scripture for at least a quarter of an hour, with the great reverence due to the divine word and after the manner of spiritual reading:

    an indulgence of three years is granted.

    In the Catholic encyclopaedia in the back, indulgences are defined as follows:

    The remission granted by the Church for the temporal punishment due to sin that has already been forgiven.

    Protestants tend to equate “temporal punishment” with the blowback that comes from a sinful life.  But in Catholicism that punishment involves the penance that believers are required to do as part of the absolution obtained via the sacrament of Penance.  The penance needs to be done either in this life or the next, i.e. Purgatory.

    So what about the time granted in an indulgence?  The Catholic Church, before and after Vatican II (when the rules were revised somewhat) has always hedged on this, speaking about the change in the penitential system relative to the Roman Empire church, when people put off baptism to avoid the harsh penitential system.  Let’s assume for this study that all of the penance is being carried forward into Purgatory (sounds like the U.S. tax code!)  The Church has taught that the time granted in an indulgence isn’t equivalent to actual time saved in Purgatory.  But for those of us of a Dantean mindset, Purgatory is a place for penance, penance takes time, so why shouldn’t the time of the indulgence be equivalent to time saved in Purgatory?

    Back to Bible reading…let’s see.  If a Catholic, keeping up with the system of absolution laid out by the Church, read his or her Bible fifteen minutes a day, over a year’s time they would obtain an indulgence of 3 x 365 = 1,095 years.  As a manner of comparison, Dante had the near-pagan Statius out of Purgatory in ±1,300 years, so that’s not bad.  (Obviously we could extrapolate the increase in indulgence over, say, ten or more years, but then again that’s just more opportunity for sin, so that cancels itself out.)  So Bible reading alone would move someone up the mount of Purgatory at a brisk clip.

    While rolling up indulgences, a Catholic who read the Bible would be absorbing the content.  If they got stuck, they might ask the priest, who would probably give them an explanation they would not understand.  If push really came to shove, they might ask their Baptist friend, a supreme act of desperation for Catholic and Pentecostal alike.  But in the long run one of two things would happen.

    The first is that they would adopt a very Scriptural type of Catholicism like a Jaques-Bénigne Bossuet.

    The second is that they would leave the Catholic Church, in which case the need for indulgence would become moot.

    Students of the Reformation obviously recognise that it was the sale of indulgences that lead to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses and the break with Rome.  The Bible reading indulgence would have been another way to counter Tetzel’s money making scheme.  In addition to his advancement of Augustinian theology, Luther had one other major obstacle in the Bible reading indulgence: most people in his era were illiterate, something that the Protestant propagation of the Scriptures helped to counter.

    ,

  • Order of the Engineer: We Still Need Divine Guidance

    This past weekend I attended the Leadership Summit for the Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  The Geo-Institute is one of eight institutes within the Society which deals with specialties within civil engineering, in this case soils and foundations.  Part of that meeting was an induction of some of the attendees into the Order of the Engineer, and I was one of those inductees.

    The Order of the Engineer has its roots in Canada, instituted in the wake of recurring tragedy during the building of the Quebec Bridge over the St. Lawrence River in the years around World War I.  It came to the United States in 1970.  There are two key elements in the induction: the “Obligation of an Engineer” (as opposed to an oath) and receiving the iron (actually steel) ring.

    In advance of the ceremony, the inductees were given a small card with the Obligation on it, which reads as follows:

    OBLIGATION OF AN ENGINEER

    I am an Engineer, in my profession I take deep pride.  To it I owe solemn obligations.

    Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius.  Engineers have made usable Nature’s vast resources of material and energy for Mankind’s benefit.  Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology.  Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.

                                                                        As an Engineer, I

    _____________________________________________________

    pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and the dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.

    As an Engineer, in humility and with the need for Divine guidance, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises.  When needed, my skills and knowledge shall be given without reservation for public good in the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.

    After an extensive overview of the history of the Order of the Engineer, we the inductees were asked to repeat the Obligation above.  In the course of going through it, our leader skipped the italicised words.  This was a momentary show stopper: we were not expecting it, but eventually we caught up and finished the Obligation.

    The atheists have struck again, I thought.  The invocation of divine guidance in one form or another had been a part of the Order of the Engineer since it was started north of the border (or at least that’s the impression that came out from the overview we received).

    Contrary to what is fashionable these days, my own view of the matter is as follows:

    1. God set the universe in place with an orderly system of physical laws within which same universe operates.
    2. He endowed us with intelligence to discover and make best use of same ordered universe.
    3. He expects us to do so responsibly and with integrity, an idea that started with Genesis 1:28.  We are to neither worship the creation nor run roughshod over it.

    One of the important differences between engineers and scientists (and one that sometimes gets blurred due to the overlapping nature of their activity) is that if a scientist, say, comes up with a new theory of the origin and subsequent course of the universe, the universe will be essentially unmoved by the right or wrong of the theory.  If an engineer misapplies what theory or experience he or she has at hand, the results can be disastrous for all involved.

    That being the case, I think the invocation for divine guidance is a reasonable thing to do, and I will continue to do so.

    It’s probably just as well that, if the invocation of divine guidance is excluded, the humility goes also.  Atheism is a system that on the one hand degrades the place of the human race by its view of the origin of the species and the vastness of the universe away from the planet and on the other inculcates pride and arrogance amongst its devotees as being far superior to everyone else.

  • Month of Sundays: Strength

    This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: The LORD God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the world. And he has ordered me to build a temple for him in Jerusalem (which is in Judah). May God be with all of you who are his people. You may go to Jerusalem (which is in Judah) and build a temple for the LORD God of Israel. He is the God who is in Jerusalem. All who choose to remain behind, wherever they may be living, should provide the people who are leaving with silver, gold, supplies, livestock, and freewill offerings to be used in God’s temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:2-4)

    King Cyrus was on top of the world. From mountainous Persia he ruled a vast empire; he was secure enough to allow the Jews to return to their homeland. In doing so he was God’s instrument, doing his will.

    But Cyrus had other choices to make, too. A man named Artembares had an idea: that the Persians abandon their mountainous homeland and settle in a richer part of their new empire, probably what is now Iraq. Cyrus told them that Artembares and his friends could do what they wanted, but that he wasn’t going anywhere: “’Soft countries,’ he said, ‘breed soft men. It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers too.’ The Persians had to admit that this was true and that Cyrus was wiser than they; so they left him, and chose rather to live in a rugged land and rule than to cultivate rich plains and be subject to others.” (Herodotus, The Histories)

    The Jews returned to their land and began to rebuild their temple. Cyrus’ descendants would rule from their rugged land for another two hundred years. And Cyrus’ decision still works: one reason why the U.S. attacked Iraq and not Iran (Persia) was because of the rugged terrain from whence Cyrus came.

    We always want the “easy way” out, and our lives to always be smooth sailing. But rugged terrain—physically and in life—can build character and endurance in a way that nothing else can. Jesus Christ won us freedom on an old rugged cross: don’t throw it away for easy street!

    ,

  • Month of Sundays: Storms

    So, when a light wind sprang up from the south, thinking that they had found their opportunity, they weighed anchor and kept along the coast of Crete, close in shore. But shortly afterwards a hurricane came down on us off the land–a north-easter, as it is called. The ship was caught by it and was unable to keep her head to the wind, so we had to give way and let her drive before it. Running under the lee of a small island called Cauda, we only just managed to secure the ship’s boat, And, after hoisting it on board, the men frapped the ship. But, afraid of being driven on to the Syrtis Sands, they lowered the yard, and then drifted. So violently were we tossed about by the storm, that the next day they began throwing the cargo overboard, And, on the following day, threw out the ship’s tackle with their own hands. As neither sun nor stars were visible for several days, and, as the gale still continued severe, all hope of our being saved was at last abandoned. (Acts 27:13-20)

    In the ancient world, ships were built with long cables that extended from one end of the vessel to the other. In times of storm, these would be tightened so that the ship would hold together until the storm passed, when they would be loosened and the ship could sail normally. That is described as “frapping” (the correct term) in the passage above, and on board was their prisoner—the Apostle Paul.

    Too many people sail the sea lanes of life with no idea of preparing for the storms that will come, or even avoiding them, as Paul tried to do before they set sail. But come they will. The questions that then come up are this: do you have the rigging in your life to hold together during times of trouble? And who is your captain?

    It’s so easy to be either self-sufficient or careless about living when times are good. But bad times will wreck both. And that leads to our captain. We say that Jesus Christ is the Lord of our life when we get saved. But do we really mean that? Are we dependent upon him? Do we follow his commands for living? Are we his disciples, having internalized his gospel instead of just giving it lip service? The time to do all of this is now, before the storms of life break up your ship and you find yourself with only a plank to hold on to.

    ,

  • The Debt Ceiling Debate is Rubbish

    The current theatre riveting Washington these days is the debt ceiling “negotiation” between Barack Obama and the opposite of progress (otherwise known as Congress).  But, as Felix Salmon (and others) point out, it may all be for nothing:

    Realistically, then, the government is likely to breach the current debt ceiling no matter what Congress agrees. A failure to lift it would be a bit like an edict to a steaming supertanker that it had to stop dead: no matter how much force of law that edict has, sheer momentum is going force many basic operations of the public fisc to continue for some period of days or weeks.

    At that point — and no earlier — there would be enormous pressure on the White House to pull out the 14th Amendment and declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, if only for practical reasons: doing so would be a lot easier than trying to reprogram the computers which are set to send out $49 billion of Social Security checks on August 3. Not to mention that no president ever wants to be the person who stiffed America’s seniors on their guaranteed monthly income: a greater failure of leadership can hardly be imagined. On the other hand, saying “enough of you bickering legislators, I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution and do what’s in the best interest of the country” is much more presidential.

    If an impasse is reached, Obama has two options: shut down the government the way Bill Clinton did in 1995 and embarrass the Republicans (which in part got him his second term), or just roll on and figure out how to justify it later.  The first option is dicey this go around because Congress is divided and the ability to dispense money (and thus patronage) is the key to the Democrats’ long term hegemony.

    The “constitutional” argument that Salmon refers to is buttressed by the simple fact that Congress authorised the expenditures that got us to this point to start with.   Ignoring the debt ceiling would provoke a “constitutional crisis”, but when a political system is constantly forced to do what it wasn’t designed to do, such a crisis is inevitable, and we might as well have it now.  If I were in Obama’s position with his idea, I would ignore the debt ceiling, knowing my opponents don’t have much recourse, in the short term at least.

    Barack Obama is, in some ways, in same position as Charles I of England was in 1629: from his view, he would be better off if he could send Congress home for the duration.  Eventually he would get his tax increase, eventually Obamacare would kick in, he could use administrative means to get the rest of his agenda, and he could lean on the Supremes to force same sex civil marriage on the rest of the states.  (May not take much leaning, really…)  Our constitution prohibits such a move (the formal term is to prorogue Congress) with Charles’ experience in view: not only was representative government short circuited, but the end result was ugly, both for Charles I (he was beheaded) and England (which got Oliver Cromwell).

    We are headed to a major “constitutional” crisis.  Coming to an agreement on this only puts it off, but come it will.

    HT to the American Thinker.

  • My Fourth of July Tribute: Tragedy in a P-47

    For the Fourth of July, when the U.S. celebrates its independence from the U.K., I have gone on at length about the importance of the Declaration of Independence as our true founding document.

    This year, however, I’ve picked something a little closer to home: the aviation service during World War II of my uncle, Don Gaston Shofner (right), and of his untimely death in service even before he got a chance for his “baptism of fire” in combat.  You can read about this (with photographs) here.

    Have a great Fourth of July!

  • Do not wonder if the world hates you: Epistle for the Second Sunday After Trinity

    Salutary reminder for the times we live in:

    Do not wonder, Brothers, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of Death into Life, because we love our Brothers. The man who does not love remains in a state of Death. Every one who hates his Brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has Immortal Life within him. We have learned to know what love is from this–that Christ laid down his life on our behalf. Therefore we also ought to lay down our lives on behalf of our Brothers. But, if any one has worldly possessions, and yet looks on while his Brother is in want, and steels his heart against him, how can it be said that the love of God is within him? My children, do not let our love be mere words, or end in talk; let it be true and show itself in acts. By that we shall know that we are on the side of the Truth; and we shall satisfy ourselves in God’s sight, that if our conscience condemns us, yet God is greater than our conscience and knows everything. Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, then we approach God with confidence, and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we are laying his commands to heart, and are doing what is pleasing in his sight. His Command is this–that we should put our trust in the Name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, in accordance with the Command that he gave us. And he who lays his commands to heart maintains union with Christ, and Christ with him. And by this we know that Christ maintains union with us–by our possession of the Spirit which he gave us.
    (1 John 3:13-24)

    From the 1928 BCP.

  • Month of Sundays: Sovereignty

    They sent their disciples, with the Herodians, to say to him: “Teacher, we know that you are an honest man, and that you teach the way of God honestly, and are not afraid of any one; for you pay no regard to a man’s position. Tell us, then, what you think. Are we right in paying taxes to the Emperor, or not?” Perceiving their malice, Jesus answered: “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin with which the tax is paid.” And, when they had brought him a florin, He asked: “Whose head and title are these?” “The Emperor’s,” they answered: on which he said to them: “Then pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22:16-21)

    When I was growing up, we went to the Bahamas, before they became an independent nation. To buy anything, I had to learn the old British money system of pounds, shillings and pence (the direct descendant of the system used in the New Testament.) The Bahamas are a long way from England in every sense. However, on every coin and the paper money, there was Queen Elizabeth’s picture. That’s still true in the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries with a monarch.

    The Jews resented the fact that they were under Roman rule, and a constant reminder of that (for Jew and Bahamian alike) was the sovereign’s likeness and title on the coins. So they used this in an attempt to trap Jesus. They saw things in an either/or sense: if he says we pay taxes, the Emperor is first, not God. If he says we don’t, he’s a rebel and the Romans will do away with him.

    But asking God how we should honor him can have unpredictable results. Jesus’ answer was based on a simple premise: the Emperor had his role and the earthly power to make it stick. So we must do for the sovereign what we must, and do for God what we must.

    Jesus’ message for his brethren was simple: you’re looking for a political solution, but your problem is that your heart’s in the wrong place. Our heart needs to be with God, no matter what we must do for our “sovereign” in this life. When the Jews finally revolted, they issued coinage without the Emperor’s likeness, but they were defeated and the Temple destroyed. Let us not make the same mistake!

    ,

  • Legalising Legislative Deception: Judge Sutton and the Individual Mandate

    Orin Kerr is proud of himself that Judge Jeffrey Sutton agrees with him on the individual mandate rulig:

    I think Judge Sutton’s separate opinion is excellent, but then it’s easy for me to say: Judge Sutton’s views closely match what I’ve been saying here and elsewhere for a long time, so maybe this just proves once again that brilliant people agree with me.

    He may be, but I am not.  It’s difficult to follow much of the argument here, but this is, as I see it, the course of events:

    1. Congress mandates that hospitals and other health care providers furnish services to those who cannot afford health care.
    2. Health care providers comply with this, using the paying customers to subsidise those who can’t pay.
    3. Congress and the President then decide that everyone’s health care needs to be paid for.  Obvious solution: do a single payer and tax everyone.  Had they done this, we wouldn’t be having the judicial back and forth over the individual mandate, because there would be no argument that the federal government has the power to tax.  But because most people are happy with the status quo and insurance companies would vanish with a single payer, we ended up with the cobbled mess called Obamacare.
    4. The losers then sue, pointing out that the federal government is forcing people to buy something against their will.
    5. Sutton and his ilk respond that, because of (1), mandate is both necessary and no sweat, and really is a tax, which Congress can do.  This not only confirms Congress’ legerdemain/bait-and-switch (take your pick,) but also makes (1) look like a set-up for (3).

    If the Supremes buy this and uphold the individual mandate, they will do the following:

    • Allow Congress to get away with seriously deceptive legislation, which will only encourage more (as if they needed the encouragement).
    • Short-circuit process and substantive content in legal language, or more directly further the cause of outcome-based justice, which undermines the rule of law.
    • Allow Obamacare to proceed.  As an administrative nightmare, it will make a mess of health care, which will only encourage the push for the next step: single-payer health care.

    The government will end up issuing everyone a health care card.  But, to obtain really worthwhile health care, we will need two documents: a passport and a plane ticket.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started