tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874124806011172492024-03-02T10:53:01.219-05:00The Worden Report - ReligionDr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-49201381212251014472024-02-24T14:53:00.009-05:002024-02-25T18:08:49.600-05:00Yale Divinity School<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: rgb(238, 238, 238);"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On
February 21-23, 2024, Rowan Williams, a former archbishop of Canterbury,
delivered a series of lectures on the topic of solidarity in moral theology. In
my own research, I relate that field to ethics and historical economic thought.
Williams’ theory of solidarity, which goes beyond what he calls “the vague
feeling of empathy” that is emphasized in the moral writings of David Hume and
Adam Smith, to reach a person’s identity and even one’s soul. Solidary pertains
to interpersonal relations and is thus relevant to neighbor-love, which includes
being willing to attend to the human needs even of one’s detractors and
enemies, as well as just plain rude people. I contend that the upper echelon at Yale Divinity School is at
two-degrees of separation from this sort of solidarity, especially as it is
wholistic rather than partisan in nature. It is no accident, by the way, that
the self-love that characterizes the school's culture has manifested in some
courses being almost entirely oriented to advocating very narrow ideological
partisan positions, politically, economically, and on social issues at the
expense of sheer fairness to students, wholeness, theology, and academic
standards. At the time, the school was accepting 50% of studen applicants. I
leave these ideological and academic matters to the side here so I can focus on
the astonishing distance between the school's dean and the sort of solidarity
that he heard of in the lectures and that could lead to Christian leadership
for Yale's Christian divinity school, which includes two seminaries.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-mycorner.blogspot.com/2024/02/yale-divinity-school-fish-rots-from.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Yale Divinity School</span></a>." </span></span></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-32929756333283600382024-01-24T17:28:00.001-05:002024-02-04T17:42:35.798-05:00The Devil’s Arithmetic<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179148/"><i><span style="color: #783f04;">The Devil’s Arithmetic</span></i></a><i>
</i>(1999) can be classified superficially as a coming-of-age film, for Hanna,
the protagonist, starts out being immaturely contemptuous of her family’s
ethnic and religious heritage and current practice. She tries to skip the
Passover Seder at her grandparents’ house. That her aunt Eva had been a
prisoner at a Nazi death camp makes no difference to Hanna—that is, until she
is transported back as her aunt’s cousin (for whom Hanna was named) and
experiences the camp herself. Whether she is <i>really </i>transported back in
time (and if so, how?) or is merely dreaming is answered in the end but not so
blatantly as would insult the viewers’ intelligence. Then again, it’s not every
film that has allusions both to theology and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"><i><span style="color: #783f04;">The Wizard of
Oz</span></i></a>. The different ways in which that movie is incorporated and alluded
to in this film are actually quite sophisticated in extending the viewers’
sense of synchronicity beyond the film’s narrative.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;"></span><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-devils-arithmetic.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">The Devil's Arithmetic</span></a>."</span></span></div><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-7019288934664509572023-12-22T21:58:00.012-05:002023-12-23T14:37:29.139-05:00Pope Francis on Blessing Gay Couples<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pope Francis approved a document in 2023 that allows for “the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 25.68px;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> The inclusion of the word, <i>possibility</i>, is important because it gives priests (and their bishops) whose stances on morality are socially conservative an out. That <i>irregular </i>situations are included in the statement—although admittedly they are distinct from “couples of the same sex”—is a hint that the statement would likely be controversial and taken at least by some clergy negatively. So that the document gives the clergy discretion is no small matter. It also matters because of the emotional vulnerability that is entailed in requesting a blessing. At the time, the Church was still being impacted by having been recognized, and thus stigmatized, as the cause of the emotional damage that had been inflicted on children by pedophile clergy over decades. In fact, the resulting declining church attendance may have gone into the motivation for the statement. The document's overarching pastoral purpose in blessing gay couples over conducting a moral critique of homosexuality shows not only how much Pope Francis differed as of 2023 from his predecessor, but also how very much the atrocities against children had changed the orientation of the Vatican. To the extent that a significant number of the pedophile priests and bishops had molested (and were still molesting) boys, any moral critiques getting in the way of blessing loving gay relationships would suffer from a lack of credibility in the face of dripping irony and sordid hypoc<span style="font-family: times;">risy. </span></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: left;">Even so, the document can be criticized for failing to distinguish moral
from </span><i style="text-align: left;">theological </i><span style="text-align: left;">critiques of male homosexuality—an oversight
mitigated by that fact that the pastoral purpose of the letter subordinates
even a theological assessment, for, as Paul wrote, faith without love,
especially love whose object is not convenient, is for naught.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It should be stated at the outset
that no cleric should be forced, even by the Pope, to give a blessing against the dictates of conscience, for surely intention matters both in the giving and the receiving
of a blessing. Mitigating the likelihood of being forced, conservative clergy
may actually not find the document, and thus giving such blessings, to be as
objectionable as might be presumed from the immediate sensationalistic
journalistic reports. For one thing, the blessings “must be non-liturgical in nature
and should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Church was still maintaining that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a
woman. Furthermore, homosexual <i>conduct</i> was still considered to be a sin.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The document is thus not
revolutionary even within the Roman Catholic Church. The underlying motive is
pastoral, based in the magisterium (teachings) of the Church, rather than doctrinal
from scripture. In other words, the blessings on same-sex couples can be approached
as a means of ministering to human beings in their hurt and yearning for God’s
presence, rather than as giving religious legitimacy to homosexual conduct. A
request for a blessing can be viewed as a response to the human condition that
seeks to transcend itself, including all the concrete situations that we face. Sexual
conduct is such a situation, and so it too can be transcended, including when
requesting a blessing. Even the love that two people have for each other is
deeper than the sexual relations, and yearning for God’s presence—God’s love—relativizes
even interpersonal love. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Nevertheless, a priest (or bishop)
may view the document as giving permission to bless a sin. The document <i>attempts</i>
to deal with this objection by stressing that no ideology should be an obstacle
in the way of a person wanting to feel a connection with God via a blessing by
a priest. That is to say, a priest’s ideology should not be an obstacle to a
same-sex couple requesting blessing. There are, however, some problems. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Firstly, the document itself contains
a contradiction that could give a moral critique from an ideological standpoint
some legs. On the one hand, the document recognizes a role for “the prudent and
fatherly discernment of ordained ministers.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
However, the document also states that “requests for such blessings for
same-sex couples should not be denied.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In the daylight between this language, same-sex couples requesting a blessing could
be confronted with ideological prejudice. Priestly <i>discernment</i>, being
expressly granted, can find an indirect way to justify denying a blessing. For
example, a social-conservative priest could simply <i>discern </i>that a couple
has not prayed enough to be ready to receive a blessing, even though prayer is
not a precondition (but most lay Catholics wouldn’t know that). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Secondly, although the document
does warn clergy against denials based on technicalities, including those based
on ethical analysis, a theological, non-moral rationale exists that conservative
clergy could use. “When people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis
should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The pastoral intent behind the document relativizes the moral dimension, but
what about the theological dimension itself? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Religion, and thus theology, do
not reduce to morality, though in Christianity (and Judaism) the relationship
is complex. Divine decrees are not subject to moral constraints; otherwise, as
Kierkegaard points out in <i>Fear and Trembling</i>, Abraham would be guilty of
attempted murder in raising the knife above Isaac. So divine decrees trump
countervailing ethical principles. Theology transcends morality because the
anchor being sought transcends the limits of human cognition, perception, and
sentiments.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Where divine decrees are consistent with, and indeed even <i>have</i> moral
content, however, such as five do in the Ten Commandments, morality is given
theological legitimacy rather than relegated as subordinate. None of ten
commandments, and neither of the two given by Jesus in the Gospels, are on
homosexual relations. In fact, Jesus doesn’t discuss homosexuality. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">We have to go back to Deuteronomy
to find a divine prohibition on male homosexuality, but even there, the point
is theological rather than moral. Although this supports the document’s
prohibition of moral critique, the document does not confront the <i>theological
</i>point being made in Deuteronomy. Looking over the list that is given in
that book of things that God dislikes (i.e., abominations), we find items that
do not have moral (or immoral) content. Eating shell fish, for example, is
included on the list as an abomination. Contrary to the popular view, an
abomination is not necessary something that is very, very immoral. Rather, an
abomination is simply something that God dislikes. That renders the list <i>theological
</i>in nature. Male sodomy (but not lesbianism)
is included on the list. On this basis, clergy have a theological rather than a
moral basis to use their discretion to refuse to provide a blessing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">To be sure, a biblical hermeneutic
(i.e., method for interpreting biblical passages) could be used to get behind
the scripture. A cleric could conclude that male homosexuality was deemed culturally
immoral when Deuteronomy was written, and that the social ethic was simply
given divine credibility. Similarly, the military attack on Jerico could have
been legitimated by writing that Yahweh ordered that even the women and
children be killed. Without going “behind” scripture to speculate, a priest
would be justified in concluding that a theological rather than an ethical
reason exists for not blessing same-sex male couples. The document does not
take on this point, but an effort is made to transcend it by emphasizing a pastoral
goal in dealing with sinners.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The document emphasizes the fact
that sinners generally have need of God. In the Gospels, Jesus says he came for
the sinners. In fact, he puts them ahead of the self-righteous in getting into
the Kingdom of God. Accordingly, the document states:
“The grace of God works in the lives of those who do not claim to be righteous
but who acknowledge themselves humbly as sinners, like everyone else.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span></span>
Were active sin a block to blessings, then nobody would be able to receive
blessings. Clerical picking and choosing among sins, isolating abortion and
homosexuality for special treatment, suggests the presence of human ideology.
Ideological discernment is a very different thing than theological discernment.
All too often, the two are conflated by clerics who would perhaps fit better
running for a political office than saying Mass. God’s grace works even in
sinners, regardless of the particular sin being committed. Doing something that
God does not like does not cut oneself off from God’s grace. By analogy, friendships
are not typically ended just because one person does something that the other
person doesn’t like. Put another way, love is stronger than likes (and dislikes).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Similar to how love is not
inconsistent with dislikes, wanting to be blessed, even if in a particular
situation on the surface of life, is essentially a yearning to transcend. According
to the document, “Ultimately, a blessing offers people a means to increase
their trust in God. . . . The request for a blessing, thus, expresses and
nurtures openness to the transcendence mercy, and closeness to God in a
thousand concrete circumstances of life.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Concrete circumstances are superficial relative to the yearning for
experiential grounding to something that is solid rather than conditional. Such
yearning is the seed of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the document,
“must be nurtured, not hindered.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Moral critique hinders. Ideology hinders. Even dislikes hinder. The Church’s
clergy should themselves be oriented to transcendence where the reference point
(i.e., God) lies beyond the limits of human cognition, perception, and emotions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is therefore not by accident
that the document states that the Church must castigate rather than perpetuate
its own “doctrinal or disciplinary schemes, especially when they lead to a
narcissistic and authoritarian elitism whereby instead of evangelizing, one
analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one
exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
With energies dissipated thusly, nothing is left with which to love the sinner.
To be sure, sin snuffs out God, but sin does not fit so conveniently into a
particular social ethic—as if humans were divine law-givers. Even amid sin, a
person can be redeemed from its grasp. Even while within it, even “when a
person’s relationship with God is clouded by sin, he can always ask for a
blessing, stretching out his hand to God,” the document states.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In providing a blessing, a priest is merely pointing hands in a transcendental
direction. This is hardly to sanction conduct on the surface. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Therefore, sin does not reduce to
immorality as defined by any particular ideology. Even if conduct taken to be
immoral is further taken as indicative of sin, as something that is disliked by
God, the sinner can ask God for help. To stand in the way of such a request, in
which a creature renders itself vulnerable in a fundamental, existential sense,
is itself blameworthy both ethically (because harm is being caused) and as a
sin because blocking someone’s yearning for God is ironically to push oneself
away from God. Surely God dislikes that, but even such a priest is not cut off
from God’s grace. In the end, we are all struggling creatures falling short and
yet we all have the amazing ability to yearn for existential transcendence.</span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-size: large;"><!--[endif]-->
</span><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div><span>1. Christopher Lamb, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples</span></a>,” CNN.com, December 18,
2023.<br />2. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vatican-pope-approves-blessings-same-sex-couples_n_65805b9ae4b0e142c0bea779"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage</span></a>,”
<i>The Huffington Post</i>, December 18, 2023.<br />3. Christopher Lamb, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples</span></a>,” CNN.com, December 18,
2023.<br />4. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vatican-pope-approves-blessings-same-sex-couples_n_65805b9ae4b0e142c0bea779"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage</span></a>,” <i>The Huffington Post</i>, December 18, 2023.<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk153795912;"><br /></span>5. Christopher Lamb, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples</span></a>,” CNN.com, December 18,
2023.<br />6. Here I am borrowing from Pseudo-Dionysius on the transcendence of God.<br />7. Christopher Lamb, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Francis Authorizes Blessings for Same-Sex Couples</span></a>,” CNN.com, December 18,
2023.<br />8. Nicole Winfield and David Crary, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vatican-pope-approves-blessings-same-sex-couples_n_65805b9ae4b0e142c0bea779"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Approves Blessings for Same-Sex Couples If the Rituals Don’t Resemble Marriage</span></a>,”
<i>The Huffington Post</i>, December 18, 2023.<br />9. Ibid.</span></div><div><span>10. Ibid.</span></div><div><span>11. Ibid.<br /></span><br /></div><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn10" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-63310009446023361612023-12-13T21:44:00.003-05:002023-12-14T13:19:30.653-05:00Pope Francis and the Traditionalist Opposition: Transcending Ideological Sides<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Certainly by the close of 2023, a
group of American Roman Catholic clerics, informally headed by Cardinal Raymond
Burke (a traditionalist and legalist), were actively opposing Pope Francis. The
problem for the members of the opposition faction was that, as traditionalists,
they would take seriously the specific oath of obedience they had made to the
pope and his successors. Lest such oaths be construed as only binding when they
are convenient, which would effectively dissolve any binding, the
traditionalist were at risk of being caught by their own hypocrisy. <i>How to
deal with such people? </i>The pope had doubtless asked himself this very
question on multiple occasions. How does enforcing the oath square with loving
one’s detractors, even enemies? The American president Abraham Lincoln put his
political rivals on his cabinet; should Pope Francis follow suit, or should he
expunge his disloyal opposition and risk Burke’s charge of dictatorship? Does
such a charge even make sense, however, given the oath of obedience? I submit
that a Christian organization—any Christian organization—ought to be run not by
the world’s methods, but according to a radically different kingdom, possible
here and now, in the transformation of one’s own heart by serving, and even
caring for, one’s detractors. Otherwise, a Christian organization is so in name
only, and thus inherently hypocritical. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On November 11, 2023, Pope Francis
removed Bishop Strickland from the office of Bishop of Tyler, Texas. The bishop
had “been an outspoken critic of Pope Francis, challenging his leadership over
social media and even daring Francis to fire him during an interview in 2020.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
To challenge the legitimacy of Pope Francis as head of the Roman Catholic
Church is in direct conflict with the oath of obedience to <i>whomever </i>is
the Vicar of Christ (i.e., the pope). Clearly, having “accused Francis of
undermining the central teachings of the church, including on politically
charged issues like abortion and same sex marriage,”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Strickland didn’t believe that the pope, or at least Pope Francis, stands as the
Vicar of Christ to the Church. The bishop’s hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Along
with the other American traditionalists, Strickland didn’t like Francis’ “focus
on migrants and the climate crisis.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Yet Strickland himself had been very ideological in posting anti-vaccine
messages during the Covid pandemic and calling President Joe Biden an “evil
president” over his support of abortion rights.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
To be sure, Francis’ choice of issues, including economic inequality and the
environment, reflect a certain ideology, but the pope war right in his
criticism of the American traditionalist clerics as too preoccupied with
(human) ideology. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Both sides, and indeed even there
being <i>sides</i> in this fight, could transcend ideology itself by letting go
of all of the political issues and instead focusing on putting into practice what
Jesus says and demonstrates in the Gospel narratives about how people should
treat each other. Beyond neighbor love, and much more difficult, caring for opponents
is how the Kingdom of God grows within and thus in the world, changing it fundamentally
in the process, for faith without love is for naught, Paul wrote. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Although Pope Francis had “frequently
turned the other cheek, going so far as to say he does not seek to crack down
on opponents,” even appointing “to Vatican departments” people “who held
different views than his own,” he decided that Cardinal Burke would “lose some
of his privileges, reportedly including a subsidy for his 4,488-square-foot
apartment and monthly stipend.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer, told CNN that while meeting the pope on
November 27, 2023, “Francis told me he was taking away the apartment and salary
of Cardinal Burke because he was using these privileges ‘against the church.’”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In what sense? “For so long, Cardinal Burke had been calling into question
Francis’ authority and his teaching. This would be shocking in any
organization, but particularly shocking in the Catholic Church, given the
special role the papacy has in upholding unity,” Ivereigh said.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I contend, however, that the pope
should not only have resisted the temptation to take away his detractor’s
privileges, but also could have been personally serving and caring for Burke on
both a personal and a professional level. This does not mean agreeing with the
Cardinal, or even promoting him to a cushy Vatican office; rather, it means
going beyond the natural tendency to retaliate, and even less convenient route
of turning the other cheek to actively love the Cardinal by caring for him as a
human being, and in that way being a servant leader as Jesus is in the Gospel
narratives. Doing nice things on a human level, such as volunteering to do some
of his errands, like picking up dry cleaning for the Cardinal when he is busy,
does not signal ideological agreement or capitulation. Rather, strength of the
sort that Jesus evinces in the Gospels is shown. Not that there would be any
publicity; the caring must be selfless. To be sure, this may be difficult, as
we’re talking about a pope here, but perhaps he could have less visible people
care for the Cardinal to make his life easier. In theological jargon, going
beyond turning the other cheek to reach out to detractors and even enemies
enables us to go beyond Augustine’s notion of <i>caritas</i> to the relatively
selfless notion of <i>agape</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Cardinal Burke also could have
been acting in compassion for his ideological opponent. That the Cardinal too
was a leader in the Church means that his efforts to help the pope personally would
count as servant leadership. The matter of the oath of obedience would be transcended
by selfless love operationalized as helping the older man with life’s
challenges. What use is jousting over which ideological issues get the
microphone of the Church if its very leaders are resentful and angry at each
other and thus evince not Jesus’ way but that of the Romans and the Sanhedrin?
If an organization can be characterized as being hypocritical, then what’s the
point? Hasn’t the institution already lost? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Lest it be concluded that such a
response would only encourage more dissent, it might, but the things being fought
over would be relativized—transcended as the Church goes from ideological
agendas to focus on something deeper: ultimately, the spiritual feeling that
God is present in a very curious way in interpersonal relations run contrary to
egos. Hopefully, eventually such love that is not at all convenient, if earnest
and sincere, would seep into the fabric of the institution and transform it
into something that Jesus would recognize. Gradually, the focus would shift
from political ideological agendas on both sides to behaving as Jesus advocates
in the Gospel. This would be the focus. A spiritual experience in interpersonal
relations would be increasingly felt and even valued and thus the movement would
gain traction. The Kingdom of God would be growing as if from a mustard seed. Although
hopefully not motivated to serve as a model, the pope’s change of course could
rub off on local bishops and parish priests around the globe, as they start to
help out those parishioners and employees who have been “pains in the ass.” It
is easy to care for, and in this sense serve, friends; it is not easy to enter
the Kingdom of God, as it is antithetical to the ways of the world. People who would
view Francis as strong for caring for Burke are the authentic Christians, whereas
even believers in Jesus who infer weakness and even capitulation on Francis’
part are not Christian. This is admittedly a different litmus test than the one
that has enjoyed hegemony throughout the history of Christianity, and the two
can lead to different verdicts concerning the same person.</span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div>1, Raja Razek, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/11/us/pope-francis-joseph-strickland-texas"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Removes Outspoken Conservative Texas Bishop after Investigation</span></a>,” CNN.com,
November 11, 2023.<br />2, Christopher Lamb, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/us/pope-francis-takes-on-unprecedented-attacks-from-american-opponents/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope
Francis Takes on Unprecedented Attacks from American Opponents</span></a>,” CNN.com,
December 13, 2023.<br />3. Ibid.<br />4. Ibid.<br />5. Ibid.<br />6. Ibid.<br />7. Ibid.</div><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-30096756607699768742023-11-25T21:54:00.001-05:002023-11-26T15:08:38.367-05:00Mary Magdalene: On the Kingdom of God<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">In the film, </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360996/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_mary%2520magdalene" style="font-family: times; text-align: left;"><i>Mary Magdalene</i></a><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;"> </i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">(2018), Mary Magdalene and the other disciples have two different interpretations of the Kingdom of God; these may be called the interior and the eschatological, respectively. The Kingdom of God is within, already and not yet fully realized, or not yet at all, as it will be ushered in by Christ in the Second Coming, which is yet to come. The film’s point of view is decidedly with Mary’s interior interpretation and against Peter’s revolutionary (i.e., against Roman oppression) eschatological take. After both sides fail to convince the other, Peter sidelines Mary in part also because of her gender, so she decides to preach and help people on her own. That the film does not portray Jesus and Mary as romantically involved is a smart move, for it sidelines a controversy that would otherwise distract the viewers from focusing on the question of the nature of the Kingdom of God. This focus is long overdue in Christianity, and is important because only one of the two interpretations—the eschatological—has dominated historically. The film is valuable theologically in that it gives the minority position—Mary’s interior interpretation—a voice. To be sure, Mary Magdalene is a controversial figure, so the choice of that character as a mouthpiece in the film for the minority theological position on the Kingdom is daring and not without its drawbacks. For one thing, she is a woman in a man’s world in the film. Outside of the film, in real life, a medieval pope denigrated her by erroneously identifying her as the prostitute in the Bible, and her reputation had to wait until the twentieth century for the Vatican to correct the error and label her as the Apostle to the Apostles. Finally, there is the Gnostic gospel, </span><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">The Gospel of Philip</i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">, in which Jesus kisses her and the male disciples ask, “Why do you love her more than us?” That jealousy is present in the film, and plays a role in the dispute between Mary and Peter on the nature of the Kingdom. So, returning to the film, having her as the mouthpiece for a minority position that has not seen much light of day historically in Christianity puts the credibility of the interpretation at risk. Accordingly, it may not have much impact in shifting the emphasis away from the eschatological Kingdom in the religion, given the tremendous gravitas that any historical default enjoys.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2023/11/mary-magdalene.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Mary Magdalene</span></a>."</span></p><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-84328133289271083992023-11-25T13:46:00.002-05:002023-11-25T13:47:23.771-05:00The Exorcist Extrapolated: Ministering to the Devil as "Love Thy Enemies."<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">One of the most iconic films of the horror-film genre, <i>The Exorcist </i>(1973) focuses on the duality of good and evil that the film’s director, William Friedkin, maintained is in a constant struggle in all of us. The dialogue between the two priests performing the exorcism on the one side and the Devil possessing Regan on the other not only reveal the duality, but also the essence of evil itself. Once this essence is grasped, interesting questions can be asked that are distinctly theological, as distinct from modernity’s trope of evil portrayed in terms of, and even reduced to, supernatural movements of physical objects. The decadent materialist version of the theological domain stems from modernity’s bias in favor of materialism and empiricism. In other words, highlighting supernatural physics as being foremost in representing the religious realm is how secularity sidelines religion, rather than how religion itself is. The bias of modern society is very clear in the film as the “professionals” go through alternative explanations first from the field of medicine, privileging the somatic (physical) and then the psychological domains of medicine. In other words, the narrative establishes (or reflects) a hierarchy of three qualitatively different levels of descending validity: the somatic is primary, and only then the psychological, and, if the first two do not furnish an explanation, then, and only then, are we to turn to the theological as metaphysically (i.e., supernaturally) real primarily shown by physical objects defying the laws of physics. Science, rather than religion, is thus still in the driver’s seat. The bias in favor of materialism is in the assumption that only after feasible hypotheses from modern medicine are nullified can theological explanations be considered (as credible). In this way, the film reflects the hegemony of materialism that has taken hold since the Enlightenment, and the relegation of the theological as “magical” supernaturalism, as in a bed levitating of objects flying around Regan’s bedroom. The essence of evil is instead <i>interior</i>. If religion is a matter of the heart, then how could evil be otherwise?</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-exorcist.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">The Exorcist</span></a>."</span></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-53698941690432559772023-09-30T11:59:00.003-04:002024-01-19T12:10:37.006-05:00Exposing Yale’s Sordid Side: “The Inner Ring” by C. S. Lewis<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">C. S. Lewis aptly describes in one published lecture the nature of a very human game, which is really about how soft power, which is often buttressed by institutional position, works in any human organization. To use Nietzsche’s expression (which Lewis would have hardly appreciated), the dynamics of an inner ring is human, all too human, and thus hardly an extractible part of the human condition. Yet it is much more salient, and arguably even dysfunctional, in just some organizations, especially those that have an elite reputation such as Yale, whose essence, we shall investigate here, might be exclusion even <i>within </i>the university community, such that some vulnerable members are told they are not really members (but that their donations are welcome).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-businessandsociety.blogspot.com/2023/09/outing-yales-sordid-side-inner-ring-by.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Exposing Yales Sordid Side</span></a>."</span></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-7151145963417571952023-08-26T17:41:00.002-04:002023-10-10T14:48:55.272-04:00Contending Christianities <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">The films <i>Agora</i> (2009) and
<i>Fatima </i>(2020) contain very different depictions of Christianity. By depictions,
I mean ways in which Christianity can be interpreted and lived. This is not to
say that all of the interpretations are equally valid, for only those that
contain internal contradictions evince hypocrisy. The sheer extent of the
distance between the depictions shown in the two films demonstrates not only the
huge extent of latitude that religious interpretation can have, but also just
how easy it is even for self-identifying Christians, whether of the clergy or
the laity, not only to fail to grasp Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, but also
to violate the two commandments even while believing that Jesus Christ is
divine (i.e., the Son of God). The human mind, or brain, can have such stunning
blind spots (or cognitive dissidence) when it comes to religion that even awareness
of this systemic vulnerability and efforts to counter it are typically
conveniently ignored or dismissed outright. This is nearly universal, in spite
of claims of humility and fallibility more generally, so I contend that the
human mind is blind to its own weakness or vulnerability in the religious sphere
of thought, sentiment, and action. Augustine’s contention that revelation must
pass through a smoky stained window before reaching us is lost on the religious
among us who insist that their religious <i>beliefs </i>constitute <i>knowledge</i>.
I contend that this fallacy as well as the larger vulnerability to hypocrisy
should be a salient part both of Sunday School and adult religious education.
For the vulnerability is correctable, but this probably requires ongoing
vigilance. That is, the problem is not that the divine goes beyond the limits
of human cognition (as well as perception and emotion) as Pseudodionysus pointed
out to deaf ears in the 6<sup>th</sup> century; the human brain is fully capable
of spotting and countering its own lapses in the religious domain. In other
words, the problem here is not that of the human mind being able to understand
the contents of revelation because must travel through a darkened window before
reaching us; rather, the problem lies in grasping what Jesus preaches in the
Gospels and putting the spiritual principles into practice, rather than doing
the opposite and being completely oblivious to the contradiction, which is
otherwise known as cognitive dissidence. The two films provide us with the
means both to grasp this problem and realize how much it differs from a healthy
faith that has the innocence of a child’s wonder. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2023/08/agora-vs-fatima-contending.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Agora vs. Fatima</span></a>."</span></p><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-37066457682716097502023-08-24T18:44:00.004-04:002023-10-10T14:50:48.161-04:00Fatima: The Miracle of the Sun<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">The film, <i>Fatima </i>(2020), tells the story of the three Roman Catholic children in Fatima, Portugal, who in 2017 claimed to see and hear the Virgin Mary periodically over a period of 6 months. The film centers around Lucia, the oldest of the three children, and, moreover, the question of whether the children really encounter the Virgin, or are lying, hypnotic, or even psychotic. In the film, as well as in “real life,” a miracle is associated with the last visitation. In the story world of the film, the visitation really happens, and the multitudes watching the children come to believe this when the Virgin delivers on a miracle as promised. Historically, believers as well as nonbelievers who were present at the event have testified that the Sun moved around in the sky and even came closer. If this really happened as witnesses have described, then the empirical “proof” in the story world of the film is not the whole story, and the religious truth therein is not limited to the faith narrative, but holds in an empirical, supernatural sense. An implication is that Jesus not only resurrects in the Gospel stories, but also as an empirical event in history. But, then, why have such supernatural events been so rare since the “tim</span><span style="font-family: times;">e” of Jesus?</span><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;">And, yet, witnesses as far as 40 km away from the visitation of the Virgin reported seeing the miracle of the Sun.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFO8g67zKbU74BiDsfzWTl7_X_L3LIVcDuUjIrKxH-4uAVIdzLOAxTRrDR-bQe7_tEOZgK9BwRRoTx_7DxcV0NWZgO8URz2S9EQ-1iUEcSVC6PSjUqHMrjBovUJatVUv8CtU1O5xKdwkwuOOqTcmXLVsLJy1u131WmuV3z9LlsFT8fN6P5lyd7tOJka1g/s342/fatima-movie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="342" data-original-width="228" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFO8g67zKbU74BiDsfzWTl7_X_L3LIVcDuUjIrKxH-4uAVIdzLOAxTRrDR-bQe7_tEOZgK9BwRRoTx_7DxcV0NWZgO8URz2S9EQ-1iUEcSVC6PSjUqHMrjBovUJatVUv8CtU1O5xKdwkwuOOqTcmXLVsLJy1u131WmuV3z9LlsFT8fN6P5lyd7tOJka1g/s320/fatima-movie.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at: "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2023/08/fatima.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Fatima</span></a>"</span></p><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-21218527902500444102023-08-15T15:13:00.005-04:002023-08-19T11:10:48.000-04:00On the Infallibility of the Pope: The Assumption of Mary<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">What does it mean for a human
being to be vested with infallibility in a religious organization even though
like all humans, that one is a finite being? Ironically, it is often the ignorant
who presume that they cannot be wrong (i.e., that they are infallible). That is
something else entirely. The sort of infallibility granted by the Roman
Catholic Church on its pope does not mean that he knows everything or can’t be
wrong about anything. The infallibility is circumscribed to cover only religious
doctrine. In short, Roman Catholicism gives the Pope the authority to
promulgate theological truths that go beyond, yet are consistent with, the Bible.
A pope cannot say that Jesus is no longer to be regarded as the Son of God, for
such a claim obviously contradicts the canonical gospels. Yet more could be
said that is consistent with Jesus’ divinity, and even about Mary, whose womb
is regarded as blessed. The “Mother of God” is itself a title that practically
invites further theological elaboration beyond the material on her that is in the Gospels. I
have in mind here the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, which is celebrated by the
Roman Catholic Church on August 15 </span><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">annually. The feast-day is not a minor holy day for
Catholics, for they are obligated to attend Mass. Indeed, a human body being admitted into a spiritual state is no small matter theologically. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Aad de Lange, the chief financial
officer of the archdiocese of Galveston-Houston in Texas, took to social media
on the day in 2023 to give a synopsis of how the holy day came to be. “On
November 1, 1950, Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption. Thus he
solemnly proclaimed that the belief whereby the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the close of her earthly life, was taken up, body and soul, into the glory of heaven, definitively forms part of the deposit of faith,
received from the Apostles. To avoid all that is uncertain the Pope did not state either the manner or the circumstances of time and place in which the Assumption took place--only the fact of the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of heaven, is the matter of definition." Having degrees both in business and theology, I’m
glad to see a CFO being so well-versed in theological-speak. Indeed, his
paragraph is dense, so I shall endeavor to unpack it by putting the theological
verbiage in contemporary terms. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In particular, I have in mind the
telling of a story. I used to tell kids stories when I worked at two summer
camps. As the storyteller, I could invent new characters and elaborate on
existing characters <i>as long as I did not contradict the story so far. </i>For
example, I could say that a group of kids alone in the woods came upon a bear;
bears are consistent with forests. I could not then refer to the bear as a wolf
unless I obviate the contradiction by saying that a witch changed the bear into
a wolf. Furthermore, I could not start referring to the kids as adults without
a magical explanation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">As a student at Yale, I took a
course called storytelling that was taught at the divinity school. At the time,
I just assumed that the course was for preaching, for who doesn’t enjoy a good
story, even in church. But then I read Hans Frei’s book, <i>Eclipse of the
Biblical Narrative</i>. Frei had been on Yale’s faculty, but unfortunately that
was before I matriculated. In his book, he urges readers not to get in the way
of the story in the Gospels. Take the story in without thinking about whether the
characters existed historically or whether a miracle was an empirical event. <i>Religious
truth </i>is distinct from historical facts; faith narratives and historical
accounts are <i>distinct </i>literary genres. The writers of the Gospels would
have known that they were writing faith narratives, so historical events could
legitimately be appropriated or even invented to make theological points. For
example, that gospels differ on when the Last Supper takes place—notice I’m not
using the past tense!—relative to Passover to make different theological
points. In Matthew, which was likely oriented to the Jews, it is no accident
that the Last Supper takes place on the night that commemorates the sacrifice of
lambs in Egypt so the death would pass over the Hebrew houses. Jesus is to be viewed
as the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sins of the world by his willing
sacrifice. This is the point, and interrupting the story to ask whether the
Last Supper “really” happened is a diversion. Being eternal, religious truth is
not affected by time, and is in this sense outside of history. Conflating the
object of a faith narrative (i.e., getting at or uncovering religious truth)
with that of a historical account (i.e., getting at the who, what, and where in
history) not only evinces a category mistake, but also, especially since the Enlightenment,
risks the subordination of religious truth to historical fact. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In his paragraph, Aad de Lange obfuscates
the two genres. After pointing out that the dogma of the Assumption <i>was </i>added
by Pope Pius to the then-extant deposit of faith, de Lange treats the new <i>doctrine
</i>in terms of a historical event: “the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the close of
her earthly life, was taken up.” It is as if being a historical event is needed
to legitimate or justify the religious truth being promulgated. This “need” is merely
a symptom of our age in which scientific fact dominates and is the default for certainty.
To eclipse even the extended faith narrative, which has Mary go to heaven in
body as well as soul, by asking whether or not it was an event that happened
historically is to tacitly treat the story-telling as somehow insufficient or
subordinate in its own genre. The dynamic, or narrative “arc,” in the Gospels being
interrupted by interlarding exogenous questions, the reader (or ancient hearer)
undoubtedly has trouble zeroing in on the unique sort of validity that religious
truth enjoys. Such truth itself is best grasped from a story if it is not
interrupted with distractions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">De Lange unwittingly provides us
with a useful way to understand the distinction between historical events and
religious truth: “the Pope did not state either the manner or the circumstances
of time and place in which the Assumption took place—only the fact of the
Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of heaven, is the matter of
definition.” Although de Lange clearly views the Assumption as having occurred
empirically (i.e., historically), he does depict religious truth in its own
terms—that of definition. A historian would not find the language, “the matter
of definition,” to be that which historians use, for they are interested in “the
manner or the circumstances of time and place” rather than definitions of
truth. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The Pope can be regarded as the
chief story-teller as regards religious truth in the Roman Catholic Church. As
long as he does not contradict the story so far, he is free to go on telling
the story as the spirit and his mind moves him. As long as the dictates of
logic (e.g., non-contradiction) are maintained, any storyteller cannot be wrong
as one develops a story in progress. In the story of the kids in the woods, I
am adding that a helicopter flew in at the last minute and rescued the kids. Once
I add this elaboration, someone listening can’t very well say, “No! That doesn’t
happen. The kids get eaten.” Notice that I use the present tense—doesn’t—because
I am referring to what goes on in a story, rather than to an historical
account. Were the listener to say, “No! That didn’t happen,” I would reply, “Of
course it didn’t; it’s a story. Now, what does it <i>mean</i>?” Similarly, detecting
the leitmotif of a faith narrative distinct from trying to ascertain whether a
certain event (or character) existed in history. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">To be sure, were the Crucifixion only
in the story rather than also a historical event, then it could not be said
that a sacrifice happened that restored humanity to God’s graces. Jesus
actually suffering is necessary to “pay the price” that no one else would pay. If
the only suffering is in the Passion Story in the Gospels, then the reconciliation
of humanity with God is also only part of a story. Furthermore, the Incarnation
is depicted as God piercing or entering human history—God made flesh. Indeed,
the Immaculate Conception of Mary (i.e., she is conceived so as to be without
sin) can also be regarded thusly. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Christians are in the unenviable position
of believing in religious truth that hinges on historical persons events that
historians have so far not been able to determine to have lived and occurred. Faith
narratives do not count as historical sources because the writers of such
stories can legitimately use, modify, and even invent historical figures and
events in the service of making theological points. The risk involved in
believing that the Word became flesh as a person who lived historically/empirically
is that religious truth comes to depend on history even though truth itself is
eternal and thus does not depend on time.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In other words, such faith can be in historical fact, which is an oxymoron as
facts are known rather than believed and thus of religious belief. In
contemporary parlance, it is said that a person is entitled to one’s own opinion
but not to one’s own facts. Facts are solid, and thus deemed superior to mere
subjective opinions. The danger in subordinating religious truth to historical
facts is that truth is relegated as mere opinion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Just as thinking during a movie
in a theater about what to cook later breaks off, or eclipses, the suspension
of disbelief that allows a person to “enter” a movie’s story-world, so too does
thinking about matters outside of a faith narrative as it is being read. Let
the story speak to you so you might grasp the religious truth from the continuity
or flow of the narrative. Let history take care of itself. This is not to
commit to any answer concerning whether someone existed or something actually
happened. Even using words like <i>really </i>and <i>actually </i>for
historical claims implicitly subordinates religious truth. Transcending temporal
things, truth is really and actually existent. In an age in which some people
insist on imposing their ideological opinions as if facts of reason, such
presumptuousness shows up much better relative to a discernment of religious
truth from a faith narrative. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The infallibility of a storyteller
in the telling of a story is much different than the arrogance on ideological
stilts that indicates self-idolatry. To be sure, such idolatry can be used to
impose even religious truth. At a Roman Catholic church in my hometown, the
pastor said in his homily, “Don’t worry if you don’t understand the Marian
mysteries; just obey.” That is to say, just obey the pastor. Pope Benedict
promoted the pastor to bishop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a decision
falls outside of a pope’s story-telling infallibility (as does that Pope’s
decision when he was an archbishop to transfer rather than defrock a sexually-molesting
priest), and perhaps even outside the purview of the Holy Spirit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">1. I deliberately use the word, “Word,” as the second person/manifestation of the
Trinity (i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to de-anthropomorphize God. To
anthropomorphize something is to ascribe human qualities or attributes to it.
Doing so in the case of the second person of the trinity risks understating the
qualitative difference (i.e., difference in kind rather than degree) that
exists between the Creator and creation, and thus the eternal God and temporal
history. In my book, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Gold-Shifting-Christian-Profit-Seeking/dp/1541281403"><span style="color: #783f04;">God’s
Gold</span></a></i>, is suggest that viewing God in terms too similar to us (i.e., anthropomorphizing
the transcendent) may be one reason why the assumptions of theologians on
wealth and profit-seeking in relation to greed have shifted from anti- to
pro-wealth through the centuries. If the second person of the Trinity is viewed
too much like the flesh in the Incarnation, then it’s easier to overstate the
theological significance of the stuff of Earth more generally, including
wealth. From such an overstatement, it was written in the Italian Renaissance that
a person must be rich to exercise the Christian virtue of munificence (rather
than merely liberality). Cosimo de Medici, who made his fortune from usury, a
mortal sin, was absolved by Pope Eugene IV by making a large gift to the Church.
Had de Medici not been rich, he could not have afforded to pay for the
renovation of a monastery. So it turns out that a rich man <i>can </i>get
through the eye of a needle, and that money helps.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-49643874184990398732023-06-10T15:58:00.002-04:002023-06-10T16:29:53.896-04:00Turning a Church into an Ideological Billboard<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">By lapsing headlong into partisan
politics, especially on controversial matters such as “social issues,”
otherwise known as “culture wars,” a congregation unwittingly, and, from a
religious standpoint, arbitrarily (i.e., dogmatically) constrains (i.e., limits)
its potential membership unnecessarily because people who would be open to and
even relish the <i>religious </i>dimension but are opposed ideologically to the
partisan stance on a <i>political</i>, or social, issue would not be likely to
attend the ostensibly <i>religious </i>services. No one likes to feel
ideologically uncomfortable or, even worse, despised. This is particularly likely
when a congregation turns its building into an ideological billboard. I suspect
that this is a distinctly American phenomenon (i.e., taking things too far).
Behind the extravagance lies the sin of pride, wherein a person erroneously
believes that he or she cannot be wrong ideologically. This presumption of
ideological (or political) infallibility carries with it the erroneous
perspective of one’s partisan stance representing a whole (i.e.</span><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">, truth) rather
than being partial, as with respect certain values being privileged above
others.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvb5tpGVPcdsLzItC_v9D5V2A2AYqovb7qXtISir0tnYq9Cm9jHcY6e7H4UHpdkDW1d8EEszkRxRwednhupGS4xUdmCttGeUbYA7crlq8ojREjrmcpIByCouv2Aw5UhkmG7BDWoYJT0K_8BUq4KUgoePUqyL9FoKNz2FnB7vtVOOmPkFBku_IyiB_Y/s4160/IMG_20230505_175545396_HDR.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4160" data-original-width="3120" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvb5tpGVPcdsLzItC_v9D5V2A2AYqovb7qXtISir0tnYq9Cm9jHcY6e7H4UHpdkDW1d8EEszkRxRwednhupGS4xUdmCttGeUbYA7crlq8ojREjrmcpIByCouv2Aw5UhkmG7BDWoYJT0K_8BUq4KUgoePUqyL9FoKNz2FnB7vtVOOmPkFBku_IyiB_Y/s320/IMG_20230505_175545396_HDR.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkTkwxCyFybZtGDJkDOL8El4GEc9xVqksm4VopSF9sfpA8UGTlSTFvydu-qT7jRH-WGcY-qgeQTZ8Wh2UcdJWN6u3NACDJxb48TJL2KVDZAn-wSIXwyWANiHCo1f_8yyxbN4SARqT2OrnFGsgjRBwya1aiTFn6Y_EN8wwjchRwymyUt4D5X-_Cf8bj/s777/black%20lives%20matter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="645" data-original-width="777" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkTkwxCyFybZtGDJkDOL8El4GEc9xVqksm4VopSF9sfpA8UGTlSTFvydu-qT7jRH-WGcY-qgeQTZ8Wh2UcdJWN6u3NACDJxb48TJL2KVDZAn-wSIXwyWANiHCo1f_8yyxbN4SARqT2OrnFGsgjRBwya1aiTFn6Y_EN8wwjchRwymyUt4D5X-_Cf8bj/s320/black%20lives%20matter.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">A Unitarian-Universalist "Church" wherein a few causes of political activism take pride of place, replacing religious faith and choking off tolerance. </div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Perhaps it is only natural to
prefer that other people line up with one’s own beliefs, whether religious or
political/ideological. The presumptions of inerrancy and completeness, or
truth, typically undergird this self-centered perspective. It is easy to
conflate one’s own ideological stance on partisan “social issues,” such as
abortion, gay marriage, and even stem-cell research, with religious truth even
though the latter transcends human ideology. In other words, whereas truth has
the property of wholeness, ideological positions are partial, hence <i>partisan</i>
politically. Conflating the two, a congregation can even usurp its distinctly <i>religious
</i>message by focusing on political issues of the so-called American “culture
wars.” Beyond taking up space in sermons, ideological positions can become
totalitarian, even in turning a church building into a billboard advertising
the partisan stance on a privileged social issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgE1FLLXnboJZ8vuaBbl5UfUMTZDGntvSX8HrnOvNbI0Fjh68_LFGVeSsalipuUGd9nAuhGDu0_g0e7I1PZW7vYDAFppvJHS-lzLaE9qclypwrrOa6QvXcwSxgkLaVkbcGluHxG8WlnpgT18Fa61Ahl2QbmMrCkT3DL2geLA8wFI376g6XdE_R_A_L/s858/Methodist%20Black%20Lives%20Matter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="189" data-original-width="858" height="70" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgE1FLLXnboJZ8vuaBbl5UfUMTZDGntvSX8HrnOvNbI0Fjh68_LFGVeSsalipuUGd9nAuhGDu0_g0e7I1PZW7vYDAFppvJHS-lzLaE9qclypwrrOa6QvXcwSxgkLaVkbcGluHxG8WlnpgT18Fa61Ahl2QbmMrCkT3DL2geLA8wFI376g6XdE_R_A_L/s320/Methodist%20Black%20Lives%20Matter.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCZPJRBebGzp4bkGJIiXTjERvCT-afo0dznDN9mgFTpIHERYEU5zdt1pOjfI06huhcazu9EZZylHdI8tyWg6ob0tyMcVQnQAWV8ajuG4PpmDSVTDB_wxtyiy31ftkA0gsiKKKtNVYOzHPdm6lxBxKRet3h8GZgD3lykm4MnFNFa0YA2RBYqvUraoMi/s331/black%20lives%20matter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="128" data-original-width="331" height="124" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCZPJRBebGzp4bkGJIiXTjERvCT-afo0dznDN9mgFTpIHERYEU5zdt1pOjfI06huhcazu9EZZylHdI8tyWg6ob0tyMcVQnQAWV8ajuG4PpmDSVTDB_wxtyiy31ftkA0gsiKKKtNVYOzHPdm6lxBxKRet3h8GZgD3lykm4MnFNFa0YA2RBYqvUraoMi/s320/black%20lives%20matter.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">A Methodist church smothered in ideological political causes that punctuate even the liturgy and constrain church membership. The photos below are of the same church.</div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In Christian churches, the
emphasis on partisan stances can bring with it a certain intolerance, and even
hostility if resentment of an opposing partisan position is fueling the
importance being placed on the favored stance. Sometimes the hostility can be
quite simple, as the partisans often are so fine-tuned to picking up on subtle
cues on whether another person is in the same ideological camp. Even the words
a person uses can be picked up by others who are bent on judging for
themselves. By 2023, the politically-correct camp had been dubbed “woke,” and
an “anti-woke” opposition had become more vocal in some American cultures. This
in turn may have intensified efforts by “woke” congregations to go so far as to
turn their church buildings into billboards.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM5793GErOXChfH8AjZcx75rxkdIOXYxWCB-IVkq_M-2dU4NQFgxkxr0uhobywWk1WLM_gGag3tUT1thwjyIZSdV_bNYB3SM6xQH3MizGAJf6uJJ6G0bIczuXKVbAP070iZxbkqWGqZIkkBVFh9QwbW4Wgn7OfWTuItWMp8YBeFrzeWQ04vnXd1CEj/s4160/20230602_121043.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3120" data-original-width="4160" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM5793GErOXChfH8AjZcx75rxkdIOXYxWCB-IVkq_M-2dU4NQFgxkxr0uhobywWk1WLM_gGag3tUT1thwjyIZSdV_bNYB3SM6xQH3MizGAJf6uJJ6G0bIczuXKVbAP070iZxbkqWGqZIkkBVFh9QwbW4Wgn7OfWTuItWMp8YBeFrzeWQ04vnXd1CEj/s320/20230602_121043.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">In visiting one church, of the Methodist sect (or denomination) of Christianity, that had so many gay flags in the social hall that their sheer number seemed to imply an ideological vehemence: </span><i style="font-family: times;">You had better agree with us! </i><span style="font-family: times;">The excessiveness itself sent a message. The rainbow colors were literally wrapped around stone pillars on the exterior of the building, and during June several gay flags were flying on the church grounds. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Again, the excessiveness itself sent a message, but at this level the message was as much psychological as it was ideological and partisan. The liturgy was not exempt, as the prospect of building up to a religious experience was broken up by commercials. One announced, “We are all in favor of reparations” going to a church of an unmentioned denomination whose members were Black Americans. </span><i style="font-family: times;">How does the speaker know that everyone in the sanctuary agreed on that controversial, political issue? </i><span style="font-family: times;">I was not surprised that most of the seats were empty. This is the true </span><i style="font-family: times;">religious cost</i><span style="font-family: times;">, which economists would call an </span><i style="font-family: times;">opportunity cost</i><span style="font-family: times;">: the benefit foregone by making a choice.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikjzUQ_xtr68wkeQG_uMPvR1Jg0T8B6B6jup-HwVMbcE7dbL83JO5ejK6tGxlBaGVeRn5DyMxz2opFmk7z3zcZ8Dlipn4vMh5hr3gzXd6uPVGiJ1Vn2qczTa1KXQKH_DWpLqqKkJa-x8CTq734Y7RidVtWhvmZ-t_RJiPgiPU03cuOjlvHJGXnif5q/s4160/20230602_120748.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4160" data-original-width="3120" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikjzUQ_xtr68wkeQG_uMPvR1Jg0T8B6B6jup-HwVMbcE7dbL83JO5ejK6tGxlBaGVeRn5DyMxz2opFmk7z3zcZ8Dlipn4vMh5hr3gzXd6uPVGiJ1Vn2qczTa1KXQKH_DWpLqqKkJa-x8CTq734Y7RidVtWhvmZ-t_RJiPgiPU03cuOjlvHJGXnif5q/s320/20230602_120748.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The choice to privilege partisan
political issues comes at a cost in religious terms. People who might otherwise
visit or even regularly attend a church whose liturgy, rooms, and building are
placed in the service of particular political stances on “social issues” will
bypass the church if those stances are not ideologically palatable, especially
if the sense is that they are being “shoved down their throats.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb-z0jTTz_097vefvDJmhCTUofxOsXmwRMr_lj0ntkOsTn1m3xNb6HFxx5DbJxbzxDIvv2UWkugUfxWIr29YUWKbEsdLoG38-cqX_2oCnKbpvjEr94eaXjdd3o__ePJJKDV1splj-yYS8aQy771_JK7P-YhardEuioCWiqZfHW1AKbWzDpYh6SdFhu/s4160/20230602_120624.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3120" data-original-width="4160" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb-z0jTTz_097vefvDJmhCTUofxOsXmwRMr_lj0ntkOsTn1m3xNb6HFxx5DbJxbzxDIvv2UWkugUfxWIr29YUWKbEsdLoG38-cqX_2oCnKbpvjEr94eaXjdd3o__ePJJKDV1splj-yYS8aQy771_JK7P-YhardEuioCWiqZfHW1AKbWzDpYh6SdFhu/s320/20230602_120624.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC-m503qta7CRTAm_H4sa7Uw3IjNYSVWSjz7g2x4yk-EqVcLFKm7_UdjOgt_1ob6Vm07FImPVrOsAefyrV1xoqb_AGGaNybwm5OmDNOgWPL-8xbxZOQQJS4JioGl8tjEydz6YD8Sa-9VFGKSK_aB4EyzFhK9wMGorEdh-JZsvujBxU_-6KiQ_UTeUw/s1029/no%20guns%20at%20church.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1029" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC-m503qta7CRTAm_H4sa7Uw3IjNYSVWSjz7g2x4yk-EqVcLFKm7_UdjOgt_1ob6Vm07FImPVrOsAefyrV1xoqb_AGGaNybwm5OmDNOgWPL-8xbxZOQQJS4JioGl8tjEydz6YD8Sa-9VFGKSK_aB4EyzFhK9wMGorEdh-JZsvujBxU_-6KiQ_UTeUw/s320/no%20guns%20at%20church.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Presumably a
faith message is important at Christian churches, and it does not reach those
people who happen to hold the contrary partisan stance on a privileged social
issue. Congregations that succumb to the hegemony (i.e., dominance) of partisan
political issues unwittingly self-weaken faith-outreach. To believe that people
must have the “correct” partisan stance on ideological issues to be saved by
Jesus Christ is to use an exogenous litmus test, or “gate,” to arbitrarily
(i.e., dogmatically) limit the saving of souls because in the Gospels Jesus
does not specify that people must have certain ideological stances to be saved.
In fact, Jesus distances himself from the zealots, who incorrectly interpret
Jesus’ version of the Kingdom of God as coming forth externally, through
conflict, rather than in individual transformations of the heart. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Because an orientation to
contentious ideological issues tends to involve hostility towards people who
disagree, and even anger simply because some people do disagree, a congregation
oriented to partisan positions may not be conducive to the spread of the
Kingdom of God. At most, the kindness or compassion of a partisan is usually
limited to ideological compatriots, whereas Jesus preaches that kindness, and
even love, be extended to a person’s detractors and even enemies. This is the
true cost when a <i>Christian </i>congregation becomes unduly and
overwhelmingly partisan, whether on the “right” or “left” of the ideological
political spectrum. Partisan “love” is partial, whereas neighbor love is
wholistic, as is truth itself. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Sure enough, after a month of
being in the choir of a very ideological Methodist church, I ceased my
association with that church. I had found that there were too many bosses in
that choir, one of which apparently didn’t like me, for he said before we were
to sing on a Palm Sunday, “Has anyone ever told you that you talk too much?” I
countered that perhaps someone should tell me that I don’t talk enough when
something needs to be said. He then ordered me to “line up” even though the
choir was not yet lining up at the back of the sanctuary. That that member of
the choir literally had keys to the building—but not to the Kingdom!—meant that
I would be facing an uphill battle, and are Christian churches really the place
for battles anyway? So I kicked the “dirt off my sandals,” upzipped my robe,
and went grocery shopping rather than sang that Sunday. I had previously picked
up on hostility from some other members, including two in the choir who had
scolded me for not standing on a certain step during a practice. “You stand
there!” one pointed. It was barely a step. That congregation was not fertile
ground for a mustard seed to take root—too much stone draped in ideological
flags. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">At least for the Methodists the claim
can be made that matters of faith can be distinguished from a social ideology,
so there is hope that the adoption of a transcendent reference point could be
used from which to view the dominant ideology and the related political activism
as partial, and even as human, all too human. The litmus test for inclusion could
therefore be based in religious faith rather than on a position on a “social issue.”
One of the benefits of a faith-perspective is that human artifacts cannot be placed
that the center of our existence. Humility can thus replace arrogance. This is
not possible where the transcendent nature of distinctly religious faith has
been vacated and replaced with the ideological content of political activism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The Unitarian Universalist “religion”
accomplished such a transition in the twentieth century. Originally,
Unitarianism, as preached by Emerson, was a rejection of the Christian Trinity
from within that religion. By 1980, humanism had become the dominant strain in Unitarian-Universalist
societies. My parents were such humanists, and my limited exposure to a UU
congregation as a teenager left me with the perplexing question of how a
religious organization could survive without being religious. My mother later
told me that I used to protest the hypocrisy as a young teenager. Later in life,
when visiting UU congregations, I found that the rejection of religion had
taken hold, and in its place, the <i>human </i>ideology of political
correctness (or “woke”) had pride of place. One UU minister insisted that religious
Unitarianism was in vogue. Unfortunately, he mistook the term religious. For
example, he insisted that egalitarian economic systems are <i>sacred</i>. He
quickly closed himself off from being open-minded when I suggested that to
regard a human construction as sacred is self-idolatrous. This is the message
of Moses when in returning from the mount he discovers the worship of a golden calf.
So too, a person who “knows” that one’s political ideology on social issues is nothing
short of truth is essentially engaging in self-worship. The evisceration of a
transcendent dimension cuts off a means by which such a person can be humble
with respect to one’s own ideology and thus open to the possibility that a
person can be wrong, and is at most partial and fallible. In succumbing to
temptation, the UU organization closed down a place for Christians who believe
in Jesus’ preaching yet do not accept that he is the Son of God. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">By 2023, much had been written
about the ideological polarization of the American people. That divide had
reached congregations on the “right” and “left,” just as segregation had taken
hold. Religious faith is not reduceable to an ideological position; rather, the
former transcends the latter. To the extent that ideological advocacy is
salient in religious congregations, especially spread across their respective
buildings, a dearth of religious faith can be assumed. In the most extreme
cases, the ideological positions masquerade as the proper content of religious faith.
The “faithful” become like gods on Earth, and the societal bipolarity becomes
even more difficult to smooth over in reconciliation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-66268653006146435162023-06-04T16:50:00.009-04:002023-07-19T15:20:27.227-04:00Gay Pride and Evangelical Christianity<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Taylor Swift, an American singer
and cultural icon in 2023, spoke “out against anti-queer legislation” during a
concert in early June. “We can’t talk about Pride Month without talking about
pain. There have been so many harmful pieces of legislation that have put [gay
people] at risk. It’s painful for everyone. Every ally. Every loved one . . .
,” she said.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> So
much hurt. The level of intensity on both sides of the moral, political, and religious issue motivated me to go to a parade to see for myself. When I
arrived at the one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the morning, I thought the issue was mostly political; by the time the
parade began, religion had clearly trumped the political. A small but vocal group of
evangelical Christians and a larger group of young women wearing and carrying
gay flags (in part to hide the Christians) were shouting at each other in utter
futility of noise. What if people would use religion to dissolve the religious
and political anger and even tension instead of stoking them? I contend that both sides missed
an opportunity for interpersonal peace that could have grown like a mustard seed to take hold among combatants in a variety of contentious issues in the world.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">The tension in the "culture wars" had been building in the United States and by 2023 was
palpable. The U.S. Supreme Court’s returning the matter of abortion to the
States had given Republican legislators in conservative states the confidence to pass anti-gay laws. </span><span style="font-family: times;">In
early March, 2023, for example, the Tennessee legislature passed and the governor signed a
law prohibiting “male or female impersonators” from performing on public
property or where the performances can be seen by children.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-family: times;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: times;">
They are too impressionable, so the assumption went, to see men wearing dresses. One concern voiced by
opponents of the law was that the content of drag shows, in which gay men (typically)
dress as women and sing and tell jokes as performers, was being labeled as
sexual. This raises the question of whether men wearing dresses is sexual in
nature. A prepubescent child would perhaps view the dresses as costumes rather than conveying anything sexual, for we adults are the ones so preoccupied with sex. Transsexuals were afraid that police might “enforce the law against transgender
people walking around in public, falsely painting them as ‘male or female
impersonators.’”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-family: times;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: times;"> It
was not this concern that caused a federal judge to temporarily put the
Tennessee law on hold, however, or that drag shows are not necessarily sexual, but,
rather, that the legal language, </span><i style="font-family: times;">locations viewable by children</i><span style="font-family: times;">, is too
vague and broad, especially given the contrasting free-speech interest of the
drag-show performers. Doubtless drag performers in Tennessee felt misunderstood,
hurt, frightened, and even </span><i style="font-family: times;">dirty</i><span style="font-family: times;">.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Also hurt was a fifth-grade
teacher in Florida who was fired after being accused of promoting homosexuality
because the Disney film she showed her class has a gay character. That a gay
character is in a film does not in itself mean that the film promotes
homosexuality or constitutes the instruction of certain gay topics, which
Florida law banned.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> The
teacher felt unfairly treated, not only because the film does not promote
homosexuality, but also because she had received signed permission slips from a
parent of each student in the class. Furthermore, Florida's government had not instituted a process by which films could be assessed. Nonetheless, the new teacher was fired. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Meanwhile, some Roman Catholics,
even priests, were castigating the gay charity group, The Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence, as anti-Catholic and even Satanic. That the gay men who were in the
charity group had been wearing the robes, or habits, of nuns is understandably <i>prime
facie</i> insulting to Catholics. Unfortunately, the human, all too human urge
to lash out without getting more information blocked the <i>reason </i>why the
gay sisters were wearing the nun’s habit. Wearing the habits was actually a <i>compliment. </i>After the parade, one of the local leaders
of the gay Sisters told me that the use of the nun’s attire was not to
humiliate the Church, but, rather, because, she told me, “We do a nun’s work.
We take care of sick people and feed the hungry. We value that.” It is a stamp of approval of what nuns do! The gay
Sisters not only valued what Catholic nuns do in charity, but also actually did
what nuns do. "We do what they do, so we wear their habit," the leader told me. The gay sisters were not anti-Christian even though they believed
that criticism of the Church was warranted. Hypocrisy is fair game to be called
out, such as in priests raping children and bishops, including Joe Ratzinger before
he was a pope, covering up the crimes to protect the universal Church, and in hating one’s enemy (e.g., gays) instead of showing
kindness and compassion as Jesus in the New Testament would. He is compassionate to a prostitute even though he views her job as a sin. He keeps her from being stoned, so would he not protect the gays from shouting evangelical Christians at a gay parade. Just as he goes to the home of a tax collector, he might even go to a gay parade even as his disciples shake their heads in utter disbelief. Would not Jesus volunteer to help the gay Sisters in caring for others, again at the consternation of his disciples? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">For their part, <i>from a
Christian point of view</i>, the gay sisters could have gone "the extra mile" in not only doing a nun's work, but also caring for Catholic
nuns, such in nursing homes. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Catholic nuns, brothers, and
priests for their part could have shown up at the charity events of the gay
sisters to help them and do charitable work. To be sure, v</span><span style="font-family: times;">olunteering to work at charities only goes so far from a Christian perspective if enemies are hated and attacked rather than loved. </span><span style="font-family: times;">For unless you have love (i.e., the root of charity is <i>caritas</i>, or sublimated love raised high), your faith is for naught, so writes Paul, and love of enemy, such
as by </span><i style="font-family: times;">helping </i><span style="font-family: times;">and otherwise </span><i style="font-family: times;">serving </i><span style="font-family: times;">one’s enemy (and detractors
as well as people one doesn’t like) is the highest manifestation of love, and the most difficult. For
anyone naturally finds it easy to love one’s friends and thus volunteer to help them.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Were Catholic monastics and clergy willing to help the gay sisters—to be sure,
without necessarily accepting the sisters’ use of the nun’s uniform—and the gay
sisters willing to care for elderly nuns and volunteer at Catholic charities,
the conflict would be transcended and both ends of the dispute might be able to
sense God’s presence. This is none other than the Kingdom of God as described by Jesus in the Gospels. It is the goal, and it is open to be had now rather than only after death. It is clear that both parties to a dispute are <i>not </i>in God's presence when both sides felt insulted and hurt, especially when they are shouting at each other at the onset of a gay Pride parade. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I did not participate in such a parade in 2023 because I agree with everything in the "gay agenda" and culture, but, rather, because gays in the U.S. felt attacked by the words and legislative deeds of conservatives in some of the American governments. Transsexuals and drag queens in particular seemed to feel hunted, and thus no longer welcome in some of the American States. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">To be sure, I have some reservations about the
transexual ideological agenda, such as the use of the plural pronoun <i>they </i>for a
singular antecedent, and the banishment of the words <i>man </i>and <i>woman</i>
from public discourse. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Flashes of anger meant to punish "infractions" and impose an ideological agenda are inappropriate
and reflect a certain arrogance, for no human being has a monopoly on truth and ideology of whatever stripe falls short. The
extreme lack of tolerance for ideological disagreement, as reflected in the flashes of anger reflect</span><span style="font-family: times;"> the wholesale dismissal of an ideological position that is not in lock-step with the political correctness, which goes well beyond the transexual agenda. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">The hateful claims that transsexuals are freaks of nature or even Satanic are in my view not justified by the transsexual ideological agenda with respect to language. Moreover, the claims detract from legitimate concerns that have not been given deserved attention. For example, I contend that</span><span style="font-family: times;"> a
conflict of interest exists in cases in which the brain, or mind, is tasked with deciding whether that itself or the person's body expresses the person's authentic gender (i.e., whether the person is a man or a woman). This qualm is not limited to cases in which the person is mentally ill. </span><span style="font-family: times;">The human mind is not unbiased with respect to itself. The assumption that the
mind cannot be wrong in general or more specifically about its own thinking is false. Not even logic is objective, as certain assumptions are built-in. The assumption of objectivity or infallibility is, moreover, </span><span style="font-family: times;">impious because only God is all-knowing (omniscent) and infallible. The assumption of human <i>ideological</i> infallibility is particularly egregious. The human </span><span style="font-family: times;">mind is hardly an impartial
decider between itself and the body, especially in a culture in which a mind-body dualism is held to be possible and perhaps even laudable. I've raised the point of the mind's conflict of interest with some transsexuals, who either dismiss the point or were stumped. These reactions give me reason to suspect that the conflict of interest has been exploited in a significant number of cases. Even so, </span><span style="font-family: times;">I defend the freedom of transsexuals to express themselves and as they say, <i>be the persons they are</i>. To be sure, even the assumption that one's gender captures who one <i>is </i>may be reductionistic, if indeed several of one's roles go into one's identity. By the way, the singular pronoun <i>one </i>is gender neutral, and, if used, can obviate the problem of reduced linguistic clarity that comes with using a plural pronoun for both plural and singular nouns. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I suspect that <i>part</i> of the struggle for transexuals is that societal
notions of masculinity and femininity at least in America are too narrow. A man may assume that he is really a woman in part because some of his attributes fall outside of what society tells us are masculine. A young man
with long straight hair might assume that he is feminine and thus not really a man in part because long hair is traditionally associated with women, or a man with a high-pitch voice might think that he is really a woman. Once while visiting a university, I said to such a man that the societal norms of masculinity are too
narrow. “If that is your natural voice, and you have male reproductive organs,
then that voice <i>is </i>masculine.” He smiled and I could see relieve fall over his face and down his long hair. Male lions, after all, have manes. Short hair may in fact emasculate a man (and who wants to see a person's skull).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In spite of my reservations, which I do not inflict on binary and transsexual people as they are insecure enough in American society, I have befriended some transsexuals in order to expressly convey empathy. I have found that they crave or at least greatly appreciate emotional support, as they have come to feel so hated and afraid due to the verbal attacks and legislation of conservatives. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">So on the afternoon of Easter Sunday in 2023, I stopped in at a gay bar to say hello to a transexual bartender whom I had met at a grocery store. Upon seeing me, she was so happy she gave me a hug. This told me that emotional acceptance was very much needed. It was not an easy visit for me, as young gay guys there made a point of giving me more than a cold shoulder <i>because I was old</i>. As I was leaving, one of them even said to his friends, "Oh good, he's leaving" so I would hear it. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Again, while waiting to take my place in
the gay parade’s line-up a few months later, I seized upon the spontaneous opportunity to minister
to a transsexual, whose evangelical Christian parents had forbid him to take
estrogen (i.e., the female hormone) and required him to undergo years of
conversion therapy wherein he had been instructed to repress his gay
instinctual impulses. He told me he felt isolated generally, and even fearful that he might be physically attacked attacked while walking in the parade. My opinion on transsexuality was not relevant; compassion does not hinge on ideological
agreement. The professor in me did point out, however, that "they" is not a singular pronoun, and he went after that like a dog to a bone. At least our academic discussion got his mind off his fear. As we were talking, however, a small group of evangelical Christians walked through,
announcing that everyone there was a slut and would go to hell. The clear message
was that gay people are worthless. It did not take long for some of the gay
young adults to reach a boiling point and start shouting at the so-called “Christians,” who fecklessly departed to across a street to take up their position. It did not take long for gay women especially to take their position directly in front of the "Christians." The battleline was set, and the lone policeman became visibly nervous and called for backup.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxg_eAMmljJ6HaJeVEJnDQFwqupCvvOja2iWkalt1LMk_2Cjyx6Z1ir130jCsN-vkGTpD7GQc5P924ldE2vfg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Shouting
insults at one’s enemies is not loving them as if for their own good; such a
rationale is extremely arrogant, and even self-idolatrous. Without love, especially
where it is <i>least </i>convenient, faith is for naught. The evangelical
Christians surely presumed that they were saved even as they hurled insults
into the crowd rather than being kind and compassionate—yet without agreeing
with the gay ideology or approving of gay sex. Perhaps people who consider themselves
to be Christians hesitate to be kind and compassionate to adversaries in part out
of fear that agreement would be assumed. Of course it is difficult to set the
anger aside.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjffXWxlNKl4RH23jhE9oxlxANV0JPuTP_Wrb2MRkFvICGCT_EbvRw07KD0IwiPA7Tcx3aPvltoESm_4u7p_VWAbJYOTOqJg6HsAn9tdkf09KnwumQVEm23VzsjGxdJItdUbzzgQIjau3Qc9c12YMOhmbZpGLdjkTdYHs3qheu5kKNM7E7fY6Wf4_ji/s2585/gay%20and%20christian%20men%20shouting%20past%20each%20other.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2585" data-original-width="2217" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjffXWxlNKl4RH23jhE9oxlxANV0JPuTP_Wrb2MRkFvICGCT_EbvRw07KD0IwiPA7Tcx3aPvltoESm_4u7p_VWAbJYOTOqJg6HsAn9tdkf09KnwumQVEm23VzsjGxdJItdUbzzgQIjau3Qc9c12YMOhmbZpGLdjkTdYHs3qheu5kKNM7E7fY6Wf4_ji/s320/gay%20and%20christian%20men%20shouting%20past%20each%20other.jpg" width="274" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs_EDSK9Q6F0gxnpnVp1_azhOsOXuYQqUWXQcQGIT3EDH8aMjjOlR4a-M6qQb35wOM6NpDyHVUYpUCETvDP3T3sp4SdSffrmcnE5Md8BWAkoHSrqEcTp1GGj4MK-iDYe9h5l3i4sqDWzNcmHqmZ6M79KFWmkmap9h1DNo0aHxSh0sYdAiOIYa7yDFb/s699/gay%20man%20shouts%20his%20position.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="457" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs_EDSK9Q6F0gxnpnVp1_azhOsOXuYQqUWXQcQGIT3EDH8aMjjOlR4a-M6qQb35wOM6NpDyHVUYpUCETvDP3T3sp4SdSffrmcnE5Md8BWAkoHSrqEcTp1GGj4MK-iDYe9h5l3i4sqDWzNcmHqmZ6M79KFWmkmap9h1DNo0aHxSh0sYdAiOIYa7yDFb/s320/gay%20man%20shouts%20his%20position.jpg" width="209" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmZahTbJD0kVHPFe_hIw7qfKvWWiUYwu1D5h3TrhqpGGrqAuvEhn8AhoHEtMHpFXm4BLKWRndQMZmDVUvWL-RdrHcw26C1ucebnP-ncartSFjg9EqtWv8OgGN1wRC6d7wP2fO9veHlfcv0MHqUC6O77YH30_L8p_gKQ_IUL4RNU8RT5pfM326p79Lc/s4160/main%20parade%20pic.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4160" data-original-width="3120" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmZahTbJD0kVHPFe_hIw7qfKvWWiUYwu1D5h3TrhqpGGrqAuvEhn8AhoHEtMHpFXm4BLKWRndQMZmDVUvWL-RdrHcw26C1ucebnP-ncartSFjg9EqtWv8OgGN1wRC6d7wP2fO9veHlfcv0MHqUC6O77YH30_L8p_gKQ_IUL4RNU8RT5pfM326p79Lc/s320/main%20parade%20pic.jpg" width="240" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEpykPsV-2u29WQjUM8z8qpYorX_QAn6xP9D4-Yjb11DVwqeyPPXcNxc_6c18PTTlp24-hYdxe4_5Wtrvd2WyiHNg0cqKG5VMetZPjww57V9vXOdWu_ooKqMymQH1jCry_f7VtCnQc9jJnmvlo7PixWQ1RwnV1P_8JPoxVmVRfYViW1mRedudxKzcZ/s4160/gay%20block%20out%20christians.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3120" data-original-width="4160" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEpykPsV-2u29WQjUM8z8qpYorX_QAn6xP9D4-Yjb11DVwqeyPPXcNxc_6c18PTTlp24-hYdxe4_5Wtrvd2WyiHNg0cqKG5VMetZPjww57V9vXOdWu_ooKqMymQH1jCry_f7VtCnQc9jJnmvlo7PixWQ1RwnV1P_8JPoxVmVRfYViW1mRedudxKzcZ/s320/gay%20block%20out%20christians.jpg" width="320" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Attending to human needs even and
especially of detractors or enemies can help a society transcend seemingly
intractable conflicts of contending values. Attending to another person’s
physiological needs, as well as the emotional needs from being emotionally hurt
or afraid, can do wonders in relegating, or transcending, even very heated
conflicts. Attending to pain-caused represents such a different orientation
from the typical castigating of an enemy that a transformation of heart capable
of moving such a mountain would be meteoric in its importance and power. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">At the location where the gay
parade was set up, the shouting match between the “Christians” and the gay
people could not be missed. I tried to model the silence that perhaps the
divine is in shouting matches between groups contending for truth. I stood on stretch
of raised cement and held the gay flag high while I silently faced the
aggressors (i.e., the “Christians). Had bottles of water been for sale nearby,
I would have purchased some and used one hand to give them to the “Christians”
while holding a gay flag with the other hand. Rather than waving the flag to provoke
anger, I would have sought quite humbly to attend to the thirst needs of the
“Christians,” who were undoubtedly thirsty after having yelled so much on a hot
day. I would have been modeling this to the gay women as much as being
compassionate to people with whom I disagree ideologically. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I hope I would have said to the
young gay women that only by helping one’s enemy can one get past the sting of
the harsh words and thus the pain and anger. “Don’t you get tired of holding
onto all that anger?” Jesus says in the film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5360996/"><i><span style="color: #783f04;">Mary Magdalene</span></i></a><i> </i>to
a woman angered by the physical abuse that women endured from their respective
husbands. In that movie, Mary Magdalene not only is the first witness to the
resurrected Jesus, but also understands that the Kingdom of God is a matter of
transformed hearts rather than a military victory, a more just political or economic
system, or something that will not happen until the end of time. Gandhi, who
was very much influenced by Jesus’ preaching and serving others in the New
Testament, grasped the nature of the transformation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In the film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083987/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_3_nm_5_q_Gandhi"><i><span style="color: #783f04;">Gandhi</span></i></a>,
a Hindu man whose son had been killed by a Muslim man in the religious conflict
just prior to the independence of India killed a Muslim boy. There is a way out
of hell, Gandhi tells the distraught man: Pick a Muslim boy whose parents have
been killed in the conflict and raise him—only raise him to be a Muslim. This
does not mean that the man must embrace or agree with Islam; rather, Gandhi’s
message is that only by helping people deemed the enemy can a person be free from
the hell that one has constructed around oneself by hating one’s enemy. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Without changing their
interpretations of the Bible, the “Christians” at the parade could have helped
the gays and their allies to get properly situated as to where to stand in the
line-up. The reactions of at least some of the gay people being helped would probably
have been a muted or stunned bewilderment, yet not to preclude a subtle
willingness to be helped by people having a very different opinion on
homosexuality. If the gays would have been too intolerant or proud to accept
the help, the fault would have been in themselves rather than the Christians. Similarly,
some of the “Christians” would likely have shown muted signs of appreciation
for receiving cool water from a man, whom they would presume to be gay, holding
a gay flag. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>In shouting that gay people are
worthless rather than helping them on a human level, the “Christians” missed an
opportunity to preach <i>to </i>the gays. Destructive and short-sighted values and behaviors, rather than being gay per se, are rarely seen outside of the gay "community," which itself may be more of a wish than a fact given the salience of individualistic values that exclude that of other-concern. </span>I’ve heard enough from gay men on how
they treat each other and the bases on which they value each other to know that they really need some sermons on <i>love thy
neighbor as oneself</i>. Obviously this does not apply to every homosexual, but my claim is significant enough that it characterizes the American gay culture (and perhaps those cultures in other countries). Rather than using a blanket Old Testament abomination
approach in which homosexuality <i>itself </i>is deemed sinful, the conservative “Christian” preachers could urge gays to be more Christlike in
how they esteem and treat each other. For in this respect gay culture had become ripe for constructive criticism by 2023. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the “dating” (really looking-for-sex)
online sites, for example, gay men can be quite brutal to
guys who are deemed <i>old </i>or <i>ugly</i>. How <i>dare </i>such <i>an inferior</i>
even message “hi” to one of the self-determined gods on earth. The criteria for being of greater value include being thin, muscular, and "hung," which means having a big penis. Even though physical attributes can be expected to be given a lot of weight when the purpose is limited to sex, the hypertrophic emphasis can be seen in how gay men with more attractive physical attributes regard and treat other, <i>inferior</i> gays. </span><span style="font-size: large;">Bluntly telling guys that they are ugly without provocation or that "fat" or "guys over 40" will be blocked just for messaging "hello" points to <i>anger </i>and extreme disrespect based on physical attributes. <i>How dare you contact me! You should be contacting guys on your level</i>. From the standpoint of kindness, the first are actually last. Furthermore, the obsession on seeing
nude photos, especially of dicks, and the attached ultimatums on gay sex sites can also be good fodder for preaching. So too are profile statements such as, "No black men; just a preference." To be sure, I've been told that some black men have statements excluding Caucasian men. I've also been told that it is not uncommon for gay men under 35 to demand payment for sex from men over 50. The passive-aggression in demanding payment from men presumed to be out of shape or simply older is insulting to the latter. Perhaps guys who are into older men should be charged too. When the men actually meet for sex, after having "met" online, how a guy rejects another based totally on appearance can be brutal. A man might see the man walking to the door and refuse even to open it, pretending not to be home and instantly blocking the guy online and by phone number. The choice is as feckless as it is needlessly cruel. Alternatively, the host could open the door and say that he is sorry for the other's inconvenience the other isn't his type after all. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The willingness to be <i>unnecessarily </i>cruel is a salient feature of American gay culture. <i>This squalid quality</i> should be isolated for criticism rather than flown over, whether in blanket condemnations of homosexuality as itself being a sin or in wholesale ideological defenses of homosexuality by conservative and liberal clergy, respectively. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span><span>The cruelty itself is startling. </span></span><span>In “threesomes,” for example, in which three guys meet to have sex, if two of the guys are more attracted to each other than to the third, the two feel no compunction to make sure the third is not treated as the “third wheel” (i.e., the odd
man out). In fact, the two men may be just fine with not even touching the other man, even if he is the boyfriend or even husband of one of the two! In the song, <i>Luck Be a Lady Tonight</i>, Frank Sinatra sings that a lady doesn't "wander all over the room, blowing on some other guy's dice." I had a girlfriend once who did that, and I refused to marry her because of it. "Let's keep the party polite," Sinatra sings. It is not polite when two gay guys in a threesome </span><span>text to each other while the third guy is in the room in order
to plan out how to trick the third guy into thinking that the session is over. </span><i>Tell
him you’re leaving, then leave, and he will leave. Then come back. </i><span>I've heard of cases in which a man will even participate in such a secret scheme to get his boyfriend out. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">Incredibly, no guilt seems to accompany such betrayal because the physical attraction of the moment is all that matters in that value-set. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Such indifference to hurting another human being is nothing short of pathological; at the very least, such cruelty reflects a malignant egism or self-centeredness and the lack of a conscience. This is good fodder for sermonizing. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: times;">I’ve also been
told that on the sex sites, and presumably at gay bars too, it is common for boyfriends and even husbands to
cheat on their partners. The gay men who have told me of the sheer extent of this behavior admitted that it is probably more prevalent among gays than straight couples. </span></span><span style="font-family: times;">I suspect, moreover, that the importance of what the other gay guy provides sexually is elevated in the selection of a boyfriend and husband. A gay man in San Francisco said once told me that a gay guy typically does not return to the same guy for sex because it is generally believed in that gay culture that there are so many gay men that there is probably someone who satisfies more items on one's list of sexual "likes" list. Another gay man, who was married, told me that that city is not good for gay couples, as there is more temptation to cheat for the same reason. This can be expected in cultures in which sexual attraction is allowed to be be so important even in relationships. To be sure, there are exceptions. A good friend of mine from college told me decades later that sex is about 10 percent of his relationship with his partner. So I am describing a dysfunctional (i.e., superficial and too cruel) culture. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span>Relative to heterosexual relationships, I believe that there</span><span> are proportionally more “open” relationships, meaning that both men in a relationship agree that they can have sex separately with other men. Still other couples want to "play together" by bringing in a third man. The gay culture approves of both arrangements. I contend that it does so because of the overwhelming importance of sex in gay relationships generally. </span>Given the importance given to sexual gratification, such separate sex risks the boyfriend or husband going to the other man. Gay men in couples whom I have spoken with seem not to understand why emotional intimacy is weakened in cases in which either man has sex with other men separately. Even in sharing a man, feelings can easily get hurt if the third man is more interested in one of the boyfriends or husbands and the latter lets himself ignore his partner during the session. Preaching is indeed needed and would be of great value to gay men in open relationships, as the perils thereof seem not to be known or respected among gays. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">One gay man told me that a man’s sex drive
is such that expectations of monogamy are not realistic. I suspect that this opinion is widely held by gay men. An open relationship and even cheating have to be accepted, realistically. I beg to differ; the loss of emotional intimacy and the potential for hurting the other person are too great. I've been told it is common for </span><span style="font-family: times;">gay
couples to “play together” with a third guy. Astoundingly, a couple (e.g.,
boyfriends) might go to a third guy’s home, and one of the boyfriends may even participate with the third guy in excluding the other boyfriend from the action and even collaborate in secret with the third guy to get rid of the other boyfriend! At least in America, the gay "community" can be fairly criticized for being too comfortable with the infliction of emotional harm and even betrayal without any taint of guilt. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Clearly there is a lot of room for
preaching from a Christian standpoint wherein God is love, which manifests between people. Such preaching </span><span style="font-family: times;">is not going to be done by conservative clergy who ironically
miss the arrogance and meanness in the gay "community" by merely making the blanket statement that homosexuality itself is a sin,
or by liberal clergy who refuse to criticize internal gay culture because those clergy
are primarily ideological defenders of diversity.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">How might conservative clergy
reach gay men? Perhaps by volunteering in a HIV clinic, for instance, or at a gay parade or event, insight could
be gained on where preaching is really needed from the standpoint of loving rather than betraying one’s neighbor. Furthermore, perhaps in showing compassion toward gay men, conservative clergy might come to value compassion to one another and thus not be so mean and
hurtful. Perhaps feeling the kindness of Christian clergy (and laity) might rub off on the gay men who are so callous towards each other and so single-minded on immediate sexual gratification. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">Perhaps clergy who view themselves as allies of the gay community might divert their attention from ideology to religious experience. Such a pivot could provide a basis on which to assess the gay community critically and challenge it. Such clergy would urge gay people</span><span style="font-family: times;"> who are very
compassionate to lead the way in extending their kindness to people
with whom they strongly disagree. Perhaps at a gay Pride parade, for example, such gay people might be oriented to satisfying the thirst of even a shouting "Christian" on a hot day. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">At the gay Pride parade that I attended in 2023, the young gay women and their allies could have shown the “Christians” that
gays are not all bad, worthless, or dirty. </span><span style="font-family: times;">Perhaps the "Christians" would have discovered that in being cared for by the lesbians that sexual
conduct does not exhaust the soul, and thus how God judges it. Perhaps the
young gays could have acted in charity, whose value is greatly increased when
the intended beneficiaries are people whom the young gays don't like or agree with. Seeing by example how the the way of Jesus could be applied, the angry "Christians" could perhaps have been healed, and thus been in peace rather than anger and arrogance. In the Gospels, Jesus accepts Matthew even though he is one of the hated tax-collectors, and Jesus goes to the
house of the Roman Centurion, whose faith, Jesus says, has cured the man’s
slave. It is significant that Jesus does not rail against Matthew or the
centurion as being evil or impure; instead, he serves them even though they are
outsiders, for even they are capable of being loved. Sometimes
this has to be experienced in baby-steps, such as in offering water. It is
water, after all, that often symbolizes purity or renewal in religion. Like a
mustard seed, small acts of human-to-human kindness can have large impacts,
whereas two contending parties voicing conflicting values are typically static
rather than dynamic.</span></span></p><div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Shruti Rajkumar, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taylor-swift-speech-lgbtq-eras-tour_n_647ba9e1e4b02325c5e11978"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor
Swift Breaks Silence And Condemns Anti-LGBTQ Bills During Eras Tour</span></a>,” <i>The
Huffington Post</i>, June 3, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Matt Lavietes, “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/tennessee-governor-signs-first-its-kind-bill-restricting-drag-shows-n1303262"><span style="color: #783f04;">Tennessee
Governor Signs First-Of-Its-Kind Bill Restricting Drag Shows</span></a>,” NBC News,
March 2, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Isabel Rosales and Jaide Garcia, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/23/us/florida-teacher-lgbtq-disney-movie-investigation/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Florida
School System Has Closed Investigation Into Teacher Who Showed Disney Movie
With Gay Character</span></a>,” CNN.com, May 23, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-91133736150858641842023-05-29T17:30:00.003-04:002023-05-29T18:14:26.901-04:00A Republican Catholic Bishop Violated God In Blocking Freedom Of Conscience<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">A salient aspect of the U.S.
Constitution is the separation of church and state. A government cannot
establish or show preference for a religion or sect thereof. Although church
clerics can state a politically partisan preference, they risk their religious
organization’s tax-exempt status. In the presidential election of 1960, John F.
Kennedy was under sufficient popular pressure to publicly assure the American
electorate that he would, if elected to America’s highest governmental office,
let himself be an agent for the Roman Catholic Pope in Rome. So, when Bishop
David Kagan of Bismarck, North Dakota urged his flock to vote for the
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2012, Maureen Fiedler, a Sister of
Loretto and a holder of a doctorate in government from Georgetown University,
wrote, (I)t is flatly unacceptable for a bishop to be giving voting
instructions to his flock.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span></span>
Interestingly, the instructions trump even the primacy of an informed
individual conscience.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In 2012, Heidi Heitkamp, a former
North Dakota Attorney General, beat Republic Rick Berg by just 0.9 percent.
During the campaign, the Republican Party ran an ad referring to Heitkamp as <i>likeable</i>.
David Kagan picked up on that adjective in writing a letter with instructions
that it be read at all Masses to urge the laity not to vote for the more
likeable candidate. Maureen Fiedler claimed in an article that such a de facto
endorsement of Berg put the Catholic Diocese’s tax-exempt status at risk. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Fiedler points out that the
partisan, or <i>partial</i>, orientation of the bishop is evident in his letter
in that he “zeroes in on social issues.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Specifically, Bishop Kagan states that the following should never be allowed
legally: “abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and not regarding
the unique and special role of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Fiedler points out that the letter does not mention “poverty, economic justice,
immigration, peace in the world or human rights.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Therefore, Kagan’s ideology cannot claim to embrace wholeness, and his partial
orientation naturally invites ideological opposition. As is common in churches explicitly
“on the left” or “on the right” politically/ideologically, whether in demanding
that people “use their pronouns” or “oppose abortion (in order to receive communion),”
people who might otherwise benefit in terms of<i> religious faith </i>by going
to church don’t go. To willow the gateway using nonreligious criteria is
dogmatic (i.e., arbitrary) from a religious standpoint. It is not good for a
church in taking up monetary collections either. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In regard to Bishop Kagan, his
exclusion of issues such as poverty detracts from his political and even
religious credibility. Making matters worse for himself, he erroneously claims in
his letter that informed consciences must conform to the magisterium (i.e.,
teachings of the Church), and thus to his partisan letter. Kagan declares that
a “properly formed Catholic conscience will never contradict the Church’s
teachings in matters of faith and morals.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
His statement contradicts the Roman Catholic Church’s Cathechism and the Second
Vatican Council. The 1992 volume of the Cathechism states, “Man has the right
to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
That freedom is denied if a conscience must never contradict the Church’s
magisterium. The Vatican II document <i>Dignitatis Humanae </i>makes it clear
that a person “must not be forced to act contrary to [one’s] conscience. Nor must
[one] be prevented from acting according to [one’s] conscience, <i>especially
in religious matters</i>.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
This does not mean that the magisterium (teachings) of the Church can be dismissed,
for, the same document goes on to say, “the faithful must pay careful attention
to the sacred and certain teachings of the church.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
To pay attention to something is to include it in the process of discernment of
one’s <i>informed </i>conscience, rather than having to abide by the external teachings
as if they were edicts that must circumscribe a conscience. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Bishop Kagan’s view of the
relationship between conscience and ecclesiastical moral teachings on
contemporary issues was erroneous, according to Tim Mathern, a Catholic and a
senator in North Dakota’s legislature when Kagan was telling people in his
churches to vote for the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. Mathern issued a
press release, which states in part, “A Catholic owes a duty to listen
thoughtfully to the bishop, but if in ‘good conscience’ he or she cannot give
assent, the Catholic must be free to follow his or her own conscience, which is
the true moral responsibility.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Even as God alone is the source that transcends even the magisterium in forming
a person’s conscience, moral responsibility—that which a conscience discerns is
a morally responsible position on particular contemporary political (i.e.,
partisan) issues is part of the created realm, rather than being sacred. That is
to say, a person’s moral position on “social issues,” which may inform selecting
whom to vote for, cannot be assumed to be God’s position, as if God takes
sides. For a stance on a partisan issue as a matter of moral responsibility is
a human construction, and God’s nature, and thus omnipotence (power), cannot be
constrained by human artifacts, including moral principles. In fact, God
transcends our conceptions of moral responsibility. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The so-called “conservative” Roman
Catholic clergy who have placed such emphasis on their moral stances on a few
select social issues are guilty of conceptualizing God in their own images,
and, as Pope Francis said, of a sort of misordered concupiscence: the placing
of a lower good above a higher one. In this case, the error lies in placing a
few social issues, and even particular positions on those issues, above focusing
primarily on preaching the Gospel. The particular social issues being obsessed
over are not even mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels! Not only have those “conservative”
clergy members severely diverted their attention, but also, as stated above, some
souls that could have been saved undoubtedly stopped going to church because those
people had opposing political ideologies and positions on the vaunted social
issues and perhaps even antithetical notions of moral responsibility. No one
likes to feel like an outsider; in fact, in a Christian context, serving rather
than attacking outsiders is at the very least valued. In the <i>religious </i>sphere,
moreover, partisan political issues and even a person’s notion of moral responsibility
are <i>transcended</i> rather than allowed to be become sticking points or road-blocks.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Interestingly, the “conservative”
Pope who made Kagan a bishop was a follower of Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Unfortunately for Kagan, Newman wrote, “I shall drink to the Pope, if you
please, still to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards. . . . Conscience
is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
So Kagan could not even appeal to the patron saint of “conservative” Catholic
clergy in validating the attempt to prevent Catholics from exercising freedom
of conscience. To be sure, Kagan could have appealed to his own conscience in going
against the Church’s position on conscience, but then so he would have been a
walking contradiction. As such Kagan’s stance was unethical according to the philosopher
Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory (the first formulation of his categorical imperative).
Kant must have hated logical contradictions. Furthermore, it would be the
height of arrogance were Kagan to have believed that only his conscience
matters—that those of other people, especially the laity, are inferior and thus
don’t deserve to be free. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Even more seriously, in attempting
to violate the consciences of the laity in his bishopric by artificially and exogenously
blocking the innate freedom, which is given by God, Kagan violated God. Another
Vatican II document, <i>Gaudium et Spes</i>, states, “Deep within his
conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he
must obey. For a man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . His
conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with
God whose voice echoes in his depths.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
A person’s conscience is formed by a sacred source, and yet David Kagan felt
the need, and indeed presumption, to tie a person’s most sacred core to a partisan
position on social issues. I wonder if the bishop at least respects himself. To
violate a person’s sanctuary, where a person is alone with God (and David Kagan),
is a violation not unlike molesting a child due to a dysfunctional wholesale repression
of an intrinsic and basic instinctual urge—a violation that more than one
bishop has covered up. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In the spring of 2013, for
instance, news broke that the Catholic Church of Illinois, where Kagan had been
a pastor at a church and, before that, an administrative assistant to a bishop,
had underreported instances of priests molesting children. As far as I know, Kagan
was not accused of being involved in the cover-up; my only point is that he
would have been at home in an organization in which violations of the fundamental,
God-given dignity of people get covered up. While the archbishop of Munich, Joe
Ratzinger, who would go on to become Pope Benedict XVI and elevate Kagan to a
bishopric, had written a letter refusing to defrock a pedophile priest because
the scandal would hurt the reputation of the “universal Church.” So, Ratzinger directed
that the priest be transferred to another parish, where the priest was allowed
to be the youth minister. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Shortly before Kagan was
appointed as a bishop, he had told his congregation in a homily on the
Assumption of Mary holy day of obligation (i.e., the Virgin Mary goes to heaven
<i>bodily </i>as well as soul) that if any of the four mysteries of Mary are
difficult to understand, you should “just obey.” Included in his congregation
were business executives, lawyers, and physicians. <i>Just obey </i>must have
gone down like a lead pipe even though the congregation had the reputation of
being “very Republican.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kagan should
have been quite popular there rather than an insult, and yet he was elevated to
a bishopric in another state. As of 2023, more than a decade since Kagan had
become a bishop, Pope Francis has not promoted Kagan; the bishop is still in
North Dakota.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: justify;">On ethical leadership: "</span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Leadership-Dr-Skip-Worden-ebook/dp/B019KWZVNY/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1511228342&sr=8-3&keywords=ethical+leadership+Skip+Worden" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Ethical Leadership</span></a><span style="text-align: justify;">" </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: justify;">On spiritual leadership: "</span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Leadership-Business-Transcending-Ethical-ebook/dp/B072K1SXVK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497031672&sr=8-1&keywords=skip+worden" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Spiritual Leadership in Business</span></a><span style="text-align: justify;">" </span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: justify;">On Christian leadership (</span>in terms of stewardship, shephardship, and servanthood)<span style="text-align: justify;">: "</span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Christianized+ethical+leadership+Skip+Worden&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Christianized Ethical Leadership in Business</span></a><span style="text-align: justify;">"</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list; text-align: left;">
<hr size="1" style="text-align: left;" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Maureen Fiedler, “<a href="https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/catholic-senator-north-dakota-challenges-bishops-election-letter"><span style="color: #783f04;">Catholic
Senator in North Dakota Challenges Bishop’s Election Letter</span></a>,” National
Catholic Reporter, October 25, 2012<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Patsy
McGarry, “<a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/conscience-takes-priority-over-church-teaching-says-catholic-catechism-1.3518377"><span style="color: #783f04;">Conscience
Takes Priority Over Church Teaching, Says Catholic Catechism</span></a>,” <i>Irish
Times</i>, June 3, 2018.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid., <i>italics </i>added.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Maureen
Fiedler, “<a href="https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/catholic-senator-north-dakota-challenges-bishops-election-letter"><span style="color: #783f04;">Catholic
Senator in North Dakota Challenges Bishop’s Election Letter</span></a>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn10" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Patsy
McGarry, “<a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/conscience-takes-priority-over-church-teaching-says-catholic-catechism-1.3518377"><span style="color: #783f04;">Conscience
Takes Priority Over Church Teaching, Says Catholic Catechism</span></a>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn11" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-57443158314649342492023-05-18T17:56:00.000-04:002023-05-18T17:56:10.739-04:00Behind the Prejudice Against Educated Clergy<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #999999; color: #1d2129; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">Among Quakers (many congregations of which refuse to record ministers), some evangelical congregations, and other faiths such as Baha'i (which does not have a clergy), there seems to be an underlying anti-intellectual bias regarding ministers educated in theology and ministry. I think the prejudice is out of anger, whose root is the errant assumption that knowledge, even in faith seeking understanding, causes the educated person to think he or she is better than others. Relatedly, expertise is assumed, falsely again, to bring with it a more general elitism.These flawed assumptions give rise to the prejudice that being educated in theology and ministry are not of much value, as being uneducated or self-educated in the field are actually preferred qualities in cases in which ministers are used (e.g., many evangelical congregations). All this is a slap on the face to those of faith who have spent years of their lives in seminary or university, and such passive aggression goes against Jesus's message on how to treat others. </span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #999999; color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">No one would suggest that the expertise of a physician from study at university is something to be spurned. No one would say that a lay healer has as much medical knowledge, at least when the person himself is ill, and yet once some people turn to the religious domain, expertise is out, even fair game for insults, in favor of the false notion of equality that affirms that it is at odds with the inequalities in expertise. I'm so used to deferring to the expertise of others whose knowledge I don't have that the refusal seems foreign to me. I do not of course deny that ministerial gifts can be outside the "faith seeking understanding" that takes place in a seminary or university. So I do not suffer from clerical exclusivity, but it is not true that the only alternative is throwing the rascals out, for their knowledge goes with them. A good cleric values his or her theological knowledge/education without being an elitist (yet while fully admitting that not everyone has such an education). </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #999999; color: #1d2129; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2129; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What I shake my head at in utter astonishment is how some Quakers, in refusing to record ministers even to Quakers who have studied for ministry, thereby limit the theological expertise available to Quakers. The assumption in Baha'iism is that every member is an expert; this assumption, however, does not follow from "the priesthood of all believers." Evangelical Christian congregations that prefer uneducated applicants (even those who can speak well) lose the benefits that would come from having educated ministers who can preach well. </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2129; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">People who have studied for years to be a minister should go elsewhere, where people would not only stand to benefit from their theological and ministerial knowledge, but would appreciate rather than feel threatened by the knowledge. Of course we are all the same relative to God, but this does not mean that we don't have different specialized knowledge areas and that some people have more knowledge than others within a field. In fact, to prefer uneducated clergy as a general preference risks a congregation being held captive by ignorance that cannot be wrong. The assumption that stifling accountability comes only from educated clergy is severely faulty; in fact, to the extent that seminarians and divinity students are taught negative theology, which holds that God is in essence unknowable, more not less humility is likely in speaking of God as well as in guiding people. </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #1d2129; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2129; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">To say we all have the same expertise demands psychological rather than religious explanation, and to say that knowledge learned from scholars is not of value (in any field, even in religion) reflects a very prejudiced attitude that has all the disrespect and arrogance that is presumed to be in educated people. To be sure, theological and parish ministry knowledge is not the only beneficial ingredient; it does not guarantee good pastoral care even though the schooling includes this area too. To be more educated in religion does not mean that a person has a more compassionate heart. So, again, I am not claiming that only people educated in theology and ministry should be ministers. Rather, I am arguing that the preference, borne out of prejudice and resentment, for uneducated (or self-educated) clergy, all else equal, is unwise. </span></span></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-69155371446508396022023-05-18T17:30:00.007-04:002023-05-18T17:33:43.853-04:00Religion as a Credible Academic Field of Study<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">What is religion? What does the domain of religion cover? What is excluded? Does opinion eclipse knowledge in marking the boundaries? Should we allow empirical self-identification claims from self-proclaimed religionists to veto any offending established knowledge of what the religion is? I contend that an atheist who claims he is nonetheless a practitioner of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam does not alter the fact that the three Abrahamic religions are monotheist. Atheist Judaism, for instance, is an oxymoron born of an arrogant subjectivity that offends reason itself and therefore cannot be valid.</span><span style="font-family: times; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">An opinion of a religious practitioner as to what core beliefs a religion should include does not mean that the knowledge we have of that religion is obliged to truncate itself or make room as if the opinion counts as much as the knowledge. For one thing, knowledge has more to back it up than does opinion. Knowledge of Christianity as a religion from Christian Scripture, for example, need not make room for a practitioner’s opinion that Christianity includes atheism, for that view is diametrically opposed to the existence of a deity in the scripture. An opinion seeking to remake or turn a religion against itself may insist on being recognized as valid, but this does not mean that the knowledge we have of Christianity (i.e., what it is as a religion) need be altered or contradicted.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />Surely knowledge of something is not on par with opinions, for the basis of knowledge is not an aggregation of subjectivities. Rather, knowledge has a basis that is not so flimsy, so knowledge can serve as an anchor by which subjectivities can situate their respective opinions. For example, Christianity is classified as a monotheist religion. This theological classification does not come from subjectivity, but, rather, what the Old and New Testaments state, even if they are not considered to be the inerrant Word of God. That there is one god is a major theme rather than the offspring of an interpretation. Even though an interpretation can be said to be an opinion, even an informed one, the knowledge we have of Christianity is too certain to be a bunch of opinions shared by even many people. It follows that starting from the assumption that every opinion is valid with respect to knowledge is problematic. We are indeed an impious lot with regard to our religious opinions, supposing them to trump that which is known. Such arrogance belies any claim of being a monotheist.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />I submit that knowledge in the religious-studies discipline is vulnerable to the presumptuous onslaught of religious ideologues who wrongly view knowledge of a religion to be subordinate to their individual self-identifications, ethnographically. Moreover, the problem is that some practitioners give ethnography a veto over other sources of knowledge of religions. They may even claim that the very term religion is up for grabs even though the fact that a discipline exists is predicated on there being some idea of what religion means (i.e., of what counts as religious).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />Also, knowledge of a religion may be transmitted by biased scholars who allow their own respective religious opinions to overrun the duty to teach knowledge unfettered. We may even ask: Does knowledge of religion (and particular religions) exist, or have scholars of religion merely been spouting their own opinions through the lenses of reason? I submit that although scholarly subjectivity has played a role in the accumulated knowledge of religion, this pathogen can be constrained by the academic methodologies on how knowledge can legitimately be acquired.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />For example, a scholar who is Christian may want a survey to show that a lot of a city’s residents are Christian, but that same scholar would be obliged to use random sampling and calculate<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“N,” the sample size using a method that cannot be bent by the scholar’s own preferences. Such a survey could thus be replicated by other scholars. The scholar may be ideologically in favor of the self-identification of a respondent as an atheist Christian, but other scholars could invalidate that data-point because the knowledge we do have of the Christian religion includes that it is monotheist, and therefore a person who self-identifies as an atheist cannot be classified as a Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span>What about the teaching of religion? At seminaries and even some divinity schools, the study of Christian tends to be skewed in a sectarian direction. At Yale’s school of divinity, for example, an evangelical Christian assistant professor (who did not get tenure) told students who were asking questions that they professor deemed exogenous (i.e., outside the contours of the dogma) that only students with a good character receive the school’s masters of divinity degree. To be sure, that degree is chiefly though not exclusively ministry-oriented, but Yale itself was by that time not a Christian university. It was originally founded in 1703 by Congregational ministers who resented the Unitarian influence in Harvard’s divinity school (that influence has its own biases, often at the expense of religion itself). In fact, when I attended Yale, the president, Rick Levin, was Jewish. At one point, he attempted to move the divinity school closer to the main campus from being located on top of a hill—a city on a hill. One opposing divinity student said in a seminar, “But they are relativists” at the bottom of the hill, and “Hitler was a relativist!” Suffice it to say that the Divinity School was able to remain on the fringes of Yale’s campus. Perhaps this continued to thwart Yale’s administration from being able to act as a check on its divinity school’s academic bias. That the department of religious studies was located at the heart of the main campus meant that academic standards could be protected in the study of religion from non-sectarian standpoints.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />Yet scholars in departments of religious studies are hardly objective; we are, after all, subjective beings, and we all have our biases, whether religious or political. Many years after I had graduated from Yale, a retired instructor from Arizona State University’s department of religious studies fraudulently misrepresented himself to me as a scholar even though he did not have a doctorate in the field. I became suspicious because he contended that how people “self-identify” themselves in religious terms trumps how a particular religion is classified theologically. According to the man with a masters in church history, ethnographic surveys decide the content and contours of a given religion even in regard to how it is classified theologically. “The theology doesn’t matter,” he told me. So if someone self-identifies as an agnostic practitioner of Judaism (i.e., a religious Jew), then scholars are obliged to consider agnostic Judaism to be a part of Judaism rather than as Jews with a weak religious faith.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />I told the pretend-scholar that Judaism is classified as a monotheistic religion. “That’s just your opinion,” he relied dismissively. Just as he had dismissed the fact that scholars in the liberal arts have doctorates, he dismissed theology even as regards a theological classification! Why, I wondered, would he stoop to misrepresent himself as a scholar how little he respected actual scholars and knowledge itself. He was an ideologue who wanted to defend people who feel oppressed by religion. God forbid that a scholar might reply, “agnosticism is exogenous to Judaism rather than a type of it.” Like Socrates’ interlocutor Euthyphro, the modern-day interloper suddenly decided he no longer wanted to talk to me and said, “I’ve never approached you” in the café where we met. He had also said at the end of one of our conversations, “After the ten minutes I gave you, the rest was charity.” Such must be the arrogance of non-scholars at Arizona State University that even authentic scholars are considered lower.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />That a university would allow an ideologue who relegates inconvenient knowledge as subservient to opinion even just to teach caught me by surprise, though admittedly Yale had been allowing Christian scholar-ministers to teach at that university’s divinity school in a way that delimited questions to those that fit within those professors’ own interpretations of Christian scripture. The difference is perhaps that those scholarly priests respected knowledge, for the pretended scholar from Arizona State University so obviously did not. “Some religious Jews self-identify as atheist Jews, so there is a type of Judaism that is not monotheist,” he told me once. He bristled at my reply that such Jews could be wrong. To the pretend scholar, it was the knowledge that would be wrong if confronted with a conflicting self-identification.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />The knowledge we have of a religion should not bow to a convenient self-identification by a practitioner because knowledge trumps opinion. That is to say, we can legitimately have more confidence in knowledge within the academic field than in the opinions of non-academic practitioners. Scholars do not throw out knowledge simply because it runs against an ideology, especially if the ideologue is not a scholar in the field. The pretend-scholar I met had no problem misrepresenting himself as a scholar because he had no respect for the knowledge in the field. What mattered to him was that no one could refute a self-identification as incorrect from the standpoint of what we know of the religion based on itself rather than any other religion.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />Were self-identifications permitted to set the contours of a religion, it could change beyond all recognition into another religion even as it retains its sacred texts, symbols, and rituals. A religion could be turned on its head. This has in fact occurred. The General Conference of Friends (Quakers), which covers the Northeast of the United States, has declared itself not to be Christian because enough Quakers there do not self-identify as Christians. From my visits at those Meetings while I studied at Yale, I suspect that the ideological opinion that Christianity has historically been dogmatic and oppressive to heretics and other religions was a factor in a significant number of the self-identifications at odds with Quakerism being a Christian denomination/sect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In contrast, Quaker Meetings west of the Mississippi River tend to be evangelical Christian. Friends there doubtlessly do not recognize the faiths of the Friends in the General Conference. Indeed, Quakerism as paganism is not recognizable, for the reason that self-identifications of especially new practitioners have been allowed to be determinative for what Quakerism is.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />What if enough religious Jews were to self-identify as atheists? Would there be such a thing as atheist Judaism—Judaism without God? An ideological stance wherein Yahweh is deemed to be oppressive and even cruel to people of other religions could prompt some religious Jews to self-identify as atheist observant Jews (i.e., practitioners of Judaism). Would scholars be obliged to reclassify Judaism from being monotheistic in spite of the Hebrew Scriptures? I submit that the answer is no because ideology, as highly subjective, is not sufficient to trump knowledge, especially if the latter is based on the religion itself rather than being from a comparative classification scheme that ignores the knowledge we have of the religions themselves.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />This is not to say that scholars are objective founts of knowledge. Because the knowledge learned by scholars of religion does not reduce to opinions, those of the scholars themselves should not bias the knowledge, just as self-identifications by practitioners of a religion should not. Universities, whether Yale or Arizona State University, are responsible for seeing to it that scholars and especially non-doctoral instructors do not treat knowledge as mere opinion in order to privilege certain opinions that are not in keeping with the knowledge.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />It may be that religious practitioners generally are vulnerable to this propensity to disvalue knowledge when it contradicts a religious belief or interpretation. For example, some evangelical Christians claim that Christianity is not a religion, whereas all other religions are. In the academic field of religious studies, Christianity is indeed classified as a religion nevertheless. It would be sad indeed were scholarship to serve the interests of the religious ideologues rather than serve existing knowledge and reason seeking greater understanding.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br />The man from ASU who misrepresented himself as a scholar (i.e., holding a doctorate in the field) reflected the culture in Arizona wherein "book" knowledge is not respected generally and especially when it runs afoul of ideological opinions. For instance, many riders of the light rail could be seen not wearing a mask as protection against the coronavirus in 2020. Also, the ideological claim that climate change does not really exist so the scientists are wrong has had considerable currency there. Scholarship can be easily dismissed if it is at odds with an ideological stance even when a theology is funneled to serve an ideology or as a defense-mechanism to protect the ego. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Religion (including theology) can indeed be regarded as a credible field in academia, for the constraints in scientific methodology and logic can both be used to resist the encroachments of ideological bias and other exogenous agendas that can admittedly easily warp the pursuit of knowledge. My only degree in the field is the Masters of Divinity, which is really a bachelors degree (just as the MD and JD are actually bachelors) because it is the first degree in a school (e.g., Divinity). So I cannot regard myself as a scholar of religion. Even so, I greatly value knowledge that has not been warped by ideologies or other vested interests even of scholars of religion, and I disvalue the intellectual dishonesty that is involved in claiming as knowledge that which is really an instinctual urge to promote one's own worldview. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Preaching, for instance, should not be done under the explicit auspices of scholarly inquiry. Schools such as Yale's divinity school whose mission includes educating scholarly ministers and priests should take pains to distinguish the two pursuits while holding that both are of value. Professors of divinity who are themselves ministers or priests need to be especially self-aware so as not to yield to the temptations to 1) restrict academic discourse to the ideologically comfortable confines of their preachments, and 2) present those preachments as though they satisfy the criteria for academic knowledge. It is quite common, for example, for Christians to conflate the faith-belief that Jesus of the New Testament was a historical (empirical) person in the ancient Middle East with historical knowledge that comes from historical accounts rather than faith narratives. The latter prioritizes theological points, and thus can ethically adapt (rather than merely adopt) historical events to make such points. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The synoptic gospels differ on which night of Passover the Last Supper was on; putting that event on the second night serves the theological metaphor of Jesus as the lamb to be slaughtered for the forgiveness of sins. The writer would not have been bothered in the least had he known that the event actually taken place on the first night because he would have known that he was not writing a historical account. This is not to say that the field of theology is not as credible as a field of knowledge than is history. It is to say that the two fields have different criteria (and source-types) and thus should not be conflated. A historian would look for historical accounts that are as objective as possible (e.g., not from the disciples) to answer the question of whether the Last Supper actually took place (and, if so, on which night), whereas a theologian would assess the fit of the metaphor to soteriology (i.e., Jesus Christ as Savior). </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Lay Christians and even many preachers may be surprised to learn that the only historical reference to Jesus, that which the Jewish historian Josephus made, is suspect as it regards Jesus as having preached the truth. Rather than being written by a Jewish person, the sentence was more likely inserted by a Christian copyist. Historians know to look at the credibility of a source that is presumably a historical account, for slyness is not a small part of human nature.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In conclusion, religious studies as an academic discipline can be distinguished from that of history and the ministerial profession of preaching. Moreover, academic pursuits should not succumb to the lure of ideology or preaching. Given the omnipresent desire that others adopt one's ideology or religious faith, the towers of knowledge that we construct should be subject to critique on a regular basis and by people of different vantage-points. </span></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-92081238475030698802023-05-16T23:30:00.001-04:002023-05-17T00:46:18.565-04:00The Coronation of King Charles III: A Case of Elitist Leadership<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> Is
elitism ethical when it seeks to portray itself as favoring racial diversity
after having been accused from within of being racist against black people—and
even a multiracial member of the leadership cadre? Moreover, can elitism itself
be ethical? Furthermore, can it be Christian? By elitist, I have in mind the
motive to exclude. In attending Yale University, I was surprised when I
discovered that exclusion was practiced <i>within </i>the university
among and by the students. It was not enough to have been selected to attend
the highly-selective university; some students felt the instinctual urge once
within to exclude other students. I discovered this when the chairman of the
political party in the Yale Political Union that I had joined lied to me that
if I would come to a Friday night party held in the Yale clock tower that I
would be tapped to join the secret society owned by the party. That chairman
and his surrounding inner cadre misled party members into coming. After all,
what good is tapping friends if there are not other people watching and thus to
be excluded? Regarding the coronation of King Charles (Winsor) in Britain in
2023, I contend that at the very least, the royal planners can be charted with
multiple levels of exclusion in Westminster Abbey. Furthermore, I strongly
believe that “the Palace” employed a public relations firm, a significant part
of whose strategy it was to combat Prince Harry’s charges of racism. This can
be inferred from extent of “photo ops” highlighting good “product placement.” Specifically,
people of the “Black” race were, intentionally, I submit, situated around the
royal family both in the coronation itself and at the related concert in the
royal box. This tactic played off the commonly mistaken inference that if
someone is seen next to people of a given group, he or she could not possibly
harbor ill-feelings toward that group. Although beyond the argument covered
here, I suspect that this cognitive fallacy is commonly taken advantage of by
public-relations firms the world over. As applied to leadership, the
tactic is geared to softening the hard corners of elitism as evinced in
leadership roles. I turn first to the blatant, yet strangely unspoken layers of
exclusion permitted and exasperated in the coronation itself, then I shall turn
to the matter of ideological product placement, which, by the way, can be
distinguished from the ethic of diversity in terms of participation. Claims of
encouraging diversity can easily be used as a subterfuge to cover the real
motive—that of product placement used to redress any hits to a person’s or
institution’s reputation (i.e., reputational capital). I come to the conclusion
beyond the ethical dimension that the passive aggression of exclusion is
antithetical to Christian leadership, such as could be expected from the
titular head of the Anglican Church.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-leadership.blogspot.com/2023/05/britains-coronation-case-of-elitist.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Elitist Leadership</span></a>."</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For more on ethical leadership: "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Leadership-Dr-Skip-Worden-ebook/dp/B019KWZVNY/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1511228342&sr=8-3&keywords=ethical+leadership+Skip+Worden"><span style="color: #783f04;">Ethical Leadership</span></a>"</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For more on Christian leadership: "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Christianized+ethical+leadership+Skip+Worden&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss"><span style="color: #783f04;">Christianized Ethical Leadership</span></a>"</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">For more on spiritual leadership: "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Leadership-Business-Transcending-Ethical-ebook/dp/B072K1SXVK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497031672&sr=8-1&keywords=skip+worden"><span style="color: #783f04;">Spiritual Leadership in Business</span></a>"</span></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-83502680679776110892020-11-16T18:57:00.001-05:002020-11-16T18:57:21.909-05:00On the Rushed Sainthood of Pope John Paul II: Metaphysics and Ideology Triumphant<div style="text-align: justify;"><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">Just days after the death of Pope John Paul II, “cardinals
eager to uphold his conservative policies had already begun discussing putting
him on a fast track to sainthood.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
This alone could have alerted religionists as to the possible sanctification of
an ideology within the Roman Catholic Church. The force of an ideology to its
partisans can render them deaf to other considerations. The church ideologues
clamoring for the ages-old process of canonization to be disregarded—hardly a
conservative demand—chose not to hear the “notes of caution from survivors of
sexual abuse and historians that John Paul had persistently turned a blind eye
to the crimes in his church.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Fifteen years later, the Vatican itself admitted that the former pope had known
of the crimes of Archbishop (of New York) Theodore McCarrick yet refused to put
a stop to them. “The investigation, commissioned by Pope Francis, who canonized
John Paul in 2014, revealed how John Paul chose not to believe longstanding
accusations of sexual abuse against [McCarrick], including pedophilia, allowing
him to climb the hierarchy’s ladder.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Rather than being a mere mistake in judgment, as some conservatives would argue,
the decision to look the other way resulted in great evil. The foreseeable
consequences meant that John Paul II allowed more rapes to happen. Besides the
rather obvious point that a saint would not have done so, and thus the
canonization of John Paul II was erroneous, this case suggests that the “two
miracles” requirement for canonization is itself flawed. <br /></span><span style="font-family: times;">The claim for canonization was that in at least two cases,
people prayed to John Paul II and subsequently were healed. The conclusion that
the former pope intervened with God to cure the petitioners suffers from the
fact that positive correlation does not in itself constitute causation.
Moreover, the emphasis on a metaphysical requirement takes the attention off
the real question: Was the candidate’s life saintly? To say that a cleric was a
religious man is not sufficient, for that goes with the territory. In fact, the
possibility of “insider trading” and “hierarchical favoritism” should trigger
extra safeguards in cases in which the candidates were clerics in the
hierarchy. Put another way, canonization has more credibility in cases in which
the candidates were not bishops, cardinals, or popes.<br /></span><span style="font-family: times;">The metaphysical/life distinction is relevant to
the Catholic Church beyond the issue of canonization. If a lay person believes
in transubstantiation and ingests the body and blood of Christ after the
consecration in the Mass and yet does not reach out to help detractors and even
enemies when they are in need, of what good is the metaphysical belief,
practically speaking? Valuing Christ’s teachings and trying to live by his
example must be met even if the liturgical consecration is revered. The faith
is that the two go together, but if they don’t, the matter of valuing Christ’s
teachings for how to get into the Kingdom of God by how others are treated must
be decisive. Similarly in canonization proceedings, the matter of a candidate’s
life is decisive.</span></span></p><p style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><span style="font-family: times;"><br clear="all" /></span></p><hr size="1" style="text-align: left;" width="33%" /><p></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">1. Jason
Horowitz, “<span style="color: #783f04;"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/14/world/europe/john-paul-vatican.html">Sainted
Too Soon? Vatican Report Cast John Paul II in Harsh New Light</a>,</span>” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The New York Times, </i>November 14, 2020.<br /></span><span style="font-family: times;">2. Ibid.<br /></span><span style="font-family: times;">3. Ibid.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div><br /></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-67304162466477907322020-10-15T21:52:00.002-04:002020-10-15T21:56:21.408-04:00Religion as an Academic Area of Study<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times; text-align: justify;">What is religion? What does the domain of religion cover? What is excluded? Does opinion eclipse knowledge in marking the boundaries? Should we allow empirical self-identification claims from self-proclaimed religionists to veto any offending established knowledge of what the religion is? I contend that an atheist who claims he is nonetheless a practitioner of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam does not alter the fact that the three Abrahamic religions are monotheist. Atheist Judaism, for instance, is an oxymoron born of an arrogant subjectivity that offends reason itself and therefore cannot be valid.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-mycorner.blogspot.com/2020/10/religion-as-academic-area-of-study.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Religion as an Academic Area of Study</span></a>." </span></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-92036486126111229342020-08-03T21:47:00.004-04:002020-08-04T21:51:08.148-04:00Miracles as a Literary Device<div style="text-align: justify;"><div><div><i style="font-family: times;">The Greatest Story Ever Told </i><span style="font-family: times;">(1965) is known for being the first Hollywood movie in which the face of Jesus is shown. From the standpoint of the next century, the scandal in showing Jesus could only seem antiquated, if not outright silly. Rarely can such perspective on a scandal exist as it is occurring. In its own time, a scandal seems all-important and critically in need of being addressed lest life as we know it would otherwise come to an end. Ten years earlier, Nikos Kazantzakis' novel, </span><i style="font-family: times;">The Last Temptation of Christ</i><span style="font-family: times;">, had also been controversial, as was the 1988 film of the same name (and based on the novel) because Jesus imagines himself in the sexual act and he may struggle with mental illness. This scandal was more serious than was that which greeted </span><i style="font-family: times;">The Greatest Story Ever Told </i><span style="font-family: times;">even though the Jesus of </span><i style="font-family: times;">Last Temptation </i><span style="font-family: times;">ends up rejecting the temptation to avoid the cross and is thus faithful to his Father in the end. The viewer is left, however, without a decisive answer as to whether the film's Jesus suffers from mental fits because the film ends with Jesus dying on the cross. The theological validation of Jesus is made in </span><i style="font-family: times;">Greatest Story</i><span style="font-family: times;">, though curiously not chiefly in the usual way this is done in narratives about him. I submit that this deviation makes the film highly significant in that it emphasizes religious experience as a reaction. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-greatest-story-ever-told.html"><font color="#783f04">The Greatest Story Ever Told</font></a>."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXFW0DAEVEy23EuPeBsJHCzUxI6ja6PT_SD3LiAXmRQorzqzsCWZZCF4OZmY5SJOvkYsG0USBeYoM-oIzMIZU99RhRINi09F1P-S_0xPMuo43wRJxs1RBJqEQa9PF5V_ShDcSS8tqUx7kT/s268/greatest+story+ever+told+pic.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXFW0DAEVEy23EuPeBsJHCzUxI6ja6PT_SD3LiAXmRQorzqzsCWZZCF4OZmY5SJOvkYsG0USBeYoM-oIzMIZU99RhRINi09F1P-S_0xPMuo43wRJxs1RBJqEQa9PF5V_ShDcSS8tqUx7kT/s0/greatest+story+ever+told+pic.jpg" /></a></div></div></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-30849740551728121372020-07-26T23:04:00.003-04:002020-07-26T23:04:35.716-04:00Satan in Film: In Light or Darkness?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Released in the last year of the twentieth century, <i>The Ninth Gate</i> is a film about the use of a book to conjure up Satan. The book's title is The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows. Between three copies exist nine engravings appropriated from a book written by Lucifer. The person who gets all of those engravings can conjure up the devil. The Kingdom of Shadows presumably refers to Satan's kingdom. At the end of the film, Dean Corvo, a dishonest book dealer, rather than his client, Boris Balkan, is welcomed into a castle in which Satan is located. As the castle's main doors open, a blinding light shines outward into the night. Although Thomas Hobbes castigates the Roman Catholic Church as the kingdom of darkness in his text, <i>Leviathan</i>, Satan's realm has typically been depicted as dark in Christian art. Indeed, the film's own reference to Lucifer's kingdom as that of shadows follows this motif. Yet how can we account for the white light inside the castle? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKdA6ycudyjrCxiAseS7VDeYCgUy1oIcEJmSyERULrMA_vC78SDfuIeengU6XW-Uq33mlCGgxQZBUsr2cfqCfSguMhx8L_w8iAdmnxgjjyUA7RartT21seImPZj8MiXJvZgyVySHoCOHUD/s1600/Nineth+Gate+pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKdA6ycudyjrCxiAseS7VDeYCgUy1oIcEJmSyERULrMA_vC78SDfuIeengU6XW-Uq33mlCGgxQZBUsr2cfqCfSguMhx8L_w8iAdmnxgjjyUA7RartT21seImPZj8MiXJvZgyVySHoCOHUD/s1600/Nineth+Gate+pic.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-ninth-gate.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Satan in Film</span></a>."</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-47267104062364976662020-07-25T20:28:00.001-04:002020-07-26T20:12:08.420-04:00False Christians as the Power-Elite of a Church: A Case of Human Arrogance<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In what begins as a story about Bess, a mentally-ill (or cognitively challenged) woman who marries Jan, an oilman, </span><i><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Breaking the Waves</span></i><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;"> </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">(1996) is a film that ends on a distinctively religious note that is nothing short of miraculous. The viewer is meant to be skeptical concerning the authenticity of Bess's spirituality, especially as seems delusional in having two-way conversations with God. Even as one of her prayerful petitions seems perhaps of having been granted when Jan returns from the oil rig to Bess, albeit with Jan paralyzed from an accident, the overwhelming view of the characters in the story, including Jan, is that, as Bess's physician asks Bess, "Do you really think you have so much power?" Bess is blaming herself for Jan's serious medical condition. She could reply, "It's God's power, not mine," but she is slow. Yet she can love, unconditionally. When Jan urges Bess to sleep with other men then tell him about the experiences so he will have the will to live, Bess complies and is summarily kicked out of her church. Even Bess's mother, with whom Bess lives, locks the door. The church elders and the minister are judgmental hypocrites who presume that they can consign a person to hell. Even so, Bess's trust in God as a matter of faith continues, and she sacrifices her life by willingly submitting herself to a sadistic sailor so that God might then heal Jan. Meanwhile, the unbelievers are trying to get Bess to a mental hospital, given her "delusion." On the morning after Jan and his friends on the rig drop Bess's body into the sea, one of the friends wakes Jan to come outside and hear bells ringing even as radar shows nothing out there. The viewer now knows not only that God performed a miracle on Jan, for he is walking around and even back on the rig, but also that Bess's faith is vindicated as heaven's bells miraculously are chiming. The burial followed by bells ringing at sunrise reflects the story of Jesus' passion. The overall message seems to be that we mortals don't know as much as we think we do about God's ways, even if we do happen to have power in the governance of a church.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ9mfatbIamr0fGuEFeeZXI4PozK21E-Zw0-9cEYZLiPVf_EkTYKH_KpObgyDOUUh1lnpJD5PQa3I9xcOWganXW2gcYiDsUeol7N9_jfKnVtoKI7Pai-dubVdm3Cp_R1iF9EwHdt01on1m/s1600/breaking+the+waves+pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ9mfatbIamr0fGuEFeeZXI4PozK21E-Zw0-9cEYZLiPVf_EkTYKH_KpObgyDOUUh1lnpJD5PQa3I9xcOWganXW2gcYiDsUeol7N9_jfKnVtoKI7Pai-dubVdm3Cp_R1iF9EwHdt01on1m/s1600/breaking+the+waves+pic.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/07/breaking-waves.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Breaking the Waves</span></a>."</span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-48879748809910197082020-06-10T16:00:00.002-04:002023-11-18T17:07:19.124-05:00The Hebrew Bible on Wealth<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The early Hebrews considered wealth to be an integral part of human perfection and, moreover, what ought to be.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[1]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span> The ideal man was wealthy and leisured, and yet occupied with honorable work.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[2]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span> In the Torah, as long as the Hebrews as a people obey God, including dutifully acting as stewards rather than as selfish exploiters of the land that God has provided, poverty should be nonexistent in Israel. “<span class="text">There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the </span><span class="small-caps"><span style="font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">Lord</span></span><span class="text"> your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,</span> <span class="text">if only you fully obey the </span><span class="small-caps"><span style="font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">Lord</span></span><span class="text"> your God.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[3]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> Blessed wealth is a reward for fidelity to Yahweh, whereas poverty here is indicative of, or even punishment for, disobedience, which will evidently always be the case in Israel, for, “There will always be poor people in the land.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[4]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> The conditionality leaps off the page, as does the notion of collective justice, and yet wealthy individuals, including business practitioners, are held to account. The ethic of work is upheld even though labor in Genesis is due to original sin. </span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span class="text"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Torah does recognize, however, that the humble can be poor and the greedy and prideful can become rich. God does not punish the humble and reward the proud. To be proud is to trust in oneself, and thus one’s own ability to acquire still more. </span></span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In Psalm 52, the righteous laugh at the man, “who did not make God his stronghold, but trusted in his great wealth and grew strong by destroying others!”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[5]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span> Such strength refers here to becoming richer or more powerful, rather than more righteous or pleasing in the sight of the Lord.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Hebrew Bible depicts greed as a sin. For one thing, greed can motivate a rich or powerful person to unjustly exploit the poor to obtain still more wealth. Relatedly, moreover, putting the love of gain above loving and obeying God implicates greed in contributing to the more grave sin of idolatry—regarding or treating something in Creation as being above the Creator, and thus as a superior god. Pride is thus in the mix—the arrogance of a pot to presume itself superior to the potter who made it. Generally speaking, the Hebrew Bible tends to associate the rich with being greedy, prideful, and, worst of all, idolatrous. Prideful idolatry involves trusting in oneself rather than God. This sort of pride goes easily with making money into an idol to form the ground of existence. The prophets had nothing good to say about selfish wealth and leisure.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[6]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span> This does not necessarily implicate wealth itself, however, or even being rich, since it can be a reward for being obedient in placing Yahweh before oneself and other possible gods, such as wooden idols and even earthly treasure. In the Torah, greed and wealth are uncoupled, as if snipped apart with scissors. Wealth itself can go either way. Riches acquired righteously are a blessing from God and therefore do not carry the stain of greed, whereas wealth gained greedily, as in taking unjustly from the poor, is associated with sin.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Nobody is exempt from being tempted by greed. Referring to the people of Jerusalem, Jeremiah charges, <span class="text">“From the least to the greatest,</span><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text">all are greedy for gain.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[7]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> </span>As an urge, greed can be understood as coming out of an instinct that is activated along with the subtle sense, or fear, that having enough for the future can never be guaranteed completely. It is as if we were squirrels continuously scurrying around after walnuts, storing as many as possible until none more can be found. No amount of wealth is sufficient to get a person to certainty on whether what one now has is sufficient for one’s future needs and comfort. Accordingly, having just clinched a good deal is never enough; any brief satisfaction at the achievement is quickly replaced by the urge to get an even better deal.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Just because greed is a sin does not mean that it treats all wealth as sinful too. <span class="text">According to the Hebrew Bible, a person need not be wealthy in order to be greedy, and a person can be rich without being greedy. </span>Every prophet preached that if Israel were righteous, it would be sure to prosper—the gift of Jehovah on condition that Israel kept to the covenant (i.e., righteousness).<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[8]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span> The prophets denounce the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abuse </i>of wealth rather than seeking or holding wealth itself, luxury, commerce or even monopoly as evil in itself.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"> <span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[9]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> Even if the overwhelming majority of rich Hebrews in Jerusalem were at a certain time very greedy in unjustly exploiting the poor to gain still more wealth, the Torah indicates that God could still bestow riches, which, coming as a blessing, would be unstained by the sin of greed. </span>Each of the three Patriarchs in Genesis, for example, is rich.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[10]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b><span class="text">Were greed mixed in with blessed wealth, God would be rewarding the righteous with a sin, which does not make sense. Abraham’s wealth is a gift from God rather than a sin.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[11]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"><span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As a gift, blessed wealth can come with or without the need to labor for it. Proverb 10 promises, “The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, without painful toil for it.”</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[12]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Blessed wealth gained without effort is reminiscent of the natural wealth of the Golden Age depicted by Greco-Roman poets such as Homer and Ovid.</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[13]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> The Greco-Roman poets characterize such wealth as being free of greed; where there is plenty and no fear of future shortage, a person need not labor; one can even let go of the instinct for still more without fear of falling short one day. In the Hebrew Bible, blessed wealth without painful toil is associated with not only a lack of greed, but also the Garden of Eden—hence prior to Adam’s original sin. It follows that blessed wealth without labor is more of a reward than is the variety of blessed wealth in which industriousness is required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Hebrew Bible does not insist that industriousness itself is sinful. Proverb 10 states, “Lazy hands make for poverty,</span></span><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> <span class="text">but diligent hands bring wealth.</span> <span class="text">He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son,</span> <span class="text">but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son.<sup> </sup>The wealth of the rich is their fortified city,</span> <span class="text">but poverty is the ruin of the poor.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[14]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> Therefore, working diligently does not necessarily mean that a person is greedy. “Those who work their land will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[15]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> Ceaseless activity does not necessarily point to the presence of greed. Proverb 18 goes so far as to say, “One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[16]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span><span class="text"> Industriousness does not suffer from the vice of such sloth.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span class="text"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Industriousness is not unconditionally good, however. The virtue must pertain to the person who works rightly as a steward in the vineyard in which God created the soil, the vine, the fruit, and even the laborer. Proverb 22 declares, “Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.”</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[17]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Although the vineyard differs from the Garden of Eden (or the poets’ Golden Age) in that painful toil is necessary, profit-taking from industrious labor is a blessing, or reward, that God bestows on the stewards who have been dutifully industrious in managing God’s property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The blessed wealth and the industriousness being presumed greed-free are therefore conditioned on how a person responds to God.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">With God as “Possessor of heaven and earth,” the world is the Creator’s property in Genesis.</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[18]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> It follows that human possessions are gifts from God. Rather than becoming the absolute owner of the gifted property, the Hebrew is meant to act as God’s steward.</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[19]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> That is, God retains the basic or foundational ownership right in His property. Moreover, the property relations embody a relation between Israel and God in which the Israelites owe obedience and service as stewards in exchange for a right to Jehovah’s blessings, which include riches.</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[20]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Put another way, because Jehovah is a partner in every Hebrew’s property, no Israelite was able “do as he liked with his own.”</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[21]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Indeed, one’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">own </i>is precisely what is being qualified or restrained here. At most, a Hebrew’s property was his own and God’s, if not altogether God’s.</span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[22]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> The partnership laid out in Scripture is one of rights and responsibilities rather than “anything goes,” as is the case with greed.</span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.25in;">The theological value of maintaining the partnership through dutiful work and blessed wealth should not be overstated, however. Even though the bounty from God’s vineyard is free of greed, the riches cannot be expected to accomplish what righteousness can do. According to Proverb 22, “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 27.6px;">[23]</span></span></span><span class="text" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.25in;"> Proverb 11 is more direct. “Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[24]</span></span></span></span></span><span class="text" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Through Zephaniah, God says of the sinners, “Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath.”</span></span></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[25]</span></span></span></span></span><span class="text" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.25in;"> Clearly, having wealth is not as valuable as being righteous.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;"><div style="text-indent: 24px;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="text" style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">If riches bestowed by God are worthless in making up for unrighteousness, it goes without saying that greed-laden wealth surely cannot accomplish what righteousness can. </span></span><span style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“<span class="text">Ill-gotten treasures have no lasting value,</span> <span class="text">but righteousness delivers from death.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[26]</span></span></span></span> When greed is added to the equation, industriousness and its wages become ruinous. <span class="text">Proverbs warns, “Better the poor whose walk is blameless than the rich whose ways are perverse.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[27]</span></span></span></span><span class="text"> In other words, even though we are all subject to the temptation to subject our diligent labor to greed, the sour odor need not stain the fabric of one’s work clothes or the fruit of one’s labor. </span>“The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[28]</span></span></span></span> The greedy, having acquired their wealth unjustly, will lose it. The Book of Enoch, of the ancient Jewish apocalyptic movement, reads, “Woe to you who acquire silver and gold in unrighteousness and say: ‘We have become rich with riches and have possessions; (a)nd have acquired everything we have desired.’ . . . your riches shall not abide . . . For ye have acquired it all in unrighteousness, (a)nd ye shall be given over to a great curse.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 20.7px;">[29]</span></span></span></span> Both in respect to wealth falling far short of righteousness and the very conditionality of blessed wealth, the positive theological significance of wealth is lessened, or at least moderated. Neither the conditionality of the positive theological significance nor the tendency of people to succumb to greed is a trivial point in the Hebrew Bible.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.25in;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0px;">For more on Judaism on profit-seeking and wealth, see Skip Worden, </span><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; text-indent: 0px;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2569112882232778554/3391980960564425348#"><span style="color: #783f04;">God’s Gold</span></a></i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0px;">, ch. 2.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span><br />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[1]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Charles R. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine of Wealth and Work</i> (London: Epworth Press, 1924), 21.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[2]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 22, 33-34.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[3]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Deut. 15:4-5.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[4]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Deut. 15:11.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[5]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Ps. 52:6-7. <span class="text">All Biblical passages quoted in this chapter are according to the New International Version of the Bible, obtained from <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2569112882232778554/3391980960564425348#"><span style="color: #783f04;">BibleGateway.com</span></a>.</span><span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[6]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 111.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[7]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Jer. 8:10.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[8]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 128.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[9]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 97-99.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn10" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[10]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 21.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn11" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[11]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 24; Gen. 24:35.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn12" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[12]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 10:22.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn13" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[13]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. See Skip Worden<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2569112882232778554/3391980960564425348#"><span style="color: #783f04;">God’s Gold: Beneath the Shifting Sands of Christian Thought on Profit-Seeking and Wealth</span></a></i>, ch. 1.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn14" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[14]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. <span class="text">Prov. 10:4,5,15.</span><u><span style="color: blue;"><span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></u></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn15" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[15]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 28:19.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn16" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[16]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 18:9.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn17" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[17]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 22:2<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn18" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[18]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 23; Genesis 14:19,22.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn19" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[19]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 25.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn20" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[20]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 26,55.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn21" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[21]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 54-55.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn22" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[22]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible Doctrine</i>, 55.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn23" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[23]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 22:1.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn24" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[24]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. <span class="text">Prov. 11:4.</span><span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn25" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[25]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Zeph. 1:18.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn26" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[26]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 10:2<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn27" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[27]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 28:6. According to Flusser, the Book of Enoch, of the ancient Jewish apocalyptic movement, contrasts woes against the wicked rich with word of hope and promise to the righteous poor. David Flusser, “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Israel Exploration Journal</i>, 10 no. 1 (1960): 12.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn28" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[28]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Prov. 10:16.<span data-original-tag="O:P"></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn29" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span data-original-comment="[if !supportFootnotes]"></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 18.4px; vertical-align: baseline;">[29]</span></span><span data-original-comment="[endif]"></span></span></span></span>. Book of Enoch, bk 5, 97:8,10. Quote from Robert H. Charles, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch</i>. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-26484234897379656632020-06-09T19:24:00.003-04:002020-06-09T20:02:54.976-04:00Pope Francis on Subordinating Greed and Wealth<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The documentary, </span><i><span style="color: #783f04; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6915100/">Pope Francis: A Man of His Word</a></span></i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> (2018) chiefly lays out the pope’s critique of economic Man. The film begins with references to climate change too loosely linked to the global population figure of 8 million humans, 1 billion of whom are unnecessarily living in poverty. The viewer is left to fill in the gaps, such as that because as biological organisms we must consume and use energy, the hyperextended overpopulation of the species is the root cause of climate- and ecosystem-changing CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Arguably, the salvific Son of God or the means into the Kingdom of God enjoy pride of place in the gospels, but compassion for the poor as well as outcasts and the sick is indeed a message that Jesus stresses in the faith narratives. Rather than being a sign of sin, poverty, especially if voluntary, can permit the sort of humility that is much superior to the pride of the Pharisees. In the documentary, Jorge Bergoglio, who took the name Francis in becoming pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 2013, is a practical man who points to the sickness or temptation of greed that keeps humanity from riding itself of poverty, unnecessarily. Moreover, the hegemony of the market, with its culture of consumerism and commoditization, comes at the cost of the common good, which to Francis has a spiritual basis. </span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: large;">Abstractly speaking, harmony, which inherently respects its own limitations, should have priority over greed and markets. Both of these can go to excess without enough built-in constraints as occurred before and during the financial crisis of 2008, with poverty plaguing humanity more rather than less as a result.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/06/pope-francis-man-of-his-word.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope Francis</span></a>."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXdIFTKTqXjL3J2-ASch-ksfSZOsTYE5kq-_WPVYWj4g1WgGZ9gu2l1kgPKFYI8IH7vHDVNx1Tc7g5W6QzmS3Mv5kbddjDZvkMeW-S64jzNlyhIK2_EgBoVNqwdsRUTZOw4coELG4uSsI/s1600/Pope+Francis+A+Man+of+His+Word.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXdIFTKTqXjL3J2-ASch-ksfSZOsTYE5kq-_WPVYWj4g1WgGZ9gu2l1kgPKFYI8IH7vHDVNx1Tc7g5W6QzmS3Mv5kbddjDZvkMeW-S64jzNlyhIK2_EgBoVNqwdsRUTZOw4coELG4uSsI/s1600/Pope+Francis+A+Man+of+His+Word.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-92102858537733844922020-06-01T22:38:00.000-04:002020-06-01T22:38:03.373-04:00The Case for Christ: On the Problem of Extracting History from Faith Narratives<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A film narrative oriented to
an investigation of Christianity is tailor-made to illustrate the potential of
film as a medium to convey abstract ideas and theories. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Case for Christ </i>(2017), a skeptical journalist—Lee
Strobel—takes on the contention that Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospels was
also a historical event (i.e., happened historically). Lee states the
proposition that he will investigate as follows: “The entire Christian faith
hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. If it didn’t happen, it’s a house of
cards. He’s reduced to a misunderstood rabbi at best; at worst, he was a
lunatic who was martyred.” The journalist’s initial position is that the
resurrection didn’t happen historically; it is just part of a faith narrative
(i.e., the Gospels). Lee wants to test the proposition by interviewing experts.
The dialogues between the journalist unschooled in theology and the scholars of
religion provide a way in which complex ideas and arguments can be broken down
for the viewer and digested. The journalist stands as a translator of sorts
similar to a teacher’s function in breaking down knowledge new to students so
they can grasp and digest it. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-case-for-christ.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Case for Christ</span></a>."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_BdeS451Q1VlZs2zZYQqnUAaSY6SANKVEzoxRdC0-rbfz2eDpd0-GMGbWhP5Dvv2Zt7k3MKCsaRymUMZPPs5knO6Mbwi5SwNhQOdZVFo4NGNzHOQgUFHYsqqJv3BNqYZ39KE_jesIQ2M/s1600/the+case+for+christ+pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_BdeS451Q1VlZs2zZYQqnUAaSY6SANKVEzoxRdC0-rbfz2eDpd0-GMGbWhP5Dvv2Zt7k3MKCsaRymUMZPPs5knO6Mbwi5SwNhQOdZVFo4NGNzHOQgUFHYsqqJv3BNqYZ39KE_jesIQ2M/s1600/the+case+for+christ+pic.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87412480601117249.post-4374624913754842242020-05-30T21:55:00.000-04:002020-05-30T22:03:53.959-04:00Religious Themes Secularized Through Film<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">One approach to infusing religion
in a film is to utilize a secular lens to keep overt religious content hidden such
that only its messages that can be stated in a secular way come through. The
basic values of a religion can be transmitted without specific religious
belief-claims possibly turning off some viewers. Given the mass audience that a
typical film can reach, the medium is a good means for presenting people with
values that come out of religion but have their own intrinsic worth apart from
the related religious belief-claims. Film can play a role, therefore, in
enabling the values of a religion to survive the religion’s downfall. From
watching the film, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Beautiful Day in the
Neighborhood </i>(2019), a viewer would not know that Fred Rogers was an
ordained Presbyterian minister. His wife says at one point in the film that
Fred reads scripture and prays daily, but that is the only clue in the film
that his religious faith is the source of his motivation for and messages on
his show, “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i>”</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<span style="color: #783f04;"><a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-beautiful-day-in-neighborhood.html">A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood</a></span>."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj04G63evorn6y7e-Gprz44NiX8FuYmFtVU9kRL3u1gzneK2BKHzOJoIcjZusysZHKT8qDxQAqgEUxc3f5fITHJW48hkiaT7M-pDtSAY0Gr2Z7ABYyxskpGKk8SZ3RXiH89XFO1ucCdK04/s1600/A+beautiful+day+in+the+neighborhood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj04G63evorn6y7e-Gprz44NiX8FuYmFtVU9kRL3u1gzneK2BKHzOJoIcjZusysZHKT8qDxQAqgEUxc3f5fITHJW48hkiaT7M-pDtSAY0Gr2Z7ABYyxskpGKk8SZ3RXiH89XFO1ucCdK04/s1600/A+beautiful+day+in+the+neighborhood.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.com