Musings on a Recent Article Concerning Gun Control in America

A friend of mine asked me to weigh in on the gun control issue, especially in reference to the attached article. I don't know why, as I'm pretty sure anything I say won't sway anybody. But, for the sake of rousing rabbles, here was my response (and the accompanying article which spawned the conversation).

This is a very interesting article that will hopefully help open a much needed conversation in Christian communities. However, it ignores some key considerations on both sides of the argument. Keep in mind, I'm relatively undecided on this issue, and the below points are not necessarily meant to sway the conversation in favor or against gun control, but instead are meant to make us think about other relevant factors theologically and practically in our society.

First, and this may be relatively minor, but this article ignores other legitimate uses for guns beyond hunting, such as sport. Many people enjoy skeet shooting, target practice, biathlons, trick shooting, cowboy shooting, etc. These are fun activities that have absolutely nothing to do with dealing death, yet the author claims that all guns are solely for doing just that. It is true that the concerns of a sport do not outweigh the death of thousands, but it is helpful to remind ourselves that even in a perfect society with no violence, there would still be a legitimate place for guns.

Second, this article ignores the obligation to defend others (beyond the “right” to defend ourselves). I honestly see the use of guns to defend the life of others as more legitimate than using guns to defend our own lives. When we use a gun to defend ourselves, we are saying in that moment, our life is more important than the lives of others. We have decided, at least for the fraction of a second it takes to pull a trigger, that the other person's humanity has been negated. We may rationalize this in terms of justice, but ultimately we have decided that our knowledge and power is so supreme in that moment that we can kill.

However, when we use a gun to defend others from oppression, we may very well be affirming God's care for the oppressed. Again, we are making a judgment call to dehumanize our enemy in some way, with the argument that they have done something (or will do something) sufficiently unacceptable that they deserve to die. This is still very dangerous and tricky ground, and I doubt that even the most level-headed individual can make such a judgment call perfectly

Thirdly, a little-known Constitutional note. If we not-so-subtly ignore the recent Supreme Court rulings to the contrary (District of Columbia v Heller - 2008, McDonald v Chicago - 2010) and consider the right to bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia, then we have the following to consider. Not many Americans realize that all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the Reserve Militia under the Militia Act of 1903. If read in this context, I think someone could make the argument that every one of these males is required to own, learn to handle, and operate a gun. This is a bit of rabble rousing on my part. :) But if there's one constant to the gun debate, it's that people enjoy rousing rabbles.

Finally, this article (as well as many others) ignores perhaps the most tragic consequences of gun violence: that of the gun suicide. In fact, while there are 3.6 gun homicides out of every 100,000 people in this country, there are 6.3 gun suicides. Based on this figure alone, it would seem that gun suicide is a much greater problem in our nation than gun homicides or mass murders.

Our society has very little compassion for suicides, it is seen as a coward's way out, or even that a person has a right to make that choice concerning their own life. However, those who use such arguments have often never experienced the depths of despair and hopelessness which often accompany such decisions. We, as Christlike disciples, are to bring hope to the world. If we ignore this issue, we fail Christ. Not only that, but gun suicide is not simply a gun issue. While guns make it easier for those in despair to make that final leap, getting rid of them would not solve the problem.

Our mental health facilities are abysmal in this country. Our prisons have become our funny farms as we incarcerate people for being the wrong color, for being homeless, or even for being a bit strange in public. Pharmaceuticals push their products as the holy grails of neuro-chemical engineering, and when pills fail we would rather shove the “problem” off to a jail or prison where we don't have to think about them anymore. We incarcerate more people than any other nation on earth, both as a percentage of our population, and in real numbers. If this is the Land of the Free, we have the most unfree individuals of any nation on earth (and that is without addressing the burgeoning sex slave trade in this country).

Oh, and one final note. It appears that around 400,000 crimes are perpetrated per year with guns, while about 400,000 are stopped with guns (although I also read 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year by guns, but I doubt this high figure). This means that if we outlawed guns, there would be fewer gun violence crimes, but for those criminals who still find a way to get guns, there would be no law-abiding citizens to stop them.

Anyway, these are just some factors to consider. I think statistics can be manipulated, ignored, or highlighted for both sides of the issue. Theologically however, anytime we take a life, we are making a judgment call with such irreversible and grave consequences that I think such a call should be reserved for God only.

So those are my thoughts, what are yours inter-webs buddies?

"Making Guns Our God" by Mark Lockard via Ministry Matters

#GunControl #GunViolence #AmericanGuns

Debate Review 1: Is There a God? - Rick Warren v. Sam Harris

Below are my reactions to the informal debate between Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and the neuroscientist Sam Harris on Religion and Atheism, which was published back in 2007. This is intended to be the first review in a series of debates between prominent atheists and theists. The link to the debate is below:

Informal Debate on Religion and Atheism Between Rick Warren and Sam Harris, 2007 - via Newsweek

Bridges in the Debate for Mutual Understanding

Hmm, while an interesting debate, I think there are a few valuable take-aways for those reading. First, you'll often find religious debates revolve around the same issues without really moving forward.

For instance, in this debate Sam Harris opens up to an understanding of spirituality that is couched in reason. That's something that both sides should really explore further, as it seems like a great bridge.

Additionally, Rick makes some statements regarding wonder, order, beauty, etc. that would be helpful both when talking about our understanding of the universe, and in the Christian understanding of God. Another bridge.

The Inadequate Treatment of Miracles

However, a number of statements were made (particularly by Rick) that were either unhelpful, in my opinion, or were not unpacked sufficiently. For instance, he appealed to miracles as a reason for faith, but did not address Sam's statistical or cultural concerns surrounding the phenomenon.

It would be helpful if miracles were explained in their theological and phenomenological sense: If miracles are (or were) real, then they have been directed by the Deity. If they have been directed by the Deity, then they were performed within that particular cultural context (time, place, etc.) for a reason, presumably as part of some greater story. And, if they occurred for a particular place and time, then they are not repeatable.

This is relevant, as it makes them statistically undetectable and experimentally untestable, but not necessarily any less real. They simply move from the realm of the natural sciences to the realm of the social sciences. In this realm, their entire context must be taken into consideration, including the context of the witnesses.

It is still possible that their occurrence is bogus, but it must be recognized as possible that their occurrence isn't. Honestly, when placed in the study of social sciences, even their non-occurrence may mean something theologically relevant.

The Value of Mythic and Poetic Language in Scripture

The problem is that both sides attempt to argue from a natural sciences standpoint. And in this realm, Rick Warren is severely disadvantaged. There are many faithful Christians who believe that Genesis (esp. ch. 1-11) is primarily mythic poetry, that while borrowing from similar tales in other cultures, is still transformed to say something real and true about the relationship between God, humanity and Creation.

It is helpful here to note, that when I use the word "myth," I do not mean the popular understanding of the word as a story that's made up. Instead, myths are generally structured stories which often call on a variety of sources and often are transmitted orally before being written down. Such stories often convey a deeper human truth. It makes sense to me that if God has revealed Himself to humanity through the stories in scripture, then he would use the cultural tools available to both reach as wide an audience as possible and maintain relevance over a long period of time. These tools would include poetry, wisdom sayings, songs, mythic stories, biographies, etc. I see no reason why He would be constrained to modern notions regarding scientific or historic accuracy, as these things have not been a major concern for humanity during most of its history.

But Rick doesn't acknowledge this. He simply says he believes in the literal reading of Genesis and doesn't back that claim up in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

The Differences Between Faith, Belief, and Dogma

Additionally, Sam seems to understand faith as the opposite of reason, and faith and dogma as equivalent. He questions why God would allow someone, born within a tradition, to be punished for believing that tradition. Rick doesn't challenge him on this, but I will. I would argue that dogma is defined as an immovable position which disregards any subsequent discovery or fact. Faith, on the other hand is much more malleable.

In fact, faith even maintains room for doubt! If you notice, almost every major "hero" of the faith in the OT has doubts at some time or another (Job, Moses, Gideon, Elijah, Jonah, the writers of half the Psalms, etc.). In each case, God never punishes the doubter. Instead, the doubter comes out stronger for the experience.

For the person born in their own tradition, they are not judged because they don't believe in Jesus (especially if they have never encountered Him). They are judged according to how they faithfully adhered to their understanding of goodness. Scripture tells us that every human being betrays that understanding eventually, and that makes our reconciliation with God (through Christ) most necessary.

Faith is better defined then, not as belief in defiance of reason, but instead as trust founded on reason, experience, and revelation. One may question their beliefs continuously, and still remain faithful. In fact, whenever new situations, knowledge, or experiences arise, it makes sense to question our assumptions. And this is absolutely OK, and I would argue, is a sign of wisdom. However, I have still found reason to have faith, and because of this, I will do my best to be faithful.

My Further Thoughts on These Issues

Note: To give a bit of background on my opinion. I am a Christian, and I believe in the God whose attributes include transcendence, imminence, and goodness. I believe God is, and has been, active in the cosmos. And I believe in objective truth. However, I also understand that truth and fact are often different things.

There is allegorical truth, poetic truth, wisdom-truth, ethical truth, etc. But in the realm of fact, there is scientific and historical fact. I do believe truth needs to be informed and understood in terms of scientific and historical fact, but I do not believe that truth needs to rest entirely within the realm of fact.

In my own study, I have come to the conclusion that the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits into the realm of historical and scientific fact, and therefore the theological truths I arrive at are anchored in this. This is rooted in my understanding that the gospel accounts are for the most part reliable, at least in regards to his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection (a complete analysis of this viewpoint would require its own post). And as a result of this conclusion, my theology rests along the same lines as the rest of orthodox Christianity. However, this does not mean EVERY story in the bible can be treated in the same way, or that every story should be treated as literally, historically accurate.

I think that in order to tell the difference, we use experiential, structural (to the scriptural passage), traditional (contextual), and reasonable (scientific, historical, philosophical) methods to arrive at our conclusions. Because we arrive at different conclusions, theological debate becomes a worthwhile exercise. However, I also believe that such differences of interpretation are not grounds for discrimination or hate, as Jesus' teaching makes clear.

The problem with the above debate is that neither side really devotes sufficient energy to using these methods to arrive at truth. In my final analysis I think Sam did better and "won" the debate. However, even his arguments were insufficient to turn me away from my conclusions. I do not think that this is due to an "unreasonable" attitude on my part.

Why Christians Should Not Give Josh Duggar a Free Pass

Below is a Facebook Note I posted on August 21, 2015, which I thought was worth posting here as well.  Also included is a link to the CNN coverage concerning Josh Duggar's fall from grace, so to speak.

"Josh Duggar: 'I've been the biggest hypocrite ever...'" via CNN

I've been reading some of the comments in the wake of Joshua Duggar's ongoing and public fall, and I've been surprised and dismayed by how many of my brothers and sisters in Christ have been trying to defend his actions.

I want to say, as clearly as possible, that Josh Duggar should be held accountable for his actions. He broke the law. He broke the trust of those closest to him. And while he worked to marginalize whole groups of people for their choices and understanding of relationship (the LGBTQ community) in a democratic society, he secretly and hypocritically undermined his own publicly-stated understanding of relationship. Especially as a public figure, he should be held accountable.

I am a Christian, and while I believe Jesus lived and taught forgiveness, he also lived and taught justice (especially for the oppressed, the disenfranchised, and the abused). Our theology should not divorce the two.

And one should not seek forgiveness just to avoid consequences, as public apologies often aim to do. A genuine appeal to forgiveness cannot deflect from the issue, but should fully engage the injustice done. Also, forgiveness is not just a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for those afraid of what may happen after death. And I believe Gehenna just isn't a far-off, supernatural hell of flame and smoke, waiting in the future. It is the consequence of broken relationship and destroyed trust, both here and now and the resulting damage that ripples through the ages, long after those who committed the betrayal are gone. It is the gulf of bitter separation we create between us and God, each other, and creation.

Instead, the purpose of forgiveness is to restore relationship and to begin the reparation of the damage caused by betrayal, but the victim of any injustice should never be compelled to forgive. If we really believe Christ redeems human beings, then we must also agree that he does so freely, and without compulsion. Likewise, if we claim to follow Christ, then we cannot expect or force others to forgive out of compulsion.

There are many who have been hurt both by Joshua Duggar's political work, and by his personal betrayal. Those who would forgive him, must do so in their own time, and have every right to grieve the injustice done to them. Since Josh Duggar's apologies have only been issued after he was caught, it is only natural to doubt the authenticity of his words.

We may desire the restoration of people and relationships, but true restoration cannot happen without acknowledging and correcting injustice. In this case, molestation of his sisters who trusted him, the betrayal of his spouse who also trusted him, and the marginalization of large groups under guise of civic law, definitely qualifies as injustice.

P.S. I also think the particular homeschooling method the Duggars use is complete bunk. There, I said it. :) #DuggarScandal #JoshDuggar

Evangelical Christianity Needs to Step Away from the Culture Wars

Below are a couple of great articles by Relevant Magazine on the need for Evangelical Christianity to reject political posturing, move beyond the culture wars, and embrace the life and teaching of Jesus:

"Christians Shouldn't Be Culture's Morality Police" via Relevant Magazine

 "Moving On From the Culture Wars" via Relevant Magazine

These articles led me to the following thoughts...

John 13:35 says, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another,” not "If you win America for Jesus," or "If you institute biblical laws." Those of us who are called to follow Jesus should be shaped by what he did and taught, but that only happens AFTER we decide to to take that step, and only within the context of relationship with Christ.

It makes no sense to force these things on others, and it certainly harms the Church's ability to be a light for the gospel when we are so obsessed with political and cultural divisions. If we have anything worth sharing with the world (and I believe we do), then it must be shared with compassion, caring, and understanding. Everyone draws on their own experience, reason, and cultural understanding to make their decisions; and we must be willing to accept that.

A non-Christian friend of mine stated, in response to the above thoughts, that a person does not need religion to be moral. They can choose to be compassionate, decent, and equitable without fearing condemnation or seeking reward in the afterlife.

I responded and acknowledged that he is right, one can have morals without religion (though I would argue that all good things come from God, but that conversation probably deserves its own post). Though I don't believe in God out of a fear of what may happen after I'm dead. The idea of a disembodied spirit floating around after we die was borrowed heavily from Greco-Roman culture and philosophy, and strikes me as an untenable belief theologically.

And the idea of such a spirit being submitted to eternal torture isn't supported biblically or by our current scientific understanding. I think the Gehenna which Jesus speaks of (he never uses the word “hell”) is primarily the natural result of the divisive actions of human beings toward each other, toward creation, and toward God. When human beings are consumed by selfishness (or self-righteousness), how could the result be anything but separation? But if you notice, Jesus' message is concerned with how we treat each other in the here and now. While he still works within the framework of Jewish law, he shifts interpretation from one of fear or self-righteousness, to one primarily motivated by love.

I try to be good, and follow Jesus' teachings, not because I'm afraid. I mean, when I'm dead, the jig is up one way or another and it's all out of my hands at that point. smile emoticon But I try to be good because not only am I intellectually convinced through reason and personal experience of God's existence, but I have fallen in love with God. I love God and I love others, not just because somebody told me to, but because in my opinion it's the best, most beautiful, most illuminating way for me to live.

Am I perfect in my understanding or practice of that love? Nope. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna give up trying to live this way. And I think there are many other Christians who share the same point of view. It's true that not all of us do, but that's where the above article comes into play. It's intent (and my intent in sharing it) is to foster a conversation about what living as Christ's disciples really means. We have 2,000 years of bad blood to overcome as people have hijacked the cross for a variety causes (which arguably boiled down to a desire for power in almost every case).

Call me an optimist, an idealist, or just a plain old fool, but I think we can do better. In fact, we owe it to our God and the rest of the world to do better. And this starts by re-centering Christian teaching on the teaching of Christ: which is to love no matter what.
 ‪#‎AmericanChristianity‬ ‪#‎ChristDoesntMeanCulturePolice‬ #Evangelicals

The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering

Someone asked me, if God were real, why would He allow kids to be born with birth defects (and finished with saying, "thanks imaginary god.") It bothered me, not just because he was challenging my beliefs. After all, our beliefs should be challenged and tested by the force of reason and experience, otherwise they're probably not worth anything.

But what bothered me was that he had a valid point. Why would a good God allow kids to suffer, like in the article below? Why do so many human beings seem to live a loveless, harsh, and suffering existence only to die at the end of it?

I've been thinking about it a lot. I think the only acceptable solution is one that fully recognizes the reality of suffering in the world and doesn't try to mitigate or minimize it. Suffering in the human condition is real, it is deep, and it is often relentless.

So, this is what I'm thinking currently: Our conception of God rests on our understanding of "the Ideal." The ideal varies from culture to culture, and over periods of time, but almost universally includes the concepts, "the Good, the Transcendent, and the Imminent." A concept of God worth engaging by human beings (whether in prayer, worship, or just simple awe and joy), must include these three (and yet is infinitely more than these) concepts. But how could an imminent (involved deeply in the details of the cosmos) and good God allow such undeserved suffering?

Well, if God is real, good, imminent, and transcendent and has created us for relationship with Him, then relationship requires free will. And if free will is not an illusion, it must be probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. By it's very definition, the existence of probability introduces an element of chaos into the cosmos. This chaotic element, would then introduce harsh realities into all of life's experience (and not just human), which would be experienced as suffering.  And free will opens the possibility for us to choose disharmony over harmony, and betrayal over trust.  If trust, in turn, is the foundation for all human relationships (including those with each other, with God, and with creation), then it leaves us in a completely broken state.  Brokenness leads to confusion, and in that confusion, it is no wonder we are unable to perceive God clearly on our own.

This does not compromise God's goodness, as God's goodness is manifest in everything created. Evil (and its cousin, suffering) are not created things, but are a warping or corruption of what is created, as a consequence both of the abuse of free will and the role of chaos in allowing both free will and a lack of total determinism in the cosmos. But the beauty and mystery of God's goodness, is that in His desire to preserve the will, and enable relationship, He suffers with us. He feels the pain of every dying child, of every victim of abuse. He feels our hurt, confusion, and rage.

Christ's Incarnation (God taking humanity onto Himself in Christ) ensures that He takes part in our suffering., His death on the cross is the ultimate expression of this as He takes all the pain, suffering, and brokenness in the world into Himself. His resurrection is the ultimate triumph over suffering and the hope of our triumph, as well. Finally, the Holy Spirit's continued presence in a broken and hurting world feeds the hope and propels its fulfillment forward, even in the face of inexpressible sorrow.  And it is through the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ that we experience the hope of reparation and restoration.

I understand if people don't see it the same way I do, and I don't blame them. But these are just my thoughts as I grapple with the realities of our existence.

P.S. Some further thoughts on the attributes of God expressed in, "the Good, the Transendant, and the Imminent." We can envision these attributes, and we all have different ideas about them, but we also all agree that outside of concepts concerning God, there are no perfect expressions of the Good, or the Transcendent, or the Imminent in human experience.

This tells me that the argument that our concept of God is simply anthropomorphic projection and nothing more, is not valid. If God simply reflected anthropocentric tendencies in our species, as necessary for our survival, then our concept of Him would not rest on attributes which are utterly unattainable by any created being. ‪#‎GodProblems‬ ‪#‎Suffering‬

Daily Mail Article: 'I Can't Cuddle My Son Because It Makes His Skin Fall Off,' A Mother's Anguish at Her Son's Suffering 

My Reflections on 9/11

In ministry, I am given a voice. And today I am torn between the prophetic and the political voice. This is the anniversary of 9/11. It is a day that is ripe for prophetic statement, but at the same time is very politically charged. One might challenge, the other might heal. Or maybe both voices have the capacity to challenge and heal; just like both have the power to alienate and reinforce old, stale views.

In my weakness, I often default to the political voice, in the service of self-preservation and advancement. But in what I believe is a God-given strength, I deeply desire for humanity to overcome its old hatreds and advance toward things better than we've ever dreamed. And humanity has only ever advanced when it was challenged to do so; even "pissed off" to the point that it would do so. And that is the role of prophetic statements, to get people riled up.

So which do I choose? Am I so vain that I think my statements or views would make any difference? After all, we live in an age of vanity, the age of the "selfie" and twitter, where we broadcast our every thought, whether people want to hear them or not. Or am I so cowardly that I won't stand up for what is right?

I guess when it comes down to it, I have a simple mind and a simple prayer. I pray that today, instead of resorting to political speeches and rallies, we seek forgiveness for the fallen world we've made. I pray that we really think on the only two commands God ever really gave: that we love God with everything we are, and that we love others as much as we love ourselves. And I pray that God heals us, despite our immense stupidity in the face of such global challenges as we look upon today.

That's it; no support for one political side or the other. And this statement offered no real, concrete solutions to our problems (sorry to disappoint whoever was hoping for such things). No grand political statement to make. I'm just a big dummie that wishes people would come together and do the great things that we are able to do as a species, instead of killing each other all the time.

Reflections on a Warm Summer Night

I know it's been four years since I've posted anything on this, but I thought, "hey, why not post somethin' now?"  So's I did...

A picture taken on my smartphone, totally insufficient to portray the experience detailed below.

The Experience

Today I was affronted with the beauty that surrounded my neighborhood. Late at night, I was checking some emails and working on theological studies when my dog came to me, begging to go for a walk. Normally, she just sits by the door waiting for somebody to notice, but this night she went right up to me and jumped up to get my attention. So, grudgingly, I decided to take her for a quick walk. I went down the street, and approached a house whose yard is in flagrant disregard of the standards set by the local Homeowners' Association. Calamity Jane (my dog) stopped to do her business, so I briefly stood and took in the view before me.

As I looked, everything became extremely vivid. Every little detail. This yard, which most people would view as unkempt and a blight, was overgrown with weeds. But I began to see those weeds and their immediate interaction in extreme detail. I saw how the “weeds” were really just the native plants to this area of Colorado, and while they maintained no symmetry or “cleanness” with which we judge beauty, they were extremely beautiful. They grew in natural formations and structures, which while completely functional from a biological point of view, highlighted the amazing determination of life. Shrubs, weeds, flowers, and grasses flowed up around the house they enveloped. The moon shown through clouds with a small, pulsing star to the left. The light and shadow played around their growth. Periodic porch and street lights pierced through the darkness of the night. The car to the right and the house behind were relatively new and clean, and provided a perfect juxtaposition to the chaos of plant life in the foreground.

The Contemplation

Then, as I took in this view, and my dog pooped, I began to contemplate all the processes required to make such a scene. This is where the real revelation took place. I realized, that in order to create a scene so easily overlooked, many processes were working in perfect harmony. I thought of the O2-CO2 and Nitrogen cycles working ever-silently to maintain both the plant growth I observed, and the life of the observer viewing it. I thought of the perfect harmony between gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces of physics that even allowed such a universe to exist. Each of the billions of cells, in each plant, that I beheld worked to create such a scene of beauty. The forces acting on those cells allowed them to exist. The moon in its current phase, the atmospheric conditions allowing its view and the distinctive sparkle of the star next to it, provided unique plays of light and shadow on the objects beheld. Then, of course, I thought of the work, design, and craftsmanship that went into the human elements in front of me. The car, house, sidewalk, and street all provided a backdrop to the natural phenomena surrounding them. I heard my breath and smelled the sweet smells of plants, normally so choked by the exhaust of passing cars during the day. Crickets and other bugs hummed close-by, as if in a totally uncoordinated, but deeply complex, symphony meant to catch my wayward ears.

The overwhelming awe that this experience was instilling in me was almost too much to take. Like a giant girl, I wanted to cry. It sounds pretty stupid as I type this, and the grainy photo I took with my smart phone only confirms the idiocy of my appreciation. But in that simple, solid moment, I didn't care that my feelings were crazy and incommunicable. I really felt that all my travels, challenges, and mind-numbing difficulties over the years were worth the moment in which I was immersed. And if you know me, and how far I've traveled, then you know that's saying something.

In the midst of this experience, I realized two things. First was the total improbability of the whole thing. If the previously mentioned chemical-biological cycles (CO2, O2, Nitrogen) were not in place, even as inefficient as they are, then there would be no life to observe, and no life to be observed. Additionally, if any of the four primary forces of physics were not in place, then there would be no observable universe, let alone the intricate beauty which I took in. And if human beings had not endeavored to create the city in which I found myself, there would be no artificial backdrop to accentuate the natural scenery.  Finally, without the brain in my head, with its complexities and the construct of my mind, I would be as dumb to the beauty before me as the dog pooping at my side.

 

Admittedly, for a man of faith, most of these processes are well detailed in the annals of science. But is that such a bad thing? Sure any of these processes can be explained through logical and causal means. But to have them all work concurrently seems a little more than mere chance. If any one of them were missing, then this whole internal discussion of mine would not have taken place. The entire house-of-cards which is my reality would completely collapse if not for the balancing act each component performed. In fact, it may almost seem like “destiny.” And as much as one might not like to admit it, the concept of destiny relies on a plan. Who's plan? Certainly not my own. I only planned to take my dog outside so she could poop. Something greater seemed to be at work; something far more complex, and with an eye to the subjective concept we call “beauty.” Something an observer might call “God” for lack of a better term.

And that is the second realization. In order for this beautiful scene to be beheld (and I keep using the term “beauty” at the risk of over-use, because I simply don't have the expressive range to fully portray the significance of what I experienced), this God would not only need to put in place the processes I previously mentioned, in addition to many, many more which went unobserved (and many philosophical-theological arguments get way too bogged down in the individual processes that make up the machinery of existence); but this God would have to create me to behold it. I am not saying that God was forced to create me, in order to create beauty. But God created me so that He would not have to be alone in the appreciation of the Creation that He made. Think about it. Just in the state of Colorado alone, there are magnificent mountain peaks with no one on them to take in the awe with which they've been imbued. In the middle of nowhere, there are outcrops of windswept rock and snow, far above the clouds, and there is no human being upon them to see the sheer, stark, and maybe desolate landscape at their feet.

But these places exist, whether we view them or not. I guess that means that if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no-one around, it does indeed make a sound. But the sound which is missed by ears that could behold it, is a wonderful treasure lost. That lonely and sad thought brings me back to God. All of the complex realities of being, whether we pass them by or not, only take on meaning (concepts of beauty, wonder, and awe) if there is an observer. As these things truly have meaning (they are beautiful, wonderful, or awful), then that must mean there is an observer. Finally, if these things are observed when no human being is around, then something sentient must observe them to ascribe them meaning. That Sentient Observer, who is also their Creator, is then the One whom I proclaim as God.

 

The Point of This Post

I promise that I did not set about writing this little piece with an apologetic mindset. I would have rather gone to sleep tonight after my work was done. I simply experienced something I thought was worth noting, and wrote it down (and its derivative contemplations) because I wanted to remember it. There have been a few other points in my life where I ran into similar thoughts and feelings, and passed them by. I guess I figured that if they were worth noting, someone would have noted them by now. Maybe someone has, and I'm just not aware of them. But in the last few years I have done things and been to places that put my life at risk. Understanding that, I began to better appreciate the experience of life in which I participated, even if I didn't fully understand it.

Maybe the overall context of my risk-taking life has propelled me to this moment, to write these things down, before my thoughts and feelings are lost in death, and I am no more able to communicate them. After all, we all die sometime; and how many lessons could we have learned from those who once were, but are only dust beneath our feet today? If my insights are of any worth, they will survive. If people decide that this is just a bunch of crap, then they won't. And if my experience is worthless, then it really shouldn't survive to slow down human progress. But if it is worthwhile, then it would be a crime for me not to write it down and pass it on.

I guess my hope for sharing these thoughts with you is that they get you thinking. There are many who argue both from the perspective of faith and the perspective of atheism, who do not see the whole picture. I don't claim to see the whole picture myself, but I've always had a mind for the “macro” over the “micro,” and I hope that my observations and insights help to inform the discussion. In any case, I believe the above experience has deepened my faith in God, even if that experience is pretty mundane by most standards. In the same way, I hope that this will cause any readers to look a little more deeply at their surroundings. In that depth, I pray they find the truth about human existence, nature, and the existence of God. After all, wasn't there One among us who once said that if we know the truth, the truth will set us free? Freedom is something the human heart yearns for, and if that yearning is not in vain, then freedom is most assuredly found in the truth.

A Crippled Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy Traded for Marketability

Modern, popular Christianity (and christian politics) loves to deal in absolutes. You are either right or left, your liturgy is high or low, things (and people) are either good or evil. You go to heaven or you go to hell. You believe our creeds or you don't. We've spent decades and even centuries trying to dumb Jesus' words and nature down to the lowest common denominator. But in our efforts (especially within American, Evangelical Christianity) to distill the entire Gospel into a simple magical phrase somebody can say to get into heaven, I fear we might have crippled orthodox Christianity or even forsaken it all together. And somewhere along the line, in our search to make the Church more marketable to the masses, we decided that the ever-deep Gospel itself was the PR problem and so we've begun to carve away the more difficult pieces (Jn. 6:51, 1 Cor. 15:12-19) to give 'em a gospel that isn't quite food and isn't quite revolution, but it's just enough to get people within a few inches of an offering plate every sunday morning.

To be fair, that statement's quite a bit more cynical than maybe it should be. In our post-modern culture, there are many who sincerely desire Revolution in our culture, communities, selves and who desire a sense of spiritual direction. But what we too often give them is a message that's been stripped of its controversy and its insurrection. We tell them the conflict is strictly spiritual, so that they don't have to change their social or economic choices. We tell them the conflict is strictly individual, so that they never truly develop the communal love Jesus so adamantly pursued. And we tell them the conflict is strictly dualist, that every situation can be divided into black and white, good and evil so that their understanding of the Gospel often falls short of the demands of a conflicted world.

Orthodoxy as Communal and Individual Revolution

I should be clear here by what I mean when I say "orthodox". I don't mean our Eastern brothers and sisters who subscribe to a specific liturgy or style within Christianity. My definition of orthodox is anyone who throws themselves into the lifelong struggle to love God and humanity with all their hearts, who recklessly believe that the Incarnation, Sacrifice and Bodily Resurrection of God-Man serve as the living Revolution that restores the intimate bond of love and self-sacrifice that each individual was meant to share with Creation, with each other and with God. But this Revolution isn't just about the the individual. It is one that must be lived out communally.

So many of my friends have relegated their pursuit of truth to one that's totally intra-personal. I think this sometimes stems from a relativistic worldview that always pushes an "I believe..." philosophy over a "We believe..." one. But the fact is, the areas where humanity has fallen short aren't simply the sum of individual sins or shortcomings. They also are built out of systemic corruption that can be found at all levels of human relationships. The massive sex slave trade we see today (larger than the slave trade of any other age) isn't perpetrated by a few bad apples. It exists as part of the slimy underbelly of a society that prides itself in "freedom for all". Besides this, we also face the economic problem of poverty, wherein 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day and many nations have been ground under the wheels of colonialism for the benefit of imperialist nations. Though these nations may have "evolved" and blessed the third world with its "independence", they still use Capitalism as their vehicle for imposing a neo-colonialist world dynamic where much of Africa, Asia and Latin (and Caribbean) America finds itself economically cheated and ecologically drained by MNC's (multinational corporations) seated in the US and Europe. In this system 40% of the world accounts for only 5% of global income, while the top 20% amass 75% of the world's income. I can hardly believe that the elite living in our richest, western cities work that much harder than kids forced to live and die in mines all over the planet.

And in the spirit of our passionate consumerism, we consume the very ecological life support system that keeps this planet running. Our mindless lust for unsustainable food and energy production threatens the very foundations of life itself.

Orthodoxy as Physical and Spiritual Revolution

The gospel we so often try to peddle to this corrupted, humanity-eating world (capitalism is the new cannibalism :-) is one which deals only with the "spiritual". In popular Christianity, one believes Christ died so that our spirits or ghosts or what-have-you can go to heaven forever. We ignore the fact that the New Testament over and over again speaks of Christ's physical death and Resurrection as prophetically ushering in our own physical resurrection. We don't simply go to heaven as disembodied spirits. In the Revelation of John, heaven is united with the physical creation. This means God isn't simply enacting a spiritual revolution in each individual. It means a revolution is taking place in the real, everyday lives of communities today (Lk. 17:20-21). It isn't just a far-off, spiritual reality. The Kingdom of God is already here. As soon as we give the message flesh and blood, its demands and promises become flesh and blood as well.

But this flesh-and-blood Gospel strikes at the very heart of the heresy much of popular Christianity propagates. Our belief that saying a magic formula will get your spirit to float peacefully to heaven is nothing less than a neo-docetism. We've dissolved the responsibilites, rewards and punishments of the spirit and the flesh so much, that the two realms no longer have anything to do with each other. For us, belief has become the realm of private, individual esoteric conviction. It isn't the dirty, knee scraping reality that Jesus lived and died. By making our beliefs into private decisions that shouldn't influence society as a whole, we've tried to remove our culpability for the sins of that society.

In this spirit of mind, at best Christians begin to withdraw from trying to take active stands and organize communally to solve social, economic and ecological problems (lest their "spiritual" lives interfere with the physical one). At worst, Christians begin to make the dangerous assumption of the disciples in Jn. 9:2-5 that all misfortune a person faces is completely the result of their individual choices and therefore is their own freakin' problem.

Honestly, I often doubt even the existence of the human spirit as an entity totally apart from the body. I'm not sure if this is my own over-reaction to the above heresy, but I don't see the need for the spirit. As far as I can tell, when Paul speaks of things of the Spirit, He either speaks of the restored human (which he fully acknowledges is a bodily reality) or the Spirit of God. I think what we mistake for a sentient, personal spirit as our "real" selves is nothing more than the mind which is created by the synaptic and chemical reactions in the brain. This makes the physical resurrection and the reunification of heaven and earth all the more real and necessary, as without it we simply rot in the earth, the breath of life having returned to God.

Orthodoxy Without Compromise

Along with the other threats to orthodoxy listed above, compromise may be the most damaging. We like to take Jesus' commands to be reckless in our love, gentle in our treatment of each other (especially the downtrodden) and to be fearless in our action, and we try to water 'em down, chop 'em up or cram them into shapes that are easiest to swallow. The fact is that Jesus' Gospel is nothing less than the total insurrection against human selfishness. But we love selfishness (it's kinda the whole point of being selfish, after all) and so we're easily led to compromise, never fully allowing to Gospel to take root while also never fully surplanting the ever present corruption we so desperately cling to. And that really is the struggle that true faith has to wrestle with everyday. Faith isn't just the magical declaration of a belief in specific principles, it's the struggle that realizes Revolution, and it's a struggle and a fight that we must face with every breath and effort to the very day that we die.

Ivan's Solution to "A House Divided" & Follow-up Arguments

That's right folks, I'm totally writing this as if presuming to have the "real" answer. Well, I don't. But I think that what follows is honestly a decent (if radical) proposal to effect unity in the Church (supposing the Church exists, but while encompassing many Christian denominations, particular churches, and ecclesial communities). I don't think the Vegas odds on this ever happening are that great (don't bet your house on it... well, maybe just your mother-in-law), but I'm writin' it down anyway - just try and stop me!

And for those just tuning in: this effort is born out of a personal struggle concerning whether conversion to the Roman Catholic communion (or any other Apostolic communion, like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches) is necessary to fully be in Communion with Christ and His body of disciples, or whether there is any other way for true unity to be accomplished.

14 Steps to Full Communion within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

1. Have the Major Tritinarian Communions sign a joint Declaration to strive for Full Communion within 100 years, pledging all the leadership to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures in its enactment.

2. Have the major Trinitarian communions sign a joint statement praying for forgiveness for nearly 1600 years of division. After all, we are all culpable for the pitiable state of division that exists between Christ's disciples today.

3. Unite the Eastern and Western liturgical traditions by setting the date for Easter on an agreed upon astronomically-correct (as much as possible) date, and never change it again.

4. Encourage liturgical and interpratory (sure, that's a word... at least it is now) cooperation in English speaking congregations through use of the Revised Common Lectionary, use of the NRSV and ESV bible translations, and use of a hymnal that draws from each of the traditions. Use of these tools would be encouraged, but not required. Non-english equivalents would be used to bring common worship and teaching to non-English speaking congregations.

5. Each of the Credal churches would have to scrap all but the canons of the first two Ecumenical Councils and each of the non-credal churches would have to accept these two councils. The reasoning for this is that the first two are agreements the entire Church made together regarding the establishment of Scriptural canon and the Trinity (which is clearly inferred from Scripture). All orthodox, Trinitarian accept these principles today, whether credal or non-credal and whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant. These also happen to be the only two Councils the entire Church agreed upon together.

Also, they both took place before Theodosius made Christianity the State religion in 391 AD - thereby corrupting it with riches and lands, while also making it a political tool to be leveraged. This would also give enough guidance and interpretation to unite the Church on issues that Scripture is less clear about.

Finally, while the Apostolic Fathers especially (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Didache etc.) and the other early Church Fathers are useful (as are many theologians into our own times), their authority should only be read in light of the Trinitarian and Canonical understanding of Scripture and the first two Ecumenical Councils.

6. The churches would have to make Scripture their primary authority for Church doctrine. This would be followed by the two Ecumenical Councils. All other Church dogma would be decided in councilliar agreement between all the bishops. However, the Church councils or synods (after the first two historically Ecumenical Councils) would not be able to enforce decisions on local congregations. In line with #5, the Apostolic and early Church Fathers would definitely guide interpretation, but only in so far as they conform to Scripture and the first two Councils.

7. The churches would have to agree that episcopal succession, from its origins in the New Testament relies not just in the Office of Bishop, but also in the Office of Presbyter. Scripture treats these (and the position of Pastor) as synonymous in Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2. Division of the two offices would be optional in each tradition, but ultimately those traditions which only ordain presbyters and deacons would still lie within the episcopal succession through their presbyters (in effect, making them presbyter-bishops).

8. The diaconate would be a seperate office dealing only with temporal affairs, being local and congregational in nature. Within these guidelines, and in accordance with scripture, the presbyter-bishop (or presbyter and bishop separately) and the deacon would be the only clergy. The congregation, as a corporate body, would exhibit the priesthood of all believers. Otherwise, administrative positions would be allowed locally, based on election or appointment, whatever each tradition desires.

9. The churches would have to agree that all bishops (including presbyter-bishops) are equal in authority. This would be tempered with the understanding that the Roman bishop would be first in honor among the rest, followed by the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople (in that order), then all bishops after that would be equal in honor (as well as equal in authority to all bishops).

10. Local congregations would elect their presbyter-bishops. Likewise, if groups of congregations wish to split the office of presbyter and bishop, a council of all the elected presbyters in a jurisdiction would then elect their bishops, and these bishops would attend synods based on jurisdiction or the greater Church council with other bishops and presbyter-bishops. These presbyter-bishops should conform to the teaching of Scripture in their character (each tradition would decide whether they could be married or not, though they should probably be men only), and while they would be elected locally, their ordination would be effected by the laying on of hands of other bishops - thereby maintaining both episcopal succession and the sovereignty of the local congregation.

11. Each congregation, or groups of congregations, within the Church would be free to govern their own customs and practices in regards to style of worship, veneration, architecture, liturgy, hymnody and local governance (and related issues, like speaking in tongues); as long as these conform to Scripture and the two Ecumenical Councils.

12. The communions would sign a document recognizing each other's baptisms, table fellowship and ordinations. This means locally or by tradition, each group would have the choice to follow either traditional baptism or believer's baptism, and all would need to recognize the mysterious real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

13. The communions (their general superintendents, patriarchs, popes and bishops) would have to sign an agreement, effectively conforming themselves to these principles, declaring themselves to be in Full Communion with each other. This would probably take a while, and there is no doubt congregational-polity churches would need to vote on these before sending their pastors as representatives to sign. It would be a good idea for the signing process to be available online (once identities are verified as actual representatives of congregations and communions) and then disseminated to each church.

14. The Church would be required to elect Ivan as King of All the Popes. Just kidding... I couldn't think of any more points, so this one's optional (though definately recommended).

Please note, this list is not intended to be guidelines for a new denomination, but solely to unify existing ones. Anybody that creates a new denomination based on these terms will get a swift kick to the weener from yours truly.

I'm sure there's a myriad of problems with the above steps. But I feel that they are the most orthodox steps that would still include Roman & Traditional Catholic, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican and Protestant (including Mainline, Anabaptist, Adventist, Messianic, Evangelical, Fundamentalist & Pentecostal/Charismatic) congregations and communions.

Since there's no doubt in my mind that Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Universalists, Mormons, New Age groups & Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals (& Anabaptists) are heretics, I don't mind not catering to them.

Anywho, I'm no prophet or apostle, so I'm sure there are better ways of goin' about this. My hope is just that this get people thinkin' & praying that we would all be one (without sacrificing or watering down the Gospel), as Jesus prayed in John 17:20-21.

Fourth Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttal by Edward N. Haas on a Catholic Forum

"Well, Johnny Blackpool, famous adventurer, I briefly consulted your blog. It causes me seriously to doubt you have any inclination toward joining the Catholic Church. I think you are merely using that line as a come-on to entice the guillible into your web -- a web in which you hope you can then "reason" them into quitting their Catholic affiliation. One ought not to waste one's time trying to debate with someone like yourself; but, since I'm looking for an excuse to delay cutting a quarter acre of grass and bushhoging 9 acres of weeds, I'll bother to go a brief round with you, little spider, in your web.

If you consult the second chapter of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he tells us faith should be founded on seeing a demonstration of the power of God, and warns us against this business of trying to found one's faith on what, in the original Greek, he calls "sophia". This is generally translated as "wisdom"; but the Greek word "sophia" was also used by the Greeks of that day to signify shrewdness, cunning, and craftiness. As you can perhaps see for yourself, the Greek word "sophia" is the root source for the English word "sophistry", and we all know what kind of verbal rigmarole that implies. Thus, what St. Paul is here telling us is this: Faith is not to be founed on an elaborate series of clever, dialectical arguments such as people like you relish in setting forth at great length in books or blogs or what have you; rather, faith is to be founded on the simple act of staring into the face of a what obviously bespeaks divine support.

Therefore, wherever one is truly a Catholic, one's faith is not based upon an elaborate display of verbal gymnastics; rather, it is based upon seeing what obviously says: Such a level of success could not possibly be, unless God is behind it. Incarnate God Himself promotes this principle when, in verses 24 thru 27 of chapter 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel, He tells us how only an edifice built on His word can endure best of all. He again promotes this same principle when, in Matt. 13:31, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:19, He assures us the kingdom of heaven starts as the smallest of seeds but grows to be the LARGEST of shurbs --- so large it becomes a tree.

Now then, as even the bitterest of its enemies readily admit, Catholic Doctrine has built far, far more effectively than has any other ideology known to history (One group of zealots incessantly thunders that this outstandingly outstanding succees is what proves the Catholic Church is the work of the devil.). It has built by far the largest world-class, centrally organized institution in history and the only such institution to survive for 2,000 years. That it has done despite the fact that the institution it's built (i.e.: the Catholic Church) is also the most violently and persistently attacked institution in history. The military and intellectual assaults upon the Catholic Church are legion, and the number of its martyrs boggles the mind. For all of that, the institution built by Catholic Doctrine thrives far, far more effectively than does any other institution known to history. Past versions of France, England, Germany, and Italy have all tried to destroy the Vatican and to put an end to the Papacy. The Papacy, though, remains a sovereign state, and the France, England, Germany, and Italy which tried to crush it are gone with the wind. Shades of Luke 20:18!

Like so many others, you seem to think that, by listing the foibles of this or that pope or what have you, you make points against Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE mouthpiece of God. I'm surprised you didn't mention Galatians 2: 11 in which St. Paul recounts how he had to correct St. Peter on a point of doctrine. I'm surprised you didn't mention Pope John XXII who had to be corrected by the king of France on a point of doctrine. Contrary to what you apparently think, you do not, in listing all these foibles, make points AGAINST Catholic Doctrine's claim. On the contrary, you UPHOLD its claim. For, the more you run into the ground those responsible for spreading Catholic Doctrine, the more you exalt the power of the Catholic Doctrine able to overcome such handicaps and, in spite of the Catholics, to thrive far, far more effectively than does any other doctrine. Sixteen hundred years ago, St. John Chrysostom alluded to this principle when he at least effectively said this: If you look at the success of Catholic Doctrine and then look at how pitiful are those charged with spreading that doctrine, it's all too obvious that the latter are much too incompetent to produce the former; and so, the success of the former plainly tells you that it must be God who has done this. Yes, God works thru the incompetent in order that, when great success follows anyhow, it may be obvious that it is God who is responsible for the success. Look at the wretchedness of all too many Catholic popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity, and it is all too obvious that Catholic Doctrine's outstanding success can't be their doing and, so, is clearly and unequivocally God's doing. Thus is one face to face with what bespeaks divine support, and thus is one presented with faith based upon seeing a demonstration of the power of God rather than upon the long, drawn-out dialetcial, lawyer-like arguments of Johnny Blackpool and company.

Because of the scale on which it has obviously built, Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE revealed word of God is the most substantiated claim ever given to the human race. That, then, is the basis upon which I rest my unshakably fearless conviction that, in Catholic Doctrine's testimony, I have found what is, by very, very far, the most reliable testimony there is, namely: THE TESTIMONY OF INFINITELY INFORMED GOD. This is the 73 year old, white bachelor, Edward N. Haas, financially independent by birth, and living and writing up a storm (17 self-published books in print) in the middle of 27 inherited acres at 39193 Haas Road in Haaswood, La."

Note by Ivan: Mr. Haas has provided a website you can visit at this link .

"Edward N. Haas here again. Add this to my prior reply. It's from pg. 42

of the Catholic Cathechism. It's also designated as paragraph 156. Here,

then, is how the Catholic Cathecism expresses and affirms what I said in

my prior posting:

So 'that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance
with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be
joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.' Thus the miracles of
Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and
her fruitfulness and stability 'are the most certain signs of divine
Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all'; they are 'motives of
credibility' (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of
faith is 'by no means a blind impulse of the mind.'

Even as some saw Jesus raise the dead, they turned away from the obvious

demonstration of the power of God and chose, instead, to cling to a bit

of mental gymnastics using scripture as its source of power: "Scripture

speaks of no prophet coming from Galilee. But, this man comes from

Galilee; therefore, this man is no prophet . Furthermore, this man's

acts contradict scripture when he heals on the Sabbath. But, no man of

God contradicts scripture; therefore, this man is not from God.

Therefore, we shall not believe no matter how many people he raises from

the dead. Not even if he himself rises from the dead! For, we can prove

by logical arguments drawn from scripture that he cannot be a man of God

no matter what." No matter how powerful the demonstration of Divine

support, some always have preferred, and always will prefer, the

inferences produced by the complex gyrations of their own minds ---

particularly those inferences seeming to feed off of scripture. For

them, no miracle means anything, until one can thoroughly explode every

one of the adverse inferences which their mental gymnastics can produce.

And what good does it do to explode every one of their adverse

inferences? For, if you convert them that way, then they'll wind up with

a faith based on "logic" rather than on seeing the power of God

demonstrated. Such faith shall not endure. For, somewhere down the line

they'll come upon some new bit of mental gymnastics which shall

instantly destroy their faith, unless and until, they or someone else

can explode the new inferences produced by this latest bit of mental

gymnastics. Show me, then, a man with a catalogue of inductions and

deductions which must be exploded before he can believe, and I'll show

you a man who --- as long as that is his attitude -- is inherently

incapable of GENUINE faith, which is to say faith based upon SEEING THE

POWER OF GOD DEMONSTRATED."

Ivan's Response to Mr. Haas' Rebuttal

Mr. Haas,

you bring up many good points, and i think you bring up something that i really did overlook: that we are not saved by sophia, but by the demonstration of the power of God. and clearly the power of the R.C. Church and its ability to endure for so long do show that God's grace is with it. I don't contest that and it's something I shouldn't overlook any longer (also, if it's alright with you, i'd like to put your response up - and this answer - on my blog, as it was a very good one).

i do still have a couple of questions, though. while you stated that my "real" goal is to entice catholics into my web & suck the life out of 'em (not your exact words, but i like my description better), i assure you it's not. i think if their faith is genuine and the work God is doing in their lives is genuine as well, then they should stay put. i'm only asking, why should I convert to catholicism from my current tradition (Baptist)?

and maybe a little of my personal background would help you understand why it's even an issue for me. I am a Christian and i love God with everything i am. But i felt a call to the ministry and in my study of the Church, what she teaches and her history i became convinced of the importance for unity in the Body of Christ (that this is Jesus' desire during his last prayers in John 17:20-21 is clear). in fact, because Jesus prays so fervently for unity not just for his immediate disciples, but for all "those who will believe in [Jesus] through their word;" and this became my passion.

unlike a lot of other Baptist pastors, i'm not content to see the Church split in a million pieces. i think it would show a hard heart if i were. and so that left me looking at the largest Communion of Christians, with clear apostolic succession and continuity, and left me wondering whether i should convert. but that also left me looking at all these issues of doctrine (for instance "required celibacy," i have a wife & son and that would preclude me from R.C. priesthood, but not priestood in any of the other denominations). it also made me seriously consider the actions of the Church over the ages, as James makes it clear our actions are the sole evidence of our faith and Jesus states in John that our love for one another is the standard by which others will judge the truths that we speak.

but when we look at the history of the Church (and not just on the R.C. side, but on the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant sides as well), we see a lot of inward strife, hatred and political machinations against fellow brothers and sisters. because of all this (and the doctrinal issues that seem to contradict scripture), i ask myself "Do I need to join the Roman Catholic Church to be fully in communion with God's people?"

Can I be just as fully in communion if I become Eastern Ortothodx (as they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch and exhibit the same ancient apostolic succession as the R.C. Church, as does the Oriental Orthodox communion)? Or if I become a Pentecostal preacher? You said to judge by the demonstration of God's power. They still speak in tongues, prophecy and cast out demons. In fact, they're the fastest growing Christian communion (especially in areas where the Church is heavily persecuted). We can't ignore their claims either.

I want to know what makes the Roman Catholic claims unique in the face of all this? i don't think the answer is to pull a Joseph Smith and start my own religion (what a mess that would be!). but i'm also not convinced that i or anyone else needs to join the R.C. Church or that the Roman communion holds the title of One True Church solely within her institution. but if we are to become unified as the people of God, how should we tackle these issues? by the way, i for one think this exact dialogue is a great first step; but we must have dialogue, ministerial cooperation, and dogmatic decision bottom-up (through regular believers) as well as top-down (through the hierarchy).

And since Mr. Haas was kind enough to submit his real name, here's mine:

Ian Hyde, Pasadena CA (though everybody calls me "Ivan").