Body: Happy 2000th Birthday, Saint Paul!

Things are way different here from how they were when you were around.

Then again, maybe not so much.

Body: Today is the Feast of the Annunciation of the Lord.

According to Wikitravel:

The Basilica of the Annunciation is built above the sunken grotto which according to the Roman Catholic faith was the home of the Virgin Mary and the place where she received the Annunciation (the announcement of the imminent birth of Jesus). The large and impressive modern-day church is built above the remains of churches dating back to Crusader and Byzantine times, still visible on the lower level. The church boasts dozens of pictures donated by Christian communities around the world. The Largest Church in the Middle East and one of Christianity’s Holiest shrines, its imposing dome dominates the Nazareth skyline and is an ideal landmark and starting point for visiting Other churches. It marks the spot where the Archangel Gabriel Informed the Virgin Mary that God had chosen her to bear his son; there is also a tradition that Mary lived in a house on this site. The complex of the modern Basilica is built on two levels. The lower one,Making the traditional Roman Catholic site of the Annunciation, contains ancient remains of churches from the Byzantiane and Crusader eras. During archaeological excavations, relics were found dating back to the Canaanite settlement of Nazareth, Though the most interesting find was of a typical Nazarene house, hewn out of the rock, from the Roman Period. The upper level, built between 1959 and 1969 on the site of an 18th-century church, is in strikingly modern architectural style. With its stained- glass windows highlighted against bare stone.A garden and courtyard connect the Basilica to St. Joseph’s Church and Workshop. Admission to the Basilica is free.

"It marks the spot where the Archangel Gabriel Informed the Virgin Mary that God had chosen her to bear his son" reminds me of one of the most famous episodes in the life of Muhammad, where the Angel Gabriel transported him to Jerusalem before escorting the prophet to heaven. This event is celebrated by the Dome of the Rock.

BODY: Gene Robinson's Prayer.

Borrowed from Pastor Dan.

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will...

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic "answers" we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be "fixed" anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Body: A Few Thoughts on Abortion for Voting Catholics Like Me.

I'm going to write about this at length, but not today.
This is truly an issue where I believe both major party lines are seriously flawed, although Democrats have made more headway recently then Republicans.

The Democrats often decry the practice of abortion while refusing to legislate on the subject. Since these declarations are often offered without a solution proposed, they amount to platitudes, though there are signs of improvement. Some Democrats (the Presidential ticket among them) are encouraging reductions in the number of abortions through social levers. Some may say that this is an ineffective compromise; from the standpoint that life is sacred prebirth, it is certainly a compromise. However it is not ineffective; the nations with the lowest abortion rates have, in fact, legalized abortion in the context of a health care system that provides medical and financial assistance to new mothers.

The Republican Party takes a stand on the legality of the subject, but it is a sanctimonious, self-righteous stand that offers nothing, not even crumbs, to those they would bar from abortion. This is borne out, as the role of poverty is often the decisive factor in whether or not to have an abortion, while Republicans tend to slash welfare programs that respond to these problems, regardless of the program's effectiveness, and even while other spending proliferates under their watch. This is worse than a platitude; it is a sort of open-book hypocrisy. If conservatives really value the lives of the unborn, they'll be willing to make real sacrifices in other policy positions to advance this issue: universal health care, provisions for the poor and disenfranchised, and comprehensive sex education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

From the point of view of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, abortion is a non-negotiable issue. That is fine, and is in agreement with the Catechism:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law... (2771)

What can and must remain negotiable is the way in which this issue is addressed. Solutions which pass the buck, which demand compliance on the part of others without asking us to scrutinize our own lives and obligations are the easy way out, and have more to do with keeping our own conscience clean according to some minimum standard than leading a true life of faith. But solutions which spread out the sacrifice, where we "do unto others" and take on a portion of the burden as a sign of our commitment are not only more effective; they speak for themselves as a more genuine living out of God's vision. For "if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," (1 Corinthians 13:3).

Body: We have faith and hope, but where is charity?

A point of frustration.

The Catholic Catechism is quite explicit in stressing the importance of charity, even relative to other virtues:

1826 "If I . . . have not charity," says the Apostle, "I am nothing." Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, "if I . . . have not charity, I gain nothing."103 Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: "So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity."104

But Parish bulletins, which ought to be a wonderful place to learn about opportunities to give/volunteer/donate/contribute are almost always devoid of such opportunities, unless it's, say, ministry to the sick. Don't get me wrong; these things are important. But there always seems to be room to write about outreach opportunity, films and picnics, and so on. The same goes for bulletin boards and catholic websites.

My own experiences have taken in three parishes in my current neighborhood (Uptown, Chicago), but I've also found this to be true as a general trend when I've gone to church in Flint and New York.

What I wonder is, given the stress on the unique importance of charity as a virtue, why aren't churches working harder to provide information on opportunities to give?

Body: The Non-Canonical Gospels

For Urbantasm, I've been reading up quite a bit on theology, eschatology, and the occult. John Bridge considers himself to be the antichrist, and the novel deals quite a bit with religious themes, particularly concerning the nature of space and infinity. It's been very fascinating, because there's an automatic tension between a lot of these texts, even though they are widely separated in terms of how and why they were composed. The Catholic Study Bible and Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ make cases that are automatically critical of, for example, the non-canonical gospels, and the tension between various modes of fortunetelling and the Catechism is well documented.

I personally accept the arguments for why the canonical texts are such, and why other accounts were not included. In fact, reading these texts makes me particularly grateful that they are not a foundation of our faith, since they are frequently misogynistic and tend to restrict salvation to a narrowly definted elect. Many deemphasize the principle of forgiveness and access to grace. It would seem that the canonical gospels, even if they are considered not as religious texts but as social referendum are both more stable and inclusive, and I'd like to think that this is at least part of the reason why they were ultimately selected.

All this said, however, the non-canonical texts are fascinating... they're fascinating in their diversity and their imagery. The Christ they depict is often more violent -- I was dimly reminded of Tetsuo from Akira -- and the scenes are often apocalyptic and psychedelic. This is the scary looking god with the red eyes in the stained glass windows at St. John Vianny's in Flint:

Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
- The Gospel of Thomas

Another time he took me and James and Peter to the mountain where her used to pray, and we saw (on) him a light such that a man, who uses mortal speech, cannot describe what it was like. Again he took us three likewise up the mountain, saying 'Come with me.' And again we went; and we saw him at a distance praying. Then I, since he loved me, went quietly up to him, as if he could not see, and stood looking at his hinder parts; and I saw him not dressed in clothes at all, but stripped of those (that) we (usually) saw (upon him), and not like a man at all. (And I saw that) his feet were whiter than snow, so that the ground there was lit up by his feet; and that his head stretched up to heaven, so that I was afraid and called out; and he, turning about, appeared as a small man and caught hold of my beard and pulled it and said to me, 'John, do not be faithless, but inquisitive.' And I said to him, 'Why, Lord, what have I done?' But I tell you, my brethren, that I suffered such pain for thirty days in the place where he touched my beard, that I said to him, 'Lord, if your playful tug has caused such pain, what (would it be) if you had dealt me a blow?' And he said to me, 'Let it be your concern from now on not to tempt him that cannot be tempted.'
- John's Preaching of the Gospel

But the best (in terms of interest), and the worst (in terms of a responsible thesis), is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

3:1 The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered.
3:2 When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
3:3 And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."
4:1 Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey."
4:2 Immediately, he fell down and died.
4:3 Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"
4:4 And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Body: Today is the Feast of St. Luke.

Syncretism.

Meandering thoughts this Thursday morning.

One of the major reasons I ultimately left the Unitarian Church was because its defined search for truth was so unfocused that it didn't offer me much by way of spiritual nourishment.

That said, looking back at the changes in religion and religious organization over the last millennium, and then considering the present and future, I wonder what changes are ahead. Straightforward syncretism is rarely fruitful. There has to be tension involved (ie. a questing) involved in building any religion with cultural staying power. Religious progress always seems to happen in the context of a struggle to articulate something intangible and difficult, and to reconcile it with different classes, regions, and world views. Formulaic syncretism neither benefits from nor adequately confronts these complexities; it simply aligns correspondant tropes and concepts and equates them with each other. Since this does not force a spiritual reckoning, neither does it engender a fertile field of religious contemplation or inquiry.

I think, however, that religious syncretism has a role to play in the future. I've been struck recently by certain similarities and differences between Buddhism and Christianity as expansive "missionary" religions. By way of similarities, both sprang from ancient, ethnically defined religions, achieved dramatic success far from home, and proved as durable and elastic as their predecessors. Among interesting differences, and those which to me suggest the most fruitful syncretic possibilities, are not overlaps, but in fact points of difference in their resort to elaboration and austerity. For example, in theravada Buddhism, the Buddha abjures any claim to godhood or messianism, defining his precepts as a moral code and an approach to enlightenment. As against this, Christianity, which is epistemologically explicit, could possibly benefit from the very nuanced, and in some ways very different, Buddhist understanding of humility and obligation.

But this is all I can say about this without learning much much more.

Body: Driveby on Newton, Evolution, and the Boston Globe.

Sam sent me this Op-Ed from the Boston Globe and this more coherent rebuttal.

Here's what I contributed to the discussion:

You are 100% correct. And here's the real irony. Newton would surely have rejected today's creationism both with and without the benefit of today's better science.

I say "with" because as a scientist Newton understood the need to look at evidence impartially and objectively. In his day there was compelling evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, though the Bible essentially states the opposite. Newton accepted this, however religious he may have been. There was, however, little of the compelling evidence available today that suggested evolution or the age of the Earth, which is why he (and pretty much everyone) was a comfortable creationist.

I say "without" because the premise of a "young-earth" today is not what it was a few hundred years ago. Taking every word of the Bible literally is largely a product of the 20th century - most typically the latter 20th century, and has more to do with politics than with an honest wrestling with the word of God. In the 1600s, a lot of the Bible was accepted as metaphorical and allegorical, as invested with truth and not necessarily fact: camels through the eyes of needles and all that. Todays' creationism is an abomination that flies in the face not only of accepted science but also of respectable and rigorous theology. I think that Newton would be repulsed by creationism today.