LET'S YOU AND HIM FIGHT

Ever since I was in junior high school (1965-1966). "evolution vs. the Bible" has been a staple of in-class student discussions and debates.  (To be sure, it had been a standard dispute in previous years for class discussions long before I got there.)  I grew tired of the whole matter by high school; but that didn't stop regular classroom clashes.  Sometimes teacher instigated.  Sometimes  spontaneous.  These arguments varied between mere skirmishes to agitated pitched battles.

To my surprise, "evolution vs. the Bible" continued in college as well--although mostly in dorm room bull sessions rather than in the academic classrooms. The arguments put forth by each side may have had a bit more sophistication; but they essentially they were the same ones used in those first experienced in junior high.


In general, at least at my liberal arts college, the acceptance of the theory of  was more than a foregone conclusion in the hard, natural sciences (especially biology).  Questioning "evolution" had all the rationality of rejecting arithmetic in physics or the alphabet in English composition. 

The further one got from majoring in the hard sciences, however, one generally found students, with the exception of the atheists,  pretty much believed in evolution but also believed in varying degrees in the possibility of divine purpose guiding the direction of evolutionary change.

As we come to the present day, the evolution vs. creationism dispute still has makes its periodic appearance in the popular media.  While coverage is heavily tilted in favor of the theory of evolution, still champions of each party took their appointed roles in slugging it out.  Most of the time, it appears that these are instances of "let's you and him fight" for entertainment purposes rather than matters to be taken seriously.

In all this, we, who have no trouble synthesizing evolution with faith handed down from the
saints, behold in shirking embarrassment fundamentalists who insist that every word in Scriptures is literally true and therefore evolution is a lie.  Worst of all, these fundamentalists take to the battle ground and fight for the teaching of creationism in the schools.   To the extent evolution must be taught, they insist that it should be emphasized that evolutionary theory is just that:  a theory.  Gee, we say to ourselves, don't these "uneducated rubes" realize that their passionate machinations only  become cannon fodder for those (especially those pesky "new atheists")  who regard all religion the province of dupes and fools?   They're giving us sophisticated Christians a bad name because we will invariably be lumped in with them.

The late paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed a way this issue could pacified between to two warring camps.  The solution to the supposed conflict between science and religion he called it the thesis of non-overlapping magisteria. 

A magisterium refers a domain of teaching authority.  And Gould's thesis maintains that "the magistium of science covers the empirical realm:  what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory).  The magisterium of religion extends over  questions of ultimate meaning and moral values.   According to Gould, since these two magisteria do not overlap there is no real conflict (or at least there should be) between science and religion.  As Gould envisioned it,  science studies how the heavens go and religion studies how to go to heaven.

Gould's peaceful world for science and religion pleases some and some are less than convinced.

One of the practical problems is just where would this magistium be located among all the religions found on earth.  It is doubtful each would accept one central magistium.  The likelihood is that each would maintain their own teaching authority.  And each has its own concept of how the "heavens go" and man's place in them.  Likewise, as in Christianity, progressives get many of their cues from science--a sort of syncretism in which the faith is harmonized with modern science which in the least has implications in morality and the propose of the faith.

Others such as  Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist and "new atheist", has little patience for religion.  If humanity is be guided then it must be done exclusively by science and not the dead hand of the primitive superstitions of the past:

[I]t is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

Indeed, many if not most atheists and scientists believe that the demonstration that earth is not the center of the universe as many faiths had taught invalidates them entirely.  This world is in a remote corner in the vast expanse of the universe and is not even the center of its own galaxy.  The earth is a minor speck among the great heavenly bodies--lost in the cold hollow space.  By direct implication,  mankind itself is not the center of the universe.  Thus no imaginary supernatural being could have any overarching interest in the destiny of mankind.  And given that now know how the universe came into being through natural means and we understand a lot of how works, no supernatural being is needed to explain creation, the laws by which it operates, and how mankind came to be.  All the great questions of religion and philosophy which have bedeviled mankind in its brief history have been answered--obviating the need for either.

This summation of the wisdom of science is nothing more than radical materialism.  It is also philosophical naïve in that it acts as if philosophy has never explored these contentions long before Galileo and his invention of the telescope.  It would be as if no music existed before Elvis.

Nevertheless,  it should become clear that many have another agenda in the teaching of evolution in schools.  They believe the theory of evolution would free children of religious superstitions which shackle their lives--leading them to a freedom of a world guided by reason.  (That one doesn't necessarily follow the other is a real life reality which strikes them as a logical impossibly.)

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan

Fundamentalists in their own way sense this underlying schema amidst claims of merely restricting religion to outside the classroom so that teachers could keep an uncluttered focus on the education of their students.  Education belongs in the classroom.  The inculcation of religion belongs in the Churches and homes.  What concerns fundamentalists in many other ways along with the teaching of evolution is that the schools are covertly subverting the authority of their faith by which they are raising their children.  In the theology shared by most fundamentalists, the Bible is without error and if one item in the Bible is not true then the Bible can no longer be trusted.  If the schools are successful in convincing their children that the theory of evolution is true--that men and women were not created by God as they are now--then the axe has been laid to the root of the tree.  The children's faith would be on its way to being killed.

Most Lutherans outside the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods have little sympathy for this "all or nothing" theology of the Bible.  We have been taught what the Bible is and what it is not.  That is, the Bible is not a science or history text.  The concerns of the ancient writers of the books of the Bible were many and varied but living up to our modern concepts of science and history were not among them.   Those modern understandings didn't exist and it would be unreasonable to expect the Scriptures to reflect the ideas, concepts, and standards of our time--contemporary notions which themselves are in constant flex.

Still, what does all this add up to?  Why do the proponents for the teaching of evolution press so hard?  By far the lion's share of students will never hear about the problems of harmonizing quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of reality.  I would say that a few would ever hear about string theory or its implications.  Real life experience shows that many successful professionals and craftsmen can excel and contribute to the advancement to their chosen fields and not believe in evolution.

On the other hand, why do those who resist the teaching of evolution (or at least demand "creationism" be given equal time) fight so hard?  Again, real life experience shows that many, many Christians believe in evolution (or at least tolerate it being taught to them) yet also stick to "otherwise" orthodox Christianity.   In actual practice, evolution doesn't appear to be all that threatening to the spiritual life of Christians.

I would suggest that the conflict over evolution is actually a proxy war over a much deeper issue.  Both the champions and opponents of the teaching of evolution know something most of us choose to ignore or (most likely) deny.  We tend to believe that the primary business of schools is education.  It isn't.  The chief task of our K-12 schools is socialization and enculturalization.  This means more than bringing up our children to be good, contributing, knowledgeable citizens.  It is about making our children aware of the nature the world they live in and what moves that world. 

The real issue is this:  are we simply products of necessity and chance?  Or are we beings created by an all-powerful and loving God?  The affirmative answer to either of these questions is not a piece of trivia among all the other issues and choices.  They have a direct bearing of how decisions are made and how life is to be lived.  Even only by implication, the answer we impart to our children is destined to shape their entire beings.

The belief that the theory of evolution means there is no God is shared by a number larger than you would expect.  For many of us, this is a false dichotomy--one does not follow the other.  But the basic question on the true nature of reality is one we cannot afford to pass over.  What we teach our children does matter and it means we have to consciously decide what that will be.  Beings by chance and necessity or beings created by a loving God?  There is little neutral ground between the two.  At the same time, atheism or theism, neither are the natural default positions in instruction.

We can stand back and laugh at how the champions and opponents of the teaching of evolution wrestle with this question from the wrong end of the bull.  But we are gravely mistaken to think there is no bull.

AS FOR THE UNBELIEVING LIVING AND DEAD…

For historical and cultural (not to mention theological) reasons, Lutherans do not fit neatly within the American Evangelical community.  Indeed, many for the controversies which so agitate Evangelicals have little interest for Lutherans.  Thus, for the most part, the raucous squabble occasioned by one Rob Bell's particular departure from typical conservative Evangelical views for more the enlightened view common in progressive Christianity barely has taken little notice within the American Lutheran communion. 

For those unfamiliar with the matter of Rob Bell, here is a brief summary:

After receiving his  M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary, Rob Bell spent some time under the mentorship of Dr. Ed Dobson--one time executive at the Moral Majority and  Dean of Men at Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University--established Mars Hill Bible Church  in  Grandville, Michigan which grew the one of the largest mega-churches in the country.  It seems clear that Bell himself with firmly within the moderate mainstream of American Christianity by the time he started Mars Hill and preached many of the standpoints which would get him into trouble years later. After it was published, his book Love Wins led to a fallout with the congregation and forced him on a "search for a more forgiving faith.   In September 2012. Bell left Mars Hill.

The particular subject within Love Wins which has led to Bell's estrangement from the Evangelical community is his belief that it is quite possible and logical that no one shall be condemned to spend an eternity in Hell.  While Bell says he is not a universalist, he has put out several strong arguments in its favor and concludes "Whatever objections a person may have of [the universalist view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."

The Evangelical community has found it difficult to believe that such a successful Christian minister could say such a thing.  Albert Mohler, John Piper, and David Platt have been Bell's most vocal critics with Mohler saying that the book was "theologically disastrous" for not totally rejecting universalism.  Other such as  Brian McLaren, Greg Boyd and Eugene Peterson have spoken up in Bell's defense but they represent a minority.

For the vast majority of the Lutheran laity, pastors and theologians, the "Bell tempest" has been of scant interest.  Universalism has little purchase historically among Lutherans and one knows Martin Luther would have had little patience for Bell--although for more subtle reasons than one might suppose.  Nevertheless, universalism has gained a foothold among some Lutherans in recent years.

Otherwise orthodox theologian Carl Braaten in 1983 suggested all mankind (both the living and the dead) would eventful be reconciled to God in his book Principles of Lutheran Theology.  Braaten made this proposition somewhat gingerly and has largely avoided any further comment since.  Still, many if not most his fellow orthodox Lutheran clergy and theologians expressed disappointment that Braaten included this speculation in his otherwise excellent text.  Indeed, Braaten was somewhat vague on how universalism can be harmonized with the classic, historical teaching of the Church on salvation.  What his comments do bring to mind are Pope John Paul II remarks in which he firmly insisted on the existence of Hell, admitted that there was very little indication in the Bible or Catholic tradition all would escape eternal damnation, but it was perfectly acceptable within Christian piety to pray that Hell would be empty.

In a similar fashion, Pastor Peter Marty made a more insistent avocation for universalism in the March 2014 issue of The Lutheran.  Marty never uses the word "universalism" itself and he does not exactly come out and say there are many ways in other religions to receive salvation; yet he uses in his fashion many of the same historic objections to the singularity of Christianity.  To his credit, Marty does not use the prophylactic weasel word mode so many theologians employ to avoid charges of heresy. 

What is especially offensive in his article Who gets saved? Marty compares the belief in the exclusively of Christianity to the images of a Jesus bouncer admitting only to select people into a velvet-roped VIP entrance of a popular, celebrated night club.  And those holding onto the orthodox, historical teaching of the Church are selfishly believing they and they alone as Christians have the ticket into heaven.

Marty goes on to write: What you are hearing is some version of the idea that if you practice religion in a particular way, you will be saved. Yet no religion can save us. God alone saves. We Christians do not believe in Christianity. We believe in God. God alone has the truth. God is truth. No religion possesses the whole truth on God. In our best moments, we know that Jesus is larger than any single religion.

Note that no Lutheran worth his salt would say that if you practice religion in a particular way, you will be saved.  Yet it is this pejorative straw man image employs throughout his article.  Likewise, those who pay attention to their catechism would maintain that we don't possess the truth--rather the Truth possesses us.  This is a vital distinction Christianity teaches us, yet Marty gives no credit to orthodox Christians sharing in believing thus.

Marty then goes on to write:

God loved the world enough to gift this world with God’s son. That’s the claim of John 3:16. We may be tempted to believe that God so loved Christians, that God gave all who name Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior exclusive rights into a special club. But Jesus is universal Lord and Savior, not just my personal Lord and Savior. He saves the whole world, and this doesn’t happen through tribal membership.   [Emphasis mine]

Without using the word "universalism", this is an outright admission that Marty is in fact a universalist.  Exact how Christ is to save those who are not his disciples--and those who do not believe in God at all--is not explained.  One wonders about what Christology is implying; but it cannot be harmonized with Luther's Theology Of The Cross.  Just where does the cross come in this universalism?

At this point, Marty begins to offer a heterodox interpretation of John 14: 6:  “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.  Marty does this by asserting Jesus was merely comforting His disciples in the face of His soon to be suffering and crucifixion.  That Jesus was not disclosing any cosmic truth beyond that loving reassurence. 

We are not given permission to shrink the cross to suit our own version of God. This may not be easy medicine for some in the Christian fold to swallow. Yet, the apostle Paul writes, “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is not the Christian world that God is putting back together through Christ. It is the whole world. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth,” says Jesus of his pending death and resurrection, “will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Not some people. Not Christian people. All people  [Emphasis his own].

Marty begins his conclusion by repeating a familiar, sentimental objection to the particularity of Christ in a man's and woman's eternal destination:

I happen to have been born in Chicago into a Christian family. I didn’t ask to be born into this family that practiced the Christian faith; I just was. Someone else was born in Delhi, India, on the same day I was born, but into a Hindu family. That kid didn’t ask to be born into his Hindu-practicing family; he just was. Surely we cannot claim that God privileges certain ones of us with an eternal home because of our birthplace or cultural background. Nor would we want to argue that we receive a club access card because we uttered a theological formula about Jesus. 

Marty concludes stating that God is bigger than our imaginations and bigger than any one religion. 

His ways are not our ways and how He saves all is beyond our understanding.  Our job as Christians is to trust ourselves in Christ and testify to the sweet sunlight that comes with loving Him.  Note that that testifying doesn't necessarily mean going out into all nations making disciples.  Or does it?  The ambiguity of these words leaves it up to question--and doubts.

If these notions were entertained by a few in the Lutheran fold, this would cause little concern except for those individuals themselves.  But it appears that these notions are exactly uncommon among Lutheran clergy and theologians.  Especially troubling is the fact that Marty's article appears in the ELCA's flagship publication.  And The Lutheran has a habit of floating teachings that may be coming down the pipe to laity from where the ELCA leadership wants to go.

The image of orthodox Christians as snotty insiders is an insult to the martyrs of the past and present who suffered for the sake of Christ.  What exactly did they suffer for if a particular Christ was not alone the way, the truth, and the light?  Was the Church simply wrong all those centuries to preach that it is only in Christ that we are to find our hope?

What about the "unfairness" of the damnation to those faithful to other gods?  Isn't it unjust for God to condemn those who never heard the Gospel?  For that matter, isn't unreasonable for God to send to an eternal Hell those who had heard the Gospel and rejected the faith based on a single decision made in this lifetime?  It seems to "our" notion of justice that a truly loving God would not cast them into the outer darkness.  Or is this rationalizing what we feel is right?

The testimony of the apostles was the same as that of Peter as he stood before the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law of Jerusalem:  "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”  (Acts 4:12)  Are we to believe that what Peter testified wasn't exactly what he meant?

Consider Hebrews 4: 1-3:  Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. ² For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. ³ Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

“So I declared on oath in my anger, They shall never enter my rest.’”

It is clear that apart from faith all is sin.  God is a holy God and He will allow no unclean thing into His presence. 

Let us end on a slightly different note.  The aforementioned Rob Bell made the claim that Luther was open to the idea of the universal salvation of all men and women.  But this is what Luther actually said:

If God were to save anyone without faith, he would be acting contrary to his own words and would give himself the lie; yes, he would deny himself. And that is impossible for, as St. Paul declares, God cannot deny himself. It is as impossible for God to save without faith as it is impossible for divine truth to lie. That is clear, obvious, and easily understood, no matter how reluctant the old wineskin is to hold this wine–yes, is unable to hold and contain it.

It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that he does do this. For all that we read is that he has already raised people from the dead and thus granted them faith. But whether he gives faith or not, it is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. Otherwise every sermon, the gospel, and faith would be vain, false, and deceptive, since the entire gospel makes faith necessary.    (Works, 43, ed. and trans. G. Wienke and H. T. Lehmann [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968], 53-54; WA 10.ii, 324.25-325.11)

That God may give the unbelieving dead a "second chance" and faith will be given to all is only unsupported speculation.  It attempts to look into the "left hand" of God--that which He does not disclose to us and remains hidden from us.  That which God has hidden will not be discovered.  And speculation is a dangerous thing and many times has led the Church down evil and regrettable paths.   Speculation has led many away from the faith.

As for the unbelieving living and dead…to the living we are to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples in His name.  As for the dead, we leave to God, His mercy, and His justice.

THE TWILIGHT STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

One notes in passing the canonization of Pope John XXIII and John Paul II by the Catholic Church. 

As a Lutheran, I have no competence in evaluating the respective "credentials" of either of these men.  The elevation of some men and women to this outstanding level of sainthood is foreign to me and (putting it diplomatically) so beside the point.  At the very least, such elevation obscures Luther's teaching of simul lustus et peccator--that is, the Christian is both sinner and saint at the same time.  To be fair, the Catholic Church has long been decidedly cool toward this doctrine.  To add another not too fine point, Lutherans are decidedly cool to the whole notion of praying to the saints. 

Catholicism holds that praying to the saints has been practiced since the early days of the Church and upheld by tradition.  Catholicism also states that praying to the saints in no way undermines Christ as the sole mediator between God and man.  It is the same as asking the living to pray for you--there is no sin in asking the saints to pray for you to God.  In contrast, Lutherans object to praying to the saints is that it is nowhere to be found in Scripture--there is no command to do so nor is there any promise associated with praying to the saints.

As far as it goes, in discussions between Catholics and Lutherans, canonization to stand as a "proxy war" in the interminable argument on sola scriptura verses tradition. 

Certainly, the dispute between Scripture alone and Scripture and tradition will not be resolved anytime soon.  So canonization is more an entertaining curiosity--sort of like people watching.  We Lutherans may make comments among ourselves, critique the ritual, mark how horrible Catholics are at singing as a congregation; but are irrelevant strictly speaking--we are on the outside looking in.

The machinations within the Catholic hierarchy are a long running interest among some; but I myself have more interested in the reactions within the Catholic family.  Generally, the laity have been enthusiastic to the naming of John XXIII and John Paul II to sainthood.  (One might recall the many signs calling for the immediate canonization of John Paul II at his funeral.)  Among the Catholic chattering classes, reaction has been more thoughtful and (to put the kindest construction on it) often guarded.

OK. Given the proviso that this Lutheran's evaluation of the Roman canonization process has all the qualification of a baseball couch's insight into a lacrosse match, I cannot but note a few intriguing incongruences between the left and right canonization parties.

Both the left and the right have little objection to the canonization John XXIII.  Progressives have a favorable regard almost solely due to his calling of the Second Vatican Council.  They most commonly assume John XXIII's stamp of approval of what came out of the council although John himself did not live to see the deliberations and completion of its documents.  Progressives look to John's opening declaration of the council in which he stated the Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogmata but rather had to teach Christ's message in light of the modern world's ever-changing trends.  Given their proclivities, one can see how progressives would take this and run with it. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, see more of a continuity in John with the historic Catholic church--certainly no sharp break or turn from the Church's teachings.  They hold that it is altogether unlikely if not impossible John would have approved the directions the progressive wing has tried to take the Church after the Second Vatican Council.  In accordance with conservative proclivities, John's intentions are given the most benign construction in their telling.

What is puzzling is that, in these discussions among both conservatives and liberals, is that there is little mention of John's efforts during World War II to save as many Jews as he could from the clutches of the Nazi's--a surreptitious activity to which hundreds if not thousands of Jews owed their lives.  (Indeed, several prominent leaders within the Jewish community have proposed naming John as one of the "righteous gentiles".)  One would think this would be at least toward the forefront in discussing his canonization.

It is with Pope John Paul II that the long knives come out.  As clearly as can be seen, liberals dislike him and conservatives love him.  The reason is that John Paul II (along with Benedict XVI who followed him) soundly reasserted Catholic orthodoxy as the rule of faith with the Church.  Thus conservatives see him as one of their own.  Liberals, in turn, roundly criticize John Paul for his betrayal of Vatican II.

In short, John Paul II did not embrace or endorse the "progressive" agenda of the Catholic left.  Just the opposite.  He opposed that agenda at every turn; setting the progress of the Catholic left back several decades.  Certainly not to the Vatican I Church; but by their lights pretty close to it.

John Paul II forcefully condemned abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts as gravely sinful.  In a few short years, he dismantled Liberation Theology as a legitimate expression of Catholicism.  In addition, he foreclosed any reforms concerning accepting the "second marriages" of the faithful by the Church--including maintaining the withholding of communion from the divorced.  And John Paul also would not consider loosening sexual intercourse from the institution of marriage.  Thus any sexual behavior outside of marriage remained illicit.

Perhaps the gold standard for reform by many, John Paul II disappointed progressive hopes by refusing to abandon traditional theologies concerning the priesthood.   With the sole exception of married clergy from other Christian faith traditions converting to Catholicism and entering into its priesthood, he ruled out marriage for priests and maintained the rule of celibacy.  In addition, he rejected allowing women into the priesthood citing what he believed was the Church's lack of authority to do so.  Without such authority, all women priests would not be legitimate in the eyes of Christ.  (This concern for authority in this issue carries little water among most Protestants in Europe and North America.  But it seems very few Catholic progressives themselves bother to engage the question of authority in relation to women in the priesthood.)  John Paul strongly considered making the all-male priesthood an perpetual doctrine of the Church and pronouncing the question closed Ex cathedra.  In the end, he was dissuaded for doing so by the insistence of Joseph Ratzinger to show restraint.

If there is one aspect of John Paul II's pontificate which both Progressives and Conservative agree was a black mark against his tenure, it was the failure to address the emerging sex scandals within the priesthood and the cover-ups by bishops and the Roman hierarchy.  The reason John Paul II refused recognize the rising disaster was that pedophilia and adultery were routine charges Nazi and Communist authorities in the East leveled at politically troublesome priests.  When he first heard about the clerical abuses in the West, he thought they were a piece of the same persecutions against the Church.  To some degree, we look back on this time with 20/20 hindsight; yet one has to admit he mishandled the entire situation.  When he realized this charges were genuine, he summoned the bishops to Rome and read them the riot act.  Unfortunately, by this time, John Paul was suffering the ravages of Parkinson's disease and could not lead the cleansing himself.  It did, however, belatedly pave the way for the unprecedented houseclean by his friend and successor Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI).  Nevertheless, for many if not most, it was days late and many dollars short.

"Why rush to canonize a Pope who had installed the very bishops who were most guilty of protecting the worst sex offenders in the Church?" many have asked.  The response sometimes given is an analogy:  "I've yet to find any serious Christian who thinks let of Jesus for having chosen Judas as an apostle".  I myself don't find this very satisfactory nor do fair number of Catholics of all stripes; but then I (and they) don't get a vote.

Conventional wisdom is that the two Popes who passed away over forty years apart were canonized simultaneously so that Pope Francis hoped to please both the Progressive and Traditional wings of the Catholic Church.  It seemed so as Pope Francis purposely waived the confirmed "second miracle" requirement which had delay Pope John's recognition toward sainthood.  Pope Benedict himself had greased the rails for Pope John Paul II and so it seems this dual Canonization Mass had been in the works for some time.

Still, it rankles the Progressives that John Paul II was recognized for sainthood being that in their book he singlehandedly aborted needed reforms.  In addition, the belief is without a John Paul II there would have been no Benedict XVI.  This is puzzling.  The fact is Popes John, Paul, John Paul II, and Benedict had hardly the thin edge of a paper's difference regarding Catholic doctrine--including on moral doctrinal issues.  What is more, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both present at the councils and had significant hands in writing the sixteen separate documents which came to be known as Vatican II.  It stretches the imagine to believe that the writers of these documents somehow missed their "spirit". 

For those of us born after the nineteen-forties, the language of "addressing the Gospel message to the modern age" and finding ways to make Christianity "relevant" to contemporary peoples sounds only like so much boilerplate.  Nothing exception.  Sounds like what the Church has always done--if often hamfistedly.  But to Progressive and Conservative Catholics, it appears it was a departure from the idioms the Church had used in the past--marching orders for the one and regrettable misspoken to the other.

Even conservative Lutherans find there are a number of causes they find fellow-feeling with Catholic Progressives--particularly regarding contraception, and using the vernacular in worship.  On the other hand, progressive Lutherans took their cue from Vatican II and ran headlong into the "new".  Anyone who has had to bear with the ever new assortment of liturgies which are churned out every year (or so it seems) can have some sympathy for those Catholics who miss the Latin Mass.  One is tempted to that is the least of the abuses coming the Lutheran left except often the rewording of the traditional language of the "order of the mass" leaves one suspicious of what is meant or obscured. 

Both the Catholic and Lutheran left have long endeavored to wrap abortion into the bundle of contraception--making it just one possibility of a variety of contraceptive options.  (Admittedly, the Catholic left has had a tougher row to hoe on this one as most forms of contraception are already unlawful under established Catholic theology.)  For those Lutherans for whom abortion is a profound evil--a malicious injustice to the unborn--the spectre that future generations will sing to our graves a bitter song loams large.  

The Catholic Church's witness to the sacramental nature of marriage has stood as a bulwark against efforts within the Church to redefine marriage to include a menagerie of relational constellations as well as changing the meaning of the very institution itself.  In contrast, for Lutherans, the conception of lifelong heterosexual marriage had been so compromised (the "sexual revolution" of the sixties and seventies playing no small part) that resistance to new challenges has proved to be tragically anemic.

The April 27th Canonization Mass has closed and the crowds which stood from St. Peter's Basilica to the Tiber River have departed to the corners of the world.  This "proxy" battle of the struggle between the Catholic left and right is over--victory to the right on points.  But that "war" between the religious left and right will not see the defeat of one by the other for some time--and make no mistake, one will defeat the other.  For better or worse, ripples from what happens in the Church of Rome will always rock the little Lutheran rowboat.  What we make of them will always matter.

CRABBY'S PET THEORY ON ADOLESCENTS AND THE CHURCH (or ON ONE LEAVING THE OTHER)

Much has been made of the recent studies which show adolescents and young adults increasingly checking the "none" box when asked which religion they identify with.  While more are describing themselves as atheists, that only covers a small number among the young folk.  Most could be named as "seekers" or belonging to that ambiguous category "spiritual but not religious".

Among the youth formally churched (much of the time ex-evangelicals), a number of reasons have been suggested.  One being the stance of many of those churches which oppose homosexually and gay marriage.  ("…disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people.")  Others that many churches have provided a thin gruel to contemporary youth that had not changed much from pre-school to high school--in other words, they were not properly "discipled" and catechized--thus are severely unable to deal with the challenges of a increasingly secular culture.  Others cite a revulsion to the Christian right leanings of the elders.  And so it goes.  The oft repeated summary that is heard is: "“I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this."

Some focus has been lent to what has been referred to as the "emergent" church.  It is here that a number of complains concerning against the established conservative churches are clustered.  The literal interpretation of the bible.  The wholesale rejection of evolution.  The limitation of the role of women at home and in the church.  The opposition to homosexuals and gay marriage.  Championing of conservative politics and "over-involvement" in political affairs in general marking just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become..  Ignoring the threats to the environment.  And the teaching of "conservative" [historical] heterosexual sexual ethics--focusing the few verses that deal with sexuality but the many about the poor and poverty so easily ignored.  The irony in these charges is that for the emergent churches advocacy of the opposite of these is where their heart is.  While they tend to favor the older, richer forms of liturgical worship, their outlook is liberal.  In that sense, they more closely resemble the established mainline churches. 

However all this may be (and I should say that I have much sympathy with a number of their objections), I believe there are two main, more significant, more honest underlying reasons disaffected youth desert the church:  sex and alcohol.  It is little secret that as they progress through their teenage years, even the churched young adolescents take up drinking (and drugs) and having sexual intercourse with boyfriends or girlfriends.  Much of the time, their behavior is little different from that of their contemporaries.

Premarital sex has become a "built-in" in the relationships of teenage boys and girls in our culture.  Their social networks are persistently supportive boys and girls getting naked and jumping into together.  "Three date rule" or no "Three date rule", sex has become an expectation in dating--even absent dating itself.  These anticipations are strong and powerful even within Christian youth groups.   Virginity becomes less and less supposed as a youth progress through adolescence.  Instead, sexual experience becomes something a portfolio to be shared among one's friends and other interested parties.  Such a free atmosphere can and does lead even the most modest to believe there is nothing essentially wrong with sharing one's body and satisfying one's overwhelming teenage hormonal cravings

All by itself, alcohol and other intoxicant have their own intrinsic appeal.  Indeed, adults as well as adolescents frequently are perfectly comfortable get buzzed or high while alone.  But more commonly alcohol is used in groups--often times as a social lubricant.  As small children, Kool-Aid and cookies was enough to have a good time with other children.  But in adolescence, social unease and reticence requires something stronger--or so it was believed.  Of course, alcohol (and drugs like marijuana) often is a gateway for young men and women to put themselves forward to meet one another--intoxication providing a pretext to do what they already wanted to do in the first place.  More the point, social drinking and drug use can provide a prelude to sex.  Alcohol and sex are a powerful combination for adolescents.  Especially with the comprehension that one often follows the other.

(Of course, one must keep in mind the perplexity many present day youth have as to what certain kinds of sexual activity is actually is considered sex.  Often anything short of genuine intercourse is thought of as mere play between young men and women--particularly oral sex.  Such conceptual cordoning off of sexual behavior is foreign to their elders.  In any event, intercourse is largely frequent and common among the youth anyway--although the romantic aspect is not necessarily required.)

In addition, there a hidden aspect in sex, smoking, and alcohol for the young.  To adolescents, they represent freedom.  They provide occasions away from the heavy expectations society places on teenagers--a glimpse into the independence and liberty of adults-- independence and liberty muscularly coveted by teenagers. 

Then comes the church.  The churched adolescents find themselves sitting in the pews confronted by their behavior and the moral teachings of historic Christianity.  Most for a while avoid thinking about the conflict between the two.  Some just conclude the Church doesn't know what it's talking about--besides, what they're doing can't be all that bad.  Some believe it is quite possible to be a loving disciple of Christ while indulging in alcohol and sex at the same time. 

But then there are those who can't make peace with their behavior and the teachings the Church.  Being in church, whether in worship, youth activities, or Sunday school, only creates a sense..call it…of cognitive dissonance, or more to the point guilt.  On the one hand, they know they should stop.  On the other hand, they won't.  They are overwhelmed with the knowledge they are hypocrites and being a hypocrite is one of their worst charges they hold against the adults sitting next to them.  The hypocrisy of adults--failing to live up to what one preaches, is all too evident to teenagers--at least what they think they know about their parents and their kind.  They see how adults so easily absolve themselves for sins which should require deeper reflection and repentance.  Judgmental? You bet.  When it comes to adults, young people are quite judgmental.  By nature, they have little compassion for the weaknesses and human foibles of the elders.  That doesn't mean they aren't often target on the failings of adults around them.

Be that as it may, young people distain the hypocrisy of their elders--and they can't stand to see it in themselves.  The guilt of what they do and guilt they feel not living up to the faith they feel obliged to keep becomes too much.  It is a tension teenagers feel they must resolve.  So, all too often, they leave.  Yes, sex and alcohol are  exhilarating.  But they are intoxicated by freedom most of all.

This is a tragic state of affairs.  I am not sure what is to be done about it.  There is a lesson which I am not sure young people can hear.  It comes having lived and tread down the road of living.  Through the trials and bitter experiences, the adult sitting in the pew knows that he is inescapably a hypocrite,  He has lived too much and failed too often.  Even when he does the right thing, he does it for the wrong reasons.  Often to "save their own skin" rather than from a pure heart: a heart attuned to the heart of Christ.  As St. Paul remarked, the good he wants to do he doesn't--and the evil he doesn't want to do he does.

The old question is posed: if the authorities turned oppressive and persecuted Christians, would there be enough evidence to convict you?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.  But the authorities have no capacity to look into the heart and see who is a true Christian.  Left to ourselves, we all have our doubts about ourselves.  We can call ourselves Christian; but we are not really not that different from those who do not.

Whatever else he is, the repentant adult knows he is a corrupt sinner who has no way out.  He has a life that cries out against him.  A malefactor who has no way to make himself holy.  A sinner that can only be covered by Christ's righteousness before the throne of God.  A God so holy that no unclean thing, no sin, can come into His presence.  

It seems that some young men and women may know this intellectually; but very few adolescents and young adults feel it their hearts.  They haven't lived enough and sinned enough.  They habitually think their own sense of their personal failures are in a sphere all by themselves--untouched by the Gospel.  That is, the promise of the Gospel seems so beside the point.

Others take a more sociological approach.  They look to more cultural forces at work.  They have their points.  Points which not be discounted.  I have taken a more personal, "psychological" look.  As I said in the beginning, this my pet theory.  But I have proposed it out of personal experience and the related confidential experiences of my contemporaries.  If I do say so myself, it deserves some consideration and thought.

A FATHER'S ATTEMPT TO TELL HIS SON SOMETHING ABOUT HIMSELF, HIS FATHER AND WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

When my son, Sean, was in high school, we spent one evening in front of the TV.  Sean was laying on his stomach on the bed and I was sitting on the floor--just inches from his face.  I made some long-suffering comment about a girl with a tattoo on the program.

"I understand why you don't like piercings; but how come you don't like tattoos?"

Here was an opening every father yearns for.  It was a rare chance to tell his son about his father and--more importantly--about the fathers that came before him all in hopes to make an impression.

"OK.  This is completely irrational and I own it.  I realize other people see it differently; but you asked me and so I'll give you a personal answer.

I grew up in the shadow of World War II.  This is a high falootin' way of putting it but I don't know any other way of telling it.  .  Your grandfather, my Dad, fought in the war.  What they don't teach you in school is we almost lost the war at several points.  Dad fought during the last great German counteroffensive--what we call the Battle of the Bulge.  Things for the allies could have collapsed right then and there.

Anyway, Dad was in a pathfinder patrol at the front scouting out where the enemy was as well as where he wasn't.  Suddenly the counteroffensive began and Dad and his squad found themselves thirty miles behind German lines in a matter of a few hours.   The Germans were all around them; so they had to hide in the forests, farmhouses and barns by day and tried to

 

work their back to the American positions by night.  It was cold and they were scared to death.  During their trek back, something horrible happened.  We know few details about it; but let's put it this way:  there were several points during the battle when neither side took any prisoners.  Let's leave it at that.

When they were almost in reach of the allied positions, Dad and his buddies were caught out in an open field and came under fire.  In trying to take cover, Dad stepped on a landmine and was severely wounded.  If it hadn't been for the fact he was running when he tripped over the mine, he would have been killed instantly.  As it was, his leg was almost blown off and his body was riddled with shrapnel.  Somehow, they got him back to the American outposts where he was evacuated to a hospital in England.  The doctors wanted to amputate his leg but Dad screamed, cursed and fought them off; finally getting them to attempt to repair his leg instead of taking it off.  (You'd have to have known Dad to understand how he could intimidate a bunch of officers into doing what he wanted.)

Dad almost died.  He survived but he suffered from his wounds all the days for the rest of his life.

The same people who almost killed your grandfather, took the Jews and put them into the concentration camps.  Those they didn't kill once they arrived at the camps were stripped of all the clothing and belongings--including their prayer books and Hebrew Bibles.  Then they processed them.  During the process, the Germans tattooed on their right arm a number serial and from then on that number was their name.  After the war and if they survived, those tattoos were constant reminders of their sufferings, hatred, and death under the Germans as they lived in those camps.  Those tattoos never came off and those who survived the liberation of the camps always carried around those numbers for the rest of their lives.

I know that when people get tattoos, they are trying to express their personality.  But when I see a tattoo, I can only remember those Jews who lost their names.  So for me, a tattoo doesn't express their personality.  It only takes it away."

After I had finished,  I looked at Sean and there seemed to be a look in his eyes that he had grasped onto something important about where he came from.  The wheels were turning!  It was the kind of look that a father always hoped he'd see in his son.

I slowly and seriously broached the question:  "Sean, what do you think."

Sean replied in a whisper:  You're so old.