Understanding Genesis

To borrow a term from a friend of mine: “wooden-headed literalism” is often used by people to interpret the book of Genesis in the Bible. In modern American culture, many problems stem from misunderstanding Genesis. I find it particularly interesting that as much as fundamentalists and atheists are at each others’ throats, they both seem to be in agreement on how to understand Genesis: through a strictly literalistic interpretive lens. For example, fundamentalists point out that Genesis refers to the universe and earth and everything on the earth being created in six days, and if science doesn’t agree with that then scientists must be part of a conspiracy against Christianity. Atheists point out that science flat-out disproves that timetable. As a result, fundamentalists end up rejecting science, and atheists end up rejecting the Bible. So we end up with debates where both sides are proposing wrong answers to an unnecessary conflict. I’m not proposing a compromise or a watering-down of Truth. I only insist upon understanding Genesis as it was originally intended to be understood. To help explain this, I’d like to share a video by Father (now Bishop-elect) Robert Barron:

I should mention, in case it’s not clear enough from watching the video, that the point here is that Genesis is *not* a science textbook and should not be read as one. This does not in any way take away from the great truths that are found in Genesis, like Adam being actually the first man, etc., but it’s entirely reasonable for a Christian to believe that something like the “Big Bang” was probably used by God for His purposes, and creation happened according to whatever timetable He chose. Science indicates that He took His time, like an artist you could say. Christianity and science have nothing to fear from each other.

It seems that another point of agreement between fundamentalists and atheists is that if evolution could be proven, then it would somehow threaten the very existence of God. Obviously, I beg to differ.

-Ben 8/11/15


Questions for Protestant and/or Fundamentalist Christians

DSCF0207

Here are a few questions to ponder. My goal here is to get people to re-examine things that they might simply take for granted, but if you have solid answers I am genuinely interested in hearing them. As my usual readers know, I’m a Catholic Christian, and these sorts of questions are part of what helped lead me toward Catholicism, so I’m curious to know how Christians who do not feel led to become Catholic have resolved questions like these…

1. How do you reliably guard your church against false doctrines that result from people misunderstanding the Bible? When scholars/teachers/churches disagree over the meaning of Scripture, who has the final say?

2. If a fellow believer has chosen to live in sin and insists he’s still a follower of Christ, what authority does your church have to insist he’s wrong and warn him of the eternal consequences of his choices?

3. What people do you trust to accurately interpret Scripture from the original languages, teach universal Christian principles, and provide the most legitimate commentary on the Scriptures? What qualifies them to be trustworthy?

*Bonus Question:

What is the Scriptural basis for serving grape juice instead of wine during Communion?

-Ben 8/3/15


Good Movies: Part 4

Of Gods and Men (2010)

If you frequently peruse Catholic movie recommendations, you’re bound to see Of Gods and Men high on the lists of many people… and for good reason. It truly is a powerful story. It’s about a group of Cistercian Trappist monks living in their monastery in Algeria in the early/mid 1990s. These guys seem to portray the ideal Christians, devoting themselves to prayer, serving the nearby community, and living at peace with the Muslims. However, when a group of Islamic terrorists sweep through the region, the men must ultimately decide if they will flee or face the evil head-on. Will they hold to their Christian convictions with courage even if it may cost them their very lives? I’m reminded of something Whittaker Chambers said in his book “Witness”:

“It is the permanent temptation of the Christian who, in a world of force, flinches the crucifixion which alone can give kindness and compassion force.”

Of Gods and Men is filmed with a tenderness and respect for the lives that these men lived, and the sort of lives being lived now by monks around the world. It was directed by the atheist Xavier Beauvois, who I think must truly understand that there’s something captivating about a Christian life well-lived. Despite the constant debate online and other places about what Christianity is or isn’t, here an atheist was able to paint a cinematic portrait of authenticity.

These days, with ISIS terrorists on the prowl, all Christians should be pondering what our response should be in the face of evil. This movie is an excellent addition to that conversation. Also, it should be mentioned that the guys in this movie are not simply living an ideal. They have many crises and doubts to wrestle with, but it’s those crucial moments of subtle humor and final steadfastness that offer us inspiration for times of trouble.

Be advised: there is a brief scene of terrorist violence toward the beginning of the movie that is disturbing, but still within the movie’s PG-13 rating, and in my opinion it does not outweigh the many moments of beauty and contemplation that are also included in the story. Also, if you’re looking for it at your library you may need to look in the foreign movie section. Lastly, this is a movie that requires your attention. It doesn’t shout at you, but rather gently draws you in if you’re willing to be still.

As always, let me know what you think.

God bless!

-Ben 7/21/15


Infant Baptism

Recently, my wife and I welcomed our third child into the world. We are looking forward to getting her baptized as Christians have done since the time of the early Church. But… as I’ve become more familiar with the historical Christian faith largely through my conversion to Catholicism, I can understand the need to explain infant baptism to folks who are not Catholic. If you’d like to understand, read on.

Before explaining the importance of infant baptism, it’s necessary to touch on the importance of baptism overall. However, because I don’t want this post to be super long, I’ll simply refer you to some of the places in Scripture where the importance of baptism is strongly emphasized:

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism… now saves you”

Titus 3:5 “he saved us… by the washing of regeneration…”

Rom. 6:3-4 “all of us who have been baptized…”

Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”

Gal. 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

1 Cor. 12:13 “…we were all baptized into one body…”

Rom. 6:3,4 “We were buried therefore with him by baptism…”

Matt. 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’”

Obviously baptism does not replace Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, but rather is the means that God chose to transmit the grace to us from that sacrifice as a free gift and a sign of our entrance into God’s covenant family.

To help explain infant baptism and the process of discovering its importance, I’d like to share a quote from Scott Hahn’s conversion story as written in his book “Rome Sweet Home”:

Studying the covenant made one thing clear. For two thousand years, from the time of Abraham to the coming of Christ, God showed his people that he wanted their babies to be in covenant with him. The way to do it was simple: give them the sign of the covenant.

Of course, back in the Old Testament, the sign of entering God’s covenant was circumcision; whereas Christ changed it to baptism in the New Testament. But nowhere did I find Christ announcing that, from now on, babies were to be kept out of the covenant.

In fact, I found him saying practically the opposite: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:14).

I also found the apostles imitating him. For example, at Pentecost, when Peter finished his first sermon, he called everyone to embrace Christ by entering into the New Covenant: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children…” (Acts 2:38-39).

In other words, God still wanted children in covenant with him. And since the New Testament gave only baptism as the sign for entering the New Covenant, why should the babies of believers not be baptized? No wonder, as I discovered in my study, the Church practiced infant baptism from the beginning.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have wonderful descriptions of the Sacrament of Baptism in paragraphs 1213-1284. For now I’ll share paragraphs 1250-1254 regarding infant baptism:

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

If your baptism into God’s covenant family happened when you were an infant thanks to the faith of your parents, remember Ephesians 2:8,9…

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

Even with the biblical principles laid out, many will still argue that the Bible does not specifically command infant baptism, and this is true, but honest Christians are still left with the evidence of tradition.

Now, we should pause for a moment and clarify the concept of tradition in reference to the way it supplements Scripture. For some people, the word “tradition” itself sends up red flags, often as a result of their loyalty to the ironic tradition of “Scripture alone” which has developed among modern groups as the means of determining doctrine while divorced from Church authority. Tradition can be dangerous because you’re consulting the wisdom of previous generations, not just your own experience, and Christianity can turn out to be different than what you assumed. Having said that, I would like to point out that Scripture itself speaks of the importance of tradition:

2 Timothy 2:2 “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Corinthians 11:2 “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

So if Scripture advocates tradition, we must accept tradition, but naturally we’re left asking “well, how do we know which traditions are faithfully preserved according to God’s will?” Well, that is where we consult the Church, which St. Paul referred to as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

From “Radio Replies” by Fr. Leslie Rumble, Catholic Answers edition:

…Not all revealed truth was written down. The divine teaching has been preserved and handed down completely in the Catholic Church, both by that section written in the New Testament, and by that section of revealed truth that was not committed to writing but that is declared by the living voice of the Church. For example, which books of Scripture are canonical, the very inspiration of those books, the teachings on infant baptism, or on the matter and form of the sacraments, and many other things, are known to us by the traditional and living voice of the Church only. But as I have pointed out, Christ intended that, for he did not order anything to be written but established his Church and sent it to teach all nations what he had revealed, and its applications in practice.

It’s practically impossible to deny the authenticity of the practice of infant baptism after considering the traditions revealed in the writings of Church history:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

In closing, I would like to share a few verses of Scripture that indicate the likely baptism of children and even infants among the first converts to the Christian faith:

Acts 16:15 “she was baptized, with her household”

Acts 16:33 “he was baptized at once, with all his family”

1 Cor. 1:16 “I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas”

For Bible-believing Christians who remain opposed to infant baptism, I will keep coming back to this question:

Does the Bible anywhere restrict baptism to adults?

-Ben 7/16/15

P.S. I should mention that no one is suggesting that you should go half-drown your infant by dunking him or her underwater. Obviously it’s assumed that the tradition of pouring water over the head applies here:

Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… –The Didache, ca. A.D. 70, as quoted in “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett


Testimony in 100 Words or Less

DSCF0220

I was recently listening to a Catholic apologist who suggested being able to share your testimony in 100 words or less. I thought that was a really cool idea.

1 Peter 3:15 says “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence…”

So here’s my testimony in exactly 100 words:

I was raised by Christian parents to love Jesus and trust the Bible, and I still do. However, as an adult I needed to know exactly what I believe and why, and I ultimately wasn’t satisfied with a Christianity that’s determined by personal interpretation of Scripture. Study uncovered historical Christian beliefs and legitimate papal authority. I found that we received Scripture through the Church Jesus founded and promised to preserve. Scripture was intended to be understood as part of that Church’s overall teaching. Through logic and God’s grace, I’ve found the fullness of the Christian faith in the Catholic Church.

-Ben 7/6/15

P.S. This testimony obviously presumes and excludes many things about my life and beliefs (for sake of brevity), so don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Also feel free to share your own 100 word testimony in the comment section.


Return to Simplicity

IMG_6464

a happy corner of our little garden

Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si has caused quite a stir inside the Church and outside as well, with a focus on the environment and other related subjects. Because I wanted to understand it properly and comment on it fairly, I decided to read the whole thing. In the process, many of my presuppositions were challenged, but overall I was very impressed by the pope’s knowledge and advice. He demonstrates how many subjects related to human life and stewardship of the earth are interconnected and interdependent. Pope Francis challenges Christians to remember the example of St. Francis of Assisi in the way we care for others and nature, and in the process we must back away from the consumerist culture and embrace the true joys of life. I really appreciated paragraphs 222 and 223 of Laudato Si:

“Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that ‘less is more’. A constant flood of new consumer goods can baffle the heart and prevent us from cherishing each thing and each moment. To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. This implies avoiding the dynamic of dominion and the mere accumulation of pleasures.

“Such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating. It is not a lesser life or one lived with less intensity. On the contrary, it is a way of living life to the full. In reality, those who enjoy more and live better each moment are those who have given up dipping here and there, always on the look-out for what they do not have. They experience what it means to appreciate each person and each thing, learning familiarity with the simplest things and how to enjoy them. So they are able to shed unsatisfied needs, reducing their obsessiveness and weariness. Even living on little, they can live a lot, above all when they cultivate other pleasures and find satisfaction in fraternal encounters, in service, in developing their gifts, in music and art, in contact with nature, in prayer. Happiness means knowing how to limit some needs which only diminish us, and being open to the many different possibilities which life can offer.” –Papa Francesco

There is much that can be discussed regarding this encyclical, and I encourage everyone, especially Catholic Christians, to take the time to read it and allow yourselves to be challenged in a positive way. You can read or download Laudato Si here.

For a basic overview of Laudato Si, read this article.

God bless!

-Ben 6/27/15


Recognizing and Curing Selfishness

Lately I’ve come to really appreciate the wisdom of Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, as I’ve heard him on some great radio podcasts discussing subjects related to marriage, parenting, etc. This short video offers insight into an underlying issue that plagues many of us. Being able to recognize our weaknesses and boldly face them can save marriages and more. Obviously this is from a Catholic perspective, but I think everyone can ultimately benefit from it.

God bless!

-Ben 6/24/15


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 218 other followers