"enough a sinner to believe..."

"It's just enough to be strong in the broken places..." because Christ is the glue that holds me together where I am broken, which is precisely how I witness to Him who loves me and who takes pity on my nothingness. Even though it is late, Jars of Clay Faith Enough is really the only possible traditio for this Friday. Who cares about the video? Just close your eyes and listen, then do it again. Peace!

Christos Anesti

"We have this treasure in jars of clay..."

Mature Christians aren't shocked by the behavior of others, even other supposedly mature Christians. Why? Because a mature Christian is one who not only understands that she needs Jesus Christ , but who also acknowledges that her need is constitutive of her fallen humanity as well as her identity as a child of God, given her in baptism. The on-going revelations about which bishop knew what and when, as well as how he responded, while often deeply troubling and sometimes even criminal, not to mention sinful, really only prove the truth of the Christian claim. This was the whole point of Greater Than Sin, the statement made by Communion and Liberation after allegations against the Holy Father began to appear during Lent.

In the evangelical world something similar was revealed this week, namely that Dr. George Rekers, who was a founding member of the Family Research Council, which was initially an expansion of Focus on the Family, recently went on a vacation to Europe with a male prostitute he hired from a website that exists in order to allow prostitutes to advertise their services. In addition to being a psychiatrist at the University of South Carolina, whose expertise is homosexuality and who, quite controversially, advocates what is known as reparative therapy, which seeks to sexually re-orient homosexuals, that is, make them straight, Rekers is also a Baptist minister. Despite the fact that Dr. Rekers, who steadfastly refuses to admit there was anything untoward in all this, despite being contradicted by the young man who accompanied him, has had nothing to do with FRC for for quite awhile, Tony Perkins, president of the council made this statement, which I like a lot: "FRC has had no contact with Dr. Rekers or knowledge of his activities in over a decade, so I can't speak to what he may or may not have done. However, I can say that while it's extremely disappointing when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they 'preach' against, it's not surprising. The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. As leaders, we should do our best to ensure our actions—both public and private—match our professed positions" (underlining emphasis mine).

Cutting to the chase, a mature Christian recognizes that her best efforts and those of others are not enough.  Recognizing our need and having it met in, through, and by Jesus Christ is what allows us to be gracious and graceful, kind and merciful, empathetic and sympathetic, while not defining down the holiness to which our baptism calls us. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, Gentile former pagans who were having a difficult time living as Christians, "[b]e imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). So, who can you trust? You can trust Christ at work in his church through broken, sinful people. It only proves the truth of the Christian claim to recognize that "we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us" (2 Cor. 4:7).

Far from using this as an excuse to engage in hypocritical and/or immoral behavior, Christ Jesus not only offers us a way to overcome our sinfulness, but is the Way, as well as the Truth, and the Life. Far from condemning one another in a most un-Christian manner, we need to help each other. So, it is very much an act of charity, though a difficult one for which we can usually expect no thanks, to call someone out for sinful behavior. We have a duty to hold each other accountable, but we do so not in order to condemn, quite the contrary. In other words, as disciples of Christ we don't shoot our wounded, even when the wounded refuse to acknowledge their brokenness. First aid requires that the bleeding be stopped. Neither is this to argue that those hurt and decimated by the evil behavior of others are not our primary concern.

Jesus Christ is always a mercy challenging us, which means we do not have the luxury of ignoring the sinner, or even the sinner's enabler, who makes himself complicit and whose actions only create more victims, which is why we must once again ask, "[a]longside all the limitations and within the Church’s wounded humanity, is there or is there not something greater than sin, something radically greater than sin? Is there something that can shatter the inexorable weight of our evil? Something that, as the Pope writes, 'has the power to forgive even the greatest of sins, and to bring forth good even from the most terrible evil'?" I would say there is nothing that overcomes our evil, but there is some- One- Christ the Lord! Let us return wounded to Him who was wounded for us and by whose stripes, paradoxically, we are healed (Isa. 53:5).

Christos Anesti

Love is not neither a sentiment nor a sediment- what discipleship looks like

"Who stands fast?" asked Dietrich Bonhoeffer. "Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God—the responsible man, who... tried to make his whole life an answer to the call of God."

Bonhoeffer's point is precisely that we can often be held back by these things, which are not necessarily gifts of grace. For example, virtue is acquired through habitus, that is, through effort (excepting the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love), conscience is a developed faculty, etc. What brings us to perfection is love, without which "I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor. 13:1). We love because we are loved and God's love is Christ. So, He becomes that final standard, the criterion, by which we judge everything. I think we can see Christ crucified as the perfect example of what Bonhoeffer is writing about, which is the sole criterion by which he judged, a judgment that caused him to act in such a way that he, too, was executed.

Too often we reduce things to our measure. Note that Bonhoeffer writes: "his" before reason, principles, conscience, and freedom. This "his" transfers to "mine." Shaky ground, indeed! I am quite certain that if he had remained content to judge his circumstances and what was required of him by his own measure, Bonhoeffer surely would've taken a different course of action. Instead, in imitation of the Lord, he gave all of himself, which I am sure now seems to him as not a huge sacrifice at all.

Christos Anesti

What is the point of Christian community?

The answer is- spiritual growth, which sounds nebulous. Growing spiritually means growing in your relationship with Jesus Christ. The relationship we have with Jesus is a friendship, yes, but we are his disciples, that is, the ones who follow him, who practice the things he taught us. For example, if you don't pray, read Scripture, spend time in solitude, and, as Catholics, not just participate in Eucharist, but do so worthily, which means making it to confession when you need to go, it is difficult, if not downright impossible to know Christ as he wants us to know him, as he seeks everyday to make himself known to us in and through everything that happens to us. Beyond that, we believe that it is in Scripture and the sacraments that we have direct encounters with the Lord.

Today I came across a very brief interview with Dr. Dallas Willard on the Christianity Today (to which I have long subscribed) blog Out of Ur. According to Dr. Willard, a well-regarded academic philosopher and a leading expositor of the writings and thought of Edmund Husserl, the father of phenomenology, too often we measure the success of our congregations by faulty criteria. Too often we measure success by attendance and, more often, by the collection, when, Willard suggests, "we should be looking at more fundamental things like anger, contempt, honesty, and the degree to which people are under the thumb of their lusts. Those things can be counted, but not as easily as offerings."

Without a doubt these things are much more difficult to measure, but not impossible. When asked if he is discouraged by there not being a greater focus on spiritual growth, on discipleship, Dr. Willard says, "I am not discouraged because I believe that Christ is in charge of his church, with all of its warts, and moles, and hairs. He knows what he is doing and he is marching on." To which I can only respond, Amen! Nonetheless, he says that this state-of-affairs causes him to grieve for those who are hurt and suffering "because much of North America and Europe has bought into a version of Christianity that does not include life in the kingdom of God as a disciple of Jesus Christ... [n]ew people are entering the church, but a lot are also leaving. Disappointed Christians fill the landscape because we've not taken discipleship seriously." To live this way requires more than good intentions, it requires a method.

Thanks to my dear friend Suzanne, who blogs over on Come to See, for this from Don Giussani: "The immanence of the mystery of community, to the extent that it is recognized, loved, and participated in, penetrates our being as if by osmosis with new moral standards and new moral sensitivity."

As we approach Ascension and Pentecost, let us be mindful of the Great Commission, given us by the Lord: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..." (Matt. 28:19).

Christos Anesti

Our sinfulness is "an insane, horrifying romance with death"

In his introduction to his theological commentary on Genesis, Dr. Russell Reno, writing about "the promised future that pulls on the characters, scenes, and episodes... like a supernaturally powerful magnet" (pg. 20).

by Gustave Dore

"Once the promise is heard, our reading of Genesis inevitably takes on an anticipatory flavor. The seemingly permanent architecture of the universe created 'in the beginning' starts to march forward into the promise with joyful anticipation. The painful, familiar reality of human sinfulness becomes an insane, horrifying romance with death, whose rotting image we paint with lipstick and rouge and prop up in the whorehouses of our souls. The primeval past comes alive, both reaching toward the promised future and remaining darkly, mysteriously resistant" (pg. 20).

Christos Anesti

Abbot Emmanuel Spillane, OSCO- Requiescat in pace

I am sad this morning because I learned that Abbot Emmanuel Spillane, OSCO, died yesterday. Abbot Immanuel was formerly the abbot of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity Cistercian abbey in Huntsville, UT. He was a truly wonderful man and monk, one with an irrepressible zest for life, a monk with a sense of humor. It is not over doing it to say that he was a character!

One of Fr Emmanuel's favorite stories was about the time he picked up a nun at the Salt Lake airport in 1972, who was here for a retreat. It turns out that this nun was none other than Mother Teresa. Yes, Abbot Immanuel was a relative of the author of hard-boiled detective stories, Mickey Spillane. I first met the abbot when I interviewed him for a paper I was working on as a sophomore in college. I didn't know anything about monks, but he was kind, patient, and most generous with his time. He was truly a beautiful man.

I remember visiting him when he was up at the abbey during a time he was serving as chaplain for the Trappistines in Arizona and my friend, who knew Abbot Emmanuel very well, referring to him being with the Trappistines said: "Isn't that a case of putting a fox in charge of the hen house?" Fr Emmanuel just laughed and laughed, he thought that was so funny, probably because it is was so absurd. Abbot Immanuel was in his 70s at the time. His holiness was not other-worldly, but very rooted in life, which is what made him such a charismatic person. Too often people trying to look holy seem to me like characters out some bad 1950s, Ed Wood-directed, Catholic movie. The kind of people who make me want to say- "Come down off the cross, we could sure use the wood!" As Pater Tom once said: "It is better to just be yourself than to try and act like an angel." Abbot Emmanuel understood this and without having to have Pater Tom tell him! Indeed, holiness is to become who you truly are, to become that unique, unrepeatable phenomenon God created you and redeemed you to be, which is what it means to be sanctified.

Sanctuary of the Church at Our Lady of Holy Trinity Abbey- Huntsville, Utah

He began his priestly life as a diocesan priest in Los Angeles and knew many Hollywood luminaries and was a serious fund-raiser, but always wanted the monastic life, a call he was unable to heed until his younger brother finished school and could take care of their mother.

To my mind, cloistered monasteries of both women and men religious are islands of sanity, outposts of God's kingdom, places where there is no danger of the human subject being annihilated, not least of which because these are truly Eucharistic communities. For the benefit of those who do not know, Pater Tom was a Trappist, that is a Cistercian, a member of the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance. They strictly observe the Rule of St. Benedict. He wrote about an episode of the Huntsville monastery in his book The Sign of Jonas.

I have little doubt that St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Benedict were there to welcome one of their faithful sons into the house of the Father. Requiescat in pace dear Abbot Emmanuel, you are already missed and world is poorer without you in it. I know you'll continue praying and interceding for us and for the whole world.

It is important to remember that, as monk, he died years ago, heeding St Paul: "For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3).

Christos Anesti

The insurmountable limits of blogging

Lately, in my neck of the Catholic blogosphere, there has been some healthy reflection going on about blogging; about what it is, what it isn't, etc. This kind of reflection is not only healthy, but necessary for anyone who starts driving her/his family truckster down the information super highway, especially anyone who blogs as a Catholic Christian. This reflection started when Deacon Greg disabled the comments feature over on the Deacon's Bench because some commentors were just going nuts, in the words of Deacon Greg himself: "I never intended The Deacon's Bench to become a place for knees in the groin and brass knuckles to the jaw. God knows, I also never thought it would turn into a place for escalating violence, where one commenter pulls out a knife, until another whips out a pistol. Lively debate is one thing. Relentless, merciless hate is something else."

Deacon Greg's post prompted a rather thought-provoking post by Mike Hayes, of Busted Halo, on his personal blog Googling God- Any Idiot Can Have a Blog. Many of us who blog daily, or nearly daily, can relate to this. I have been blogging almost daily since late July 2006. There are certainly times when I resemble Mike's remark. I know that there are a few out there who think that's true everytime I post something. Hence, I adhere to the axiom that the person who has no detractors is a person who has never stood for anything.

One of Mike's insights that can easily be overlooked in this very worthwhile post is this: "Bloggers need to choose how engaged they want to be with their 'fans'." In other words, a blogger, like any writer, has to find her/his voice, as it were, his/her M.O. Frankly, I don't see the people who regularly read my blog as "fans," but as readers, many of whom are friends. I do not want fans. As I have stated before, this site does not have nor will it ever have a site meter. It will never feature ads. I maintain no metrics or stats as to how many people visit this cyber space. I will never be enticed to move my blog somewhere else. I am happy to write for other venues, to contribute and collaborate other places, to allow this blog to be linked to, quoted, etc., but, unlike just about everything else in my life, this endeavor is uniquely mine for better or for worse. Consequently, I am solely responsible for what appears here, including moderating comments. All of the Catholic bloggers I know write for different reasons, which is healthy and good as long as we write in the service of communion, the diakonia of koinonia.

I honestly don't think you can call yourself a Catholic blogger and not have a way of being personally accountable (see Integrity Notes at lower right side of this site). I certainly look to my readers to hold me accountable and not to be passive aggressive about it (i.e., don't take your complaints to somebody else before taking them up with me directly, which is the only Christian way to behave see- Matt. 18:15-17). On several occasions I have been corrected by readers. I am grateful for this. In other words, I want to be able to state my piece without worrying about being shut down and I want to be corrected, either as to errors I make in matters of fact, or when I am being unfair, uncharitable, or just plain annoying. The blogging model that I really like is the one used by Peter Hitchens on his Daily Mail blog, as one who cut his teeth as a young adult in the philosophy graduate seminar, a bit o' the old rough and tumble does not bother me as long as it remains reasonable and doesn't get personal.

Another insight of Mike's is that "Usually, blogs are told from a specific point of view, namely the blogger’s–which could mean they come from a certain place on a variety of spectrums and therefore don’t really express the fullness of any one tradition." As is my wont, I will ratchet this up a notch: blogs always represent a specific point-of-view. Writing from a point-of-view, your point-of-view, is inescapable, as anyone who has ever read Gadamer's Truth and Method knows, which neither disputes the objective, or inter-subjective, nature of truth, nor puts forth a weird kind of solipsism. This true to the point that to think otherwise is to engage in self-deception. While it is true that everyone has an opinion, it is equally true that not all opinions are equal. Hand-in-hand with this, at least for Catholic bloggers, is that you don't express or exhaust the fullness of our 2,000 year tradition in single post, or even across several posts. On a good day, to quote Msgr. Giussani, we are able to open up "a newness", which "always opens up the road within the old words." Besides, if you do not wish to express your point-of-view, then blogging becomes an exercise in saying nothing in 1,000 words or more, which is great only if you're auditioning for a job in public relations.

There are things about which I simply report the news, as with episcopal retirements and appointments in the United States, but my overall point and purpose is to express my point-of-view on matters that I deem worthy of comment. This sounds more than a little imperial, but it is just to state a fact that is true not only of all bloggers, but all writers. After all, you can't write about everything! So, everyone who blogs makes choices about content. I strive for original content. I want my readers to read something they can't find anywhere else, but I would never want to be the sole source of information, which is why I provide so many links. As a preacher I try to do the same thing. I write every homily myself, for better or for worse. I don't recycle homilies, though, given that you can't preach everything in any one week's readings, I may take something from a previous homily and develop it more. I then rely on the Holy Spirit to do something with the words I prayerfully manage to string together. I approach blogging in much the same way, which goes a great distance towards explaining why many of my posts have a homletic quality. I suppose that makes me something of a not-fit-for-primetime-Catholic-editorialist. So, don't look for me on the opinion page of your diocesan newspaper anytime soon, or in my diocesan newspaper for that matter!

Blogging for me goes through discernible phases that are determined by what is happening in my life and in the world. My blog gives me a space to connect the dots. Additionally, I like to highlight aspects of Catholic thought that I think are frequently overlooked, or even denied. Admittedly, there is a fine line between consciousness-raising and rabble rousing, especially when you're rabble, like me. Looking at my posts over this past week or so, I have written about economic and political issues in a rather straight-forward and admittedly one-sided manner in an attempt to be provocative. Given the utter lack of reader response, both here on my blog and on Facebook, I understand that my views on these matters are not likely shared by many people, if for no other reason than I tend to be pretty impassioned about the gross immorality of the type exhibited by those at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs and to having little patience or tolerance for people who use threats to try and silence others, even when those others produce art that I often find personally offensive, if at times extremely funny (like love, imo, humor covers a multitude of sins). I also get that others simply aren't as worked up about these things as I am. I certainly wouldn't say that those who don't share my views are stupid or that those who don't get as worked up as I do over things are apathetic. I fully grasp that it may well mean that they are simply more prudent. It is often self-evident that Deacon Scott (Yes, I just went all Jimmy Kimmel imitating Karl Malone by referring to myself in the third person) rushes in where angels fear to tread, which only proves Mike's thesis that any idiot can, indeed, have a blog!

St. Joseph the Worker, pray for us