The Underground Thomist
Blog
Evangelizing Christians (Part 2 of 4)Tuesday, 10-07-2014To pick up where we left off yesterday: Why is it so difficult to get Christians who have “heard” the Gospel in the mechanical sense to “hear” it in the spiritual sense? The first variety of obstacle to the evangelization of Christians lies in the listeners. I can’t hear because I have my fingers in my ears. Certain sins have become morbidly commonplace among us. If we seem deaf to conscience, the problem is not that it has lost its voice but that we cannot bear to hear it. We shut up our ears so tightly against the bad news of sin that we cannot even hear the good news that sins can be forgiven. Some years ago, a literate and intelligent man whose life was in a mess told me that he was literally unable to grasp the meaning of any passage of Scripture whatsoever. My explanation of the principles of exegesis couldn’t have missed the point more. The problem wasn’t that he couldn’t interpret the text; he couldn’t take in God’s word because he wouldn’t allow himself to. Christ didn’t make this mistake. When He spoke, He sharply called attention to whether his listeners could hear Him: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” We should do that too. Pastors should ask their flocks, “What part of this message are you blocking out? What sin or resentment or cherished conceit are you clutching so tightly that you cannot open your hands to God’s grace? In order to hear the Gospel, what do you have to let go?” I can’t hear because of all the racket. For most of human history, silence was a familiar companion. Now noise is. Even on those rare occasions when we pull out our earbuds, disconnect from social media, and walk into the sanctuary, all those chattering, jingling, crooning, thumping incantations ring on in our minds. The liturgy of the world drowns out the liturgy of the Word. What is the solution? To have better noise? No, there is enough noise already on some of the Christian radio stations. God commands recourse to the abyss of silence so that we might hear Him in it: “Be still, and know that I am God.” Much has been written about the need for better Church music, and rightly so. Yet greater is the need for better silence. The best times to press this need are the penitential seasons, especially Lent. Our shepherds should urge us to emulate our ancestors, who knew the importance of fasting not only from food and drink but also from noise and babble. I’m not listening because I have heard it all before. A young woman approached me after an adult catechesis class to say, “I wish I were a convert like you. It is so much harder for those of us who were raised in the Church to see how wonderful it is.” She meant it well, God bless her, but I found it unsettling. Immersed in grace, it should be easier for those raised in the Church to see how wonderful she is. How can we be jaded by God Himself? The answer is that we can’t -- but we can certainly be wearied by not having more of Him. We speak blithely about fulfillment in Christ as though complete fulfillment should occur in this world, and as though if it doesn’t, there is something wrong with us. St. Paul knew better: “We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” The torrent of grace he experienced only whetted the longing for more. What then should we say to the people in the pews? Never to “settle”! Does it seem to us that we must tamp down our longing for God? No, we must long for Him even more! In one sense we are saved, but in another sense we are still being saved, and in another our salvation is yet to come. If in this life even the very reminders of God’s presence make us sorrowfully aware that He is present to us only in part, then rejoice! He is so great that He uses even the sense of His absence to draw us more closely to Himself. Let Him focus the eyes of our faith. Here we see Him dimly, but there we will see Him in glory. Part 3 tomorrow.
|
Evangelizing Christians (Part 1 of 4)Monday, 10-06-2014
If baptism isn’t just a symbol of initiation, but an initiation, then Zack was already a Christian. God’s seal had been impressed indelibly on his soul. The inky divine thumbprint declared, “Mine.” He was adopted into God’s family, inducted into the knighthood of worship. Not that anyone would have known. If he was a knight, he was an errant one, a wanderer in search of adventures, mostly the kind that can be had in women’s beds. Though he “thought of himself as a Christian,” he lived like any hedonist, taking his beliefs about living, dying, God, good, and evil from the nonbelieving world in which he lived. One day when he visited a new church, the desert of his heart was strangely moistened. Looking back on the experience, he said that he had never “heard” the Gospel of grace until that day. Familiar story? Yet there is something wrong with it. Every Sunday in his own church, Zack had sat through lections from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles, and the Four Evangelists. His eardrums were intact. His auditory nerves functioned. He even claims that he paid attention. So he “heard” in the mechanical sense; the problem was that he did not “hear” in the spiritual sense. He had not grown the right kind of ears, and that story too is familiar. What keeps people them from hearing? The obstacles come in three main varieties, but they can be overcome. Part 2 tomorrow.
|
Did You Hear the One ...Sunday, 10-05-2014
... about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He stayed up all night wondering, “Is there a dog?”
|
Why I Don't Trust Narrative TheologySaturday, 10-04-2014If you want to explain what is less clear, you must fall back on what is more clear. Certainly there is a lot to learn from the biblical narrative, but one must interpret it in the light of the doctrinal statements, not vice versa. To set aside explicit teachings and rely on the stories alone is just a way to pipe in one’s own prejudices and call them the teachings of the Bible. Anything goes. Obviously this traditional approach wouldn’t work if we were dealing with inconsistent texts – for example if grandpa said “Never steal,” but spun tale after tale of thieves getting the best of honest folk. But the premise of Scripture is that God, always truthful, is consistent. What He teaches by story, statement, and precept cannot be divided.
|
The Uses of ErrorFriday, 10-03-2014
“[A]s we have compounded healthful drugs from certain of the reptiles; so from secular literature we have received principles of inquiry and speculation, while we have rejected their idolatry, terror and pit of destruction. Nay, even those have aided us in our religion, by our perception of the contrast between what is worse and what is better, and by gaining strength for our doctrine from the weakness of theirs.” -- Gregory of Nazianzen, Pangyric on St.Basil, sec. 11
|
False Light and Real DarknessThursday, 10-02-2014
“Better real darkness than false light, say the saints; better real confusion than false clarity.” -- Inaugural address of Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary (1993)
|
Just for the RecordWednesday, 10-01-2014
Several philosophers elsewhere on the web seem confused about whether I am an NNL theorist. That means a “new natural law” theorist, a follower of the basic goods approach of John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, and Germain Grisez. Heavens, no, not at all. I am a traditional Thomist, and I’ve criticized the NNL theory in several places. Among other things, I think that its rejection of natural teleology is a mistake; that what it calls the “incommensurability thesis” -- the view that no fundamental good can be viewed as more important than any other – is false; and that its analysis of what it calls “the basic good of religion” is dreadfully misleading. But one can view a theory as fundamentally mistaken and still find something helpful in what its proponents have said. I have certainly borrowed and adapted one of Finnis’s ideas about the one-flesh unity of the husband and wife. As I would put it, neither of the two has “a reproductive system” – each has only half of one. The procreative purpose cannot be accomplished until they join. But notice that I have just referred to the inbuilt purpose of the sexual powers. Finnis would not do that, and he would regard my borrowing as illegitimate. I think his idea makes sense only in the context of natural teleology; he is trying to avoid it.
|




