A curious problem. . .

From what I have read, Rome is on its way to excommunicate the SSPX, a traditionalist group promoting the Latin Mass and, it would seem, uncertain about Vatican II.  The issue is over their decision to go forward with the consecration of a bishop or bishops in July of this year.  Apparently most everyone is sure that this is what is going to happen although at least one bishop is urging everyone to slow down.  So the point being made is that if the SSPX consecrates a bishop who had not received approval or endorsement from the pope.

What is curious to me and, I would think, a problem in Rome is that this is already a practice.  Rome has granted to China the authority to decide on its own who will be bishops of the Chinese version of the Roman Church.  There is supposed to be some sort of dialog or conversation between China's governmental minions and Rome but that has not been the case.  China has gone ahead and decided for Rome who will be the bishops and Rome seems not to make a fuss over it.  Curious to me is that Rome has decided the Chinese version of the Catholic Church is more important to them than the traditionalists across the world who prefer the Latin Mass.  It is not just the Mass, however, but a group intent on being more Roman than just about anybody else in the Roman Catholic Church -- in doctrine and practice.  They are not important but a Chinese faction intent upon being as little Roman as possible is definitely the preference of the leadership.  How odd!

But, of course, it is not odd.  That is typically how things have gone in Christianity for some time.  Take the Anglicans, for example.  They find the problem people to be not those who question the Bible or nearly everything creedal or confessional but those who take it all as seriously as they can.  Globally, Anglicans are divided between those who want to be Anglican and those who like the name but not the doctrine once called Anglican.  Or the Methodists.  Remember, that the United Methodists disunited not because some wanted to push the boundaries of Christian belief or Methodist identity but because some wanted to keep it.  The conservatives had to go.  Not the liberals but the conservatives were the bridge too far.  Lutherans have the same story.  Those who like the name but who pick apart the Confessions and minimize the Catechism and who are content to live outside the tradition claim the high ground and the conservatives are seen as the problem child of Lutheranism.  Wow.  When did this happen?  How? Why?

A long time ago I said that the most dangerous Christian of all is the one who truly believes and intends to live within orthodox and catholic Christianity.  I wish it was a problem for all of us but it does not seem to be so.  Those who live on the liberal and progressive side of Christianity have claimed the high road in this battle and made the conservatives look petty, small, and narrow minded.  How strange it is to be the ones who pay attention to the words, creeds, confessions, and liturgies of the Church as normal and normative and then be asked to leave or shown the door.  But there it is.  It has happened nearly everywhere across Christianity.  Maybe the Pope will back away from Francis and closer to Benedict but I doubt he will do much more than slow the drift to the left that seems impossible to stop.  In every Christian tradition, the conservatives have become the bad guys and those who take the faith with a grain of salt have become the good guys.  Maybe the SSPX will be excommunicated or maybe not but I think we have all seen the handwriting on the wall.  Zealots are not welcome in Christianity and zealot simply means those who pay attention to the words of Jesus, believe in the facts of the Scriptures, confess the doctrine drawn from them, and practice consistently with that faith.

He did not die right away. . .

While ruminating upon the account of the Fall, it occurred to me that things in the garden did not quite go as expected.  At least as Adam and Eve had expected. Life in the garden had but one grave restriction: "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden," God said, "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)  You shall surely die.  But Adam did not and neither did Eve.  At least not right away.

Adam’s was not the original rebellion -- not in the sense of Eve only but in the context of the rebellious spirits in Heaven.  Adam was not the first sinner.  Eve's bite had preceded Adam's and there might have been a chance for Adam not to follow Eve in this sin.  But that did not happen.  Adam did eat.  He ate with Eve and together they incurred the full weight of the words of warning God had given to them.  But they did not die.  At least not yet did they die.

It would have been a relief to Adam if he had died, right there in mid bite.  It would probably have been a relief to Eve as well.  If sin were accompanied by the immediate death that ended the opportunity to sin more or sin again, it would have been a relief.  He did not die in the sense that at that moment of sin his life was required of him but Adam did die.  He died the slow and agonizing death replete with guilt and shame and the constant re-enactment of his act and of his plight in his mind.  Day after day it played out.  First in the banishment of Adam and Eve from the garden that had been their delight and their downfall.  Then in the labor that turned marriage from simple gift into burden and work.  Then in the labor that brought for a child's voice amid Eve's cry of pain.  Then in the labor that toiled against the ground, the insects, the weather, and the blight that fought against every seed put into the ground.  Then in children who grew up to challenge instead of follow.  Then in clans who divided up and competed for nearly everything.  Finally in the threat of death that turned time into a precious commodity and made every ache or pain into a warning shot that today might be the day.

Worse, the death that would have been a relief if it had come at that moment turned Adam into an agent of death -- a murderer as well as one who had been murdered by the king of lies, enticed into the shadow from the light.  Eve had been murdered by the devil and she had murdered Adam by taking him into her sin and when he made it his own she was relieved of the guilt or as much of its as she could be.  This is what Jesus said.  “He was a murderer from the beginning (ap’ arches)” (John 8:44).  The sinners who live as the sons and daughters of the rebellion no longer imitate the God who made them but showed in their words and actions that they belonged to the devil.  “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning (ap’ arches).” (1 John 3:8)  Oh, it would have been so much easier if Adam had simply ceased to breathe and fell into a clump of bones and flesh in which the breath of life no longer lived.  But that is not what happened.

Adam and Eve and all that were born of them through the ages and generations became sons of the devil until Christ released them and redeemed them.  Only in Christ are the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve set free from death and free from the curse of being agents and instruments of that death upon others.  It was not simply a rebellion that came with consequences but a mark on the soul of man.  The Fall of man came not from an instant of death but from death occupying his very soul and the deception that lured Adam and Eve in came at a cost of their very selves.  Only when another would come to wear their flesh and to live without this guilt and shame could redemption become possible.  Only when Christ set free those marked for ownership of another, to live as an agent of death and murder, and under the shadow of death for themselves -- only then could salvation come to the dead.  We did not need a Savior like we thought we imagined but someone who rescue us body and soul, setting us from from the dominion of one who is only death to the One who is only Life.

How are we using AI?

After seeing the umpteenth AI generated profile pic that was cartoonish or pop art, I am beginning to wonder about all of the promises the proponents of AI have made.  We have been told that artificial intelligence will relieve the workers of mind numbing repetitive tasks of assembly lines and manufacturing.  We have been told that AI will drive trucks more safely than people and transport people better than the cabs and ubers we have depended upon for a long time.  We have been told that AI will be able to do the dull tasks of computer data entry and routine evaluation to allow the people the freedom to do more (what that more is, we do not exactly know).  We have been given so many promises that this thinking technology will do for us but so far it has not exactly delivered on those promises.

We can use it to create cute memes and profile pics to make us look cool or better than real life.  We can use it to create research papers we either forgot to do or never intended to do for ourselves.  We can use it to manufacture pictures and videos of nature and events which seem to be real but we all know are not.  We can adjust the records of reality to suit our politics or to insulate us from liability.  We can do all of these things but in the end we find ourselves struggling to know what was AI and what was real.  It has left us with a great question mark over things that were once rather easy to count upon as real -- whether we like that reality or not.

I am reminded of the great promises of the internet and social media.  And of the disappointments that have accompanied each.  All the power and possibility of the world wide web has been squandered on porn and scam artists.  In the same way, the hopes and dreams of social media have been dashed on the rocks of bigotry, hate, bullying, and predatory behaviors that now make us want to protect our children from it all and somehow figure out how we can survey it all without being hurt.  Yes.  There was a time when we thought it would help our isolation and call us out of our depression or ease the ever present fears.  So much for that.  Instead we have seen all of these increase with every advance of the platforms designed to relieve the problems.

In the Church what began as a curiosity has probably developed into a bad habit.  We use AI to invent reviews to make us look better than we are, to create sermons and Bible studies when we were pressed for time, and to figure out what the nones and unchurched are looking for in a congregation.  Is AI helping or hurting the Church and her mission?  These are the questions we ought to be asking of ourselves and of the way we have been so quick to think that technology has answers to the problems we face as Church.  

There are great questions for the world outside the Church as well.  What about the tremendous demands laid upon our power grid or the data centers being planned for across the nation?  How many windmills does it take to plug in all the drives and fuel the memory modules that AI will require of us?  Sadly, there is probably more interest in this side of things than the morality of it all or the confusion that has left us unable to decide what is created and what is real.  The Church ought to have a voice in this conversation.  What is moral and right and salutary about the use of AI is precisely our realm -- if we can back away from it all enough to think about it.  Under all of the moral challenges is the question of how we use our time and whether AI helps us to do something more noble with our time or squander it before the broken promises of screens.  Until this happens, I fear we will waste more time on AI generated goofiness.   

A lifetime ago, my small town in Nebraska was filled with business and farms and kids and life.  Today the main drag is a ghost town.  There will come a time when you will not be able to buy a gallon of milk in town much less the groceries, clothing, lumber, hardware, produce, meat, paint, tackle, cars, farm implements, and everything else needed for everyday life then and now.  Amazon has replaced the local businesses and the big chains now provide what we need -- albeit 30-50 miles away from where folks live.  Is it better?  Has life improved?  I fear that one day we will awaken and what big box chains and delivery to the door has done to small towns will happen when AI takes control.  I am not trying to be prophetic but to suggest that we ought to be more concerned about this side of things and not just if it works.  

Tears win the day. . .

A little over a year ago, the then first female Bishop of London broke down in tears at the Church of England's General Synod, describing the 'micro-aggressions' and institutional barriers women face in the Church of England.  It is noteworthy, of course, because she is no longer the Bishop of London.  Sarah Mullally is the Archbishop of Canterbury.  She was addressing her contention that two of the six people from each local bishop recruitment committee responsible for choosing the Archbishops of Canterbury and York need to be women.  At that point she said: 'I would love to trust people to do the right thing but the truth is that women continue to be underrepresented.'   And, 'I would love to encourage women, which I do all the time, but there continues to be institutional barriers, we continue to experience microaggressions.'  Mullally had to pause and turn away from the podium twice to recover herself as she was overcome with tears.  She received a standing ovation from mostly women, joined by a few men. 

Tears won that day and, as evidenced by her choice as Archbishop of Canterbury. tears have continued to win.  Her argument did not have to stand up to scrutiny.  Her point did not have to be won on the ground of reason or truth.  It won on emotion alone.  Tears have the power to overcome nearly everything.  I am not at all suggesting that this is a female problem or one exclusive to the Church of England.  Just the opposite.  Tears come from all sides but especially from those who have no argument worth winning the day  It has become a new form of bullying.  We have cyber bullying but we also have the bullying of tears, of pure emotion and sentiment.  Tears, accompanied with a righteous outrage, have become a powerful tool in winning the day over a host of issues.  Anger and tears seem to be the currency of the liberal and progressive wing of things in particular.  When you cannot triumph on the basis of ideas alone, tears and righteous anger have the power to sway the people when your ideas and reason have failed you.

The danger here is that arguments and debates should be realms in which reason and fact have all the power.  Such sentimentality is a particular problem because it does not need truth or fact to win the hearts of the hearers.  Such sentimentality has the power to change not only society but the basis on which anything and everything is decided.  Victimization is adept at using tools that triumph over fact and truth and reason and there is no better victim than a tearful one.  Emotion has become the primary argument and the basis for deciding things that were once determined on the basis of truth and fact -- even when decided wrongly.   Emotion has become the ultimate good and final distinction on which all judgment is based.  Even gender is about how we feel and about our righteous indignation over those who would deny us.  But not all emotions are good.  When did we forget this?  Resentment against the injustices we feel were done to us has become the ultimate motivation in nearly every realm.  

Science refuses the inconvenient facts which contradict the narrative that has been adopted.  The need for justice or, better, revenge clouds nearly every purpose and want.  We seem to respect and reward those who are angry, who express their loud resentment of injustice, and who scatter their words with raw emotion most of all.  Passion is a wonderful thing but it does not redeem arguments without basis in fact or truth.  Indeed, it is the height of the new bullying that is happening on university campuses and even in religions today.  It is certainly this that is helping to unravel the common life of our culture and society and it has already done a very fine job of defining our political views and voting habits.  It has also worked very hard to afflict the Church and to create a way in which some Christians can without hesitation effectively overrule the truth of Scriptures and the consistent doctrine of the faithful from the get go.  Passion is not a bad thing but it cannot be a good thing when it robs truth and reason and fact from having their own stature and authority within the conflicts and disputes of Christianity.  When and where that happens, we have already begun to lose the Scriptures and silence the real voice of God.

Who said it first?

St. Pius X (born June 2, 1835, Riese, Venetia, then of the Austrian Empire now in Italy—died August 20, 1914, Rome, Italy; canonized May 29, 1954; feast day August 21) was the Italian pope who reigned from 1903 to 1914.  Known for his staunch political and religious conservatism, he was ordained in 1858, made bishop in 1884, cardinal and patriarch of Venice in 1893, and pope in 1902.  His eucharistic decrees eased the regulations governing daily communion, and his revival of the Gregorian plainsong and his recasting of the breviary and of the missal were important liturgical reforms. His decision to adapt and systematize canon law led to the publication of the new code in 1917, effective in 1918. His reorganization of the Curia modernized the church’s central administration, including a codification of the conclave.  He advanced the Liturgical Movement by formulating the principle of participatio actuosa (active participation of the faithful) in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini (1903).  In his illuminating document, Tra le Sollecitudini, Pope Pius X writes, “Sacred music, being an integral part of the solemn liturgy, participates in its general scope… but its purpose is to add greater efficacy to the text… music is merely a part of the liturgy and its humble handmaid.” (TLS 23) 

However, coming 350 years before Pius X, there was another voice speaking similarly of music.  Instead of merely accentuating the role of music to the liturgy, this individual insisted that music was a servant of God's Word and theology.  In his profound remark, Martin Luther emphasizes the immense value of music, stating, "Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world." This quote encapsulates Luther's profound appreciation for the power and significance of music in society.  Even more profound, however, is Luther's other quote.  "Music is a handmaid of theology."  Luther's Latin preface is in some respects an expanded version of his "Frau Musica" poem, in prose rather than verse. Of the Protestant reformers around his time, it is only Luther unhesitatingly commended the use of music in the life and worship of the church and who articulates something that might be presumed from some in Rome but had not been addressed in such way before.

Do you suppose Pius X read it first in Luther?  Were they both drawing on similar points within the theological and liturgical tradition of the West, each in their own time?  Or could it be that each saw this differently and separately but articulated it in remarkably parallel terms and ways.  In any case, their successor communities of faith seem to have forgotten these words.  For some in Rome, the hymn either does not matter all that much at all and can be disposable song.  The great hymns of Roman tradition and the great hymns of the Christian West overall have been replaced with pop songs and eminently forgettable hymns written not as handmaid to either the liturgy or theology but reflections of the moment which can and probably should be forgotten as time goes on and the song is replaced.  For others in Rome, the congregational hymn has no place at all in the liturgy (Latin Mass folk).  For Lutherans it is not much different.  Those who separate style from substance find cause to introduce pop songs for the moment and musical styles that agitate against their sacred usage because they are not all that important after all and those who insist that only the Lutheran chorale should be used have narrowed their acceptable choice to a very small pool because they are too sacred to be added to in the present day or to borrow from anyone outside the Lutheran tradition.  In either case, both Rome and Wittenberg seem to have forgotten Pius and Luther.