This morning I went to a meet with a group of local Catholic men, as I often do on Thursdays. We who are in it call it the G-Men, standing for 'God's Men'. From this group, I met the two Teen Life youth group directors for my local parish, as well as a local judge that I consider somewhat of a mentor. In a certain way, he is like a senior councilman, and one who we look to regarding current legal affairs, be they more regional or national, and what his take is on the current issues.
A few of the men are retired, and others come from different occupations and careers, be they entry level on up to senior executive types of work out in the Hanford area, or in local hospitals. Each of them are decent men that care about their families and the community, and I hold their views in high regard, even if I do at times find myself in something of a debate with them. But that is somewhat the nature of the group. It is meant for men to be able to discuss the issues, which can lead to it being almost like a male version of The View, but, by far less annoying. Contrary to the liberal feminist belief, men are mostly amicable when if comes to discourse and debate. Especially when face to face, and sitting down in a coffee shop, chatting about God and politics, there is a rule of respect among civilized men to try and not let debates get terribly heated, but warm enough to give some things to stew about throughout the day.
This morning, there wasn't too much stewing. Much of the talk was on a mountain climbing activity that some of the men were looking to do in June. Some talk came up about recent news regarding tremors near Mt. St. Helens, and even that Mt. Rainier was showing some activity. The avid mountain climbers in the group were hoping that Mt. Rainier wouldn't blow its top any time soon, while others joked in saying something to the extent of, "Why not? At least it could make it easier with a few thousand less feet to climb!" Another of the men spoke of how he was part of the emergency response operations, and how there was often talk and plans made at his job regarding how, if Mt. Rainier erupted, they would try to evacuate Western Washingtonians over to here in Eastern Washington. Another man asked, "But how would they do that if the passes through the mountain range were destroyed?" This question is valid since Eastern and Western Washington are divided by one of the major mountain ranges in the US and Canada called the Cascade Mountain Range. There are at least 63 known and named mountain ranges in the State of Washington, and a good many of them are found within the Cascades, along with hundreds of mountain peaks - so many that there is a top 100 listing found on the Summit Post website. The emergency response guy noted that there were various scenarios being considered, each one looking at many and diverse angles, including if any of the other volcanoes happened to be erupting as well. Why? Because the Cascades are also known as the Ring of Fire due to how many of the hills in the Cascades are volcanoes, and Washington State has quite a few of them. Besides the major eruption in 1980, Mt. St. Helens has had a few minor eruptions, with the most recent being between 2004 and 2008. Thus for this reason, tremors in this state may not mean just an earthquake, but a literal firestorm.
After this discussion, we read the 9th chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The whole chapter is about the blind man that Jesus healed, as well as the incredulity of the Jewish leaders regarding this miracle among others done by our Lord. This led toward the discussion of how the Jewish leaders had much more authority then because of how they held legal and governing authority in the community. The Judge pointed out that this was because at that time there was no separation between Church and State. Of course, on some level, there was the authority in the Jewish community among the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, and then there was Roman rule. Yet, it should also be understood that the Romans were not secular, but pagan - or as the Jewish would call those outside their religion, the goyim. As it is, pagan and goyim essentially mean the nations, that is, those nations that are foreign to your paternal/maternal homeland. Likewise does the Greek term ethnos mean this aspect of a foreign nation, or a nation or people, or in regards to one's origins. It's also where we get the root term 'ethnic' in English. But, anyways, after the Judge pointed out how there was no separation of Church and State, he further added that, in this country, we had sought in our laws and Constitution a way to keep a parallel distance between religion and government. For no one religion was to become the official religion of the United States, and the government of the United States was not to infringe upon the rights laid down regarding religion in the 1st Amendment that protected free speech that came alongside the freedom of speech and publication of the press and right to peaceably assemble. As another member of the G-men noted, this happened because in the British Empire, the Church of England, the Anglican Church, was the established religion of the State, and essentially all other forms of Christianity and religion were illegal. In comparison to the state of things today, it was noted how the US is acting like a secular version of the British Empire that the infant United States rebelled against. This was not always the case, as for much of the history of the United States there had been mostly a respective parallel distance between the business of the government and that of religion. Over time, this distance started to narrow until we come to more recent times and to where we are now with religion and government being at odds with each other, and thus crossing into conflict.
Of course, there can be made many exceptions to this view. At least it ought not be forgotten that, even when there was more of a Christian standard prevailing in the United States, things weren't perfect then, either. Most of the time that America was considered a Christian nation, it was primarily a Protestant Christian nation. While there were numerous denominations of Protestants, they generally held a truce with one another in what became established as something of Protestant doctrine to agree to disagree for the sake of tolerance. What made this fairly easy for Protestants was they had similar enough 'essential' doctrines, and, at the least common denominator, they weren't Catholic. While this prejudice may still be somewhat prevalent, it is not near as strong as it was in the latter part of the 19th century, at the advent of both unions influenced by Marxism on the left and the no-nothing KKK who were influenced by an equally deplorable vision of Social Darwinist racial supremacy on the right. Both threatened the life and community of the Catholic minority in the US, many of whom were Italian and Irish immigrants at the time. Today, we have a different sort of problem that comes with immigration, which generally doesn't have to do with religion when it comes to the illegal immigration that is coming in from Mexico. The media may like to play on that spin, especially when it comes to Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump, who had his own particular remarks to make about Pope Francis' comment about how building a wall is un-Christian. However, on the liberal end of the political spectrum, there is actual discrimination against Christians that are seeking refuge from the genocide happening in the Muslim nations in the Near East. Obama has often chosen not to allow the Christian refugees in, even though he has supposedly vetted many Muslim refugees. This sort of discrimination is real and deadly since it leaves the Christian refugees to fend for themselves in the onslaught of ISIS, who drove them out of their homelands and threatens to kill Christians that do not convert to Islam.
Much of the discussion went to issues regarding relativism and how people seem so complacent about serious issues. It may be a defense mechanism, but it is one that leads to deadly consequences, even a kind of passive indoctrination to not care what happens, as long as the government keeps giving you goodies. Don't think, just take, could be the motto for those that make themselves dependent on the State. But how did this come to be? Could it be something like a generational curse, where the sins were passed down to the younger generations by their parents, and we are thus being punished with a complacent culture due to permissive parenting? Or maybe it is the ruination that comes from divorce, which segregates the family into not so separate, nor even equal control of time between parents - if joint custody is allowed at all. How many of these broken homes lead to a broken spirit in individuals, who ultimately learned to look to the State to provide, be it by means of the court in upholding child support laws, or, when such could not be done, the State having to provide welfare for single parents, and even then, the single parent may have often been either negligent, or having to be mostly absent from the life of the child in order to work and provide for the child. In these broken families, the modeling of parents is not there, or may be abusive, especially if the parent is resentful toward the child and may become prone to be abusive. Thus sins of parents can lead to the adverse effects upon the children.
How this may relate to identity politics is hard to say. What things are behind pushing the agendas are varied in diversity of reasons. As pointed out, in so much as some of it may seem to be something like a generational curse, there is also the aspect that comes with Jesus' answer to his disciples, who asked him, "Who was it that sinned - this man here, or his parents - that he should be born blind?" (John 9:2). Jesus answered them, saying, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" (John 9:3). Therefore, we ought not look at all problems that a person has as being from personal or generational sin. We ought not say every ailment, or every temptation or vice we have is a matter of a family curse. Sure, if we are born into a family that has a history of alcoholism, it may be likely that we may become alcoholic ourselves. But, not every problem in our lives can be blamed on our parents, nor because we were born this way. No, sometimes the problems we get into are due to sin. For if you go out and steal from someone, then yes, you may well be caught by the authorities and have to serve time for the crime. Even if you were born into a family of thieves, whatever formation they may have imposed towards their unlawful family profession is regrettable, even something that can gain sympathy. However, that does not exclude a person from still having to go to prison for committing the crime. It does mean that one has a difficult disposition to overcome in order not to return to a life of crime after serving one's time. The temptation will remain, and while we would love our own thorns, and even the fight with Satan to be taken from us, let us not forget St. Paul, who of his own afflictions said:
"And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me." (II Cor. 12:7-8)
Contrary to popular belief, Christianity is not a religion of health and wellness. By all means, having faith in God is a good thing. Believing in Christ and His promises is a good thing. Yet, as good as these things are, do not be misled to believe that it means as a Christian you will not suffer. For as St. Paul continued on to relay:
"[T]hrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. And he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you. For power is made perfect in infirmity.' Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me." (II Cor. 12:8-9)
This does not mean to revel in being a victim of circumstances, nor in one's sin. Rather, it has to do with how the strength and power of God can shine greater in our weakness and infirmity. When we are brought to humility in our weaknesses all the more may we see the grace of God supporting us through our trials and conflicts. No, this doesn't mean that sin and suffering is necessary to be granted God's grace, but rather that, when we are found in weakness, when we are tempted or found in great distress, we may be able to more clearly see how, save for the grace of God, it would be impossible understand the freedom that comes with God's grace keeping us in the peace of Christ, even while the world seems to be coming undone around us. We may suffer, but we also live, not just to breath in the hope for another earthly day, but also in the hope of the eternal life to come promised by Christ.
And so, these were some of the things we talked about this morning, as well as some of my reflections and commentary regarding them.
No comments:
Post a Comment