For the Collect, the readings, and my sermon for the Seventh Sunday after Trinity click the link below.
Sunday, July 31, 2022
Sunday, July 24, 2022
Your spiritual birth certificate
For the Collect, Readings, and my sermon for the Sixth Sunday after Trinity, July 24, 2022, click the link below.
We appreciate any contribution you make to the ongoing ministry of our parish, Saint Benedict's Anglican Catholic Church. You may use the link below.
Donate to St. Benedict's Anglican Church
|
Wednesday, July 20, 2022
The Moral Collapse of FIRST THINGS
Having written my share of book reviews, I have always been of the mind that one should first read the book. Apparently the editorial staff at First Things holds no reviewer to such a lofty standard. When it comes to FT reviews, my advice is simple: Never judge a book by how it’s covered; at least not in that formerly fine publication that has become a rag. If anyone fell for the libel they published, a dishonest book review by Gerald McDermott, read this and be set straight.
McDermott’s Ignorant Slander
Gerald McDermott has published a review of Tradition and Apocalypse by David Bentley Hart that is riddled with lies of which McDermott must be aware. I think I counted over twenty books by Gerald McDermott, and I’ve read two of them in my youth with some lasting appreciation. Therefore, this demonstration of sad desperation (perhaps mixed with some abject ignorance), has me genuinely disappointed. Since McDermott’s review is so dense with gross and intentionally misleading falsehoods, I am tempted to go through it sentence by sentence, but I will resist and only start that way.
Read the rest by clicking here.
Sunday, July 17, 2022
Fifth Sunday after TRINITY 2022
For the TRINITY V Collect, Epistle, Gospel, and sermon preached at St. Benedict's on July 17, 2022, click the link below.
You may use the link below to make a contribution to St. Benedict's Anglican Church.
Sunday, July 10, 2022
FOURTH SUNDAY after TRINITY 2022
Click below for the Collect, Readings, and my sermon preached at Saint Benedict's on July 10, 2022
To contribute to the ministry of our parish you may use the link below. Thank you.
Sunday, July 03, 2022
Third Sunday after Trinity 2022
Use the link below for the Third Sunday after Trinity Collect, appointed readings, and my sermon preached at St. Benedict's 10:00 am Holy Communion on July 3, 2022.
If you would make a contribution to Saint Benedict's Church, please use the link below.
Friday, July 01, 2022
A STRANGE FUNDAMENTALISM
What I see is ironic: The new trend among those who argue for a right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and for any reason, have taken to quoting isolated Bible passages as “proof-texts,” and attributing the beginning of life to what amounts to a superstitious and magical belief that birth is the mystical dividing line that turns a lump of inert material into a living soul. They imagine themselves to be the scientific ones; yet they ignore science, speak of “ensoulment,” and misuse the Bible to prove their case. Ironically, in my experience it has often been the very same people, objecting indignantly to the charge of ignoring science in favor of magic “ensoulment,” who also have engaged religious believers with the worst kind of fundamentalism, employing their favorite gotcha proof-texts.
Naturally, Anglicans tend not to be lulled into fundamentalism,
preferring in-depth study to simplistic proof-texting, taking into account a
perspective gained by consideration of the Canon of Scripture as a whole rather
than as a collection of isolated chapters and verses. Proof-texting is nothing
like “rightly dividing the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15).” Nonetheless, it is
necessary to set straight their three favorite attempts to proof-text their way
into offering apologetics for abortion from biblical sources. These three
involve the creation narrative, specifically of Man, and then two passages from
the laws in the Torah (or Pentateuch). Let us look at each of them in order.
1.
The Creation of Adam
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7)."
In simplistic fundamentalist style, their argument is that this verse proves that “ensoulment” takes place after birth when a newborn takes its first breath into its own lungs. Never mind that the modern science of prenatal medicine treats the unborn baby as a patient, monitors its heartbeat, keeps track of its growth and development, and in every way affirms that this human being is completely alive within the mother’s womb. The idea that it suddenly becomes alive by breathing without her aid, once it has emerged from her womb, is not science, but, as I said above, superstition. It is nonsense that has no place in the modern world. Furthermore, their fundamentalism is mixed with this strange belief in magic as they distort the biblical text into something it was never intended to be.
The
purpose of the creation narrative, in this case the second creation narrative,
is two-fold: We see that everything in creation is God’s work, and that it is
good, and together it is very good. But this passage is about creation as a
first cause, something that cannot be repeated. Indeed, as modern people we
have no reason to be overly concerned about the obvious fact that the first two
chapters of Genesis are not even read as history by most modern people, just as
they were not taken as literal history by the earliest readers. Chapter one is
a poem, with such poetic license that God makes the light of day before He is
said to have created the sun. Along with the second chapter detailing Eden as
the source for four rivers that actually never connect, we can see that the
ancient people who gave us these accounts were not trying to pass them off as
literal historical fact. In fact, they would be surprised, if they came into
our time, that anyone ever did so regard them.
So, what do we learn from Genesis 2:7? First that God is
the creator of the species called Man, or Adam, or homo-sapiens. Adam,
in the story, is not even born, but rather formed as a complete and even adult
male. It is here that we first learn of the consistent biblical teaching that we
each have a body and a spirit, and that these taken together make each of us into
a living soul. In both Greek and Hebrew the words for soul and spirit are not
only different, but set alongside each other as separate parts of a human
being. In the New Testament this takes on great importance in St. Paul’s First
Epistle to the Corinthians, especially chapters two and fifteen, where the
difference between soul and spirit is essential to making sense of the text.
The body comes from the earth, and in this sense Adam, in the narrative, is
born from the earth figuratively. But he is not born literally, and is not an
infant.
The
passage is telling us simply that life, along with consciousness, comes from
God. Also, in both Greek and Hebrew the words translated as “spirit” also mean wind
or breath. This is about the creation of the human species, and even taken on
its own terms, within the narrative, the story is that this first man was not
formed in the womb at all, and not alive until God imparted his own Spirit
into him. The breath of God into Adam is the Holy Spirit imparting life into a
body that has not been conceived, has never been growing and developing in a
mother’s womb, and that had no prior vitality, no heartbeat, nothing. In no way
is this creation story anything like pregnancy and childbirth, and in no way is
the initial gift of life to the human species repeated by gestation and birth.
In
short, to treat Gen.2:7 as a proof-text to justify abortion, by reading into it
that breath going into the lungs unassisted by the mother turns morally insignificant
tissue into a person, is to defy science in fundamentalist style, complete with
a Bible verse. But, after reflection, it is obvious that the text is not about
a baby growing and developing in the womb, and is not about birth. Frankly, if
we really want to be very biblical about ensoulment, we need to look another
passage.
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls (Leviticus 17:11).”
The
Hebrew word translated “life” is nefesh; so it is correct to translate
it as “The soul of the flesh is in the blood.” Inasmuch as our prospective interlocutors are
waxing very fundamentalist, let us look at what actual appeal to biblical
authority reveals. Certainly no one can argue that the unborn baby has no blood,
so playing the match by their own rules, in this first game we say “checkmate.” But
the rules of the game are disingenuous on their part; they have to know that modern
prenatal medicine is the science that makes their attempt to return to the Dark
Ages most repugnant.
2.
A Matter of Premeditation
“If men strive, and hurt a
woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief
follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay
upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give
life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus
21:22-25).”
Our
interlocutors will have quoted an unfortunate mistranslation from the Hebrew,
rendering the phrase translated quite literally in the King James Bible
(above), “so that her fruit depart from her,” as “causing her to have a
miscarriage,” or words to that effect. Their argument is that the child is not
treated automatically as a murder victim, ergo, the fetus is of less moral significance
than a person who has been born and taken that magical first unassisted breath.
The
first mistake is to assume that the baby has necessarily died. It is not
absolutely clear, inasmuch as premature births at late stages of pregnancy have
been a regular feature of human experience all throughout history. Granted,
today the prematurely born child is even safer, and its life can be sustained
at earlier and earlier stages of development (itself a relevant moral fact to
the whole subject of abortion). If indeed the baby were to survive, then the
child, as well as the injured mother, is to be avenged “if any mischief follow.”
The words “Life for life” are, as in Leviticus above, “Soul (nefesh) for
soul (nefesh).” The obvious implications do not support our interlocutors’
position.
More to the point however, whether the
child has died or not, the passage cannot be used to make their argument. Let
us assume that the child has died, as is most likely, and that the “mischief”
is strictly the injuries sustained by the mother. That does seem to be the more
reasonable way to interpret the meaning of the ancient text. But it does not follow
that this would mean that the child in the womb is of less moral significance;
for in the Torah the penalty for murder was not to be carried out on someone
who caused an accidental death. “Speak unto the
children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the
land of Canaan; Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge
for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares
(Numbers 35:10,11).” In the verses that follow it was commanded that no one
could be punished for murder unless the actual killing was, in our legal
language, premeditated. The men who strove together deserve a punishment; but
the entire episode would be an accident. It is likely then that the litany of
penalties was not literally meant in this case, “soul for soul,” but was
included because this was probably a recognized and oft repeated refrain; for
it appears elsewhere.
However the text was intended,
by the rules of the match, we again say “checkmate.”
3.
A Matter of Clumsy Eisegesis.
“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any
man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie
with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept
close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be
taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he
be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come
upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then
shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering
for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon
it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an
offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the priest
shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the priest shall take holy water in an
earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the
priest shall take, and put it into the water: And the priest shall set the woman before the
LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her
hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand
the bitter water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her
by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou
hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou
free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast
gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some
man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall
charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the
woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD
doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that
causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy
thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. And the priest shall
write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse:
and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and
shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial
thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to
drink the water. And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it
shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her
husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become
bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall
be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be
clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. This is the law
of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and
is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be
jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest
shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless
from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity
(Numbers
5 :12-31).”
I have saved the most
ridiculous argument for last. What can I say? Eisegesis is always wrong,
whether you are reading an alien meaning into the Bible, or Shakespeare, or
lyrics of The Beatles. The eisegesis they commit when they invoke this rather
strange passage is that they read into this text pregnancy, whereas in fact
there is no mention of an existing pregnancy at all. The passage ends with the
promise that she may conceive, which potential pregnancy would follow later.
Worse, they imagine that the potion mixed by the priest will cause a
miscarriage, and that it is, therefore, abortion performed by the priest. But
there is no miscarriage caused by the potion. There is no pregnancy, no
miscarriage, in short, no abortion, anywhere in this very unusual ancient
passage.
Indeed, if the potion really were to make a woman’s belly
swell, and her thigh to rot, it would stand to reason that her belly is normal
size when she drinks it. Frankly, discussing this at all seriously is difficult
to do. Not only is the passage terribly weird, but if this ritual had ever been
practiced it could have had only one result: A woman in danger of being abused or
divorced would be vindicated and cleared, because there is no magic potion then,
and none today either, that could cause her belly to swell and her
thigh to rot; and certainly not one that would have this terrible effect only if she had cheated on her husband. By the rules of the match, our interlocutors’
ironic appeal to proof-texts, we again say
“checkmate,” only this time straining to keep a straight face.
Science and Superstition
So, in closing, we should
wonder how any modern person can so easily set aside the advances of science in
the field of prenatal medicine, as to argue “first breath ensoulment,” and how
anyone wanting to distance himself from belief in the supernatural would treat
that first breath as the beginning of life when that life has already reached an
undeniably complex stage of development. They like to think we are the
backwards and superstitious lot. But with all their talk about ensoulment and
their fundamentalist abuse of scripture, the very opposite is exposed.
Indeed, it is we who are believers in science. And a very
real warning must be added. Ensoulment, as they use the word, is about defining
personhood. After all of the bloody history, especially of the last five
hundred years, with everything from genocidal colonialism, and race-based
chattel slavery, to the Holocaust, everyone should back away from defining
personhood. For the real purpose in defining personhood is always about
exclusion and the attempt to justify atrocities. It is to designate others
as non-persons. It is about dehumanizing them. Prenatal medicine is not about defining
personhood, and must not be perverted into providing such a definition.
Properly understood, ensoulment is a mystery, and for those who actually take religious
belief seriously, the work of God and his Spirit.
Postscript
Regarding
the situation in the United States: Before leaping for joy at the overturning
of Roe vs. Wade (and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood), let us be sober enough to
admit that we, who stand for the sanctity of life, have actually lost ground in
recent years. The younger generations had, once upon a time not long ago,
become less adamant in fighting for unrestricted access to abortion for any
cause beginning in the last decade of the twentieth century. Fewer and fewer
new doctors have been willing to do abortions simply because they learned the
latest advances in medical knowledge, and have been unwilling to kill their patients
(for every obstetrician treats at least two patients in every pregnancy). The
number of abortions decreased dramatically. This was not legislative progress,
nor was it political progress. But it was a trend based on appreciation for
more medical knowledge about the development of life within the womb. We were
making progress
Observably, much of that ground has been lost in the last
few years, even though the greater scientific knowledge remains and even
advances yet more. The problem is politicians. The reactionary nature of
American politics has caused a sharp division of causes-lumped-together for
which the average person feels compelled to go along with one complete party
line or the other. Instead of any discussion in which the developing infant has
moral significance as a being, the only topic discussed is personal freedom “to
choose.” We are allowed only to mention the woman’s body, as if a pregnant
woman has two heads, two hearts, two sets of fingerprints, and two separate DNA
patterns until that magic moment of separation; of course this is a completely
unscientific fairytale. Instead of debate about when the fetus should be
protected by law, a discussion that led to the federal ban of partial birth abortion
in 2003, the new demand is for absolute freedom of choice by the mother
through all nine months of pregnancy; a position so extreme that even a
majority of the self-proclaimed pro-choice advocates were opposed to it before
2016.
Unfortunately, most Americans have become increasingly
unable to distinguish between issues. And most politicians have also become less
and less resistant to pressure from the respective National Committees of the two
major American parties to take any position other than the complete Party
Line. This is why lumping together various causes is such an abomination to
free thinking minds. The self-contradiction of advocating in favor of
healthcare for all, yet advocating the murder of any unborn child who is simply
an inconvenience, contrasted against the equally absurd and self-contradictory picture
of those who oppose healthcare for all, but claim to be “pro-life,” or pro-gun
and “pro-life,” is what makes party politics obscene, fueled by the legal
bribery unique to the United States, that gives powerful corporations the
ability to purchase your representation in Congress, taking it away from you. Those who are
willing to let the poor die by neglect and injustice are not really “pro-life”
just because they are right about the abortion issue. Those who advocate for
the poor and for refugees do not have the moral high ground either when they
argue against the life of the most helpless who cannot speak for themselves,
hidden from sight in the womb. The self-contradictions and inconsistencies lumped
together as party platforms makes absolute loyalty to either party, and the
party line, a betrayal of Christ.
Now, for those who really want to stand for innocent life,
because they know that how we treat “the least of these” is taken personally by
Jesus Christ, and that in the judgment we will account for how we treated him
in how we treated them in their hour of need (Matt. 25:31-46), fierce loyalty
to either of these two parties is simply impossible. Both of them persecute “the
least of these,” whether it is the helpless unborn child, or the poor, the sick
and imprisoned, or the stranger, and in fact persecute these innocents to the
death whether before or after birth (yes, “to the death.” I am considering
writing an entire book about cases known to me personally in which modern Americans
have died from poverty – yes, many modern Americans are dying quite
preventively and needlessly from poverty).
Whatever happens in the legal realm, our most important
focus must be on preaching the Gospel, and “teaching them to observe all
things, whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20).” Laws made by
legislatures come and go. Power structures do not endure. Congresses and Presidencies
flip back and forth between party majorities. Probably, even the Supreme Court
will flip between parties more and more in the future. It is unlikely that
advances made in those venues will have anything even remotely resembling
permanence. Roe vs. Wade has been overturned; but this does not place barriers
between state lines. The battle we must win is the battle for persuasion, to
change hearts and minds. This requires the truth, and it requires credibility.
Of course, as a priest I am mostly concerned about saving
souls. It is quite disturbing that more and more people who claim to be
Christians have become more and more willing to engage in sexual relations
before marriage, as if “changing times” has rendered any of God’s commandments
obsolete. The real danger in the current setback, that young people are once
again becoming more ready to advocate for convenience abortion as a “woman’s
right” in order to establish worldly equality (i.e. equal opportunities to
serve Mammon), is that people who are in the Church and call themselves
Christians will be willing in greater number to accept this consequence of
sexual “freedom,” and endanger their own souls by adding to it the shedding of
innocent blood. Indeed, whatever happens in the culture dominated by
unbelievers along with merely nominal believers, we have to resist pressure
from without for the sake of our own people. They, especially while young, need
sound teaching as their only protection. This brings me back to where I began
this essay.
In recent years I have seen these three major attempts to posit
arguments supposedly drawn from the Bible, designed to argue that abortion is
not even a sin, and that it is perfectly legitimate. These same three arguments
continue to appear, and have been made by a large circle of advocates ranging
from ordained ministers and rabbis to professed atheists. As we have seen,
these three arguments contradict science, rely on superstition even when made
by atheists who delude themselves that they are believers in science, and are
also strangely fundamentalist in method though those who have repeated these gotcha
arguments from “proof-texts” would never admit to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)