Rejected for baptism

Hippolytos wrote in c. 200:

"A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." (Hippolytos, Apostolic Tradition 16:17-19)

I hate adultery

Tatian, (death c. 185)

"I do not wish to be king, I don’t want to be rich, I reject military service. I hate adultery." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Vol. II, reprint 1979, p. 69)

Virtue by magnitude of cruelty

Cyprian (200-258) wrote:

"The world is soaked with mutual blood. When individuals commit homicide, it is a crime; it is called a virtue when it is done in the name of the state. Impunity is acquired for crimes not by reason of innocence but by the magnitude of the cruelty." (To Donatus, chapter 6)

Son of peace

Tertullian (160-220) wrote in De Corona Militis:

"To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. … Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? … Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom."

Army of peace

Clemens of Alexandria (ca 150-215) wrote:

"If a loud trumpet summons soldiers to war, shall not Christ with a strain of peace issued to the ends of the earth gather up his soldiers of peace? By his own blood and by his word he has assembled an army which sheds no blood in order to give them the Kingdom of Heaven. The trumpet of Christ is his Gospel. He has sounded it and we have heard it. Let us then put on the armour of peace. … The Church is an army of peace which sheds no blood." (Protrepticus XI, 116)

A royal priesthood

We as Christians are a "royal priesthood."

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

In about 240, Origen grasped this concept of explained the Christian response to warfare thus:

"You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers." (Against Celsus VIII.7.3)

If we would not have a priest/pastor/reverend engage in violence (1 Timothy 3:2, 3), why is it permissible for the "layman?"

The feast of St. Nicholas

Gift giving goes back to the Feast of St. Nicholas. Gifts were given in secret. Now we proudly label every present with our name on colorful tags.

I really like the encouragement to give in secret. This is a way to remain humble.

I also draw from the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:3, 4 when he gives instruction on giving.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I think if you are going to gift this time of year, maybe we should draw on the roots of this practice and give in secret.

I'm going to give presence this year. I want to receive the same.

As I Am

Why are there more abortions than live-births?

In some Russian provinces there are more abortions than live-births. Part of this has to do with education, but much of it comes from a lack of access to birth control.

This is a stunning statistic. When I heard it I was thinking of how we can change this (being in the USofA). My initial reaction was, "We're spending so much time and effort in this country on the legality of the practice when this is an international issue, and other countries have more abortions by far than here. Can't we take an international approach?"

Of course a quick counter to this idea was, "We are Americans, and we can only directly influence our own government." This is a fair argument, of course.

But we can use international bodies to bring international consensus and help nations with poor heath care receive things they need, like access to medication - including birth control and education.

A problem I see from the anti-abortion side in the States is the fact that many of these supporters are also right-leaning Republicans who have a weird distrust of the United Nations and are trying to remove the USA from its ranks. Meanwhile, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is active in countries supporting family planning and education with a goal of reducing abortions (after all, abortions are still risky procedures, even with all the fancy medicine). The UNFPA health care package does not include abortion. Couldn't we support programs like this to reduce the number of abortions instead of fighting the UN on the issue (lying about what they say even, like this Newsmax story does (headline reads, "Attacks Christians" yet the story doesn't mention anything about Christianity at all), and so many other organizations say).

I think part of the problem is so many Christians are American first, Christian second. The big argument I hear against the UN stems from national sovereignty. People are concerned about sovereignty so much they'd rather have other countries waste away - and in this case I'm making, let abortions outnumber live-births - than give up any semblance of control. Yet the United Nations does not require any lower-level of sovereignty for membership!

Wouldn't it be great if we could have a cooperative world with nations helping other nations, where disagreements can be arbitrated without war, and where health issues can be addressed multilaterally? That sounds nice. How about we support the organization dedicated to this.

What are your thoughts? Is the United Nations capable of addressing the health needs of women in the developing world to reduce the number of abortions?

Happy Holidays

Every year you have people plastering bumper stickers on their cars proclaiming, "We say 'Merry Christmas.'" Radio and television talk show hosts of a certain slant proclaim there is a war on Christmas.

I have no problem with people saying "Happy holidays" because I might be celebrating Thanksgiving, Advent, Christmas, and New Years all in the span of a few weeks, so instead of listing off a series of events, you might as well bundle them.

But why not call it a "holiday tree" or something like that? This holiday that features a jolly old elf in a red cap, a yule log, an evergreen tree, and copious amounts of shopping and gift giving is NOT Christmas. So the fact that you insist on calling it Christmas is insulting to me, and maybe to anyone else that insists on celebrating Advent, and the Mass of Christ.

Eggnog and mistletoe aren't in my Bible. Giving gifts as a celebration, and not as a lifestyle of equity amongst believers is not in my Bible. None of this supports the worship of our Savior come to this world as a human.

There is a war on Christmas, and it's sold by Madison Avenue, but it's bought by Christians everywhere. The Church mortgaged Advent for consumerist indulgence.

Maybe we should simply wish a "Festive Shopping."

Same-sex marriage and the Church

I don't care if the secular government allows same-sex marriage or not, I would rather social contracts like civil unions (which is what marriages are under the law) be mediated by the courts, not the legislature. But this debate has turned into quite a fiasco. As it turns out it was religious beliefs that passed Prop 8 more than any other factor, so we have a backlash against religion, especially Christianity.

To begin we need to make it clear that when regarding legislation, there must be a secular argument made. The argument "Because that's the way God wants it" doesn't hold any muster in civil discourse. President-elect Barack Obama had a famous speech on this at a Call to Renewal Conference, and even Mike Huckabee on his latest appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart admitted as much.

The only problem is in the public, secularized argument it boils down to "we can't redefine marriage." They don't give a reason why it is wrong to redefine words, especially in the face of the facts that words do change their definitions all the time (and our present, outgoing White House administration is famous for redefining terms).

In his interview with Jon Stewart, Huckabee said it is important that the word "marriage" not be redefined because words are important. But this doesn't really hold up when you consider the word "voter" in this nation was originally defined as a white, male landowner. It was redefined to include all white males, and later to include blacks and Native Americans. And only a century ago it finally included women. And in fact "marriage" was never defined as a mutual, consensual commitment until the 19th Century. For millennia marriage was a man acquiring a wife, and this was something he could do multiple times. It was often times included in a purchase or trade for goods. If you want to get strict about the traditional definition of marriage, it must mean women are chattel to barter for property or privledge.

I am off-course. I have so far pointed out how the religious side in trying to secularize their argument has failed to make a compelling argument. I spent too much time doing so, so I will proceed.

The secular, same-sex marriage supporters see through this transparent argument and realize it really is just about the religious beliefs, and therefore see it as an imposition of religion into political discourse. And this is why there is such push back. And the whole reason why I wanted to write this post was to get to this point.

The left-wing side is now attacking the Bible and a conservative reading of scripture. The conservative Christian battle against a secular matter in a secular world has opened the doors to the secular world defining Christian doctrine. A cover story for Newsweek magazine battles not just a Biblical view of marriage but also literalism as a whole, casting doubt on anything you might pull from scripture that doesn't fit with the popular public view of love and acceptance.

Clearly this a problem. We cannot allow the secular world to define ecclesiastical doctrine. But at the same time we cannot use the combative, militant tactics the religious-right has been using for the past thirty-years. We must stand firm in our own beliefs without telling the world they have to accept it. We cannot have a defensive posture on the issue, but we can't have an offensive movement either. Instead, we should focus on the good works prepared for us from the foundation of the world. We should be focused on mercy, justice, humility, being set apart, and making disciples. We should be preparing the Bride of Christ for the wedding feast, inviting all to join us always. This is the duty of the Church.

We're not here to rule the world, Satan's already got that position and it was given to him by God. We've been given our orders, and that is to submit to the authorities, pray for the rulers, and live out quiet lives. We spend too much time making sure we live comfortable lives without persecution that we do not accept the cross we've been given to bear.

Phillipians 1:27-29

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him

Eating Mercifully