Caelum Novum

Lately I've been reading a lot about grace, salvation, predestination, etc for various classes as well as social justice. Additionally, recent conversations I have had have led me to consider also whether or not ethics are sufficient for salvation or whether piety or correct worship are part and parcel as well. In the end, this has led me to consider that perhaps heaven is not what we think it is.
First of all, I should like to suggest that there are no "hell" or "purgatory" as we traditionally conceive of them. This is by no means a novel assessment of my part. In fact, many theologians have suggested this. Most recently the pastor Rob Bell became quite famous for suggesting this, but the Catholic Church itself does not teach that there is necessarily anybody in hell and other theologians have suggested (such as Ed Vacek) have suggested that since God is love, God would not allow God's children to suffer for all eternity.
I do not mean, however, that I think there will be no suffering. I think there will be no hell. I think the concept of a firey pit and lake of brimstone might be a helpful heuristic for some, the same way thinking of God as a glowing person might, but by no means do I think there will be a place where the damned are literally dipped into molten pitch. Rather, I think those who "are in hell" will endure an eternity of self-imposed suffering.
Everyone who has ever lived will be there. Everyone from our ancestors, our close loved ones, the saints, the sinners, etc. This will be the first opportunity for people to inflict on themselves their suffering. Many people who are proud, pugnacious, self-righteous or easily-offended will find it intolerable to go through eternity with some of the other people. Thus, a man like Dante Alighieri, who ascribed all of his personal enemies various torments in hell, was probably shocked to see them all in heaven, as I'm sure they were shocked to see him. Here Jesus' "hard sayings" become especially applicable. The commandments to love our enemies, to forgive others, to make up with those who wrong us, etc, become particularly relevant when they all show up at the Lord's banquet. We can think of the parable of the workers of the vineyard who complained to the master when the people who worked the least got equal pay. God will save all of us, but that's because that's what God wants to do. If we can't accept that, then the problem lies in us.
This also has applications for those who have low-self esteem. Those who have a hard time accepting or forgiving themselves may stand in disbelief when they are in heaven. Those whose lives have been scarred by abuse, whether emotional, physical, verbal or sexual, might not think they deserve heaven. In the love commandments, Jesus commands us implicitly to love ourselves. This idea often falls on deaf ears within Christianity, but it is important for us to forgive and love ourselves just as we do for others. This is where the next important part comes in. In heaven, God's grace is freely given to all people.
God's grace has the power to heal and nurture. Those whose lives are marred and whose sense of self is broken will be redeemed by God's love as it rains down freely upon all souls. Furthermore, as we are filled with God's grace and love, we will share it with others. Thus, those who have an easier time accepting their position in heaven will share God's grace with others, especially those whose image of self is damaged. As others' lift these people up in God's love, their wounds will be healed and they will find it easier to love and forgive themselves. The same is true for those who have a hard time forgiving or loving others, thought it might take longer for this to occur as we are most in touch with ourselves. Only those with the most stubborn hearts (ie, with no will to change whatsoever) will endure "hell."
Because God's grace will be freely distributed, those whose lives were devoted to acquiring fame, power, money, or other limited commodities will find themselves shocked and offended that all of their "hard work" was for nothing. On the other hand, those who strove hard just to survive will be overly gladdened to find themselves in a place where they do not have to worry about scraping by. Those who have learned to give and share in this life will also find themselves in a state of incredible joy for they will be able to give God's grace to all without worrying about running out. In short, all the limits we have in this world due to limited resources will be removed and those who found themselves happy in that scheme will be miserable while those who found themselves miserable will be happy. Hence, "the last shall be first and the first shall be last."
Concerning piety and unbelief: I imagine that all of us, to one degree or another, will find heaven to be different from what we expected. Since I am a Christian, I imagine heaven will be a place where we spend time with the God, especially Jesus. However, I assume that since we all will be there, there will necessarily be different people from different religions. I assume that they may not all see God as we do. However, keeping in the spirit of Rahner's "anonymous Christians," I think that there will be some who accept their fate more easily than others, as I expect will be the case for Christians. Personal piety might help us become more ready for the beatific vision but only inasmuch as we do not neglect our neighbors. The dual love commandments do say that we need to love God, so I think even the most virtuous atheist will find himself troubled for awhile, but I also think that those who think God has very specific favorites (eg, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) will be shocked when they see Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc all in heaven.
So, to recap: I think that God will save us all. I think, however, that God will not alter our wills, or our dispositions. Those who find "happiness" in temporal things will find themselves lost. Those who think they have exclusive rights to heaven will find themselves offended. Those who cannot learn to forgive or love, will find themselves surrounded by enemies. Thus, our "works" in this life can help us prepare for heaven, but they will not "earn" heaven for us. Furthermore, our personal faith might help us prepare for being with God, but it will not determine whether or not we are. Thus, the teaching that those who are in hell choose it still follows, since those who will suffer in heaven will be those who choose to reject God's providence rather than embrace it.

Giftmas

As much as I like that we have an entire holiday season (Advent-the Christmas season) to celebrate the miraculous birth of the Word Incarnate, I can honestly say that I have always been a bit of a "Scrooge" when it comes to Christmas. It isn't because of the emphasis on the birth, and it isn't because of the family. It is only partly because of the endless Christmas music being played right after Thanksgiving, the store ads encouraging everyone to buy, the crowds at shopping centers and the high running emotions of everyone else. These things don't bother me as much as one particular thing: the gift exchange.
The reason why I always dread the gifts is simple: It's not really a system of giving. For one thing, often times we get what we expect. We ask for certain things, thereby, what we receive is not truly a gift, but rather is the fulfillment of a request. I ask friends for favors from time to time, and if a friend fulfills this, I don't really understand the fulfillment of a request to be on the level of gift, but more closely related to the level of promise fulfillment.
This leads to the second point. Gift exchange is exactly that: it's an exchange. I hope to get something good from those whom I am close to who have more resources. Likewise, I have to give according to my own resources. However, I am expected to give to those who give to me and I, in turn, expect a gift from those to whom I give presents. Furthermore, though I fully intend to spend something appropriate to my means, I feel guilty if my gift does not approximate the value of the received gift, and likewise the giver feels slighted. This can lead to the exact opposite goal of Christmas, which ought to bring people together, rather than create rifts within them. For this reason, Christmas gift exchange is even more emotionally and socially disruptive than is birthday gift exchange, in which one person receives with no expectation to provide similar gifts.
Third, the gifts almost always are expected to be some material possession. The children need to have the brand new toy advertised on cartoons. Adult friends may expect a fine wine or liquor, or perhaps jewelry. The gift's worth is measured not in the uniqueness, or the emotional worth, but rather the economic worth. A six-pack of beer that I brewed might be nice, but ONLY if my brew itself turned out well. A handmade piece of furniture, or art is only a "good" gift if it measures up to my expectation of aesthetic appeal. If I write you a poem, it better be framed, or published. Even these gifts, however, have more appeal to them than a gift of time. If I swear a few hours of my time to you to talk or fish or see a movie, this is not considered an adequate gift, though, in all reality, this gift improves the relationship much more than does a shiny new computer, car or television.
For this reason, gift giving functions more as an economy than as gift. Jacques Derrida speaks of the "economy of gift" an economy of giving and taking. However, he argues, the true gift is the one that can not be returned.
I agree with this. Gifts, as gifts, are not given as a sort of promissory note for something of equal value. They are not vouchers guaranteeing future gifts. This mindset, this "economics of giving" mentality creates for us a selfish social system. What kind of gift are we giving if we expect a return? Are we merely making an investment? And, if so, what is our purpose in giving the gift? We say we give gifts to each other on Christmas to commemorate Jesus' life. Sometimes we use the rationale of the gifts of the Magi, other times we compare our gifts to Jesus' gift of life (or death, to use Derrida's words). What did the Magi receive for their gifts? Certainly it wasn't eternal life, for that was given to all of humanity. What did Jesus receive for His gift? He received death! How can we expect gifts if we say we are celebrating the Incarnation?
Gift giving is strange in this way, especially in contemporary Western society. In some cultures, like certain Asian cultures and the ancient Greeks, gifts were given from a patron to the object of his affection. The wealthier, more established men or women would shower their disciples with gifts, with no expectation of return, for the mentor would probably pass on before he could be repaid. In certain Native American cultures, gifts were given as a sign of respect, and those who received them only accepted them if she deemed them worthy of her. While this fosters a sort of tributary system, the receiving party never expected to repay the gift, and thus it was, in ways, a true gift. In other cultures, gift exchange demonstrates who has the dominant position in a relationship. Whoever gives the greater gift is the more powerful and the other person is indebted, though will not pay the debt off with another gift.
While these three examples don't necessarily demonstrate what Derrida and I mean by gift, they do represent the purpose of gift much better than does the Western style of giving. For one thing, in these systems gifts are not expected. Thus, the gift itself comes as a surprise and is not a request, nor an expectation. Second, the gifts are not meant to be repayment or to equalize parties. This is important because the relationship develops a sort of dependence quality to it. The parties are loyal to each other because one feels indebted to the other, and the other is loyal out of respect for the loyalty received. In the Western system, we try to achieve independent equilibrium, maintaining that we owe nothing to anyone and preventing true relational bonding. Third, if a gift of a certain value is not expected, the gift does not have to take the form of something financially quantifiable. I can freely give you unique advice. You can freely take time you would otherwise not to spend time with me. He can devote his weekend to making sure things go well for her on an important occasion. We already do these things, but we don't consider them gifts because we have become caught up in the notion that gift must entail retail value.
Derrida's definition of gift, then, is something that cannot be repaid, something that cannot be expected or requested and cannot be thanked. It must either be anonymous or circumstances must make it impossible for the donor to receive recognition. It cannot be out of request, otherwise it is merely fulfillment of promise and thus functions more contractually than beneficently. It must be of some nature that the receiver cannot make restitution, otherwise it is merely purchase or trade.
Jesus tells us not to give for recognition (Matthew 6:1). Those who "blow a trumpet" or otherwise make a scene of their donation do so only to gain something. It is not a true gift. It is an exchange for fame, patronage, favorable recognition or legacy. Those who "do alms in secret," on the other hand, don't receive earthly reward. Of course, the verse states that God will reward those who do alms which sets up the problematic situation of doing alms to get in heaven (read: Indulgences), however, the moral theologian realizes that while the Scripture states that God will reward those who do "invisible alms" the truly beneficent person will do alms out of a sense of the good and not for some Karmic reward. The point is not whether we receive God's blessings openly but rather that we learn to enjoy giving without recognition.
Jesus also tells us when we have banquets to invite those who cannot ever hope to repay (the poor and the handicapped) (Luke 14:13). Once again, there is the promise of some sort of supernatural reparation, but, once again, the point here is not that we receive some great reward in Paradise. Rather, the point is that we ought to have those who can never repay us owe us. This is not to lord it over them, but rather, it is to teach us not to require the repayment of everything. We give to those who cannot repay us because it is no longer a gift if we have been repaid for it.
Jesus, as a gift Himself, represents the way in which gifts do NOT need to be financially estimable. "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son" (John 3:16). What monetary value is the crucifixion of Jesus? How does one calculate salvation? Is there a special box on our tax forms for the gift of Grace? One cannot put a price tag on a human life, especially if that life happens to be God become man. Thus, we see that God demonstrates this gift form best of all, for no amount of money can be equivalent to the gift of Jesus.
We see in Jesus, then, the ultimate, and true, gift. In Jesus' death, He gave us something that He could receive no personal recognition for. While we now venerate and worship Jesus, we cannot personally thank Him, and even as he hung on the cross, he received not so much as an expression of gratitude. Rather, he received scorn and abuse from most, and, at best, the weeping and wailing of a few. He also gave us something we can never pay back the "gift of death." Jesus died for us, and we cannot, in turn, die for Jesus in the same way. Jesus' death provides for us. The best we can do, in turn, is to die in His name, though it does nothing personally for Him, for He is already saved and is already risen (however, in the case of the martyrs, if it comes down to dying for Him and denying Him, much theology suggests right relation with Christ requires not denying Him). Finally, as previously mentioned, there is no monetary value one can fix for the Passion, death and resurrection.
Thus, if I might leave but one thing with you for this Christmas season, and indeed, for all year around, it's that the true meaning of Christmas is not found in the manger, nor the jolly red-suited saint and especially not in the public exchange of items of equal value. Rather, the true meaning of Christmas lies in Christ's ultimate gift for us, a gift of death and life, a gift that we can never repay and a gift that we can never thank Him enough for.

Overkill

Today I heard something quite strange on the news. President Obama and Premier Putin are discussing a new START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in order to improve the general safety of the world. I've been glancing over the treaty, and it really doesn't look all that drastic. It allows both the United States 1550 total nuclear warheads (a piece), 800 ICBM and SLBM launchers, and 700 deployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and bombers. The treaty is also supposed to require both countries to disclose the locations of their nuclear weapons.
This, in and of itself, would not be too noteworthy. Granted, one might comment that the fact that nuclear weapons are still around is scary, but because of the history of the world, I think it is not that interesting.
However, what I do find a bit intimidating is that this is a REDUCTION. Current estimates show that the US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, and Russia has over 15,000. We may be planning on dropping down to a few thousand, but are we really fixing things?
Consider the following: when the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, it killed about 350,000 people. Bombs today are usually about twenty times as powerful. A bomb dropped on New York City would most likely kill the majority of the 9 million people there, and would cause long term effects (radiation poisoning and cancer) for the rest. Bombs sent to just New York, LA, Chicago, Boston and Washington would kill off about a tenth of the nation (five bombs). Think what 1550 could do.
We've tried to distance ourselves from the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the 50s and 60s, but we still cling to it. There is no possibly beneficial reason for having such great stockpiles of such malicious weapons. 1550 nuclear warheads would do just as much damage as 15000 (or, in the 70s, as many as 25000). It seems to me that even possession of nuclear stockpiles is a bad idea. As many satires and social commentaries of the Cold War taught us, the idea of MAD falls apart once situations get heated. Rather than turning to negotiation tactics, the fear is that hot heads and short tempers in moments of crisis would lead to the (rather easy) result of launching a few hundred or thousand nuclear weapons.
Generals and war tacticians told us that the threat of mutual destruction was the deterrent. Of course, this idea of "deterrence" is similar to the half-baked idea that executing criminals deters people from committing heinous crimes. Of course, crime rates have not really dropped since the death penalty was reinstated in 1985, and executions have actually risen. The main point is that the threat of violence does not really deter violence.
Terry Eagleton, a renowned literature critic and defender of theism, said once that if one nation launches weapons against the other, the other one has no duty to launch back, but in fact has an ethical duty to not retaliate. Destruction of all mankind is a dire price to pay in order to "get back." Simply because one country is obliterated, this does not mean that the ethical thing to do is to erradicate the second. Genocide is not an ethically viable option. So the threat of mutual destruction even proves to be a grossly unethical proposition.
But the truly, absolutely scariest thing is that this treaty is facing some controversy in congress. Republicans are loath to ratify the bill because, many of them argue, it will reduce our nuclear capability. It baffles me that we would elect men and women who would take such a position. I find it disconcerting and utterly nauseating that our fears would not be that we have too many nuclear weapons.
And then, many of these representatives have the nerve to call themselves Christians. Jesus, the man who said, "I a man strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also," and "Love your enemy. Do good to those who despitefully use you." How can someone claim to follow this teaching but still hold on to the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction? How can we, as American people, settle for such a slap in the face of decency?

Pride

"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.

Only a God Can Save us

The famous (though controversial) German atheist philosopher Martin Heidegger once said, with regards to the human condition and the reality of alienation, "Only a god can save us." From a Christian standpoint, this statement seems ironic. An integral part of Christian belief is the doctrine that Jesus is God Incarnate, and that through Jesus we are saved, thus, God has saved us. However, Heidegger was an atheist. This rouses (in my mind at least) interesting questions about atheism and the true condition of humanity.
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?

Our True Calling as Christians

I feel somewhat inclined to write about the Abortion issue and President Obama's visit to Notre Dame. However, because the issue has been so played out over the last few weeks, I do not feel the need.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.

In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancte

Yikes, this is a hard topic to discuss.
But, I will be giving a lecture on the subject tomorrow, with respect to how the Mormon Church views it, so I better be able to say something.
The Mormon view of the Trinity is that the Trinitarian formula has specifically Hellenic formulaic components. I'm not sure how this is the case. With Platonic and Aristotelian Providential formulae, God is seen as a single source of wisdom, light, goodness and truth in the universe. But Hellenism generally has polytheistic roots (viz Zeus, Hercules, Hermes, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, etc).
But I have specific reasons for believing in a Trinitarian formula. I will explain this as I explained it to my sister. When we speak of perfection, we generally speak of it in terms of some specific quality. A perfect circle would only be perfect in terms of its roundness. But, there could be other perfect circles because if the circle is only perfect in terms of its roundness, then other cirlces, of different sizes can also be perfect.
However, if the circle is perfect in all aspects, then there can be no other perfect circle. Another perfect circle would be the exact same circle (mathematically speaking). If a perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, then every perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, but there every single perfectly round circle that has a radius of 2 centimeters is exactly the same in every way possible with regards to its circleness. Thus, it can only be the same circle. If there are no differences, there can be no way of distinguishing between them, then they cannot be different.
With regards to human beings, we can say that people are different because they also have some distinguishing characteristics that mark them as separate. There cannot be more than one perfect thing of any particular genus. Otherwise, the two would be indistinguishable from each other.
So, let's say there's something that is complete perfection. Not "a perfect thing x," but actual perfection itself. Thus everything about this particular thing would be perfect. There would be no flaws, no problems, nothing "wrong" about this thing. Then obviously, as I think I've explained there could never be anything else that could be perfect.
So we'd have to call this one perfect thing something. Let's call it God. This fits in with a Thomist metaphysical view of God. God is Goodness, Beauty, Oneness, and Truth. Furthermore, this fits the "omni"s: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. So let's say there's one of these. How can there be a second perfect thing? There can't. So, if there's a God that fits these descriptions, there can be only one.
Then, if Jesus is God, if the Father is God and if the Holy Spirit is God, then there can be only one God. These three can be perfect, and perfection, but if and only if they are one.

What would Jesus do?

So I saw something that I would label not only as offensive, but also in bad taste. The man above, who looks like such a great citizen with his family, hired a plane to fly around my campus showing the entire Notre Dame and South Bend communities an image of a dead human fetus.
Why did he do this? He looks like such a great family man, complete with American flag and small children to show how much of a great guy he is. This is Randall Terry, and he is a terrorist. No, he doesn't blow things up, take hostages or kill people, but he has threatened the joyous events of Notre Dame's graduation and has even gone so far as to send proponents of abortion dead fetuses.
He does all these things in the name of Christ and supposedly against abortion. There is more than a little in his claim that makes my skin crawl.
Christ advocated peace, mercy, and a mild-manner. "Blessed are the meek," he said, "blessed are the poor in spirit...blessed are the peacemakers." Where in Christ's teachings are extremist measures propagated? Where does Christ advocate offending children, women, and people with dignity? What place do shock-and-awe efforts have in the Kingdom of God?
A lot of people have called President Obama a great many things. Some have called him a murderer. Some have compared him to Hitler.
But what would Jesus do? Jesus mingled with the publicans in the market place. Jesus ate with publicans at supper. Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, a man who killed thousands in his tenure as governor, and faced him, not scorning or abusing him, but respectfully entering in dialogue with him.
It is my personal, and I would argue supportable, opinion that Jesus Himself would have been fine with President Obama speaking at Notre Dame's commencement. Yes, he might support legislation with terrible, immoral consequences. But this is no reason to turn him away. St Paul stood before King Agrippa and, instead of railing against him, met him as an equal, which ledd to the king's statement "Almost you have convinced me to become a Christian."
Christ was the perfect example of reaching out to people in friendship. He befriended harlots, beggars and tax collectors. He attacked the elite, those who thought they were justified in their religious beliefs. Christ's message is clear: we must reach out to those who we think we should despise. On the other hand, we should not feel secure in our convictions of our security and our own righteousness.