Take the Long Way Home

My father used to give me material to read. Much of this was highly anti Catholic literature in the guise of “history”. I think most of us are familiar with this, those that claim that the Catholic Church was corrupted by paganism over the centuries, and that we can find clues of this in the Bible (of course we must make sure that our interpretations of that Bible fit certain models or this will all come crashing down). One of these claims was that Catholicism was influenced by the Philistine religion centered on Dagon the Fish God. The “proof” for this was the Pope’s hat.

I’m embarrassed to say that I bought this hook, line and sinker. I looked at the pictures of Pope John Paul II in his Bishop’s mitre put next to some old carvings of this Dagon with a fish on his head, and thought, “yup, those evil Catholics are at it again, but they can’t fool me, no sirree!”

It never occurred to me to do any research on this Dagon fellow, why would anyone want to lead me astray on this issue? Didn’t the people presenting this “history lesson” do their own research? Apparently they didn’t. For some reason, this week, I decided to do my own research. And here is what I found:

Every site which claims to be “Christian” repeats (almost word for word) the same claims that I was familiar with. They talk about the worship of this “fish god” Dagon by the Philistines, they even claim that there is a reference to him in the Bible (when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant, it was placed before a deity called Dagan, in Hebrew, and the arms and head fell off the statue leaving it’s “trunk”. For some strange reason, that I have not been able to authenticate, certain Biblical translators in the 13^th century said that this word for “trunk” was describing a fish body (the “Christian” sites I visited claimed there was a Hebraic similarity between these words that led them to make this translation even though it doesn’t fit the context of the passage). These sites then claim that it is this image that is resurrected in the bishop’s mitre (they might not be aware that all bishops wear this hat, not just the Pope).

But what do the non religious sites have to say about Dagon?

From Wikipedia:

Dagon was a major Semetic god, of grain and agriculture. He was worshiped by the early Amorites and also the Biblical Philistines. The etymological root of the name is dgn (in Ugartic) and dagan (in Hebrew). According to the Phoenician author Sanchuniathon, “And Dagon, after he discovered grain and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios” (arotrios means ploughman).

The god Dagon first appears in records about 2500 BC. He is mentioned occasionally in early Sumerian texts, but only becomes prominent in later inscriptions as a powerful and warlike protector. In the preface to his law code, Hammurabi calls himself, “the subduer of the settlements along the Euphrates with the help of Dagan, his creator.” In an Assyrian poem, Dagon appears as a judge of the dead. A late Babylonian text makes him the underworld prison warder of the seven children of the god Emmesharra. It is likely that Marnas was the Hellenistic expression of Dagon, whose temple was burned by the Roman emperor in 402. The sanctuaries paving stones were used by the Christians to pave the public marketplace.

There is a tradition that the name Dagon is related to the word dag, in Hebrew, which means fish and that Dagon was imagined in the shape of a merman (similar to the Babylonian fish-god Oannes). In 1928 the theory was asserted that Dagon was never originally a fish god, but once he became an important god of maritime cities he evolved (much like he evolves in other cities from god of agriculture to god of the dead) into one.

The Jewish Encyclopedia had this to say:

Not much is known about the worship of Dagon. But Dagon’s temple at Ashdod (mentioned in Scripture) was burned by Jonathan Maccabee (according to Josephus).

And from Encyclopedia Mythica:

Dagon was also the father of Baal. Among the Canaanites, baal eventually assumed the position of god of fertility, which Dagon had previously occupied. Dagon was sometimes associated with the mermaid deity Derceto (which may account for the theory of Dagon being portrayed as a merman). Little else is known about Dagon, but his prominent role in the Philistine religion is quite evident.

It is known, however, that the Philistines imported Dagon from Babylonia. The notion that Dagon was a god whose upper body was that of a man and the lower body of a fish has been prevalent for decades. This idea may stem from a linguistic error in translating a derivative of the Semitic dag. The word dagan means corn or cereal. There is no archaeological record to support the theory that Dagon was represented by a merman (despite those who taut Phoenician coins).

About.com claims that the half man half fish figure is kullulu, an Assyrian god. And from about the 4^th century, the figure was associated (probably erroneously) with the god Dagon.

Here’s the main problem with researching Dagon. There’s just not much out there! Not much is known. I couldn’t find anything, nothing at all, that described the worship of Dagon. The reason for this is that his worship died out so long ago. The very latest dates I could find for anyone worshiping Dagon was in 402 AD (and this is only if you buy the idea that the Greeks were worshiping Dagon as Marnas. And did you notice who sent the worshipers of Marnas packing? It was the Christians who destroyed the last vestiges of Marnas worship. It’s hard for me to believe they destroyed the temple, then incorporated the religion into Christianity, without any historical evidence to back it up!). Most of his followers were gone by the advent of Jesus!

But… I can hear you arguing. 402 AD gives plenty of time for Dagon’s influence to be felt in Christianity. What about the Pope’s hat? Don’t worry, I’m getting to that…

The history of the bishop’s mitre:

From Wikipedia.com:

The mitre is the ceremonial headdress of bishops. It was originally a cap used by officials of the Imperial Byzantine court. It’s use dates back at least to the 8^th century.

In Western Europe, the mitre was first used at Rome about the middle of the 10^th century, and outside Rome about the year 1000 AD. The first written mention of it is found in a Bull of Pope Leo IX in 1049. By 1150 the use had spread to bishops throughout the West.

In the West, the mitre is a tall folding cap, consisting of two similar parts rising to a peak (like the Pope wears). In the East, the mitre is based on the closed Imperial crown of the late Byzantine Empire. It is made in the shape of a bulbous crown, completely enclosed. In the Coptic tradition, bishops wear a ballin, wound around the head like a turban. Syriac bishops wear a richly embroidered hood.

Catholic.com had this to say:

From the 17^th century much has been written concerning the length of time the mitre has been worn. Some say it extends back to the Apostles, some say to the 8^th or 9^th centuries, some say not until the second millenium. But most evidence holds that the mitre was first used in Rome in the middle of the 10^th century, and outside Rome about the year 1000 AD.

As regards shape, there is such a difference between the mitre of the 11^th century and that of the 20^th century that it is hard to recognize the same ornamental head covering in the two. In its earliest form the mitre was a simple cap of soft material, which ended above in a point, while around the lower edge there was generally and ornamental band. Towards 1100 AD the mitre began to have a curved shape and to grow into a round cap. In many cases there appeared a depression in the upper part. In about 1125 AD these round curves had developed more into horn like points on either side of the head. This mitre transitioned into the type of mitre we most see today, which is pointed in the back and front, instead of left and right. Up until the 14^th century this mitre had been more wide than tall, but from then on the mitre slowly but steadily increased in height. Another change in the 15^th century was the sides were no longer made vertical, but diagonal.

In the Greek Rite liturgical head covering weren’t worn by all bishops until the 18^th century, before that only the Patriarch of Alexandria wore one. The Greek mitre is a high hat which swells out toward the top with a cross on the top.

Sooooo. Essentially, what I learned was, nobody (at least nobody in the historical world) knows much about Dagon. Historians can’t even decide what he was the god of, much less how he was depicted. Depending on which city you lived in, you probably worshiped him differently. His religion died out in the BC years for the most part, although it’s possible there were a few hangers on as late as 402 AD. But the mitre doesn’t appear until the mid 10^th century. And then there’s the problem that the mitre itself has gone through many stages, most of which don’t look anything like the representation that the anti Catholics claim to be identical to the fish head of Dagon’s priests. And then there is the fact that an entire sect of Catholicism (the Eastern Rite Catholics) don’t wear the Western style mitre to this day. So to believe what the anti Catholics have to say you have to believe that Western Christians resurrected a long dead religion (one that they themselves helped to stamp out the last vestiges of) sometime in the 15^th century (that’s when the mitre most closely resembles the one today). This would be after the Protestant Reformation, by the way. Who would believe this???

I’ve heard more than once that the Catholic Church is all “pomp and circumstance”. What does this mean to those who say it, and are they correct?

First of all, what is “pomp and circumstance”? Well, technically it’s a piece of music, the music that is played at graduations while the graduates walk down the aisle in order to be recognized for their achievements. Since this music is played at pretty much every graduation in the country, people must not have that much against it. So I went to the dictionary.

Pomp, according to Webster, is a stately or brilliant display; splendor; magnificence. But also can be an ostentatious show or display.

Circumstance means several different things, the definition that most seem to fit was one of the last given; it was ceremony or show.

So, I guess what people are trying to say is that the Catholic Church is putting on a show, an ostentatious show. Lots of glitz and glamour without any substance. Where do they get this idea? I keep looking back at Webster’s first definition of pomp, and I can’t help but think, “doesn’t God deserve a stately display? Splendor? Magnificence?”

Where do folks get the idea that God wants simplicity? That God doesn’t want ceremony and beauty in worship?

When the President of the United States walks into a room, everyone stands. Why? Standing is a common form of respect. When we remain seated while the President enters we are making a statement. We are saying that we do not respect this man or his position and we refuse to show him respect. In other words, we disrespect him.

When the Queen of England walks into a room there is quite a bit of ceremony involved. Standing, saluting, kneeling, and all to music playing. Anyone who refuses to follow tradition here will be thrown out on their ear!

As a general rule, we have no problem giving head’s of state their due. Why do we think God deserves less? Shouldn’t He get more pageantry than some Queen or President? In the Old Testament, God was pretty specific about worship. Where is should be held, who should preside, what they should wear, what the surroundings should look like. So what did God prescribe for himself?

Exodus 31:1-11

The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled h im with a divine spirit of skill and understanding and knowledge in every craft in the production of embroidery, in making things of gold, silver or bronze, in cutting and mounting precious stones, in carving wood, and in every other craft. As his assistant I have appointed Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. I have also endowed all the experts with the necessary skill to make all the things I have ordered you to make: the meeting tent, the ark of the commandments with the propitiatory on top of it, all the furnishings of the tent, the table with its appurtenances, the pure gold lamp stand with all its appurtenances, the altar of incense, the altar of holocausts with all its appurtenances, the laver with its base, the service cloths, the sacred vestments for Aaron the priest, the vestments for his sons in their ministry, the anointing oil, and the fragrant incense for the sanctuary. “

Exodus 36:8-19

The tent coverings were made of fine linen twisted, having cherubim embroidered on them with violet, purple and scarlet yarn… Then fifty clasps of gold were made, with which the sheets were joined so that the dwelling formed one whole… Fifty bronze clasps were made (to join the sheets of goat hair)… A covering for the tent was made out of ram’s skins dyed red…”

I know this is a lot of quoting, but I hope I’m making my point. Exodus continues with the description of the Ark: made of acacia wood, inside and outside were coated with gold. The propitiatory was made of pure gold. Two cherubim, made of beaten gold, covered the propitiatory.

The Table was made of acacia wood, plated with pure gold. The vessels to go on the table were also to be fashioned out of pure gold.

The Lampstand was to be made of beaten pure gold.

Altars were made of bronze.

And all of this was while the Israelites were wandering around in the desert! God said, “get me the very best artisans and materials that can be offered, and worship me with those.”

When Solomon built the Temple, he built it out of stone. The inside was lined with cedar that was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers. The interior of the temple was pure gold. The altar was pure gold, in fact the entire temple was coated in pure gold. In the sanctuary were two cherubim made of olive wood and overlaid with gold. The walls on all sides of both the inner and outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. Everything overlaid with gold. (1 Kings chap 6, chap 7 goes on to describe the Temple furnishings)

Now lets move on to the New Testament. In Revelation, John has a vision of the throne room of heaven, in this throne room there is an altar, golden incense bowls, and creatures who fall to the ground before God and sing his praises. John’s vision also includes a glimpse of the “new heaven and new earth”. The New Jerusalem is described as having foundations decorated with every precious stone, gates made of pearls, streets made of gold.

Okay, so obviously God likes the ornate, the beautiful, the rare, and He likes it to be fashioned by experts, by those who can give the material its due. What about ceremony? Do we have any picture of God being casual? Of God not caring how He is approached? Of God saying, “worship me old way you want”? We are told to worship Him in spirit and truth, but does that mean the material is no longer important? Then what is God doing mentioning it again in Revelation?! Does spirit and truth equal the fundamentalist understanding of simplicity?

In the OT, God again was very specific about ceremony. So specific, and so serious, that when the prescribed rituals were not followed death came to those who profaned God by not following his ordinances (see Leviticus 10). Everything was ordered in the minutest detail. Why would this God, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, suddenly change His preference for worship? And then change it back again in the end (with Rev)? If the worship that God prescribed for Israel was to be completely thrown out with Jesus, then why did the Apostles continue to meet in the Temple on the Sabbath? Even after Sunday, the Lord’s Day, became the meeting day of Christians? Why are things in heaven (at least according to the glimpses we’ve been given in Isaiah and Revelation) so formal? Why do much bowing and singing? Why are there altars in heaven? How does the fundamentalist explain these things?

When they want to argue that the “early church” met in people’s houses, I will agree. In fact you can tour some of these homes if you visit Rome. But inside you will find altars (like the ones in heaven), you will find evidence of ceremony. They had no buildings or fancy accouterments while the Roman government was persecuting them purely for being Christians! They also met in the catacombs to avoid this persecution. But how does this speak to ceremony? Do you really think that the Apostles, who were steeped in the symbolism of Judaism, didn’t see the parallels between what they were used to and the new revelation they were given from Christ? Where is the idea that the Apostles led worship in homes and later in cemeteries with no ordinances, no ceremony? And you will also notice, if you read Eusebius, that as soon as the persecutions died down (not completely, but by around 200 AD) you find Christians worshiping in buildings. Buildings that were dedicated to the worship of God (this was why they were destroyed by the Roman Emperors who liked to persecute Christians).

Is the Catholic Church full of “pomp and circumstance”? I certainly hope so. God deserves whatever finery we can come up with. God deserves much more pomp than we give to mere Heads of State. I want to worship Him in the way that most closely matches what He reveals in Scripture to like. Why should our churches not resemble the New Jerusalem?

Matthew 12, 13

We see in chap 11 that the cities weren’t responding to Jesus’ call to repentence.  In chap 12 we see how the leaders of Israel are not responding either and instead are plotting against him.

vs 15-21 - Isaiah 42 is fulfilled by Jesus.  Isaiah was telling Israel what their role was and now Matthew is telling us that Jesus is fulfilling Israel’s role.

vs 23 - people ask if Jesus is the Messiah, but the Pharisees say he is demonic. 

vs 25 - Jesus is saying that Satan wouldn’t fight against himself because he would lose.  But he is also alluding to Israel - which was a kingdom divided against itself.  Civil war so weakened them that they fell prey to conquest.  Israel to the Assyrians and Judah to the Babylonians.  Throughout Jesus’ ministry he is calling up the most pivotal moments in Israel’s history and applying them to himself.  Jesus here says - if you fight against me, you are fighting against Israel.  You are creating another civil war!

vs 28 - the Kingdom of God is present!

vs 31 - blasphemy against the Spirit.  What is this unpardonable sin?  If we look back to hte context of how Jesus is using the term Spirit, we go back to Isaiah 12 - the Spirit of the Lord is on him (Jesus), then the Pharisees accuse Jesus of doing miracles through the power of Satan.  Jesus says, no, through the power of the Spirit of God.  So the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is what the Pharisees were doing - attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan!  If you deny the Holy Spirit you have no avenue to grace and truth.

13:1 - notice here that Jesus “went out of the house”  and speaks to the people in parables, but they don’t understand.  Then in vs 36 he goes back “into the house” and explains the teaching he gave “out of the house”.  What house is this?  They were in Capernaum, so it was Peter’s house.  So, outside of Peter’s house there is no understanding, but inside of Peter’s house the explanation comes. 

     *this is interesting, but I don’t have enough background in tradition here to comment fully.  Dr. Gray makes a big deal about this, and I understand why.  Peter’s house is an obvious allusion to the papacy, the church.  Understanding comes from the church, specifically from Peter. 

Chapter 13 is all parables about the Kingdom of God

vs 10-17 - parables conceal the message.  When the disciples ask why Jesus speaks in parables he quotes Isaiah 6, which is Isaiah’s vision of God’s throne in heaven.  Isaiah’s response to seeing God is recognition of his own uncleanliness, the seraphim touches Isaiah’s lips with a hot coal.  The seraphim then says, “now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin is purged.” (this is what the priest says to the people when they receive communion in the Byzantine Church - this that has touched your lips has taken away your sins.  The early church saw this as a prefigurement of the eucharist).  Isaiah is told to say to the people, this same quote that Jesus says - “you shall indeed hear but not understand…”.  Isaiah asks, “how long?”  He knows that God wants his people to repent and turn to him, so he knows God must have a plan.  When he asks how long God replies, “until the cities are desolate… and the earth is a desolate waste.”  Obviously something pretty severe has to happen to make the people ready to hear Isaiah’s message.  Jesus is saying, “I have a message similar to Isaiah’s, I preach but the people aren’t ready to hear it.  They will not understand until they have gone through a trial or tribulation (which will happen with his crucifixion.  Jesus takes the trial on himself and the first person to recognize Jesus as the Son of God is the centurian, when Jesus’ side is pierced - he says, “truly this man was the Son of God.  The hearing and understanding happens through the cross)  So Jesus is not saying, I don’t want the people to ever understand.  He is saying there has to be a process (just like in the OT).

Chap 11-12

Chap 11 begins with a question from John the Baptist’s disciples to Jesus, “Are you the One to come?”. Jesus answers, “Go tell John what you’ve seen and what you hear, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, etc.” This answer doesn’t make sense unless you look at Isaiah 35 which talks about the good news of the new exodus. So Jesus’ answer is basically, Yes I’m the Messiah bringing the good news of the new kingdom. Then Jesus asks a question of the crowd, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine clothing? Those who wear fine clothing live in royal palaces. Then why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.”

There is a king in the history of Israel who was described as a reed shaken in the wind because he was weak, so this could be a reference to this story. But interestingly, the image on the coins of the day, put out by Herod, had a picture of a reed blowing in the wind (he couldn’t put his own image on them because this would seem like idolatry, equating himself with a god like Caesar). So this could be Jesus saying, “Who did you go into the wilderness to see, a king? Dressed in fine kingly clothes? No, you went looking for a prophet. You know you won’t find the kingdom of God with Herod.”

vs 20 cities don’t repent

vs 25 Herod’s court isn’t getting the message, instead the tax collectors, the sinners

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light… What does Jesus mean here? The imagery of the yoke could go back to the farming image of the oxen and the yoke they carry, but there is another level of imagery here. The story of Rehaboam and Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12 is during a civil war in Israel. Solomon had treated the nation badly, over taxed them to carry on his building projects to the point that they were oppressed. Rhehaboam is taking over as king, and Jeroboam comes and says, Your father was burdensome to us so lighten our yoke and we will serve you. Rhehaboam asks his advisors and the old men said, do it, lighten the burden, but the young men said, tell them that as hard as my father was I’ll be even harder! So Israel, the 10 tribes, revolt and the kingdom is split. They split over the heaviness of the yoke put on them by the house of David. So Jesus comes and says that His burden is light, his Kingship will not be oppressive. Jesus is reuniting the 12 tribes, reestablishing the Kingdom - doing what Rheaboam did not do. Jesus choosing 12 apostles is symbolic of the 12 tribes off Israel, but it is deeper - the tribes had been split and never during the physical kingdom of Israel were united again- but Jesus choosing 12 apostles is symbolic of the reuniting of the 12 tribes of Israel, the complete Kingdom.

chap 12 - the Pharisees rebuke Jesus for the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. He tells the story of David eating the shew bread (notice that the disciples are breaking the Sabbath, but Jesus does not! He observes the law). 1 Samuel 21 - David is running away from Saul, after being falsely accused of treason. David runs to the Tabernacle where the ark of the covenant is. The high priest questions David and he replies to the priest with a half truth (he says the king has “charged” him with a matter. He has been charged with treason, but he lets the priest think he has been charged with a secret mission!). He asks the high priest for bread, but all he has is the show bread. The priest allows David and his men to eat the bread IF he has abstained from sex (the army would abstain during battle to consecrate themselves the mission).

The parallel that Jesus is drawing is between himself and David, his men and David’s. Jesus (like David) is hunted by the leaders of Israel, but he himself (like David) is the true leader of Israel, the true Anointed One of God.

Vs 7 - Jesus quotes the passage, I desire mercy and not sacrifice - Hosea. Yet the Pharisees are trying to sacrifice Jesus, they are not looking for God’s love and mercy!

Vs 9 - Jesus heals on the Sabbath. Psalm 137:5 speaks of a right hand withering. Jeroboam’s, King of Israel who revolted against Rhehaboam, right hand withers when he tries to have the prophet of God arrested. Jesus, as King, heals the withered right hand, this is symbolic of His restoring the kingdom.

Matthew 6

“Father” is mentioned 17 times in the Sermon on the Mount. The overall message is - we are children of the Father, children of God, sons of the King.

In chapter 6 when Jesus teaches us how to pray, he teaches us to address God as our Father (notice he didn’t say *my* father, but *our* father. The Kingdom is the Church collectively. The gospel is not about me as an individual, but the whole church, the whole kingdom. It’s about us!). When we approach God in prayer and worship we don’t approach him alone, sot we must be at peace with our brothers and sisters (back in chap 5) who are approaching him with us. We must love our brothers and sisters and not be angry with them because they belong to the Father also.

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name (we are told in Exodus what God’s name is and that we are to keep it holy)

Your kingdom come (this is Jesus’ mission), your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (this is how the kingdom comes - by following the will of our Father).

Give us this day our daily bread

Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors

And lead us not into temptation (in Greek, temptation here means tribulation, the testing. The Jews believed that there would be a tribulation, a time of testing, before the restoration of the kingdom)

And deliver us from evil (or from the evil one, as it reads in Greek)

Jesus says, “don’t worry”. This is a hallmark of Christian living. As a child of God, a child of the Father, you should live your life with a deep seated sense that this is true. That God is truly our father and he will take care of us. You trust God, trust his plan.

Jesus tells us to seek first the kingdom and the other things we need will be taken care of. To be the people of God, we must look first to his kingdom (his church), trusting in God, who is our Father.

Matthew 5

Jesus’ giving of the Sermon on the Mount is the giving of a new law. The law of the New Covenant. We are called to be salt and light to the world. Jesus is taking on the role and mission of Israel. Israel was called to be a light and blessing to the nations. God’s promise to Abraham was that the nations would be blessed through him.

Jesus calls us to be a light and blessing to the nations. The beatitudes are a blueprint for how to be light and salt to the world. How we can bless others by our behavior - others receive the blessing of God through us.

Matthew ends his gospel with the Great Commission - go out and tell the nations what I’ve taught you. The mission of Christians is to go out and be light to the world - to live out the beatitudes. St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel at all times, if necessary use words.” This is a great example of how we are to teach with our lives, not just our words.

Jesus expounds and intensifies the Old Testament law. The OT law says, “Don’t kill”, Jesus says, “don’t even be angry”. As Christians we are to be at peace with each other; we are to resolve our problems before we worship.

When it comes to divorce, we are not to do it! If we resolve our problems without anger and resentment (without holding grudges), and we don’t look lustfully at others, then divorce wouldn’t be much of an issue! If we, as Christians, would live this - not holding grudges, working out our anger issues, living purely, not looking at others as sexual objects, then our marriages would look different than the world’s. Not only would our marriages last, they would be happy! We would be light!

This isn’t about how to jump through hoops to get to heaven when we die, but how to live now. Getting to heaven is important, but Jesus is telling us how to also have happiness on earth.

How did the early Christians convert Rome? The Christians stood out because of the way they lived. During times of plague, only Christians would minister to the afflicted. They stayed when the rest of the populace deserted the cities to avoid the sickness. Mother Theresa is a modern day example of this - she ministered to the forgotten, the throw aways. Not so they will convert, but because she was living the beatitudes. She was salt and light through her actions. Christianity is not just a creed to believe in, but a way of life to be practiced.

When Jesus says, “turn the other cheek”and “if someone forces you to go one mile, go two”, he was speaking to the daily lives of the Jews living in a Roman dominated country. Jesus is telling them to “go the extra mile”! This is loving our enemies in a very tangible way! Why? Why love your enemies? What happens when the Israelites buck Roman rule? How does this hamper the mission of the Israelites to be a light? A blessing to the nations? You can’t bring a blessing to people you hate. Are the Romans unjust and cruel? Yes! But Jesus says, “remember your vocation. You are to teach them the truth about God. How can you witness to them if you hate and resist them? For them to be receptive of our mission, they must be loved and forgiven.”

Jesus embodies this mission. When Jesus is struck, beaten, etc. He doesn’t resist. But also notice that he is not totally silent, he is not a doormat that anyone can walk on. When he is struck, he says, “what have I done?” But he doesn’t strike back. When Jesus is stripped of his clothes, he doesn’t retaliate. When he is forced to carry his cross, he does so. Jesus lives out his own words. He doesn’t ask us to do something he isn’t willing to do.

There were many obstacles to my reconcilliation with the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.  One was that very claim!  Most were the usual suspects:  Mary and the Saints, the Catholic view of justification, apostolic succession, etc.  But all of those obstacles could pretty easily be defeated with a little study.  The doctrinal differences between Catholicism and my own personal preference in protestantism were resolved by intellectual means.  I looked at a problem, looked at what this side had to say, looked at what that side had to say and essentially chose the side that made the most sense logically.  Which side has Scripture and history on their side?  Which covers the most angles, etc.  But there was one obstacle that didn’t fit this pattern.  It’s the obstacle I still fight against most… miracles.

Yes, miracles.  You see, I’m a fairly rational person (hormonal and personal issues aside).  I like facts and figures, statistics, things I can prove.  Roman emperors seeing visions in the sky I have a problem with.  Little children seeing Our Blessed Lady on a country hillside I don’t know how to handle.  Young girls digging up buried swords behind altars I scoff at.  And then we get into bilocation?  statues that cry?  hosts that bleed?

How am I supposed to reconcile these kinds of claims with my rational, logical faith? 

The truly ironic thing is I have no problem believing in the crazy miraculous claims in Scripture.  I believe that Elisha looked up and saw an entire army of angels ready to defend Isreal against her enemies.  I believe that Moses held out his rod and the Red Sea parted.  I believe that Joseph actually interpreted dreams.  I believe that Jacob wrestled with an angel.  I believe that Zechariah spoke with an angel who struck him dumb.  I believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus, who was 100% man and 100% God!  I believe that the apostles went around healing people…

The difference, I think, is that I have always been taught that Scripture is true.  From the time I was little I was told those miracles and I was encouraged to believe them.  I was even taught to base my faith on them (as proof of God’s power and faithfulness).  But the others, well, the others were “Catholic” stories.  Made up by people who were trying to control others weaker than themselves.  There was no “proof” for these stories, so they were tossed aside (it was somehow okay that the Bible stories have no “proof” to back them up). 

Reguardless of the “why”, this was my major obstacle.  These “Catholic” stories of the miraculous.

On recommendation, I read the book Padre Pio: Man of Hope.  This one little book began to crumble my defenses.  It began to make me question my critical stance against “miracles”.  Why?  Because I discovered that the Catholic Church loved reason and logic as much as I did.  Because I discovered that they like “proof” too. 

Can they “prove” that Constantine actually saw a cross in the sky and that influenced him?  Of course not.  Can they prove that Joan of Arc “knew” where the sword was buried?  Of course not.  But they put any and all claims to the test.  The strictest tests that are possible.  (these days there are not much more than medical miracles that can be “proven” objectively and the RCC goes to great lengths to make sure that everything is documented (both from before and after the “miracle”) properly and that several doctors examine the evidence.  The most impressive fact was that they don’t rely on Catholic doctors, but try to find atheists and agnostic doctors who people can’t accuse of being biased.)  Can all things be proven?  Of course not, BUT, they don’t ask me to blindly believe.  In fact, I don’t have to believe any of those “miracles” (I do have to believe the ones recorded in Scripture, but beyond that the Church only states that certain miracles are “official”, which only means that they have been studied carefully and that they don’t contradict the faith.)  

Above all, the Church has convinced me that she is not gullible, that she doesn’t check her brain at the door.  This was most comforting to find out.

I have a new friend with whom I went to dinner last night.  In talking about where we came from, etc, my new friend mentioned that she and her husband used to be Catholic, but they didn’t like all the “man made rules”.  She already knew I was Catholic, so I’m not sure how she meant for this to go over.  I made no comment and just let her go on, she talked about how the only thing that was important was that one had “accepted Jesus into their hearts” and “lived a good life” and “does it really matter if one goes to church”, “but I know the Catholic Church is different” she says to me, sort of apologetically, like she doesn’t want to offend me.  Too late… I’m offended.  But not really by my new friend, she only repeated (in exact words) what I’ve heard often enough before. 

Is the Catholic Church full of man made rules?  If so what does this mean exactly?  How is this different from the non denominational church that my friend attends?  Do they not espouse any rules?  Do they agree that it doesn’t matter if one doesn’t go to church, one must just live a good life and have Jesus in their hearts?  And what does that mean, to ask Jesus in your heart?  Where did this idea come from?  I’ve never seen it in the Bible, does that make it a man made rule? 

What exactly is wrong with “man made” rules?  We have no problem following the rules of our country and state.  Those were made by men.  Why do we follow those, but feel we can throw off those made by the church?  You want my opinion?  Of course you do, you’re on my blog afterall!  Authority.  That’s it, it all comes down to authority.  We gladly follow the rules of someone we accept has the authority to make those rules.  We agree that the Senate and House have the authority to make laws, we agree that the courts have the authority to enforce those laws.  We don’t argue with the cop who pulls us over for speeding that he doesn’t have the authority to give us a ticket.  Why?  Who gave these men this kind of power, and why do we allow it?  The truth is that men gave men the power to make and enforce rules on other men.  So why is it that when God gives men the authority to make rules, we balk? 

1 Samuel 15:22 says “obedience is better than sacrifice”.  Obedience to what?  God set up rules for Isreal.  He himself gave them an outline, a blueprint.  He gave it to Moses and left it up to him and the leaders who came after him to hash out the details.  When Moses first came down off the mountain, after receiving the law, he wore himself out listening to the people and acting as judge (*he* acted as judge over the people, not God directly), so his father in law suggests that he appoint other men to help him with this task (this task of interpreting the law and deciding how it should be played out in other people’s lives).  If God had laid out everything so plainly then why did the people need Moses and his delegates?  These “men” decided just what it was that God meant when they hammered out the laws of Isreal.  And they continued to do this over the next several centuries.  (read through the OT, you will see many examples of “rules” given by Kings and such that are not mentioned in Leviticus, but you will see no rebuke from God over this).  If “man made” rules were such a bad thing, then why did Jesus not forbid it?  Why did he not condemn the Jewish practice of “man made rules”?  In fact, not only does he not condemn it, he tells his disciples to obey these rules (these rules that are not found directly in the Bible, but have been developed by the Rabbi’s).  Why?  Because the “men” involved were given the authority by God.

Matthew 23:1-     “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:  The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Is Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for making “man made” rules?  No, for not following their own rules!  Jesus says that his followers must obey the leaders of Isreal.  Why?  Because they have authority over them.  Where did they get this authority?  From God himself.

But, says the evangelical, when Jesus died all that changed.  We aren’t supposed to follow the Old Testament laws and Jewish leaders!  Agreed.  We, as non Jews and Christians, don’t obey those who sit in the seat of Moses.  But were we left to ourselves?  Did they apostles preach that there were no more rules, no more obedience?  What does Scripture tell us?

1 John 2:3-6  We know that we have come to know him (Jesus) if we obey his commands.  The man who says, “I know him”, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him:  Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Jesus gave his disciples an outline, a blueprint, just like God did for Moses.  And he was pretty specific about who was supposed to be in charge of hammering out the details:

Matthew 16:18,19  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

1 Timothy 3:14,15  Although I (Paul) hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 

Ephesians 3:10  His (God’s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…

Jesus founded a church (founded on Peter, and described as the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and the vehicle by which the wisdom of God was to be made known) and gave it’s leaders the same authority that the leaders of Isreal had been given. 

In Acts, chapter 15, a controversy arose in the new church.  Should gentile believers be circumcised and be held accountable to Jewish law (not be allowed to eat meat sacrificed to idols)?  Some apostles were preaching, yes, they must be circumcised and, yes, they must abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.  Some apostles were preaching, no, they didn’t need to be circumcised and, no, they could eat any meat they wanted.  So how was this resolved?  Did each apostle start his own church with his own rules?  Did they say, It doesn’t matter, just ask Jesus into your heart and live a good life?  Sorry, they got together, talked it out, and came to a decision that they announced was binding on all Christians everywhere.  How dare they?  They were men, making rules!  Man made rules! And yet most of the same people who protest ”man made” rules the loudest, also claim that everything we need to know can be found in the Bible.  Hmmm, well, I find men making rules in my Bible.  What do you think of that?   

Well, if anyone actually looks at this blog they have probably been wondering what the heck happened to me.  Lots, but that’s irrelevant.  Point is, I’ve been away, and now I’m back.  Aren’t you happy? 

I’ve been spending most of my time at the Catholic Spitfire Grill (that’s a yahoo group that’s open to anyone with any kind of interest in the Catholic Church, whether they are lifelong Catholics, recent converts, those who might possibly be thinking about conversion, those who think anyone who converts is crazy, but is morbidly interested anyway… I don’t know how to link it, sorry, it shouldn’t be hard to search out if you fall into one of the above catagories and want to join.)  There have been some pretty interesting threads going that have made me go hmmmmm.  I’m going to repost my own thoughts here, so if your already part of the Grill you’re probably thinking, haven’t I heard this somewhere before?  If so, sorry, but it’s my blog afterall, so ththbtbt!

I also had an interesting conversation with my brother about all things Catholic.  It was a first for us (I’m a recent convert and my family is not all that interested in hearing why, they either think it doesn’t matter where you go to church as long as your happy, or they want to live in denial about the fact that I’ve joined up with the “whore of Babylon”.)  There was some overlap in these very different conversations that I find worthy of note.  Mainly the misperceptions that people have about Catholicism seem to span the divide between fundamentalists and skeptics.  Both seem to have fallen for the same line of thinking, which is amazing to me considering the fact that this is probably the ONLY thing that those two groups would agree on.  But they both are laboring under the misconception that history is on the side of the anti Catholic argument.  I too fell for this for a long time.  It’s as though it’s such an accepted line that it doesn’t bear studying out.  Which is quite ironic, because as a lover of history I was always interested in the “other side of the story”.  I loved reading different accounts of history and seeing where one bias ended and another began.  Seeing the same event, or person, from two, or three, points of view always made me feel as though I had a better grasp on what “really happened”.  (which of course is impossible because both sides are telling what “really happened”, events are felt and seen differently depending on which “side” you are on.)  But I never did this with Catholic history.  I reveled in any relating of corruption, any story of infidelity, any “proof” of sin and degredation.  Why?  Why would I be skeptical about this kind of one sided portrayal of any king, people group, or country, but I was satisfied with it when it came to Catholic priests or popes?  I don’t have a good answer for this.

I don’t pretend to have studied deeply into ALL of Catholic history, although the little I’ve done (from a Catholic perspective) has been quite enlightening.  But here’s the main kicker:  there have been many “bad” Catholics over the centuries whether they be priests, popes, kings, or laymen; they have done many “bad” things, said many “bad” things, led others to think and do “bad” things, BUT the faith remains unchanged.  Those popes that became so because they coveted power and wealth did so to gain power and wealth, not to change the faith.  They didn’t care about the faith!  They didn’t spend that power and wealth trying to change unchangeable dogma.  They didn’t call councils together to get pet doctrines made into dogma.  They spent their time in political intrigue, in power struggles, in seducing women, and in just plain having a good time.  Take a look yourself and find me a dogma that was changed, or one that was instituted during one of these dark periods in the Church.  Then, and only then, can we talk.

My brother told me a story that he read in one of his many books.  There was once a Catholic priest who had a Jewish friend.  The priest, who was a good priest, was always trying to convince his friend of the truth of the Catholic faith.  Finally the Jewish friend said, “all right, you’ve convinced me that there is indeed something to this faith.  All that lacks is for me to go to Rome myself and see the leaders of this Church.  I want to see them first hand, you can tell alot about a thing by its leaders.”  Well, the priest was downcast, because he knew that the bishops in Rome were a hedonistic lot.  He had heard all the stories of their infidelities.  One day the Jewish man returned and came to see his friend, the priest.  “I’m ready to be baptized”, he said.  The priest was astonished, how had this happened?  What had he seen in Rome?  “Well,” said the man, “I figured if this religion had lasted as long as it had with leaders like that there must be the hand of God at work in it.”