Graduation Day

 I am writing this not because it is my graduation day - I have already had four of those, and have a high school diploma and three degrees to testify to that fact - but rather it is graduation for the seniors at the high school I teach at.  Many of those seniors were kids I taught as juniors last year, so I know them.  Today was not their official graduation - that comes Saturday - but it was what is called a Baccalaureate Mass for them.  This particular Mass is a tradition for Catholic schools from preschool level to graduate school, and I attended my own when I got my Master's back in 2018.  It is a sort of moment for them in which the Church gives its blessing to a group of graduates about to embark on their next chapter of life, and it is actually a nice thing.  The Mass today was actually very nice too, and overall I was impressed with it.  I also got to present awards to students who had achievements in my department, and for that I represented all grade levels as the acting department chair for my area.  There is something quite gratifying in seeing students you helped shape getting these achievements, and it both makes you proud for them but also sentimental for the time you sat in that audience in a cap and gown too.  Graduation at any level is a traditional rite of passage that deserves to be celebrated, and I genuinely pray the best for all the seniors who are making that step in a couple of days.

Graduation also means an end to the school year is close, as just beyond graduation is finals week for the underclassmen as well as close-out procedures for those of us who are faculty and will not be returning.  I guess in a way it is a sort of a graduation for some of us too, a graduation into a new chapter in another way.  I will more than likely go on soon to another school and have a whole new group of kids to teach, and by this time next year I will be witnessing this same round of festivities in another location with a completely different group of seniors.  This is now essentially the rhythm of my life.  To finish out my week this week, we have a graduation rehearsal tomorrow and then the actual graduation on Saturday at the Cathedral of Our Lady here in Baltimore.  There are many feelings going on at once  - the relief of a rough year finally wrapping up, some uncertainties about the future, and also just being tired; I have been very exhausted lately and all I have wanted to do is sleep a lot.  That is why after finals I plan on just taking a couple of weeks to decompress, get my bearings, and then move on with life.  This is where we are right now.

Graduations have been very romanticized over the decades, as there are fond memories created with them.  In the mid-1950s, two of my favorite vocal groups recorded songs about that.  One was called "Graduation Day" and it was a hit record for the Four Freshmen in 1956.  The second was titled "Moments to Remember" which was a hit record for the Four Lads a year earlier in 1955.  Both of these songs denote a sentimental nostalgia we all feel during important times in our lives, and the lyrics of the latter, as penned by its composers Al Stillman and Robert Allen, say it best in the closing stanza:

When other nights and other days

May find us gone our separate ways

We will have these moments to remember

Nostalgia is integral to the human experience, but it also should be a fertile soil for development, as Anthony Esolen notes in his book Nostalgia: Going Home in a Homeless World (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2018).  This development, he says referencing Newman on pages 137-139, encompasses three integral things:

1. It preserves the type - This is where tradition is important, as like a family recipe an ingredient can be added here or there, but the fundamental recipe remains the same.

2. True development preserves a continuity of principles - In other words, it cannot forget where it comes from.

3. It allows the power of assimilation - This one can be tricky, but what it essentially means goes back to #1.  While taking on some new developments in technology, etc., the underlying thing is not eliminated, but there is room for growth. 

Looking at it from that perspective, it means that we have the basic common sense it takes to maintain a structure in prime condition.   If we don't do anything with it, in time decay, rust, and deterioration will take over and what once was ceases to be.  However, if we can do some restoration work to the structure - like maybe upgrading the electrical and plumbing, adding a coat of new paint periodically to the exterior, and replacing worn boards and beams - it will preserve it to be appreciated for generations to come.  Nostalgia should work toward that end - we don't live in the past, but we bring the past alive in a new way to the future while still keeping the integrity of the original.  Participating in graduations with my students now as the guy on the stage giving the diploma rather than being the kid receiving it is a restoration of tradition - as a diploma was passed to me, now it is passed to a younger generation.  We have arrived in a different place ourselves, but the same tradition and the same importance of a ceremony is carried on in a reverent, respectful way.  It is the reason why I became Catholic in the first place, and let me tie a few ends together now on that one.

For the iconoclastic modernist, be it the Emerging Church Evangelical or the radical Antifa terrorist, there is one word that they hate more than anything, and it is tradition.  To people like that the "T word" might as well be the "F bomb."  Of course, what that means is that some who label themselves as "Fundamentalists" or "Bible Christians" may actually be more modernist than they care to admit, because what they have done is replace an established tradition with a new one - the tradition of anti-tradition.  It is not a hard or long rock to throw from the screaming Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preacher to the skinny jeans-clad rock-and-roll contemporary Evangelical megachurch pastor who many congregants often only know through a large flat screen in a "satellite campus."  When both are honest, they sound exactly the same as they have the same enemy - "traditional church."  It is the tradition of anti-traditionalism, and it is correctly described in Scripture as a "tradition of men" which is to be actually rejected.  However, many on both ends of that aforementioned spectrum not only spout the rhetoric, but their anti-traditionalism becomes an idol to them - they become more entangled in preaching against tradition than they do preaching the Cross of Christ, and everyone loses as a result (including both types of Protestant preachers).  The idolatry of anti-traditionalism has even reached some progressive Catholics ironically, the people who actually should appreciate Tradition but often try to dismantle it instead in the name of "synodality" or "inclusion."  I mentioned a couple of weeks ago about how the CFO of the school I teach at professes to be a Catholic yet he denies essential sacramental theology because he has become an adherent of his view of faith - people like that think they know more than a Church that is 2000 years old, and our CFO is so off that even some Evangelicals would have issues with him (he is actually fairly leftist politically, so he is not fond of Evangelicals either).  Thankfully for me, I learned how to appreciate authentic Tradition before being exposed to people like our CFO, and although that man now looks at me like I am from the planet Romulak, I know I am actually standing on the side of orthodoxy without trying to rewrite it, to redefine it, and to just cherry-pick what and what not I choose to believe.  It is one reason why in many cases converts to the Church have a fuller appreciation for its rich traditions than do many people who were born and raised Catholic.  After all, for many of us it was a very challenging journey, and we had to learn to accept things we were taught as wrong, and it took many agonizing moments of struggle to come to terms with the acceptance of authentic Church teaching.   And, it cost a lot for some of my colleagues too who have made the same journey - they were disowned by their families, attacked verbally for their new faith, and there have been some who have been victims of violence even for standing up for the truth.  The Catholic convert, I am convinced, is today's true "white martyr," because people don't know what we give up to seek the truth.  There are things that need to be rethought, and you have to assess what is salvageable from your former religious tradition and can still be held without conflict with Magisterial teachings.  Then, when many of us come into the Church, we see things that are not consistent with the rich tradition the Church has, and that becomes a source of pain and anguish as well.  So, it will be asked then - I am talking about preserving traditions of one's heritage, but isn't embracing a new church doing just the opposite?  I will say no on that, so now let me explain why. 

If one is a convert from an Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or Pentecostal background and you decide you want to come home to the Church Catholic, there is one fundamental fact underlying this one must understand to make the journey somewhat easier -  you are already a Christian, and by coming into the Church, you are not renouncing your faith heritage, but rather you are completing it.   The problem was never whether you loved Jesus or believed him, nor was it that you didn't have an authentic faith, because you did.  Rather, it was just an incomplete faith, and the reason you started that journey was that you saw something missing that seemed like the old Peggy Lee song question "Is that all there is?"  If you grew up in a typical Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church as a kid, you know exactly what I am talking about.  You go to a Sunday morning service - maybe Sunday School too (do churches still have that BTW?) and it seemed OK - the music somehow was heavenly, and the sermon was inspirational, and you felt like it was the best day of your week, right?  But, if it is like the old days, then you have a Sunday night service too, and when you arrive, the pastor looks tired, there may only be a handful of people, and your music minister is more or less singing hymns his thumb lands on in the hymnal (if your church has hymnals - otherwise, it is just putting up a random chorus on an overhead).  This is made more depressing if it is a small church - the church itself has no art, only bare walls, and perhaps the only musical instrument is a beat-up old upright piano that was probably new when your great-grandparents were alive.  The piano plays out of tune, and the people are not really singing but making a not-so-joyful noise, and in one hour it's over - the pastor may have given some devotional talk he threw together after his Sunday afternoon nap, and no one will remember it.  The end of such a service is unremarkable - someone says a winded prayer in archaic English because those "thees" and "thous" sound holier for some reason, and then everyone shakes hands and leaves.  Usually, most people are thinking about how late Cracker Barrel will be open so they can grab a quick dinner before going home and retiring before the week's routine starts.   I lost count of how many church services like that I attended back in my Protestant days, and for me they were depressing but you were too busy trying to "follow the Lord" that you didn't want to commit sacrilege against your pastor for saying his sermon was dry and he looked tired.   But then one day, you decide you are going to check out either a Catholic parish or a Greek church in your town, and so you research their Mass times.  The next Sunday you go, and what you find is a rich symbolism of living faith as each part of the Mass has a meaning to it, a meaning it has had for over two millennia.  It strikes a big nerve inside you, and you know you have come onto something you didn't expect but you may be too afraid to tell some of your friends at church about for fear of being accused of consorting with the "whore of Babylon" or something.  But your curiosity grows - you discovered living Tradition, and it resonated with you.  If you continue to explore this, you are going to find yourself reading Scripture a different way soon, and things will start to come together that never did before.  You are like a 21st-century explorer going into 2nd-century Rome, and now you understand something that has been missing, a consistency you longed for but didn't even know existed.  That is your journey.   In time, you too may have a "graduation day" of your own when on a dark night before Easter, you receive the Body and Blood of Christ for the first time, and it ain't your old Baptist church's grape juice and crackers you get every three months!  This is different, a new beginning.  But, as in every covenant relationship, your new marriage to Christ in his Church brings with it complimentary things, as you too have something from your experience you can contribute.  Let me explain.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals may have an incomplete Christianity, but it is still Christian nonetheless which means it has good attributes.  When you become Catholic, you don't necessarily throw those away, as they are part of the journey God brought you on to get you here.  So, you then begin what is called the mystagogy stage of your faith - you begin to see what you can bring to the Church, what you can salvage from your own Christian roots, and how to see that it fits into your newfound Catholic faith.  It can be a struggle, and some of the worst opposition you might find is within Catholic parishes themselves - these are concupiscent human beings, so they are not perfect, and many of them have about as skewered versions of Protestants as you did of them when you were one.  Working through that takes time, a lot of prayer, and hopefully the guidance of a good priest who can act as confessor as well as help you sort out things.  Like the high school graduate who enters college the following year, you have graduated into a new set of challenges and need help navigating them.  Some of us were fortunate to have that, but others did not.  And, you know what that is called?  We call it convergence - taking the best of two traditions and making them a fuller expression of faith.  It is an intricate process, and no one has it completely down yet (not even my friends in the CEC or other Convergence groups) but it is a work in progress.  Which leads to some concluding thoughts.

The major conviction of many Christians of all traditions is trying to either re-create or approximate the ancient New Testament Church.  Whole books of theory have been written on this, and some Christian traditions are closer than others - the Roman Catholic Church, and even more so the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, all probably come the closest.  It is a deep and murky stream to wade through to try to chronicle all the theories, the experiments, and the testimonials of what people think the "ancient New Testament Church" is, but this is where Esolen's ideas on development and nostalgia come into the equation.  The form is there, and the ancient liturgies have that, and some of the spirit is there in regard to things like Biblical inerrancy and spiritual gifts, but as for a definitive version of what that all looks like together, well, we may never get an exact duplicate.  And, maybe we are not supposed to - we live in the 21st century now, and we can never be exactly like the first-century Church in every detail - it would not be feasible nor would it be practical.  The first century did not have things such as technology or even the more elaborate and beautiful physical infrastructure of many large cathedrals.  While we can all appreciate things such as the great Ruffati organ in the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, or the heavenly imagery in the domes of my own Catholic parish in Baltimore - Saints Philip and James - the earliest Christians didn't have that.  We are really blessed now if we think about it.  There is nothing wrong with great pipe organs and beautiful iconography in churches - I myself love them!  But, we might really want to reconsider how much we would really like to be exactly like first-century Christians - they were being martyred, and many of them had to meet in much humbler places than either Coral Ridge or St. Peter's in the Vatican for their own survival.  If it wasn't Jewish Sadducees trying to arrest them in Judea, then later it was the Roman emperors trying to burn them alive because they didn't believe in worshipping a man who promoted his own divinity like Caligula and some of those emperors did.  A large elaborate edifice would have been like a bulls-eye on the struggling Christian communities then.  However, the roots of liturgy, theology, and spirituality were there from the beginning, and that is what we have preserved in various places.  As long as we value the roots, then it is OK to build upon them - the recipe is the same, but successive generations have just added a few ingredients for flavor and also have refined the preparation some without compromising the recipe itself.  That is how living tradition works - it is eternal, but it also speaks to newer generations.  

This was longer and rambling than I had planned, but I feel that some of this needed to be said, and it is also a way for me to understand and learn even as I discuss things too.  Thank you for staying with me here, and will see you next time. 

The Last Sentences of a Chapter Ready to End

 I am at my office at the school I work with today - this constitutes the actual last day of classes for students, although the 11th-graders I teach had their last day yesterday.  The remainder of the next week entails a baccalaureate Mass for the graduating seniors, graduation rehearsal and graduation, and final exams.  By this time next week, my sojourn at this particular institution will be over in a practical sense, although thankfully my contract runs through the end of June, which is good financially for me.  It is a chapter I am glad to see ending in all honesty, and I am anticipating the opening paragraphs of the next chapter - I had a very promising interview Monday with a school on Saint Simons Island, GA, that I would be happy being part of, although at this point it is just a matter of waiting to see who decides to extend the welcoming handshake regarding my next place of service.  So, we will see.  

My first full-time teaching position was two years in length, and was a mixed blessing in all honesty.  For one thing, on the positive I know I was meant to be here for a season, and the experience I gained was definitely a good thing.  However, the school I teach at is not what you would call the ideal environment either, as it has three fundamental problems.  The first is the lack of discipline with students.  Many of these students are minority students, and there are some of them with bad attitudes and a sense of entitlement which frankly makes working with critters in a zoo easier.  Secondly, the way the administration of this school runs things could use some help - there is a coverage system that is deeply flawed, and many teachers are on the verge of burnout because we feel our leadership sees us as expendable commodities rather as talented human beings.  This also means good ideas are often parried or dismissed totally, and we also haven't felt like the leadership has our backs on anything.  The third issue is the school's identity - while professing to be a Catholic school, the school doesn't seem to understand what that is because there is no real spiritual guidance (don't even get me started on the campus minister here - my goodness!) and there are some things professed and held by some faculty and even upper echelons of administration that is in deep opposition to Catholic teaching.  It makes being a Theology teacher a challenging task too, because I often had the feeling my hands were being tied and I wasn't able to shine like I wanted to.  These three fundamental issues are what I also shared in my exit interview as I begin the process of wrapping up my time here, and oddly, the HR person I interviewed with seemed to be sympathetic - people can see things just by casual observation.  Again, I will not share my school's name nor will I share any individual's identity particularly, as I want to exercise professional courtesy as well as making sure I don't sound like I am committing defamation against anyone in this institution.  However, in private conversations with parents who may be considering sending their kids here, I would highly discourage it and would recommend they seek out other options.  And. I will leave it with that.   That being said, I wanted to focus on issues with campus ministry here, as there are some underlying and very fundamental issues that cause concern.

The campus minister here is a layperson, and he was originally a worker with Maryknoll Missions in Central America.  If you know something about Maryknoll in recent decades, there are problematic things about them which raise many concerns.  Maryknoll people are notorious for instance in promoting a heresy called liberation theology, which is essentially churched-up Marxism.  It is functionally atheist in all honesty, as it seeks to exalt a political ideology rather than spiritual truth, and I have had some enlightenment on things about them in the past two years that I need to share.  First, I am beginning to understand that there are things that an order like the Jesuits get blamed for which in reality may not totally be them at all - in Latin America for instance, although there are definitely some very liberal and politicized Jesuits, it seems as if the most radical proponents of liberation theology may actually not be Jesuit priests - it is more than likely lay groups like Maryknoll who, by doing a lot of coordinated work with the Jesuit order in some nations, are the real radicals.  Jesuits, I have come to believe, are much like every other religious order - there are good Jesuits, bad Jesuits, and for the most part the actual Jesuits I have met have been pretty tame.  Some, like Fr. Mitch Pacwa, are actually quite stellar in their faith and I have no issues with those Jesuits at all.  Also, Jesuits in general have had a very good track record of both academic excellence as well as being able to reach out to the margins and do fruitful work, and that is commendable.  The only danger here is that in contrast to other religious orders, the Jesuits do have a disproportionate share of problematic figures.  This is not to say that every renegade Catholic is Jesuit at all - Thomas Merton, for example, was a Trappist, and this guy Richard Rohr, who although claiming to be a Franciscan friar is in reality a New Ager.  Another renegade priest-theologian, Richard McBrien, did not belong to any religious order I could tell but he was still heretical in much of his teaching.  Additionally, the Hindu syncretist priest Bede Griffiths was Benedictine, and Henri Nouwen was not part of a religious order either.  All of these individuals - Merton, Rohr, McBrien, Griffiths, and Nouwen - were all suspected heretics and renegade Catholics, but none of them were Jesuits as far as I know.  On the other hand, there are good Jesuits that I would highly recommend to anyone - Fr. Norris Clarke, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Joseph Fessio, Fr. James Schall, and of course such luminaries as St. Robert Bellarmine - all of whom are very orthodox and have produced some amazing theological and social writings.  And, who could forget the founder of the Jesuits, St. Ignatius of Loyola.  St. Ignatius was a godly man, and he had a very amazing conversion story, and what is unfortunate however is that many of those who claim to carry on his legacy fall short of anything he stood for.  St. Ignatius, indeed, would be spinning in his grave if he knew what kind of people identifying as Jesuits are doing to the Church, and that is a scandal of monumental proportions. I don't think that St. Ignatius would endorse garbage such as liberation theology or theistic evolution, and if one starts to peel away some of the mythologies that many "social justice warriors" have tried to wrongly apply to St. Ignatius and other figures, one sees a completely different picture than what is depicted by the revisionists.  The school I currently teach in here for instance actually painted a mural depicting St. Ignatius as Black!  Nothing historically backs up these mythologies, and that is why when people spout that garbage, I tend to ignore it and then inform the less-informed of a more truthful interpretation.  I would be remiss as a historian if I didn't.  However, when you look at the impetus behind liberation theology and the ideologies that spawned it, you notice several things, and here are a couple of them.

The first thing one notices about such systems of thought is that they thrive on chaos and crisis, and if it doesn't exist, then it must be created.  This is right from the playbook of people such as Saul Alinsky, but it goes back even further, as much of it finds its source in the philosophy of Nietzsche and others.  The one thing that many radical political activists get from Nietzschean thought is something called the "struggle," and the way that works is that a conflicting will must exist and it must prevail against the "lesser" will, and thus a struggle is essential.  The tool of "struggle" is the means by which the will of the dominant prevails, and thus the more chaos that is created, the more certain a dominant will shall prevail.  The two most pivotal political radicals that utilized this were Marx and Hitler - class struggle is at the core of Marxism, and for Hitler, the struggle of the "master race" against the "mongrels" was integral.  Both relied on the same Nietzschean idea, with that being bolstered by the "natural selection" aspect of Darwinism, which was turned into a social construct by Herbert Spencer.  Evolution, therefore, requires struggle to progress whether that struggle is biological or social.  A basic understanding of this is that from a struggle two things must emerge - a winner and a loser.  The strongest will - to frame it in Nietzschean language - will be the victorious will, and the loser then must not be allowed to regather strength and should be eliminated.  Liberation theology is no different in that regard either, as earlier I defined it as basically Marxism clothed in religious language.  Seeing this happen in real time even at the school I work at makes this even more concerning, as the campus minister here often will try to "whup up" crowds in the name of "justice" but then a greater injustice is perpetrated upon those people like him label "unjust."  This is particularly true with the current anti-ICE protests in cities, of which our campus minister runs hot with passion about.  Again though, much of this works against the so-called "victims" they advocate for, and the recipients of this false sense of "justice" end up suffering worse as a result.  However, the person who spouts the garbage doesn't care, because if they can incite unrest, then they can try to step in as "savior" to resolve it - some of the worst criminals and cult leaders in history had the same blueprint, notably Charles Manson and Jim Jones, just to name two of them.  If a blowhard rabble-rouser doesn't have chaos and struggle, then they have no ground, and therefore more conciliatory and peaceful alternatives are not preferred by such people.  And, the campus minister at this school falls into that big time.

A second aspect to this would be mythologization.  This means revisionism in which history is rewritten to serve the interests of the one spouting the rhetoric.  The campus minister here is a master of that, as he relies on his personal testimonials to validate his views, but often he is either wrong or he is lying.  One thing he tries to play on often is this experience he supposedly had in El Salvador, where he always gives a sob story about US-backed government troops slaughtering Jesuit priests and Maryknoll missionaries indiscriminately.  However, what this fool fails to realize is that some of us didn't earn our doctorates from being stupid - we know people too, and I have friends from those countries as well that tell a different story.  Basically, what they related to me was that often Marxist guerillas, often funded by Cuba and the former USSR, would ambush government military units, and then steal the uniforms off the dead bodies.  They then would dress in those uniforms and raid villages, and it would serve to create a propaganda campaign that those "evil" government soldiers were massacring innocent villagers, and that somehow the "racist genocidal" United States was funding it.  Apparently, the propaganda worked on this idiot who claims to be a campus minister, because he now tells this ad nauseum to anyone who will listen.  How, ever, Marxist guerillas are not the only ones who used that tactic - Hitler employed it to start World War II by dressing dead concentration camp victims in Polish uniforms and saying Poland wiped out a German garrison on the border.  As I have said before, there is fundamentally no difference between Marxism and Nazism - both are left-wing totalitarian systems that used the twin bulwarks of struggle and victimhood to launch their campaigns, and thus neither is an exception to the rule.  For the dumb fairly well-off idiots like our campus minister here and so many others who buy into this, I watch in amazement as history is rewritten and facts are casually dismissed or discarded if they don't fit the narrative.  That is one reason too why I am grateful this is ending, as now even looking out the window of my office at the campus minister waddling up and down the hall like a drunk Winnie-the-Pooh with his pants hanging down below the equator, none of this really impresses me anymore.  It is time for this season to end, and thankfully our Lord agrees. 

Any rate, I have rambled enough today, so I will leave it with that thought.  See you next time.

The Summer Season

 This past Monday was Memorial Day, and this was the last full official week of school where I work.  This coming week, we have two days of class, then a baccalaureate Mass for the graduating seniors on Thursday, and then graduation rehearsal on Friday followed by graduation on Saturday.  Next Saturday is one of the days I get to wear my full doctoral regalia in an official capacity as part of the participating faculty at the graduation, and that part I am looking forward to.  Many of the graduating seniors are students I taught last year when they were juniors, so I have a personal interest in this particular ceremony - some of these kids I am really proud of and happy for, as they really demonstrated success.  Others, not so much - there are a few seniors who honestly are graduating because of other things besides their academic progress, but that is not my call to make.  I am there to celebrate the ones I have personally had a vested interest in, and those are my success stories and I am proud of them.  It is a wonderful thing when an educator gets to see his students get a rite of passage into their adult lives, and I am sure that back over 37 years ago when I graduated high school, some of my teachers had the same feeling.  Following graduation, there are three days of finals for my students I have this year, and then a closing faculty meeting before we finish out the year.  I am ready for this year to end in all honesty, because it has been crazy and I am glad to see it end.  It is also my last year at this particular school, as I will be moving onto better things later once I get the green light regarding where I may be going.  However, for a couple of weeks after my last faculty meeting here, I plan on taking a much-needed rest for at least a couple of weeks, and then it will be time to start planning my next steps.  And, this is where we are.  

I have come a long way in my professional life.  I started as a maintenance assistant working with my dad at the Holiday Inn on Jekyll Island, GA back when I was fresh out of high school.  I went on then to become a landscape professional, then a prep cook, a security officer, and then an administrative professional before landing real status first as a paralegal and finally as a teacher.  I went from earning $4.25 an hour replacing wood screws and light bulbs in hotel rooms to managing a class of 80 students divided into four codes (periods) in a parochial school.  This comprises 38 years of work total, almost 40, and I actually feel I have gotten to the apex of my work.  I was always, I feel, meant to be an educator, and I am there.  While I am not in the best school environment, I have gained valuable experience and that goes a long way.  At 56 years old now, this is my vocation until I either retire or am no longer able to work, and I anticipate perhaps 24 more years of that until that happens, as I can retire as old as 80 if I want.  My first job started during the summer in 1989, and my current job concludes in a summer 37 years later.  The irony of patterns is not lost as I look at other areas of my life too.

It was a summer in 1975, for instance, when I finished up a year in kindergarten right here in Baltimore before moving back to my home state of West Virginia with my mom when I was 6 years old.  This year, I am about two miles down the street from where I finished kindergarten in the same city, but the differences are noticeable - a lot happens in 50 years.  Whereas back in 1975 I had a lot of family here in Baltimore on the west side of town, I now don't have anyone I am close to - many of my cousins who were born and raised here now live out in the suburbs - who can blame them though?  I mean, the Baltimore of 1975 had its issues, but it is like a world away from the Baltimore of 2026, 51 years later.  And just like 51 years ago at this time, I am now preparing a possible move out of the city for good - when I leave Baltimore this time, there will be no returning unless it is for a day visit to an attraction or shopping (there are good stores here if you know where to find them).  As to where I will be going once the green light turns to leave here, that remains to be seen - I will let the offers speak for themselves.  In general though,  I have tended to gravitate back to areas I used to live in reverse it seems - I recall then it was from Baltimore to three different areas of my home state (first, Augusta, then Martinsburg, and finally my hometown of Parsons, before moving back to Augusta, then back to Martinsburg, and then an interregnum in Georgia at age 9 before moving back to Augusta again and then Kirby nearby there, and finally back to close to home in Preston County, then Georgia again, and finally breaking that with a 27-year stay in Florida between 1989 and 2016, until moving back to Maryland).  I am not sure what this is going to mean as to a new chapter or anything, but I have to be vigilant for anything that happens.  My work prospects are targeted for areas I am familiar with, and when the best one opens up that is where we go, simple as that.  I ask for my praying friends to keep me in mind in their petitions as I navigate this, and I am hoping within the next couple of months to have some solid answers.  

I recall an old song in my record collection which was popularized both by Tommy Dorsey's orchestra in the late 1930s and then recorded by the Mary Kaye Trio in the mid-1950s.  The song was called "That Lonesome Road," and its lyrics went something like this:

Look down, look down that lonesome road
Before you travel on
Look up, look up and seek your maker
Before Gabriel blows his horn

Weary toting such a load
Trudging down the lonesome road
Look down, look down that lonesome road
Before, before you travel on

I am facing a sort of "lonesome road" now that I have been on for a few years now, and am feeling like I am trudging down it with a heavy load like the song describes.  I have felt that way to some degree or another for about the past 6 years as so much has happened and I am still struggling to keep up with it all.  A lot of dust needs to settle, and I need to have a place to settle it before I can sort things out.  I feel at times like I am traveling by myself - sure, I know God is there guiding my path, and I accept that, but it would be nice to have a support system of some sort with me.  True, Barbara is like a sister (despite the fact we are divorced) and I have some special people far away who care about me, but I feel at times overwhelmed by things too.  Sadly, I have cousins really close by, and I haven't seen or talked to many of them in years - the atomization of the extended family in recent decades is a tragic loss to our society, and why we let that happen still astounds me.  While I am not hurting financially or anything like that, it would be good to know people are there you could talk to, socialize with, and feel like family.  I think this could be alleviated if that factor were interjected.  But, I am wandering in my thoughts now - let's get back on course. 

As I leave the school I teach at now, there are mixed feelings.  I definitely am relieved to be out of there, I am a bit concerned about what comes next, and I also will have people I will miss, as I have made some great friends among the faculty and thankfully we all said we will keep in touch after it is all said and done.  I also am going to miss some of my students, as several of them did endear themselves to me and I will remember them for years to come and may talk some of them later.  But, there are also other kids I will be grateful to never see again too - good riddance as far as they are concerned.  I know that sounds awful, but educators have limits - when you have certain kids that cannot be reached or choose to be jerks despite how fair and helpful you tried with them, there is no hope.  A few of those may either thank me or apologize later once real life sets into their own realities, but it may be too late for them when they get that realization.  It is tragic for sure, but ultimately it is on them and not on the educator for trying.  At any rate, all of this comes with the package for being a professional educator, and over time you begin to refine how you work with students and there is much trial and error to experience doing so.  However, I do hope my next educational experience with students is more fruitful - I want kids who will soak up things like a sponge and are eager to learn and take their studies seriously, and in some schools you get more kids like that than you do at others.  There will always be the occasional disciplinary issue for sure - we live in a fallen world, so things happen - but feeling like you accomplished something during a long day of instructing young minds is what makes it all worth it.  So, we will see what happens.

Those are just some random thoughts as I enter a summer that will anticipate a transition of some sort, and I will keep you posted of the journey.  Thanks for stopping by, and will see you next time. 

Pentecost - Rebirth of the Believer, Birthday of the Church

 Yesterday, we observed Pentecost Sunday, which is a feast day and a solemnity in the Catholic Church.  It is also the one holiday that is shared with the Jewish faith too, as it evolved from them.  A lot of things came together with this in 2026, and I wanted to focus on those today. 

The story of Pentecost is in Acts 2, when it talks about a group of new Christians gathering in an upper room in Jerusalem some days after Christ ascended back to heaven.  While meeting together, something happened - it is described in the passage as "a mighty rushing wind" and a supernatural manifestation of "tongues of fire" appeared on the heads of those who were there and some other supernatural things began to happen - some spoke in languages they did not know, and some also prophesied things.  The meeting ended up topping out, according to the account, at 3000 souls.  This is the day that marks the official birthday of the Christian Church, and why it is integral to the liturgical cycle.  But, I wanted to just unpack a few things about it today because it is important to understand its significance.

In the past century or so, a whole Protestant tradition took this name upon themselves - Pentecostals - based on the passage in Acts 2, which is often seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28, the famous "latter rain" passage.  I grew up in that tradition, was a minister in it for several years, and received my undergraduate degree at one of their biggest universities in Florida.  So, what does that mean, being "Pentecostal?"  Let's talk about that a bit.

The one major thing Pentecostals are noted for is glossolalia, or speaking in tongues.  Often, as modern denominations in that Christian tradition understand it, these are "unknown tongues" that to an outsider sound like gibberish - the late Baptist evangelist Jerry Falwell said it was reminiscent of people who ate too much pizza for dinner the night before.  Tongues are understood by most Pentecostals - and I used to hold the same view - as being a "prayer language" that you speak "in the Spirit" to God himself, but is it though?  Oddly, not every Pentecostal group agrees with that interpretation, as one of the oldest denominations of that tradition, the Apostolic Faith Mission out of Portland Oregon (organized around 1907 if memory serves me correctly), teaches that tongues must be in a known language that is unknown to the speaker, and thus they would maintain that speaking in tongues is indeed an "unknown language" but not so to the recipient.  Other more old-time Pentecostals hold similar views about that, as do movements which presaged the Pentecostal movement such as the Catholic Apostolic Church ("Irvingite") movement of the 1830s as well as some earlier Wesleyan-Holiness denominations. If that is the case, it means that tongues would then be for one of two purposes - evangelization and edification - and the supernatural dimension would be God trying to reach a specific person who maybe speaks that language.  There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" as well which is noted in Scripture and also upheld by many Pentecostal groups, and I wanted to talk about that somewhat before tackling a cardinal Pentecostal conviction regarding tongues - the "initial evidence" doctrine. 

The gift of interpretation of tongues has been seen by many Pentecostal and Charismatic people as overlapping with the gift of prophecy, meaning that an utterance in tongues would actually be prophetic rather than evangelistic or edifying in that context.  However, when one reads the account in Acts, nothing is said about tongues being a prophetic utterance - on the contrary, the prophetic gift is seen as distinct.  This led to some confusion during my early years as a Pentecostal myself, because I always asked the question then as to what the difference between tongues and prophetic words was, and I am sure many other Pentecostals struggle with that distinction today.  Often, that concern and/or question was dismissed as being "too logical" or simplistically being told to "search the Scriptures," but that second answer was the problem - many did search the Scriptures, and nothing still showed up linking tongues and prophecy together.  Then, as I studied history more, it seems there is a bit of a disconnect as to how the earliest Pentecostals viewed this as compared with their modern descendants, and the older view makes more sense and also seems to be a position shared by many visionaries and saints over the centuries.  The early Pentecostal movement was quite diverse - it was made up of people from a lot of different backgrounds, and many also had English skills that were not refined.  So, any supernatural manifestation of tongues was directed at them in many cases, and it was they who had the "gift of interpretation" because they understood the language being spoken to them.  Looking at it that way, it does not detract from the supernatural dimension, as tongues still is a spiritual gift, but it does clarify many misunderstandings about how the gift is used.  Now that we understand that, let's tackle what "initial physical evidence" is.

Almost every Pentecostal denomination has a statement about how the baptism of the Holy Spirit is received, and in varying language, the bottom line is this - the initial, physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (or second blessing, to use a term borrowed from the Wesleyan-Holiness roots of Pentecostalism) is speaking in unknown tongues, or glossolalia.  Most Pentecostals buttress this with two passages from Scripture, the first being in Acts 2, which talks about how the people on the day of Pentecost received this sign after they got the Holy Spirit in the upper room.  The second is from Mark 16 (the same passage used by the serpent-handling subset of Pentecostalism to affirm their unique beliefs too) where it talks about "these signs shall follow those who believe," and the first sign noted in that passage is "they shall speak with new tongues."  The "initial evidence" doctrine of legacy Pentecostals (as opposed to Charismatics, who would not subscribe to a dogmatic interpretation of this) comes from those two passages primarily, and often the terms "new tongues" and "unknown tongues" are used interchangeably.  While I don't doubt the validity of the sign itself, I too have abandoned the doctrine of "initial evidence" even back when I was still a Pentecostal myself because I have known too many non-Pentecostal Christians who seem to have a strong presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and many of them have never spoken in unknown tongues.  Also, the risk of unregulated practices like this may lead to fake manifestations or Pavlovian responses to altar call pleas, and if that is truly the case, then it is not a spiritual gift at all but merely a performance.  Also, Pentecostalism is not the only religion that has the practice of glossolalia, as some other groups such as Hindus and some animistic and occultic sects like Voodoo do this too, and experienced exorcists have noted that one manifestation of demonic possession is speaking in a babbling, incoherent gibberish that sounds eerily close to the tongues one hears at some Pentecostal and Charismatic meetings.  So, does that mean all tongues-speakers are demonic?  Not at all - it just says that perhaps we need to re-examine "initial evidence" and also understand discernment better, as that is also listed as a gift of the Holy Spirit too.  That is why, over the years, I have come to understand tongues as a known language unknown to the speaker, who is for some reason supernaturally endowed to give a message of evangelization or encouragement to a recipient it is meant for.  This would also be in line with how many of the earliest Pentecostals would have understood this gift as well. 

Moving from Pentecostalism back to the feast of Pentecost as understood by the Church, it is also important to understand that another aspect of Acts 2 understood by the Church is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit talked about in Acts has traditionally been understood as the basis for the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Church.  If you will note, most Confirmations (especially of children and teens) happen on Pentecost Sunday, and there is a reason for that.  The Sacrament of Baptism is a symbol of rebirth - the person is adopted into Christ and made new.  Pentecost is the next step, for then the new Christian is received officially into the Church via Confirmation, and as it is understood, they are then able to participate fully in the life of the Church now with what God gave them - this can be through supernatural spiritual gifts or through the clarification of natural talents the person already had.  The message of Confirmation then is that the new Christian is now part of the Body of Christ, and based on who God created this person to be, they now can find where they fit into it - this is Romans 12: 4-5.  Some gifts again are given supernaturally, or the revelation may be that God is speaking to the person to use what he gave them when they were created, and at times they can't discover that themselves - this is where things such as tongues, prophecy, and words of knowledge or wisdom come into the picture.  A true Convergence Christianity will understand this fully, and that is what they will desire as well.  The Holy Spirit being in them awakens things, and the closer they grow to God in supernatural grace, the greater the urge to utilize that which they already have.  That is the true miracle of Pentecost, not the signs themselves.  Understanding it this way makes a Church of Pentecost thus truly Pentecostal in the Biblical sense.  

I wanted to give this short lesson today for people who may be confused when they watch televangelists who profess Pentecostalism slap people upside the head and expect to hear incoherent "babblings" that are blamed on the Holy Spirit but may not be.  It doesn't mean God is limited, for he certainly can move on people the way he wants, but it does mean that we need to curb the desire for the sensational and instead seek the truth.  If we seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit (and there are many of those we receive regularly) God will honor that if we are truthful with ourselves in desiring it and we seek it properly.  But, if we just do things by either emotional highs or Pavlovian responses, then it may not be God working in us - it may be just a knee-jerk response to a hyper-energized atmosphere and could lead to disappointments when things don't go according to what some TV preacher says.  Thank you for allowing me to share, and I will see you next time. 

Revisiting Convergence

 In my last discussion, I was talking about how I am starting to take another look at the Convergence Movement I was part of just prior to becoming Catholic.  That was, in the fundamental sense, my catalyst for coming into the Catholic Church.  However, I had the draw of liturgy and sacramental faith long before that, as it was evident even when I was very young.  I have told the story of that many times, so no real need to rehash that except to say that one initial spark happened only a mile or two away from where I am sitting now in Baltimore.  The purpose of this discussion is to explain what Convergence is, and in doing so I will also determine my own standing as a Convergence Christian - can I still be identified as such, or have I evolved beyond it in my faith journey?  That actually may be a question that sparks a second discussion, but for now here is where we are at. 

What emerged as the Convergence Movement actually dates back to a meeting in 1977 in Chicago when a number of Evangelicals and Pentecostals started to explore what they understood the early Church to be.  Many of them were involved in some other Charismatic trends of the time, such as the now-discredited Discipleship/Shepherding movement, and it was the excesses and deficiencies of movements like that which led to many of these individuals seeking to grow in their own faith journeys too.  A document, called the "Chicago Call," was produced from those meetings and it essentially became the manifesto of the Convergence Movement when it formally emerged on the scene later in the early 1990s.  I have talked about this document before, and it had much to do with how many of us did discover the ancient Church, including its liturgical forms.  That being said, the movement has undergone much sorting, and there are segments of it that are still trying to figure out the details of what all this means.  This leads to a couple of issues I have noted that I will get into momentarily, but I think to do that it is integral to the discussion to understand the underlying impetus of the Convergence focus, and that would be the "Three Streams."  Let me explain what those are.

The "Three Streams" represent in Convergence thought three expressions of Christianity that have existed side by side for generations, but often seem to be opposed to each other.  However, for those rediscovering their own faith through Convergence, these three streams are really not in contradiction, but rather compliment each other as they represent for the Convergence Christian three important aspects of faith that branched off an original "river."  That "river" for the Convergence Christian is the New Testament Church.  The "Three Streams" are defined as follows:

1. Evangelical - this stream represents the importance of the inerrancy of Scripture - often from a more literal interpretation - as well as the emphasis on the evangelization aspect of the Church. 

2. Liturgical - this stream represents the historic Church, rooted in Tradition with a form of worship that dates from Apostolic times with even Hebraic accents.  The liturgy, Sacraments, and also a faith that is lived rather than just articulated is integral.   

3. Charismatic - this emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the supernatural dimension of faith, and a vibrant faith that is lived as well as professed.  

If one were to take a Trinitarian approach to this, the Evangelical represents the Son, the Liturgical represents the Father, and of course the Charismatic represents the Holy Spirit.  And like the Trinity is one God in three distinct persons, so the Church is one Church with three distinct streams through which each member of the Triune Godhead manifests different attributes.  That, in a nutshell, is what Convergence is truly about.

However, over the course of the growth of the Convergence Movement, there have been some proverbial scraped knees as trying to integrate these three streams is a matter of experimentation and it has created some inconsistencies.  The most over-emphasized aspect is probably the Charismatic stream, in that you have traditional liturgy and contemporary "praise music" being hashed together in what is in essence an ecclesiastical mess.  Having a Charismatic/Pentecostal dimension to one's spirituality does not mean you have to ape everything the typical Charismatic/Pentecostal group does with window-dressing of liturgy, and I have come to understand it may mean something completely different to be integrated.  The historic liturgies of the Church are sufficient enough in their richness to be left alone, and they don't need to be "Pentecostalized" to be relevant to the Convergence experience. Charismatic expressions of faith, such as moving in the gifts (in particular healing) can easily be part of a liturgical form with no problem, but many Convergence leaders have to get beyond the thinking that they are essentially vested Pentecostals.  Also, informal meetings and events outside the sacramental/liturgical context are not out of the question either - there is no problem whatsoever with things such as prayer groups, and I would even advocate for revivals and crusades as well.  Also, while the ordained ministry in the Church is sacramental - meaning it is solely male and made up of three fundamental orders (bishop, priest, deacon), this does not negate the importance of lay ministry, and a more formalized lay ministry can be implemented as well that is outside the liturgical framework - lay evangelists, for instance, can be both men and women who are called to evangelization, and the historic Church does not say women can preach - it just says they can't be ordained to Holy Orders is all.  A young Pentecostal Holiness guy in Georgia named Tim told me something years ago that emphasizes that women can indeed proclaim the Gospel, and it was this - the first preacher of the Gospel was Our Lady, and she did so by giving the Word in flesh to the world as God's chosen vessel.  This is one reason why over the years I have appreciated people such as Kathryn Kuhlman, and in my own faith journey it was often women preachers in the Pentecostal tradition that had the greatest impact on me personally - I look back to people like Sister Ann Mayfield in Brunswick, GA, in whose little Pentecostal Holiness congregation I received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and first spoke in tongues myself.  I note people like Rev. Shirley James, who prophesied a healing over me in a Foursquare church years ago.  And, I remember the elderly lady Pentecostal minister who led a small church in my hometown years ago, Sister Lily Carr Plaugher.  All of these ladies, as well as higher-profile female preachers like Kathryn Kuhlman, had an impact on my spiritual growth.  And, although all of them have passed on now, they still hold a special place in my own story of faith too.  Now, with two of the aforementioned - Sisters Mayfield and Plaugher - they were pastors of churches, which I would not agree with now, but they were also godly ladies who had a gift of preaching.  Women therefore can preach and proclaim the Gospel anywhere, and I have no problem with creating a class of lay evangelists in the Church who could do just that. Some of the most prominent religious orders were also founded as well with the charism of preaching and proclamation, specifically the Dominican Friars, and many of their number were lay brothers.  This again has its basis in Scriptures such as Romans 12:4-5 and I Corinthians 12, which talk about the importance of all members of the body - not every member has the same gifts, talents, or abilities, but each is important.  And, in the Convergence model, this is where the Charismatic aspect in particular would shine the brightest.  The challenge though would be coming up with a clear model to embody it, and that I believe is part of the growth pains of what it means to be part of the Convergence Movement.

The aspect of the Evangelical stream of Convergence I think is integral within the context of the Liturgy would be a high view of Scripture.  I have mentioned the Fourfold Hermeneutic of Scripture many times before (Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical - the acronym LAMA), and one thing about that is that Scripture is ultimately God's book and passages of it can be all four of those at once.  The importance of context is also integral to that, as Scripture is completely true and is of divine authorship, so I would hold a very strong view of Scriptural inerrancy.  This means that God as Creator did exactly as Genesis documents, and a big problem with the Liturgical stream in recent decades in particular is that a number of liberal elements (particularly liberal Episcopalians and Lutherans, but also liberal Catholic orders such as the Jesuits) have been stuck on this 19th-century fallacy that Scripture needs to be somehow "demythologized."  The short answer to this is no, it does not - Scripture is NOT myth, and to claim otherwise is to deny some essential aspects of Christian faith.  In a true Convergence parish, Scriptural inerrancy (including a literal Creation narrative) is paramount, as you can't understand the liturgy or anything else without it.  Some have tried unfortunately - one example is the campus minister here at the school where I teach, who is into all this "liberation theology" garbage and he politicizes even sacramental elements of faith to a degree they lose their true meaning in his interpretation.  This is not what Convergence would endorse, because it detracts from the historic faith element that birthed the movement to begin with.  This is why in recent years I have grown a bit concerned with some Convergence leaders who court liberal theologians like Leonard Sweet and Stanley Hauerwas, and the result is a blurred line between actual Convergence and the "Emerging Church" movement of heretical Evangelicals like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.  These two movements are not the same, and there should be no intermingling of them.  I also have concerns about some leaders who are influenced by renegade Catholic writers such as Richard McBrien, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton - those individuals and their writings should be anathema to anyone who wants to embrace a true Convergence model of the Church.  These are some growing pains of that movement, and they must be addressed and dealt with properly to avoid stagnation. 

So, this is my official revisitation of what the Convergence Movement is to me, as I am starting to revisit a lot of things lately as I decide what the next move is in my own spiritual growth.  I am as of late a bit concerned about the current state of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am part, as I see disturbing trends with the last Pope as well as the current Pontiff, and I also see spiritual rot in people like this campus minister at my school - he is a true abomination in all honesty.  A lot will be determined by the course of action I see the Church take, and it will also determine if I stay in the Roman Catholic Church as a communicant or I decide to pursue a more orthodox Catholic path elsewhere.  Thanks for joining me, and will see you next time. 

Reaching the Green Light and Waiting

 In recent weeks, I have been on the cusp of change - my position at my current school where I teach is  about to end, and I am waiting to hear about other opportunities.  A part of the new opportunity is also a potential move soon, and I am anticipating it.  However, the wait is what is the hard part, and let me use an illustration to explain it.

About 2 blocks from my current house is 25th Street.  When I am going to work of a morning, that entails turning onto 25th at Greenmount Avenue, at the corner of which is a Dollar General and a tiny breakfast restaurant that some passengers on the bus I used to take said had some of the best coffee in the city.  If you travel about a quarter mile east on 25th Street, you come to the intersection of Harford Road.  At that intersection is an annoyingly long traffic light that blinks green and then stays on red it seems forever.  When the road was tore up a few months back for the endless and aggravating road construction Baltimore is noted for, that made things even more a situation of hubris as I am sure myself and countless others who take that route every day were forced to be late to work or school.  I have seen annoying traffic lights many times and in many places - St. Petersburg, FL, was noted for a lot of them too.  Thinking about the hubris and impatience a lengthy traffic light causes made me think of what my own life is like right now - I feel like I am sitting for a longer-than-usual time at that Harford Road intersection, waiting for that light to change from red to green.  You know the destination is in front of you, you are en route to it, but there is a delay that seems to be eternal.  This is my life at this point, and in all honesty, that light can change anytime!  Of course, there are other factors I have to wait out as well, such as waiting on this contract to end, for an actual opportunity to call, and then comes house hunting.  This means that if I start a new position in August, I will need to prepare by packing up my stuff, finding a house, and then moving into it before my first day of work comes.  It is daunting, but all of it is contingent on one email or phone call presenting me an offer for that opportunity.  I am actually praying that happens soon, and it is a lesson in trusting God for the light to change in a timely manner.  Again, this is where I am now.

Other decisions weigh on me too, such as my spiritual life.  I have, for a number of years, felt a bit displaced by my decision to return to the Catholic Church - I can't minister anymore because I have to be celibate to be a priest, which is not in my agenda.  Also, I have felt like teaching is my vocation - and it is - but too many things restrain me from teaching the way I would love to teach. One thing in particular is this school where I teach at now.  Despite having a Catholic identity, the school itself is very left-leaning on so many things, and the school fails to live up to its own name, which is a Latin title that exalts the Kingship of Christ.  Additionally, seeing some other things going on in the greater Catholic world concerns me too.  That pervert cardinal, "Tucho" Fernandez, is a problem in that he is the one in charge of the Dicastery of Faith, yet he has essentially written soft-core porn in theological language, which in itself is disturbing.  Add to that the Pachamama scandal (which the new Pope seems to be endorsing), priest scandals in the past 20 or so years, a re-emergence of the heresy of liberation theology in the name of "immigrant ministry," and the punishment of many solid and orthodox clergy (the SSPX, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Strickland, Archbishop Vigano, Cardinal Zen, and Fr. Frank Pavone among others) while affirming openly heretical and diabolical people such as Cardinal Fernandez and James Martin, has led me to reassess once again my relationship to the Catholic Church as an institution.  It is this I want to unpack now, as there is a lot I have been processing in regard to all this recently. 

The first thing I want to state is that I am a very committed Catholic Christian - I believe in a 2000-year-old faith without compromise and everything that goes with that.  I am not someone though who is strictly Tridentine Mass, as the so called Novus Ordo Mass that most Catholic parishes celebrate is actually quite reverent if it is celebrated in the right way.  I am at the point in my life that this aspect of my faith will never change as I have held it for the better of 30 years now.  That being said however, the official Roman Catholic Church as represented by the Vatican is often not as truly Catholic as it claims to be - there are too many Sadducees in clerical garb who will do anything to compromise Catholic truth as it has been held for centuries, and I am convinced that both the current Pope, Leo XIV and his predecessor Francis, have both did much to undermine true Catholicity in faith, and that is concerning to me.  I am not sure where I am right now with the official Catholic Church as administered by the leadership in the Vatican, but I am not making any decisions to go any direction yet until I see what truly happens - it would take a "green light" of a different sort to motivate me to leave that expression of Catholicism for good.  However, if the Church continues on its current trajectory and people like Cardinal Tucho have the power they have, it will not be me leaving the Catholic faith at all - it will be them if they compromise on it.  I have been meditating on that possibility and am looking into a communion that would be the Catholic faith I myself have, and it's good to have an exit strategy in case things really deteriorate later.  I am not inclined toward the SSPX, as I am not exclusively Tridentine Mass, nor am I totally comfortable with being formally part of an Orthodox church of some sort either - as much as I love and revere the Christian East, there are some of their hierarchs that focus more on exclusivity and legalism than they do the beauty of their own traditions, and I don't want that either.  Going back to the Continuing Anglican movement has been a thought, but I will have to see what comes of that first.  And the Polish National Catholic Church - I have looked into that also, and I like what I see but am just not "feeling" that right now though.  If I would be part of a particular Communion of some sort, it would have to almost mirror my own faith journey to a degree, and would have to be something I would be 100% certain of being part of.  That has led me to revisit a few things I want to talk about now.

I mentioned that my road to becoming Catholic was a path with a lot of turns in it - I was a former Pentecostal, and I became attracted to liturgy and sacramental understandings of the Christian experience some time ago.  I along with thousands of others were part of what was called the Convergence Movement, and at a later point I want to do an article here specifically on that.  The idea of "convergence" meant that over the centuries there were three streams of Christian expression - the Evangelical, the Charismatic, and the Liturgical (or Catholic).  With the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, something happened that isolated all of these from each other, and the result was a mess of incomplete Christian traditions emphasizing one of these over the others.  You had groups like the Baptists for instance that had a high view of Scripture and personal conversion to Christ, but they lacked something in the process.  The Pentecostals rediscovered the importance of the supernatural and the work of the Holy Spirit, but they too lacked - often, their belief systems would devolve into personality cults built up around pastors and evangelists, and you had to "feel" everything in order to be "spiritually alive."  That constant high standard caused problems of a different sort.  The Liturgical stream though had the worship - it was an ancient worship connected deeply to tradition, but at times many people who participated in it just "went through the motions," and thus they had something they knew was real but never fully appreciated it.  The three streams then became three competing faiths in a matter of speaking, with each trying to discredit the other without realizing that they actually were all supposed to compliment each other - that is where Convergence Christianity came into the picture, as many of us who were early proponents of it understood that there was something missing and the pieces needed to be put together in order to get a complete picture of what true Christian faith was.  While this has been an evolutionary process (not in a Darwinian sense, but rather a growth through trial-and-error), it also has congealed into a form of Catholic Christianity that I can securely lay claim to as it follows my basic convictions.  If I were to explain this, it would be like this:

1. Evangelical - this means my faith has a high view of Scripture as God-authored Revelation, and that what it says is true, especially regarding origins - this is why I also embrace both Biblical Young-Earth Creationism as a theological position and Intelligent Design as a scientific position.  It also sees the importance of Biblical morality, personal faith, and the salvation of souls as a mission of the Church.

2. Charismatic - this means my faith is supernatural in focus.  I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit working even today in ways such as healing, exercise of spiritual gifts, and the overlooked importance of important things such as our dreams. 

3. Liturgical - this is my worship.  It is grounded, rich in symbolism, and also rooted in a tradition.  The order, reverence, and dignity of liturgy brings the invisible to life, and it also is a way to live out the Gospel.  Jesus then is made real through sacramental grace.  

There are a couple of things about this which must be clarified - being a charismatic and a traditionalist does not to entail two conflicting and exclusive concepts.  It does not mean that CCM and "blended worship" have to be substituted for the rich musical tradition of the liturgical form either.  Some Convergence proponents try to insert contemporary "praise choruses" into a liturgical setting, but it doesn't fit because there is a time and place for the "praise time," and it is not during the Mass.  This is why I am not opposed to bringing things such as revivals and crusades into a Convergent Church environment, but for that I don't look to Hillsong, but rather to older forms of crusades such as those of the late Kathryn Kuhlman.  There is a reason Kathryn appealed to so many charismatic Catholics, and that is because she saw herself as being a vessel of the Holy Spirit and not doing anything that would offend him.  So, despite her identity with the Pentecostal movement, Kathryn Kuhlman's form of extra-liturgical evangelism meetings would fit comfortably into a Convergent Catholic setting.  The Mass and other liturgical forms should be kept with Christ at the center, but there are other forms of meetings that can be incorporated that encourage the supernatural move of the Holy Spirit too.  I would differ to a degree with other Convergence Movement people on this, but I think the evolution of the Church the way we are desiring it would be integral to understanding the times and places for different forms of devotion.  Remember too, the earliest movement that was considered a forerunner of the Azuza Street meetings that sparked Pentecostalism was a liturgical movement itself - the Catholic Apostolic Church of the 1830s.  The modern Convergence Movement would benefit a lot from studying the old CAC and its writings and liturgical heritage, as in reality the CAC was actually the original Convergence Church.  Even some of the oldest Pentecostal groups - the Portland-based Apostolic Faith Church comes to mind - reflected a reverence that many modern Pentecostals and Charismatics lack.  The AFC still has ordered services with full orchestras and pipe organs, and it is fully Pentecostal as well.  Same with another movement that presaged the Convergence Movement by a decade called the International Communion of Charismatic Churches.  While one ICCC pioneer, Bishop Earl Paulk, lost his credibility over scandal, he and many of his colleagues created a new type of "high-church Pentecostalism" which surprisingly also attracted many African-Americans too.  The biggest church in the US of this movement, Evangel Cathedral in Upper Marlboro, MD (which is about 30 miles from where I am sitting now) was founded by Bishop John Meares and still today continues that legacy as well.  In the many years of observing all this, I have always had a unique version of the Church that saw the benefits of all the aforementioned, and I often tried to implement it with little success and much opposition when I was a Pentecostal, and somewhat tabled when I eventually became Catholic.  But, lately those feelings have been stirring again and I am starting to wonder if I missed something somewhere?  Let me recap a little summary of my personal journey to show you what I mean.

A lot of this is hard to articulate in words, because I have never fully sorted out a lot of it myself.  There are times I was more attuned to it and wanted to explore things with it, but then the demands of daily life sort of made me table it as I have so many things.  I think one of the reasons I am so spiritually discontented lately is due to the fact that there is a lot I feel is missing from my own religious life, and I am starting to look back into some things to recover some of that enthusiasm I used to have.  This means the distinct possibility of maybe looking into a smaller - but fully Catholic - group that I can develop in and really be that person I should be.  I miss a lot of that stuff, and it does weigh on me.  This particular red light has been a long red light, and I need a way to make that light green so I can start to fulfill what it is I should be.  Hopefully as I explore this more I can get there, but the major thing now is discernment - where do I go, and what do I do?  A lot of that is waiting to see what directions Leo takes the Catholic Church - a lot will be determined then as to where I live out my Catholic faith, and the remote possibility is that the official Roman Catholic Church may not be the place.  I will be prayerfully exploring that further in days to come I am sure. 

Thank you for allowing me to share.   Many of you will relate to this green light analogy, as many of you are there.  The key is the wait - if you can survive that, it will make it all worth it in the end.  See you next time. 

Revisiting Transhumanism

 I recently came across Grayson Quay's book on transhumanism written from an orthodox Catholic perspective, and to be honest it was refreshing to see one from a Catholic source this time.  The huge misconception that exists is that Catholics are somehow friendly toward transhumanism based on some flawed and deeply heretical writings of Teilhard de Chardin, who was one of its earliest proponents.  In reality though, Teilhard de Chardin never represented the traditional Catholic view on this topic because he was in essence heretical and possibly demonically influenced - John Wynne notes that experience in his book exposing the Teilhardian/Cartesian heresy and it is a bit unsettling.  Monday in the mail I also received a copy of Francis Fukuyama's book Our Posthuman Future (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2002) that I replaced since my original copy was lost a couple of years ago.  This copy is a hardcover edition, which is a bonus, and also is a newer edition of the original as well - Fukuyama is a political economist who also is well-versed in technological science, and he has been one of the voices most critical of AI technologies as well as the dangers of transhumanism.  So, to revisit this, what is transhumanism?  Let's give a basic definition.

Transhumanism is considered to be an upgrade of the old eugenics movement, but it seeks to speed up human evolution by incorporating GRIN technologies (genetic engineering, robotics, AI, and nanotechnology) with biological components to in essence create the Nietzschean Ubermensch.  This presents some ethical challenges, including what defines a person, and fundamentally challenges even what it is to be human.  For the Catholic, the issue is dignity of personhood - can a Catholic in good conscience support alterations to the creation of the human person without diminishing personhood itself?  This fundamental issue is what also makes people like Teilhard de Chardin problematic, and why also it calls into question Darwinian evolution, which is often used as the basis for transhumanist ideology.  It also begs a very serious question as well - if the Nazis would have had access to transhumanist technological means, what consequences would that have had?  There are neo-Nazis today who embrace this stuff, and thankfully they are a fringe group with no real leverage.  However, this interest is not just limited to radical fringes - there are billionaires with money to blow who are messing with the theory as well.  The influence of the elites, who believe themselves to be "superior" to the masses, would encourage something like transhumanism as they could utilize it as a key to fulfilling their own utopian fantasies - genetically engineering others to serve them.  Getting rid of that pesky idea of "human dignity" would be their first major goal, and once that distinction is jettisoned, then the sky would be the limit as to what they could potentially do.  This was also the same ideas that drove Sir Francis Galton's early eugenics ideology.  Selective breeding, synthetic robotic/biotic components, etc., would be the stuff of their utopian fantasies and most others' dystopian nightmares.  Therein is the basic issue then. 

For an orthodox Catholic, transhumanism is something that should not be embraced, and its foundational ideologies - including theistic evolution - should likewise be rejected as well.  The Catholic - and Biblical - belief for human origins is that man was created uniquely in God's image.  Being created in God's image does not mean we are clones of the Almighty - rather, it means he envisioned us as we should be and by his supernatural will he brought humanity into existence.  Because of that, human dignity is fundamental to the Gospel in that it means we all come from the same place, from the same two people whom God created, and that we have the dignity as a full person, not a mere part or a mere means to an end.  Transhumanism diminishes that by reducing the person to a commodity, and thus it violates the basic dignity of personhood by encouraging the subjugation of elitists over everyone else.  Therefore, as Catholics we should oppose transhumanism like we oppose racism, because they are the same thing ultimately.  Anything that diminishes human dignity is not compatible with Church teaching, and thus it should be condemned and rejected.  This includes racism, eugenics, and transhumanism, as well as any ideology from which they are derived (social Darwinism in particular, and Darwinian evolution in general).  

Those are some preliminary thoughts on the topic of transhumanism, although much more could be said about it.  I have already published things on this topic already that contain more detail, and those are available with a cursory search, as one has been published.  Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you next time.