"No Man is an Island"

John Donne sermonized, "No man is an island. No one is self-sufficient; everyone relies on others." Nowadays, you don't often hear that quote. It flies in the face of modern "reason." Maybe our rugged individualism started with the self-reliant spirit that enabled pioneers to populate North America. And maybe that is a fiction.

A little time-travelin' music, maestro.

Let's travel back in the collective history of our minds; how's that for a touchy-feely, new-age term, "collective history," cool, huh? Anyway, imagine yourself as a pioneer, camping for the night. Stand next to your covered wagon, after you've unhitched and grazed your mules, of course. Take a look around, and what do you see? Wagons are parked in a circle, portable walls for the portable community. But you're not interested in others' wagons. You watch the folks, hurrying around near their own wagons, forming hunting parties, preparing meals, repairing their wagons and tack, and trying to rein in their playing children. Do you see isolated people, rugged individuals refusing help? Not likely! The fabled, pioneer spirit of Hollywood westerns and pulp novels didn't exist among the American pioneers who struggled each day for survival. And the real cowboys didn't ride out alone with six-shooters slung low on their hips, but loaded their horses with the tools of their trade and rode in teams. The people of the old west were skilled at plying their trades, but depended upon each other for survival.

We, the neurotics!

No wonder "we the people" are collectively so screwed up! Our collective, revisionist history, or pop-culture base, is pure fiction. We need help, but won't admit it. Why? Because we are a culture of perfect people--or should be, according to the Tube and trendy magazines. Eventually, our--your--personal demons will claw their way through your superficial shell of respectability. Eventually, personal issues will arise that bravado won't cover and psychobabble slogans won't assuage. The imagined, self-sufficient you will become the isolated, vulnerable you, and if you can afford it, you will secretly join the quest of millions to find "professional help." So, what do you look for in "professional help" when you've reached the end of yourself? The best therapists don't tell you what to do about a problem; advice--isolated and without probing--is worth little, no matter the price. Like smoke, it fogs your vision and burns the eyes of your soul. The best therapists help cut you open, revealing inner issues that need attention. The best therapists can help you heal. But, what if you can't afford "professional help," or have already spent a fortune on it, and found no relief? There seems no option but to suffer your demons' pitiless onslaught, acting out where you can, or retreating inside to a fetal position, figuratively sucking your thumb.

Therapy you can't afford to pass up.

The best therapist of all, the chief soul-surgeon, is God's Word, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12 NASB) God's word will cut you open to expose your carefully hidden "issues," the source of your infection, and help you excise the malignant pustule; that is the only cure. If you need more help, spiritual, God-honoring counselors with the pastor's gift will ably assist in the surgery. Such therapy requires--shudder--yielding yourself to God's healing, allowing him to place your self-sufficient pride on Christ's rough, wooden cross, and enduring the agony of its reluctant death. But for writers--those who must write to go on living, who write whether or not they make a cent on it--God has another able assistant. Since he knew we would be the most vulnerable of patients, the least likely to survive his surgery, he blessed us with a passion for self-expression and gave us the process of writing fiction and poetry. The blood produced by our surgery flows onto blank pages as words forming thoughts, thoughts forming ideas, ideas that form healing stories. We are the fortunate ones. God doesn't strap us to an operating table to passively endure the surgery. Rather, he straps us to a tablet, typewriter, or keyboard, and frees our minds and fingers while he cuts deeply but theraputically. So, why do we strive to sell the products of our soul-surgery to a critical and profane public? Is it because of some hidden, masochistic bend within? Perhaps. But if they're sucker enough to buy our stuff it sure helps to pay the bills. And maybe, just maybe, our process of healing will point the way for someone else.

The "Literary Fiction" Question

I think Tricia Goyer, along with Melody Carlson, have hit upon the distinction between literary and genre writing; a distinction I've been chasing for months. To quote Tricia's Writing Quote of the Day: November 12, 2004 "This is the oldest rule, but still true today write what you know. But don’t limit that to what you know in your head. Write about what you know in your heart things you’ve lived and felt and experienced. Sometimes it’s our biggest life challenges that produce our best writing. And, if nothing else, it’s cheap therapy. But, honestly, I believe God can use our toughest trials to communicate from the deep places of our souls to others." –Melody Carlson To read the complete article on Melody’s writing tips, go to: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=815162%20&sp=72136 Tricia’s Thoughts: Write what you know . . . in your heart. I like that. Dig into those dark places. Those bright spots too. Remember your emotions and feelings when going through specific situations--the ones that really stand out in your mind, then transfer those feelings onto the page. No two of us will deal with the same circumstances in life. Yet we all understand pain, joy, fear, hope. And it’s at these levels that we connect, and our writing will transform from mere words on the page to experiences that touch hearts. Happy Writing! Tricia Goyer www.thegoyers.com The label, "Literary Fiction," might be a misnomer. From what I've read on "literary" web pages, the term seems to imply the more classic approach to fiction where one might find chapters of pre-history, pages of narration and multiplied paragraphs of detailed description; where plot and associated action supports the characters, rather than the other way around. I dream of writing about people changed by circumstances. For that to happen, the character must be little more than a player, overtaken by a crisis that threatens her personal, status quo. The key there is "personal." I suspect most of us don't even know what that is UNTIL it is threatened. As Tricia said, "Dig into those dark places. Those bright spots too." Though she referred to the author's personal dark and bright places, fictional characters must also possess them. The only way to produce authentic, honest characterizations is to follow Tricia's advice of mining both the coal and the gold from the raw ore deep within. Faith in Fiction, David Long's blog, pursued the issue of stakes vs. theme vs. agenda vs. conflict a few weeks ago. Try this on for size: From that discussion I postulated that for a story to happen, a threat to the characters' needs must arise. The story's theme reflects the nature of those threats, and the world view from which the characters work to deal with them. Those are the story's corporate stakes, and genre fiction deals at least with them. Those stakes produce the characters' agendas, which fuel the action that resolves the conflict. The distinction in literary fiction is when the main characters undergo threats--either internal or external--to their personal, often unconscious, needs. Their individual world views guide their reactions to the threats and weave the story's tapestry of themes. The interaction between those themes and the story's stakes produce the various characters' agendas--usually reflecting the author's ideological agenda. Conflicts appear likely to thwart those agendas--either between characters, or a conflict arising from an external threat and the characters' corporate agendas. The last element is Resolution. Whether the various agendas succeed or fail, the author must resolve the conflict in the end. It's as simple as that. (Yeah, right)

Who says I'm normal?!

Pop culture views superficial imperfections as glaring faults, and markets catalogs full of remedies to correct them. That attitude fuels our dependence on psychoanalysis and psychoactive drugs that level our extremes, mollify our temperaments and weaken our wills. It substitutes "normality" for "character." Is that why much of today's fiction is so weak. Our heroes are largely ideal people with a few carefully inserted quirks to make them seem real. And our villains are evil personified with the occasional redeeming trait ... also to make them seem real. The operative term on both sides is, "seem." I dream of creating imperfect characters whose values and beliefs turn them into either heroes or villains. In other words, what single change in Hitler's character would have made him a savior instead of a savage? Wouldn't THAT make an interesting study?! Okay, confession time: I use Prozac. If that makes me a hypocrite, fine! Count that as a personality glitch that makes me real. If I didn't use it, I'd spend my days curled up in bed, sucking my thumb(slight exaggeration for effect). That fact forces an internal conflict: As a Christian, I believe God's personal promises, the bottom line of which is, for me, "God's doesn't make junk." Yet, when I don't take my meds, I'm virtually dysfunctional. I had to suffer a heart attack to prove that. My rationale to resolve the conflict? God allowed me to suffer disabling issues, then gave me the means to overcome them, so I could possess the rare gift of empathy. The pills I have to take continually remind me of my weakness, preventing my latent pride from rising up like a cobra from a basket For that, I praise him! Pride is one cobra that will, eventually, bite. Jim Thompson -- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1Pe 1:3)

Thoughts about creative writing

Creative writing is as much craft as art, and as much art as craft. The art consists of imagination and self knowledge. Most writers already have an overactive imagination. Many, to the point that their imaginative writings are about as coherent as a monkey would be, playing with a keyboard. Self knowledge is harder to come by. Without it, we have no framework on which to hang our imagination. It's like a Christmas tree. The tree itself, sitting in the middle of the living room without decorations, is beautiful but plain; not very exciting. The decorations without the tree are flashy, but lying in a box or on the floor, they are entirely without purpose. Combine the two and you have a thing of beauty. The tree, like self knowledge, provides structure and symmetry for the sparkle and flash of imagination. The craft of writing is another thing entirely. Journalists by the tens of thousands around the world do a credible job of reporting using the five "Ws": Who, What, When, Where, and Why. But without a murder or a kidnaping to report, it's all academic. The same goes for technical writers. Give them some information to convey, and they can do a great job of writing. But what do all those words tell us about the person writing them? Simply combining imagination and self knowledge does not guarantee excellent, or marketable, creative writing. The truly great creative writer has to be a world-class liar. She has to be able to spin a convincing whopper with no internal contradictions. That means making a fantastic yarn plausible. That means making it taste the same throughout all its layers, like an onion. And yes, well-written fiction has layers. Imagine a pool of water, smooth as glass. Drop in a pebble, and you have concentric ripples centered on where the pebble went in. Now, throw in two pebbles. The concentric ripples from each pebble will intersect those from the other pebble, forming a complex pattern. Now, throw in three, then four, then six pebbles. The pattern of those intersecting ripples will reach a complexity almost beyond imagination. Each of those pebbles is a character or a plot element. If you had to keep track of each intersection of each ripple of each character and plot element, you'd go bonkers trying and still not catch them all. And even if you could, you'd loose your readers in short order. This is where the art and the craft of creative writing tie together. The story's overall impression, not capturing the intricacy of minute detail, is where its beauty lies. The story needs enough detail to seem real, and that detail must be consistent enough to seem authentic, but the key to its success lies in furnishing enough, but not too much. To achieve that end, one must step back from the work long enough to gain a fresh perspective. Then, read it anew with openness to change.It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules. After he has learned, by their guidance, to write plain English adequate for everyday uses, let him look, for the secrets of style, to the study of the masters of literature. From the Introduction to William Strunk’s The Elements of Style. Remember, your imagination is your servant, not the other way around. Crack the whips of structure and style, to make your imagination express its dark stories in beautiful prose. That doesn't happen automatically.

The Judgment of Saint George

The Judgment of Saint George

Confession time: I am conservative. By some definitions, I may even be a conservative. And yes, I proudly confess to voting for President Bush.

Without knowing him personally, my impression is that he is a decent, plain spoken--but passionate--man with above average--but not exceptional--intelligence, and about as honest as we're likely to find in national politics.

Does that qualify him for the Oval Office? Apparently so.

Does that qualify him for Canonization? On listening to several conservative commentators, especially those of the Evangelical Christian establishment, apparently so. And therein lies my concern.

Evangelical Christians formed one of the most cohesive voting blocks for President Bush. But we can be a fickle bunch. For example: remember when Amy Grant went through her divorce? One minute she was the apple of our collective eye. The next minute, we dropped her like an apple eaten by worms. So easily, we forget how vulnerable we--that's each and every one of us--are to stumbling morally. But while conveniently suffering temporary amnesia, we castigate our brethren who seem to have stumbled.

Saint George, Beware!

When President Bush's halo slips and he compromises one of our sanctified cows, how will we Evangelical Christians react? Based on our history, I have no question that reaction will be a knee-jerk condemnation.

Rather than prove to our critics once again how narrow and judgmental we can be, why not learn from the example of the Author and Finisher of our faith. When Yeshua stood before a mock trial, his close friend, Simon-Peter, denied him three times, yet our Savior forgave him at the first opportunity. When the Roman soldiers flayed, and beat him beyond recognition, rammed nails through his wrists and ankles, then jeered when they hoisted his naked body up for display, what were Yeshua's words? "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Little Christs?

We claim to be little Christs, believing and following his teachings, and accepting his blood-sacrifice for our sins, yet we cop the plea of human frailty when we stubbornly refuse to follow his example of forgiveness. How can we wonder why so many refuse to accept our Savior, while laughing at our foolishness? How can we expect to escape judgment for the millions of souls our arrogant, worldly attitudes have alienated?

It's time, dear brethren, to examine ourselves. It's time to bow low to the ground and beg the forgiveness of those we have unrighteously judged. Before telling others to repent, it's time we ourselves repented.

On What Should We Stand?

The following is my entry to the Power of Purpose contest that concluded in August, 2004:

On What Should We Stand?

My name could draw blank stares. My occupation could dazzle no one. My purpose could change the world. Did someone say, “What’s all this hifalutin talk about purpose? It’s all I can do to keep food on the table and shoes on the kids’ feet.” So, there you have it: Survival, personally and for one’s family, drives all of us. Or does it? Science--that is, evolutionary theoreticians--tells us we’re nothing more than highly-evolved animals perched atop the evolutionary ladder. If we are, in fact, over-achieving animals, our driving force should be that of all other animals, albeit highly-evolved: the species, family and individual survival instinct. Such a conclusion leaves an unsettling question: When forced to decide between denying our beliefs or facing torture and death for ourselves and our families, why do we lofty, evolutionary ladder-perching animals, ever choose suffering over security? Doesn’t our tendency to value fidelity over survival seem to deny the presumed, highly-evolved survival instinct? That it does, unless said survival instinct views ideological compromise a greater threat than extinction. But if that were the case, wouldn’t the survival instinct contradict its own definition? Don’t take this too hard, scientists, but you’ve leaned your evolutionary ladder on the thin air of invalid assumptions, with its bottom-half stuck in muddy, Popular Scientific rationale. Part of the blame for that tenuous reasoning falls on two ideas that we generally misunderstand: instinct and purpose. Rather than being near-synonyms, they are outright contradictions. One of the many inferred meanings of purpose is: “A characteristically human motivation that counters instinct.” Whether for good, or for ill, a conscious sense of purpose separates us from the rest of creation.

A Marriage of Convenience

Society has witnessed the unlikely wedding of its academic establishment and its mass-communications industry. The happy couple is currently populating our schools and TV sets with their offspring: Biased Academic Entertainment, Amusing Editorialized Journalism, and Socially Irresponsible Programming. All three precocious children favor their parents’ aversion towards value-judgments. We’ve all heard well-meaning teachers, psychologists, and every other -ologist imaginable, say, “You shouldn’t say should or shouldn’t,” or some other antinomian tripe. An alarming number of our youth’s teachers and counselors refuse to validate any moral standard for fear of appearing moralistic, or worse yet, religious(perish the thought). Their hype calls it, “Values-Neutral Education,” saying it allows children to discover their own, personal values. If they are right--though by their stated beliefs they can be neither right nor wrong--there would be no difference between Mother Teresa’s purpose, and that of terrorists. They’re both purpose-driven. They’re both extreme in their religious or ideological adherence. And they’ve both changed the world in that pursuit. Yes, that claim is ridiculous, but unimpeded by a moral code, that kernel of reasoning grows inexorably to extremes. So we face a quandary: If humanity is indeed purpose-driven, what standard should govern that purpose? As painful as it must seem to you, O amoral academia, this calls, not for societal values-neutrality, but for personal values-judgment. History has validated, despite wars and genocide: Humanity’s highest aspiration is betterment, while that of the animal kingdom is survival. As lofty as that sounds, everyone seems to have different, often conflicting, standards of what constitutes a better condition. While reflecting on that ambiguity, a discerning sage once said, “HELP SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING ” Doing something requires taking a stand, but on what should we stand? All the great religions, ideologies and institutions bear certain similarities, one of which is the preemptive value of human life, and its corollary, quality of life. But these values are not as simple, or obvious, as they might seem. Intellectuals have written volumes to cover their exigencies and ramifications; dry, academic tomes of interest only to other sympathetic intellectuals, the authors’ colleagues, and their mothers. In all the millions of words written to “encapsulate” these values, is there no universal moral filter that all reasonable people might accept? Is there not some kind of “Golden Rule” through which humanity might qualify its manifold contradictory aspirations?

As a matter of fact, there is

While all the world’s great religions teach a version of this “Golden Rule,” Christians harken to Jesus’ words in Luke 6:31 of their New Testament. The New American Standard Bible* translates it: “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” What a simple code What a seemingly impossible ideal for the human family to attain But, why not have our governments pass laws dictating the Golden Rule? That’s a great idea, and there’s only one slight wrinkle we’d have to iron out: Passing such laws may give the legislators purposeful feelings and job security, but if the Golden Rule is not written on individual hearts, history has shown legislation will never put it there. “Turn to Religion, O man, and thou shalt find the Bounty of Goodness.” Okay, it’s not a quote from scripture, but it sounds nice, doesn’t it? Religionists have pounded their pulpits with some version of that message since a certain couple failed to walk away from a certain serpent. Yet, religion’s history reveals anything but applying the Golden Rule to its purposes. “Give me one generation of youth, and I will transform the entire world.” Comrade Lenin’s higher purpose has already peaked, but where is the transformation? “Education holds the key to change Give our schools enough money to fulfill their purpose, and the ghettos will turn to gardens; violence will vanish.” In this Values-Neutral academic environment, does school write anything but facts on our kids’ minds? “We have but to push the boundaries of our scientific knowledge ever further, until we know all there is. Then we shall be as gods.” Haven’t you noticed, O serpent, that science’s noble purpose has produced myriad ingenious death-machines, along with sundry other, helpful inventions? “The Truth is out there.” Great sound-bite for an FBI agent regardless what letter he assigns to his files, but since religion, politics, education and science have all failed to implement the Golden Rule, how can humanity survive its apparent purpose of extinction? All of these purposeful institutions and endeavors are products of our highly-evolved, innately destructive human nature. The only purpose contrary to that, is the only purpose outside human nature: That of our non-religious, non-political, non-educational, non-scientific, cognitive, infinite, loving, redemptive and personal Creator. He is the Jews’ Messiah, the Gentiles’ Christ, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, before whom every knee shall one day bow in worship. He is the Solid Rock on which we must stand to reach any purpose worthy of His unique creation. * Scripture quotation taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

Re: F*i*F post for 11/03

Dave voiced concern that Faith in Fiction might become nothing more than an echo chamber where like-minded writers can find affirmation. Here's another analogy for in-bred exchanges: When you step between two mirrors, you see yourself reflected over and over again in an apparently infinite corridor. Cool illusion, but what does it do but give you, the viewer, a false sense of depth. Modify that illustration to a ruby cylinder with perfectly parallel ends coated to slightly different degrees of reflection. Introduce light into that cylinder and it bounces between the two ends until it escapes through one end as a coherent beam of light--a lazer beam. Depending upon the beam's characteristics, it can destroy or heal. What one commentator considers an echo-chamber, another might see as a lazer. Personally, I see F*i*F as a ruby cylinder with light bouncing madly between reflective ends. Will the resulting projection illuminate, or burn? Jim

Self-Destruct Mode

In today's F*i*F posting, Dave effectively pointed out the fact that Christian writers lack credibility in the literary world partly because we write from an obvious agenda. That's called following the Great Commission using the gift we possess. How we use it is another story. Missions aren't unique to Christian writers. Everyone, that is, every single writer worthy of publishing holds a worldview based on their beliefs--even if their belief is in the nonexistence of something or someone. Secularistic authors propagate their beliefs through their writing as consistantly as do Christians, though most are loath to admit it. So, what's the diff? The issue of Christian writers being trivialized springs from the secularistic worldview that pervades our society--tragically, even the evangelical minority! We call CBA works "predictable" because the Christian worldview is narrower than the secular worldview. We look to Christ, whereas they chase phantom saviors. We've come to expect better quality, more entertaining stuff from the world because they don't have to try as hard to vary their message. By nature, their message is as varied as their gods, and by their standard, "variety is the spice of life." Christians know that is a lie! We are the salt of the earth, the true spice of life. When we convey our redemptive message as mediocre pablum, in a significant way, we have blasphemed our God. Yet, to be included in the tent of "Christian" publishers, that's what we have to do. It's as if the CBA industry itself believes the lie that people of faith can't handle the toughest social problems, even though the object of their faith offers the only viable solution.

HOT POTATO!

At first I thought they were cleverly disguised gospel tracts, leaning against the wall on the check stand counter. Christians occasionally leave them around the store, hoping to entice someone to pick them up and read them. But when I picked them up and flipped them over, I discovered there was no gospel message on their opposite side. They were real, crisp, fifty-dollar bills.

Oh, how those new-style notes, with their red and blue imprints, enticed me. Before I could think of anything else, I jerked my gaze upward, to Lisa, the team leader who was closing another register. She hadn’t noticed what I had found, but that made no difference to my reaction.

“Lisa ... I don’t think these are supposed to be here,” I said with involuntary alarm in my voice. Before she could reply, I held them straight out in front of myself and did not pass Go, did not collect one hundred dollars, but marched directly over to her. Those fifty-dollar bills scared me, and I wanted to get them out of my hand as if they were a hot potato.

Why did these two pieces of paper frighten me so? It wasn’t the fact that they were legal tender, completely negotiable to the holder; I handle money all day. Instead, it was the possibility that I might disappoint the one person I love more than all life, the person who turned his back on his divinity to become like me in my temptations and my mortality. I couldn’t bear the thought of possibly bringing reproach on his name, of causing his disgrace, of becoming a stumbling block for anyone who might discover my dishonesty- -regardless how unlikely that might be.

Jesus is indeed my Savior and my Lord. But he is also my Transformer, the Master Craftsman who is rebuilding every part of my being that I am willing to give him. It is not enough to be a sinner saved by grace. I must be a sinner made gracious by his love, his council and his example.

ONCE A CATHOLIC ...

Once a Catholic...

Catholic bashing is not a new sport. Protestants have been doing it since the Renaissance. To some, it seems almost a hobby. Shouldn't they have learned by now that it's useless trying to convert Catholics to Protestantism by attacking their faith? Catholics aren’t stupid. They know their church isn't perfect, because it's made up of imperfect human beings. What they believe, however, is very dear to them. That's why they get their backs up when some pious Protestant tells them they're going to hell because they're Catholics.

Where’s the Love?

Some Protestants seem to viciously hate the Catholic Church, and generalize that hatred to include individual Catholics. I may be wrong, but might that be in direct violation of Jesus' command to love even our enemies? In St. Matthew’s gospel, chapter 5, verses 44&45 Jesus said, But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Since God is love, he can’t be the source their hatred, so that leaves only two other possibilities: Either such hatred festers and oozes from within the individuals, or Satan directly inspires it. And such fundamentalist Protestants say Catholics are controlled by demons. Even if Catholics were the worst of all sinners—which they are not—that would be no excuse for treating them with anything but love. Jesus' words quoted above apply to both Catholics and Protestants. Neither can be children of God without such love.

Why am I an “ex?”

Fact is, Jesus died for Catholics, too. I know. I was one. "So why," you may ask, "are you not still a practicing Catholic?" When I was young, God performed a miracle in my life; He gave me complete confidence in the truth of his word. After awhile I noticed differences between what I had been taught in catechism class, and what the Bible said. When I looked into it, I learned that the church had adopted certain traditions, doctrines, and rules that were not strictly based on the inspired word of God, and had justified it by another tradition; the Holy Sea's infalibility--for the uninitiated, the Holy Sea includes the Pope and the College of Cardinals. That tradition came from the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession, which says Saint Peter was the first Pontiff in a succession that continues unbroken to this day with Pope John Paul II. The doctrine was based on Jesus’ words as recorded in Matthew 16:18; 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. What most Catholics don’t understand, however, is that the word petros, translated “Peter,” means a small stone, or pebble, while the word petra, translated “rock,” means a bolder. The petra Jesus referred to was the truth Peter spoke two verses earlier: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said that truth was the foundation stone of his church, and Peter, through his acknowledgement, was but a small part of it. Peter's words, as well as the other inspired teachings of the apostles and prophets, are the foundation on which Jesus built his church, with himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). Disciples, or students, of various teachers abound in the religious world. While the more influential preachers, gurus and rabbis seem to progagate generations of followers, spiritual babies aren't born to human parents, regardless how spiritual they may be. And while a sense of spirituality or spiritual mission may pass directly to successors, each person must come to their Father God individually. John the Baptist stated the idea clearly in Matthew 3:9; And do not think you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. What we see in the Vatican is not a spiritual succession, but a religious succession of one of the most powerful institutions in the world.

An easy target.

There’s another popular issue among Catholic bashers. They say Catholics worship statues of the Virgin Mary and the other saints. They get that idea because Catholics kneel before them in prayer. While that observation may be true, praying to saints isn't the same as worshiping them. Catholics venerate the saints because of their good example of holy living, and venerating isn't the same as worshiping . . . at least, not quite. Catholic tradition has a list of Patron Saints to cover nearly every situation. If I were more in touch with my Catholic roots, I could come up with a few examples, but Saint Christopher, the Patron Saint of travelers, will have to do. One thing I can remember, however, is the Catholic junk mail I received that pitched different “ministries” whose sole purpose was to collect money for promoting various Patron Saints. The Bible mentions nothing about God having a limited attention span. In fact, just the opposite is true: He knows every thought in every mind that has ever lived. It is not necessary for certain favored saints to carry our petitions before his throne. He loves us exactly as much as the saints who are already with him in heaven, so he's not bothered in the least when we obey him by praying directly to him through his Son, Jesus. When Jesus told his disciples how to pray in Matthew, chapter six, he said to pray directly to “Our Father.” To believe that God can't or won't hear the prayers of his people, or that he is prejudiced in favor of the patron saints is simply blasphemy. Yes that's a strong statement, but by believing such things of our loving, Heavenly Father, we reduce him to the level of fallen man. If that's not blasphemy, what is it?

Do it again, and again, and again...!

Eventually I began looking at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I understood that it was not a reenactment of the death of Jesus, but an actual reinstatement of his sacrifice. I saw nothing wrong with that until Hebrews, chapter ten, hit me like a lightning bolt! Part of it goes like this: Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (the Lord Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.(vss. 11 - 14) The author may have not been writing specifically about Catholic Priests, but the parallel is too close to ignore. Jesus came to eliminate the need for periodic sacrifices. By saying that Jesus' sacrifice was not enough by itself, we are saying it was imperfect: Another blasphemy!

The Hunger

As a child I took the Sacraments very seriously. When I qualified for the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, I realized that my confessions were superficial. No matter how much I confessed my sins, I knew I wasn't clean. I wanted desperately to have Jesus inside me, and Communion seemed the only way available. I believed what I was told about the trans-substantiation of the Communion host into the body and blood of Jesus, so I was painfully aware of my unworthiness to participate in the Eucharist. I felt hopeless; cut off from the Savior I loved, and unable to satisfy his righteousness. I never felt the Peace of Christ so glibly spoken of in the Mass. Perhaps if I had read Galations 3:3, I would have realized the futility of trying to gain salvation through the works of the Church: Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

A Real Workout

The Sacraments are ritual works intended to bestow God's grace. In Ephesians 2:8&9, God puts works into perspective: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. One could argue that God instituted the Sacraments to impart grace to those who participate. They are, however, the sort of works that the Jewish leaders imposed on their own believers when they demanded observation of certain feast days and Sabbaths, and the repetition of various prayers and sacrifices. Some of them were part of the Law of Moses, which was from God. Most if them, however, were traditions imposed by the Talmud and the Elders because God’s demands didn’t seem to be enough. From my current perspective, that sounds a lot like the Catholic Church. While she never actively disputes any portion of Scripture, the Church effectively negates the finality of God’s revelation in Scripture. With each Papal Encyclical and Church Council, the church expands what it considers to be God’s revelation. Second Corinthians 11:4 could apply to the Catholic Church as easily as it does to the Jewish religion: For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. Galations 1:8 repeats the theme in even stronger language: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! Jesus and his apostles preached a gospel of faith and repentance alone. Holy Mother the Church preaches a gospel of rituals and other works. That sounds like “another gospel” to me! I said that I never felt at peace with God through the sacraments. The rituals and the liturgy were wonderful, and I felt close to God in them, but it never lasted. When I walked out of the church building, I walked back into my sinful life. Since I thought I'd be extremely lucky to make it to heaven at all, I tried to enjoy myself to the max here on Earth.

The Move

I met a strange family when I moved to Montana: To me they were Protestants, but they loved me despite my Catholicism. They didn't preach at me, but simply loved and accepted me as I was. We often discussed spiritual topics late into the night, and I discovered they weren't very different from me, except they were at peace with God. Maybe they were Christians after all. One night I returned home under heavy conviction that I was on the wrong path, and that I needed to go to Jesus personally, rather than depending on the Church as my surrogate savior. I imagined—or envisioned—God's hand reaching down to me. I took it, and began a relationship with God that continues deepening nearly thirty years later. What liberation! I no longer fear an organization who claims to speak for God, because I personally belong to him and know him, and his love for me. Of course I'm not saying there haven't been through rough times. Occasionally I have been enticed by the deceiver into taking an off ramp from the Way of Jesus. Thanks to God's grace and mercy, however, those rocky little trips along my own path have been short, and completely forgiven. In a way I'm still a Catholic, though perhaps I should spell it with a small “c.” According to the definitions of the words, the Holy Catholic Church is not the holy catholic church. Holy means “separated,” or “set aside,” as God is separated from the world's corruption. The Catholic church constantly battles internal corruption, as do all other religious organizations. The word catholic means “universal,” or including all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Church means “assembly” or “association.” By definition then, I am part of God's separated universal association. How's that for a mouthful? Church membership doesn't bind that association together, because it is not a denomination, or any other kind of human organization. We are bound together because we have all been washed of our dreadful sin by the blood of Jesus. We are members, not of an organization, but of Jesus' spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 12:27 states, Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. The only church roll book mentioned in the Bible is the Lamb’s Book of Life. Revelations 12:15 hints about what could ultimately happen to any of us: If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Some hint, eh?

Catholics can be Christians too.

Don’t get me wrong! Unlike the Catholic bashers, I believe Catholics can be Christians too. While Catholics can be Christians in the Church, they can never become Christians through the Church. Catholics, as well as any other sinners, can only have eternal life through the blood of Jesus, not through Church membership, baptism, Extreme Unction, or any other ritual.

How then can we be saved?

God’s plan of salvation can be illustrated by some of the Church sacraments: Confession...1 John 1:9 says it best: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. When we confess our sinfulness to Jesus in prayer, he carries our guilt and takes our punishment to his once for all sacrifice on the cross. There is no need to confess to a priest because: There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5&6) Repentance is implied in confession, but how many truly repent as a result of what’s said in the confessional. If they did, there would be no lines outside, and priests would only have to hear confessions by appointment. There is no penance for our sins that Jesus didn’t suffer for us on the cross. Here again, to say we have to do our own penance for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering wasn’t enough. Holy Eucharist...When we go to Jesus personally for forgiveness of our sins, and trust only his finished work on the cross for our eternal salvation, his Holy Spirit enters our soul, and fellowships with our own human spirit. After the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Jesus taught of the Bread of Life in John, chapter six: "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” “Sir,” they said, “from now on give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven’?” “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. I included this lengthy passage of Jesus’ words so the reader could see the entire context of one of the main proof verses the Catholic Church uses for their sacrament of Holy Eucharist. By carefully reading the whole passage, however, it’s obvious that Jesus was speaking of a spiritual truth, rather than a literal ritual. The argument of his listeners shows how his figurative language could be, and is, misinterpreted. Note how they ignored most of what he told them, but typical of people of any period, they zoned in only on the part that attracted their attention. Baptism... St. Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter six, demonstrates the lesson of baptism: What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. The whole point of baptism is to demonstrate that we died to sin with Jesus, and are now alive to God because of Jesus’ resurrection. Holy Orders... Not only specially ordained priests, but every believer is under holy orders to take the gospel into all the world. That’s our duty, and our privilege. If each Christian lived the gospel of Jesus in our everyday lives, there would be no need for huge organizations to spread the faith. Jesus is not a corpse hanging limply on the cross. He is ALIVE! He is active! And he wants you, personally, to depend on him, personally, for salvation. He loves you and wants to have a vital relationship with you, now and for eternity. That’s why you were created, and it’s the only way you can be truly happy, even in this world. Once your priorities are aligned with God’s, you will be happier and more fulfilled than you ever thought possible.

Just Do It!

If God’s Holy Spirit is speaking to you about your need to personally accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord, this is the time to act on it. If you need a sample prayer to guide you in your conversation with God, try the following. (Hint: Don’t recite it. Pray it from your heart!) My Father God, I am a hopeless sinner! I believe that you allowed Jesus to come to earth and die on the cross for my sins because you love me. Please forgive my sins and save me. Accept my life as I turn it over to you as a living sacrifice, for you to use as you see fit. I am totally yours. Thank you for saving me, and allowing me the privilege of praying to you in the name of Jesus. If you sincerely prayed something like that, you are now his child by faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. John 1:12&13 puts it clearly: Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. If you obeyed God by accepting Jesus, personally, as your savior and Lord, he is now your friend, not your Judge. Jesus said, You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:14) Romans 8:1&2 says you no longer have to worry about condemnation if you are in Jesus. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. Are you “in Christ Jesus?” If you really turned your life over to him, you are.

Warning...

Doubts will come! No matter how determined you are to live for God, you still have a corrupt flesh affecting your moods, your habits, and your attitudes. When you blow it—which you most certainly will from time to time—simply go to God through your friend and older brother Jesus, and confess it with godly sorrow and heartfelt repentance. If you have any idea how much Jesus loves you, your occasional sin will hurt you almost as much as it hurt him. Feel free to tell him of your love, and to praise him freely. There is nothing like it in all the world. Find others who feel as you do, and fellowship with them. That said, here’s another word of caution: No church is perfect, because no Christian is perfect. You will see and hear things that disappoint you. You may even get burned by a new friend. Just remember, they aren’t any more perfect than you. Cut ‘em a little slack, and let God be their judge. Keep your eyes on Jesus and the imperfections of the others won’t bother you. Read God’s word and meditate on it. Pray about it, and everything else in your life. You can’t keep secrets from God anyway, so why not openly communicate all your concerns and thankfulness, your sins and your victories. God loves listening to his children, and they love talking to him.