That's what I hope the Ordinariates will become. I hope and pray that they will help restore a muscular "Onward Christian Soldiers" style of Christianity. Not that I mean Christian men be bloodthirsty Crusaders, but that they not be afraid of the internal spiritual warfare a robust faith demands and, in the end, they have the wherewithal to stand courageously to defend what's good.
Here's a link to a great article by William Kilpatrick at Front Page Magazine on the feminization of Christianity. How are we going to make sure the Ordinariates are an antidote to this kind of sentimental version of the faith that drives men out of the pews? Here's an excerpt, but please read the whole thing.
Meanwhile, Christianity, which ought to be the rival for the affections of wayward youn men, seems to be undergoing a prolonged sexual-identity crisis. There is a serious problem in Christianity today, but it’s the exact opposite of the one the popular media focuses on. To read the papers and certain works of popular fiction you would think that the main problem with Christianity is that it’s too patriarchal: no women in the priesthood, no voice for women, no recognition of the divine feminine.
But the reality is a different matter. Look around you the next time you’re in church, and count the ratio of women to men. Normally, it’s about two-to-one in favor of the women. Moreover, women are much more involved in church activities. The Notre Dame Study of Parish Life showed that 80 to 85 percent of those involved in parish ministries or in teaching religion were women. As one writer put it, “the Roman Catholic Church has a rather rigid division of labor. The men have the priesthood, the women have everything else.” As for Protestants, all the mainline denominations have female priests or pastors, and the Episcopal Church even has a female Presiding Bishop (who prayed to “our mother Jesus” at her installation). About twenty-five percent of Episcopal priests are women, as are about twenty-nine percent of Presbyterian pastors. But this has failed to produce the miracle of renewal that Catholic advocates assure us will follow upon women’s ordination. Instead, mainline congregations have dwindled. As recently as 1960, mainline churches accounted for forty percent of American Protestants. Today it’s about twelve percent. If present trends continue, the mainline churches will end up with an all female clergy, preaching to mostly female congregations in the few remaining churches that haven’t been converted to mosques or condominiums.
Contrary to what liberal Christians think, the feminization of Christianity is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. Christianity is unattractive to many, not because it is perceived as too masculine, but because it’s perceived as too feminine. Moreover, when you add the gospel of the divine feminine to the fact of lopsided church attendance, the problem only gets worse. Da Vinci Code theology is highly titillating, but it won’t bring the men flocking back to the churches. Men have enough trouble as it is with female spirituality and with sentimentalized hymns and sermons. To think that the notion of Jesus as the first feminist will sit well with them is sheer fantasy. Men are not inclined to take up their daily crosses to follow the androgynous one. If men can be persuaded that the picture of Jesus presented in The Da Vinci Code is the true one, that gives them one more reason to avoid church.
But many Christian leaders still don’t get it. As David Morrow points out in Why Men Hate Going to Church, many of the songs now sung in church “have the same breathless feel as top forty love songs.” In addition, women are now encouraged by some Christian pastors and writers to think of Jesus in frankly romantic terms. Naturally enough, such forms of piety tend to create psychological barriers for men. The idea of Christ as our brother challenges a man to become a better man, but the idea of Christ as boyfriend is challenging in a different sense.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Mrs. Gyapong,
Thanks very much for this one. Quite serendipitously, just as you were publishing this, I was putting a post on the General forum on the question of the Whole Anglican Patrimony that deals with some of these concerns.
Michael LaRue
Men like to sing militant hymns.
Whatever is in the hymnal as appropriate for the day is secondary.
I agree with much of Mr. Kilpatrick's analysis of contemporary Christianity and the problems of feminization of the church. At the same time, I can't think of any adjective more anti-thetical to the message of Jesus of Nazareth than "militant". Jesus taught a radical pacifism. Pre-Constantinian Christians lived this faith, for example, by requiring converts from the Imperial army to renounce military service. Origen and Tertullian, among others, denounced warfare and military service in no uncertain terms. Even when the Empire made peace with the church after the Edict of Milan, no less a luminary than St. Basil taught that taking a human life while in military service was a sin that required a three year excommunication from the mysteries. No one who had served in the military was permitted to enter the priesthood. If we are going to concern ourselves with the culture clash between Islam and Christianity, we should endeavour to recover this radically pro-life spirit and repudiate all forms of violence. What could present a stronger contrast to the message of Islam?
I'm not sure what country Mr. Kilpatrick is writing from, but I know that the present USA is the most militaristic civilization in the history of the world. We have been at war at least somewhere in the world since at least the 1940's. The last place in the world we should be encouraging anything "militant" is in the pews of American churches.
For sure, contemporary Roman Catholic music, which has aped the worst of Fundamentalist/Evangalical dross is awful. I can't stomach it. In my own tradition, I'm not keen on some of the flowery Victorian music in the Anglican Hymnals. This has more to do with musical taste though. I just don't see the traditional BCP liturgy, the old Roman Rite, or Orthodoxy as "too feminine". Even if it IS "feminine" so what? Men and women each have what we would term "masculine" and "feminine" qualities.
Just what does being "manly" mean? Do we need Ultimate Fighting night to bait men into coming to church? Perhaps these guys can be handed big red rubber balls so they can continue to pummel the "weak" boys they did in high school – you know, those "femmy-they might be one-ah them queers!" artists, poets, band or choir members. (I've forgiven, but I haven't forgotten.) The Church is identified in feminine terms: Holy Mother Church. We are all "the bride" of Christ. Do we get rid of this ancient scriptural word painting to placate those so boorish and stupid to think this requires them to, I don't know what, dress in drag? Which makes me wonder what such manly dudes will do with all our "black dresses", not to mention all that lace and brocade. Perhaps we should switch to liturgical track suits to make them happy.
Paul Coughlin, author of "No More Christian Nice Guy" would agree with the article you linked: The problem with the wimpy Jesus of the popular imagination is that "a meek and mild Jesus eventually is a bore. He doesn't inspire us."
I'm sorry that Mr. Couchlin finds meekness "a bore", but just how does his opinion fit with the Beatitudes and offering the other cheek? The masculinity movement's assumes that Jesus came to model genuine masculinity. This is not the reason for the Incarnation! Fundagelical® Mark Driscol states that "latte-sipping Cabriolet drivers" do not represent biblical masculinity, because "real men"—like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist— are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes." Talk about making god in your own image! So where do kind, meek, sensitive men fit in? I like art, poetry, and yes I drink lattes and enjoy open air motoring. Will I be chased from the church by the paranoid likes of Driscol because I don't like violence and drink my coffee with warm milk.. which gosh – that might mean I might want to bugger him! So, who's the one with sexual identity problems? I can only imagine Driscol's reaction at the Last Supper. Who would Driscol drag outside and utterly beat the crap out of first, Jesus or Saint John, the one who put his head on Christ breast? Make no mistake, he'd take them both out because "I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up." (Driscol)
These folks believe Christian Men should be "brash, offensive" (Stine), "self-reliant, competitive" (Murrow), "punch-you-in-the-nose dudes" (Driscoll). I waited tables the last three years, and let me tell you – men these days don't need ANY encouragement to be brash and offensive, or to push their literal weight around. All of this strikes me as the values "the world" has for men. Saint Paul says that those who are filled with the Holy Spirit will be loving, patient, peaceful, kind, and gentle. Again, lets not forget the Beatitues. While Jesus overturned the temple tables (once) he often wept, enjoyed the company of children, and didn't punch Saint John in the face for being one-ah them queers. Perhaps these so called "real men" aren't tough enough to be Christlike.
Deborah:
In response to your politically correct zinger about "bloodthirsty Crusaders", let me recommend "God's Battalions — The Case For The Crusades" by Rodney Stark (2009, HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers.) Stark is Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, is a prolific author, and is one of the leading Christian sociologists in the world. The book is relatively short and is a very informative and "good" read.
I remember reading an article by Frederica Matthewes-Green on how manly Eastern Orthodox is:
http://www.nbseminary.ca/archives/manly-orthodoxy
Listening in on several conversion stories seem to bear out that the manliness seems to put off the wives and attract the husbands until the wives start to appreciate what that commitment does to their husbands and their marriages.
The key thing that's expressed is that the Orthodox stress the harder aspects like fasting half the year, standing most of the mass, discipline, and dying to self which seems to appeal to men as much the army appeals to many men.
The Catholic Church used to stress the harder aspects, but it's become softer (at least in the West) and more accommodating to people's busy schedules. This isn't of itself bad, but when that's all that gets stressed, men looking for meat rather than milk who can't become a monk or priest look for that difficultly elsewhere (e.g. organizations like Knights of Columbus or secular organizations).
IMO, if men are given the opportunity to carry the cross within church life once again, there will no longer be an imbalance. There will also be fewer problems with secularism since the spiritual disciples of death to self make it easier to be indifferent to what "the spirit of the age is trying to intimidate each of us to submit to".
Much of the conduct DB describes is, of course, the very antithesis of manliness rather than a description of it. Certainly bullying is never manly. It is sad that the bitter residue of his bad experiences is allowed to so distort his view. Duty, honor, truthfulness, trustworthiness, generosity, fortitude, courage, self sacrificing: these are some of the components of manliness.
Just how is my view distorted? I clearly rejected the same false masculinity you did. Did you read the article linked? There is more than a little bit of chest thumping recommended. The article had nothing to do with "duty, honor, truthfulness, trustworthiness, generosity, fortitude, courage, [or] self sacrificing." Those qualities are Christian virtues, regardless if one is a man or a woman. I think these virtues are extolled in many Christian churches of various denominations. Just what then did the author of the article think is missing from Christianity? He states:
"But in the West the masculine spirit looks more like a ghost. In The Suicide of Reason, Lee Harris puts the matter in stark biological terms: “While we in the West are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin, the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive, and ruthless.”
Sounds like Harris is talking war, but in reality his book is more about cultural conflict than armed conflict. War isn’t necessary if the males of one culture can cow those of another culture into submission.
In line with Harris’ alpha male musings, the one place where conversions to Islam are exploding is in the U.S. prison system. Roughly 80 percent of inmates who find faith during their incarceration choose Islam. That works out to 30,000 conversions per year among federal prisoners. Many of the men are in prison in the first place because they were attracted to the masculine world of gangs. And since Islam is doing a better job of appealing to basic masculine psychology, it seems the logical choice. It’s not for nothing that the progenitor of all current jihadist groups is called “the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Just why is Islam attractive to these men? Is it because Christian prison chaplains are singing "In the Garden" in a sanguine manner? Or, is it because "the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive, and ruthless.” This most certainly is not Christianity. The author goes on to say "Christianity without a strong masculine presence won’t be able to keep young men from defecting to the religion of guns n’ poses." Someone who is interested in "guns and poses" is probably not going to easily sign up for a religion which believes men should be poor in spirit, meek, and should offer your enemy a free shot to your other cheek.
As to my bitter residue, just a few years ago I purchased a new pair of rather standard, affordable, black, penny loafer type dress shoes to wear while helping serve at Mass. A priest disdainfully looked at them and then said to me, while looking right in my eyes, "Nice faggot shoes." How very "tough, aggressive, and ruthless" of him. I'm a grown man, and the same boys are still throwing big rubber balls at me. If you'd like to see things from my so called distorted view, come stand in my loafers and take a look. So excuse me when I say that I am rather sure I know the attitude the author of this article is getting at, including his paranoia over "sexual identity". That priest is long gone now. I have remained "dutiful" to the faith, but only because Christ teaches me to turn the other cheek.
One can be dutiful to a false Christianity. Many of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist boys I grew up with are stockpiling guns right now, which is a little more frightening than the rubber balls they used to play with. Others may find being "tough, aggressive, and ruthless" quite honourable. Islamic terrorists can be self-sacrificing. The qualities you mention are imbued with Christian virtue only when they meet the Beatitudes and the humble prayer of the publican. That doesn't leave much room for the sort of chest thumping the author of this article implies.
Greg Chudy's assertion "…that the present USA is the most militaristic civilization in the history of the world." is either reckless hyperbole or demonstrates an astounding lack of historical knowledge and comprehension. Of course it is not untypical of those who get swept away by the kind of radical – and false – "Christian" pacifism which seems to have afflicted Mr. Chudy.
I wasn't aware that valuing human life was an "affliction".
As to my assertion regaring the militaristic nature of the USA, what other society has unleashed nuclear weapons on two unsespecting cities, annihiliting untold non-combatants, women and children?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "the USA is responsible for 41.5 per cent of the world's total defense spending, distantly followed by China (5.8% of world share), France (4.5%), the UK (4.5%), and Russia (4%)."
44 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to the military. We spend more on defense the rest of the nations of the globe combined. As I stated in my previous comment, the USA has been engaged in perpetual warfare somewhere on the globe since long before I was born. There is absolutely zero evidence that this will change in our lifetime, barring some kind of economic catastrophe.
According to Webster's Dictionary Militarism means: 1) a predominance of the military class or its ideals. (A person cannot be elected in this country without either having served in the military or bending over backwards to prove that they will "support the troops" (translation: rubberstamp every bloated military funding bill put before them) And apparently, a person cannot question the moral legitimacy of war on a forum like this without his "Christian" faith being placed in quotation marks).
2) a policy of aggressive military preparedness (tell me one society in history that has expended more money, energy and political will towards its military. The figures cited above prove that there is no rival at the present time. Please don't drag out the Russians. Reagan is praised by hawks for having outspent the USSR in military preparedness.)
Not sure how the brutal and licentious soldiery has the predominance in our society. It seems like it is the politicains, most of whom never served a day in uniform and fewer still who have "seen the elephant" are the chaps who get us into fights. It is the military who must try to get us out while retaining their honor in incredibly complex and dangerous situations.
By all means let us seek peace, but let us also remember the story from Maccabees about those who refused to fight. I wonder if the situation with Islam isn't somewhat similar.
“Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and torture and the punishment [of execution], who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?”
– Tertullian, De Corona [Concerning the Crown], 11
"The world is soaked with mutual blood. When individuals commit homicide, it is a crime; it is called a virtue when it is done in the name of the state. Impunity is acquired for crimes not by reason of innocence but by the magnitude of the cruelty."
– St Cyprian of Carthage, To Donatus, chapter 6
And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: ‘Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!’ And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army — an army of piety — by offering our prayers to God.
– Origen, Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 73
Someone who has defiled himself with murder — be it involuntarily — is considered impure through his impure deeds and the canon considers such a person unworthy of the grace of priesthood.
– St Gregory of Nyssa, Canonical Epistle to St Letoius of Melitene.
In peace, not in war, we are trained.
– Clement of Alexandria, Paedogogus 1,12
If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.
– Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, 10
Christ, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.
– Tertullian, de Idololatria 19
"2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."99 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"100 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."101 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."102
"2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103"
-Catechism of the Catholic Church
I think that DB's criticism of a certain type of false masculinity is entirely warranted; this type of masculine ideal is a distortion, just as the "name it and claim it" gospel is a distortion of the trust we are to have in the Father's hearing of our prayers.
That said, the masculine virtues of courage, perseverance, justice, protection of one's loved ones, etc., are rarely heard from Catholic pulpits (or in Catholic hymnody), and I suspect the same is true of mainline and most evangelical pulpits as well.
St. Paul tells us to that our true enemies are not flesh and blood but the powers and dominions (i.e., the demons). But he does not shy away from military similes and metaphors in telling us how to live our lives: putting on the helmet, breastplate and taking up the sword and shield that our faith equips us with.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Greg Chudy's (and the Catholic Workers') argument for pacificism (although cherry picking quotes from some fathers and leaving out others such as Augustine is not a full examination of the issue), but I found that when I became a husband and father these arguments for pacificism didn't address the whole question. After all, while the Lord does tell us to turn the other cheek (although looked at closely, the Lord's admonition is about suffering insult not injury), he does not say to turn a blind eye to others' being harmed. The motivation to put oneself in harm's way to protect those for whom we have responsibility is motivated by charity, not blood lust. If this is true for the family, why not for the community?
There is a reason for the development of the Just War ideas, both in its declaration and carrying out. The pre-Constantianian fathers were not part of a community that held responsibility for the welfare of the entire "polis", as were those who came after, such as Augustine and Ambrose. That didn't hinder Ambrose from condeming the unjust actions of Emperor Theodosius, but it was not a condemnation of defensive war either.
The quote from Origen:
If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!
does not condemn the army, but the idea that Christians (a royal priesthood) should be part of it: they should be allowed to pray for the success of the army and the king. When the Christians were a small minority within the empire this may have made sense, but when they were the majority? Who was the king and army for whom the Church should pray, except fellow Christians? In this instance, the adaptation of the Church was to bar the clergy and monastics from war, so that they could assume the role for the Christian empire that the early Church assumed for the pagan one.
Mr Chudy,
While I respect your opinion, I find your opinion not based upon accurate Christian theology and your use of an organization, The Stockholm International Peace Research Institution, not in the manner the institute itself upholds.
Starting with theology.
The first problem is the attribute of God of the Old Testament verse God of the New Testament. Saw that all the time in the Baptist Church. Jesus never taught pacifism. He taught us how to interact in personal relationships. Neither He, nor John the Baptist, ST Peter and the other apostles taught military service was contrary to Christian morality. When Jesus, John and Peter interacted with military personnel, they never called them to leave the military, but to conduct themselves in an upright moral way. See Acts 10, Matt 8:5-13, Johon 4:46 for starts.
Jesus, the Messiah, came for one purpose. Our salvation. That did not preclude him from taking a whip to those in the temple. Not a turn the other check action or much of a pacifist. Also look at Luke 22:26 to the end of the chapter. Jesus actually tells the disciples to buy a sword if you do not have one. Romans 13 give the state the right of the sword. A correct morality, based upon the teachings of God and Christ will give a correct attitude toward the military and the police. I did notice you did not mention anything about the police. I always find interesting that those who oppose christian interaction with the military or oppose the military in some fashion usually do not have much to say about the police and the increasing spending on police forces and the miltiarization of the Swat teams etc etc etc.
The early church and the military. Eusebius The History of the Church teaches some of the persecutions of the Christians began in the civil government and military prior to the general population. The Theban Legion, a mixutre of truth and myth, was recruit in Eygpt and was solely what we would call Coptic Christian. They were martyered to the man in 286 for refusing to sacrifice to the Emperor. After putting down a rebellion in Gaul. In Switzerland, N. Italy and Southern France and I believe Germany are shrines, churches etc built to these Christian soldiers. Further information can be found in Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Martyer and Ottonian Germany: Tjhe Chronicon of Thietmar of Messely. Also, I can recommend the Reformed Theological Seminary's classes on Church History in regards to Christians in relation to Roman society.
Also remember that many scholars believe Jesus, as the commander of the Lords Army appeared to Joshua outside of Ai in Joshua 5. For the Commander instructed Joshua to remove his shoes for he was on Holy Ground. Up to that time only on the appearance of God was there the commandment. In this account, if scholars are correct, Jesus was armed with a sword and armor. This constast His Messiahship where He came to fulfill the Law and scriptures. His meekness during his passion was in fulfillment of scripture and the will of God. If he and the disciple had resisted, they would be resisting the will of God as plainly revealed in scripture.
Also, be careful making use of selective quotes from the early church fathers. They also taught discipline and many times we confuse discipline with dogma. Tertullian, Clement and Jerome all also taught we should be vegetarians. St Paul taught that is was best if ALL christians were chaste. ie did not marry. Origen took the teaching of Christ out of context, if thy eye offend thee pluck it out and self castrated himself. Their teachings on non military service were discipline, not dogma as it is documented that Christians served in Government and military. As an interesting note, my Grandfather of memory, used the teachings of Jesus to teach that Christians should not be in government, but it was fine to be in the military.
Let go now to the Stockholm institute. The site clearly tells us that the gathering of information is not accurate, we are not to compare countries and that the method of gathering information on the various countries is not similar. Meaning how they gather info on the US is not the same as say China.
Included in military spending for the US is not just operational cost or equipment. Also included under their system are all retirement payment to DOD personnel (military and civilian), military AId (so when we help Indonesia with the Tidal Wave it counted as military spending), social services for military personnel and families (education of children, college education of personnel, the PX etc), when Pres. Obama decided to destroy some nuclear weapons and when old outdate equipment is destroyed say like the F-14 or Sr-71 it is counted for America. Veteran benefits….everytime I go to the VA it is a counted as military spending and by you as militaristic. When the military spent million or billions in helping New Orlean, Mississippi, Alabama after Katrina….Stockholm calls this military spending and includes it in the ratio and database. Since the States are a first responder and actively seek to help in diasters Stockholm counts the sending of personnel and hospital ships to Haiti. So you are decrying much of the humanitarian relief the States gives around the world because it is delivered by the United States Military. Again misusing the information inaccurately gathered as the institute clearly states on the website.
I submit your findings are in error.
Lastly your true colors are showing in regards to the nuclear weapons used in WWII on Japan. Weapons of mass destruction also include biological and chemical. Most European nations and many muslim have use said weapons. While there are stockpiles of it, when I served i n the Marines, I know of no military officer or enlisted man who want to use them. Trying to paint the US as some goon or bad guy in the world stage is appalling. The US has done more to relieve suffering and free oppressed people in the 20th century than most countries. (Please our Allies I do know your contribution, but this is a defense of the States at this time. thanks for understanding).
Engaged in perpetual warfare? I think our definitions of warfare are different. But if you are referencing the Cold War waged from about 1946 to 89, please note the world was in war between two opposing systems of how to view and treat humanity. Many people believe we have been engaged in warfare with the muslim terrorist since 1993, oh some will admit 1980's. Actually, the Marine Hymn tells us of military action against said terrorist under the Adams and Jefferson administration of the late 1700's and early 1800's. Sometimes a country is in perpertal warfare due to it's enemies and is therefore not the bad guy. Will warfare end. Yes, once again I refer you to scripture. Until Jesus returns the world will wage war upon itself.
As to other societies that may have expend more money, will or energy? Comparing 21St economics to 19th or even 4th BC is apples to oranges. What % of GNP could be more accurate, though how can we compute the GNP of say the Greeks, Romans, Assyrian, Eygptians and moving up to the vast world empires of the Mongols, Huns, and onto the Empires of Great Britian, France, Spain. To the militaristic societies of Sparta or even the Aztecs or Incas. Napoleon's France was militaristic and caused a World War involving peoples in Asia, South American, North Amercian (War of 1812) The Kaiser, oh our usual naughty boy Hitler with a total militaristic society and the Soviets. It was not just Russia but the conquered countries of eastern Europe among other. In your zeal to lay blame on the doorstep of the States your vision has become narrowed and out of focus.
I think a better use of your zeal would be to focus on what is right with the States, try to expand what is right and not to focus only on what is wrong. I have faults. My wife could harp on them as I could hers and my children, but to what end and to what good. I change my wife by changing myself and I encourage proper behavior by praise and reward. Oh the bad is not ignored, just not dwelt upon. It does nothing to bring the family together. There are problems with my country. I have served it, bled for it and seen the problems up close and personal. I could constantly nay say my country, but I leave that for our enemies.
Fr.Mark
"Also look at Luke 22:26 to the end of the chapter. Jesus actually tells the disciples to buy a sword if you do not have one."
In what translation do you find Jesus instructing his disciples to buy a sword? In fact, when one struck the servant of the high priest with a sword, Jesus becomes angry.
- And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.
DB,
Good question.
Try the following translations: Interlinear Greek-English, Douay-Rheims, NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and Young's Literal Translation. These are but a few of the different translations of Holy Scripture. There are many more and you will find they translate thus. http://www.bible.cc will translate a scripture verse for you and compare it to most of the known translations. The ones I listed are just the ones laying about the house.
The buying of a sword is not itself prohibited. How it is used is the question. St Peter in his defense of Jesus and striking the servant was attempting to hinder the will of God. Remember Jesus has been telling them this day, or night, was coming and it was the Fathers' will and the fulfillment of scripture. It was not a moral lesson in pacifism.
Fr. Mark
Mr. Chudy:
It was not before "faith", it was before "pacifism" That I enclosed the adjective "Christian" in quotation marks. You are engaging in a bit of proof texting from the Church Fathers and the CCC and not presenting a full or accurate picture of Christian doctrine on the matters in question. Perhaps someone else will rise to the bait and enter the lists with you – I have other fish to fry at the moment – Lord knows there are countless writings to sling about if someone has the time and inclination.
Yes the USA spends a lot on DEFENSE (though I could argue with some of the figures you cite) – DEFENSE, that is the operative word – thank GOD that at least one country is willing to do so.
You may be interested to know that I opposed both Gulf Wars at the time but for very different reasons than your own. I also think that the targeting decisions for the dropping of the A bombs on Japan were terribly wrong, but not the underlying decision to drop the bombs in a prudential judgment that by doing so many Americas (and even Japanese) lives would ultimately be saved. Sadly and ironically, among other things, was the fact that Nagasaki was the locale of Japan's principal Christian community.
OK, sure. The Empire is going to continue killing people, whether we encourage them from the pulpits or not. I just think it would be nice if at least a few Christians were willing to offer an alternative vision of how humans could behave towards one another.
Pax
Fr. Mark, you wrote:
" I did notice you did not mention anything about the police. I always find interesting that those who oppose christian interaction with the military or oppose the military in some fashion usually do not have much to say about the police and the increasing spending on police forces and the miltiarization of the Swat teams etc etc etc."
If it is of any interest to you, I am an anarchist, so I am as opposed to the police force as to the military. Both are funded by coercive taxation and, by definition, rely on lethal violence. I cannot morally support either entity. I'm no fan of swat teams, the drug war, or the ever encroaching police state we are surrounded with.
This is my final post on this thread and blog.
May the peace of Christ abide in your heart and may the Lord have mercy on us all.
Mr Chudy,
I do not believe you know the definition of an anarchist. You appear to try to be holding to extremely opposite views of peace and violence at the same time. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and disorder. To claim to hold to this position while at the same time claiming to hold to the teachings of Christ as a pacifist is just amazing. It leads me to believe you really don't understand what you are talking about. Anarchy is strictly related to survival of the strong as the expense of the weak. Total opposite of the teachings of Christ, which you originally said you held.
Now you state you are leaving. I would write more to try to understand you and your conflicting views, but you have done what we call trolling.
Also to you, may the peace of Christ abide and the Lord have mercy. I may add, may the Lord send the Holy Spirit to guide you and clarify your beliefs.
Fr.Mark
Interesting.
I seem to recall that at an evangelically oriented Episcopal workshop on homiletics some years ago, the seminar leader said, "Preach to the men; the women will listen to you anyway, and you'll be targeting an endangered species, men-in-church". Or words to that effect.
Sounds right to me, now as always!
It may just be correct. In Pensacola of the various Anglican Churches only one is growing. From 25 to over 250 in about 18 months. Actually has more men than women and children. Oh it has all the women and children programs but also programs for men.
The problem is that the Church has created mens programs that mirror the ones for women and children. This parish created programs where men can be men. Doing construction, grilling and various things that appeal to men. Many single men. It was noticed if the child came, maybe the parents. If the woman, the children yes. Husbands maybe. But if you get the husband/father the entire family comes. I was taught this in Baptist seminary and some Presbyterians here have started this.
There are bible studies. Camping, fishing and work trips with bible study by a priest or deacon. I have found one Catholic parish in my town doing the same. Every wednesday night they gather teenage boys together by themselves. They play sports games, toss each other about like boys usually do at this age. and when the seminarian, deacon or priest calls time for pray or worship. It is a beautiful sight to see about 100 young men stop what they are doing and worship the Lord.
When a man hits his knees, his family joins him.
Fr. Mark