YOU BETTER WATCH OUT . . .

And not because Santa Clause is coming to town.

Recently the U. S. Embassy in Rome has warned United States Citizens to be on high alert if they are in St. Peter's Basilica, the Duomo in Milan, and in general churches and synagogues in Europe.  

A friend of mine just went to work at a Jewish elementary school in another state.  Out of concern for extremists, they have hired arm guards to patrol their school.

As a side anecdote, a few years ago a grandpa came to pick his grandson up from our school wearing a police uniform as he had just finished his shift and boy! did I get phone calls and letters, "What?!  Are we an armed camp now?  Are we going to subject our children to such things?"  It was a sad misunderstanding, but maybe not so crazy of an idea anymore.

We are not there, but it is not unimaginable that in the future we will start thinking twice about going to a crowded concert, play, or celebration.  We may become even more homebodies than we already are.  And one will argue whether this is a good thing or not.  "Stay safe!  Stay home!' or, "Don't let them win by staying home!"

But what about faith?  Will we find ourselves nervous about going to Mass?  Might we choose safety over communal worship of God?  If you ever wondered what it was to be a Christian of old when there was some risk for being Catholic (or of today depending on where you are in the world - there are still martyrs for the faith being made to this very year) you just might get the chance to find out first hand.

SO HERE'S THE QUESTION:  Who do you want to be should you face such risk?  Do you want to be a Sebastian or a Catherine?  Do you want to be a person of your own convictions?  Do want to be a person of freedom of thought?  Then decide that now.  Decide you are going to be a person of fortitude now.  Pray for the courage of your convictions now.  Decide what is important to you now so IF the you are presented with the scenario of being scared to live your cherished core values, your inner strength, your earlier discernment of your hierarchy of beliefs to be defended, your course of life will see you through the rough waters of conflict.

ATHEISTS MAKE BETTER THEISTS THAN YOU THINK

The opposite of faith is not atheism just as the opposite of love is not hate.

 

Take this example of hate as opposed to love; In this awful scene, the character played by Glen Close is spilling vile hatred on her father.  (It is disturbing.  If you don’t want to watch it simply know this – she went to see him on his death bed to tell him she hates him and will never forgive him.)

 

Even though she obviously hates him she is still in relationship with him.  It is a sick relationship, but she is still connected to this man she despises.  She feels a need to communicate.  What happened in the past matters to her.  What he thinks and feels matters to her.  And when she leaves the room he still has control over (will still have control over her after he dies!)  It may be a sick relationship, but it is a relationship.  And though we would hardly call any aspect of this love, it is not the opposite of it yet.

 

The true opposite of love is indifference.  With indifference there is no relationship, there is no caring how the other person feels or thinks.  There is no control over the other person (positive or negative) because there is no type of connection at all.  It is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. 

 

In like manner, atheism is not the opposite of faith.  (There are many types of atheism so this is speaking rather broadly.)  There are atheists that spend their energy fighting notions of God, which puts them in relationship with Him unwittingly.  There are atheists who build their moral construct on viewing the world by observing it and seeing how it seems to operate at its best, which brings us to Natural Law, which ipso facto brings order and intelligence to the universe which brings us to God.  There are atheists who rely solely on science, which often leads him to faith.  Let us suppose that he relies on the theory of the Big Bang as the birth of the universe (put forth by a Catholic priest by the way.)  It still explains nothing.  What caused the big bang?  Why should there be energy as opposed to not?  Why should there be matter as opposed to not?  In the end (or in the beginning) the whole thing is established on faith of things that are completely un-provable.

 

The relationship with (or to) God may not be a healthy one (from a Christian perspective) and the faith in SOMETHING that gives order or was a first cause may be materialistic in nature but it is still faith. 

 

The true opposite of faith is thinking that the world and all that it is in it is a complete fluke of nature.  Life has no meaning.  The existence of the cosmos has no meaning.  This whole conversation would ultimately have no point.  Truth is non-existent.  There is nothing cognitive outside of ourselves (and even that may be an illusion) and when humanity passes away it won’t matter.  The universe will continue to go on and there will be nothing to mourn the passing of man or all of his works and thoughts.  It wouldn’t mean any more if we had just been rocks.  So eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

 

But let one tiny ray of order, meaning, or the holding of something that cannot be proven, then there is a relationship with something that most people call God no matter how flimsy.  Catholics may not think it a healthy relationship.  But it is one.  And therefore not the opposite of faith.

(YET ANOTHER REASON WHY) ART MATTERS

So Tuesday I joined another priest for lunch at a local grub joint and there was a T.V. in the corner competing for attention with assorted folk there.  On the screen was a black and white movie about the old west and in the scene which caught our eye, the closed caption revealed that one man was speaking to the other about King David and illicit desire for one of his commander’s wives, presumably to chastise him for whatever was happening during the rest of the movie.

 

The thought occurred to me then how amazing it is that art plays such a vital role not only in helping us understand who we are and where we are going, but how we view and understand our past.  It may be nothing like we imagine it but it will play a huge role in who we think we are and want to be. 

 

For example, ask any 15 year old and he will tell you the old west was full of cowboys toting around guns and having gun fights.  The fact is that this was not the case.  It is fabrication of our art.  Guns were far too heavy, awkward, expensive, and dangerous for everyone to be carrying around just in case they wanted to get into a fight.  (But that doesn’t make for a great movie.)

 

So it is with language.  A lot of slang, idioms, and references made up a lot more of everyday conversation in the past than it does today.  Yet when writing a old west cowboy script in 2014, one would never guess that Christ was ever born or meant anything to anyone.  That is why there is a fight over whether our founding fathers were interested in Christianity or not.  Exactly what does separation of Church and state mean?  Our history matters.  Our writers of history matter because they help influence who we think we are.

THIS EITHER MEANS SOMETHING OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL

I know I get stuck on one topic every now and then.  For those whom that annoys I apologize.  Currently I am on this whole atheist compared to Catholic kick.  It simply fascinates me. 

 

If you watched the video on Tuesday you witness one of the world’s most famous atheists and one of the princes of the Church . . . compare and contrast I suppose.  I understand why the cardinal wants to use any opportunity to express his beliefs – he has what believes is a divine mandate to do so.  What motivates the atheist?  Why would it be important to him that everyone understand him?  I suppose there are two main reasons – one, that he wants to be understood, and two, he must to some extent enjoy it.

 

The most interesting part of the interview for me is the “why” of the universe.  I interpret his question as to why there is anything as opposed to nothing.  Why should there be matter and space and such a thing as life?  The whole universe and everything in it would be equally as mysterious if it were the size and composition of a tiny pebble.  Why should there be something that can form structure, have energy – no – why should there be anything at all?  Why should there be existence?

 

Of course, for the Christian, the universe is full of meaning and purpose and direction and everything means something.  Where we came from, where we are, and where we are going are all very significant.  “Why” is based on a benevolent God who created all there is out of love and Who desires to share that love with those who freely choose to accept it.  All of creation is aiming toward that love.  So bringing others on board is very important. 

 

Unfortunately most of the self proclaimed atheists with whom I get the opportunity to speak are either not really atheists at all or have a very shallow understanding of the underpinnings of their atheism.  (I am sure they can be matched man for man with similar Catholics – probably outnumbered and in vast numbers – but such is my current experience.)  As one of my favorite Catholic speakers once said, “There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but most people don’t know enough to be one.”

 

So we turn to Dawkins.  Firstly I was disappointed that a lot of his argument was based in ridicule.  There was the dismissives, “Surly you don’t believe . . .” and his misleading presentation of the Christian position that then made it easy for him to ridicule.  But such is life.

 

What was truly interesting to me was his turn on the “why” of the universe.  He believes there is a scientific why to the universe.  Something caused it to form.  It can be explained.  It can’t be explained yet, but science will eventually tell us.  (Here he we see a basis of atheistic “belief” the same as the Christian “belief.”)  But as to the deeper why of the universe – the meaning behind it, he calls an absurd question.  There is no meaning to the universe.  It is not achieving any perfection.  It simply is.  So what does this debate matter unless you do it out of personal joy? 

 

So then he rejects social Darwinism and declares it wrong.  But how can he declare it absolutely wrong if there is no meaning to the universe?  The only way I can see is to say, “I have declared it wrong, I have the power (or the majority or what have you) and have decreed it so.”  Is that not, in effect, a form of Social Darwinism?  It can’t be both ways.  The universe cannot be meaningless and full of inherent good and evil at the same time.

 

So we both look at a pebble.  For both of us it is an amazing thing.  Scientifically it might reveal tons of information.  It might bring joy or be useful.  We could instill meaning into it such as, “This is the rock I picked up on my 25^th birthday and I keep it as a happy remembrance of that day.”  But after that, if I read things correctly, for the atheist, all else is meaninglessness.  For the Christian, there is further meaning in that pebble with the power of a nuclear explosion.  There is a Who, what, where, when, and why of its coming into being and just as much to where it is going. 

TOLERANCE IS A TWO WAY STREET

I received a short letter from a lady who was quite distressed that reception of Communion in the Catholic Church is limited to Catholics.  The implication was that Catholics thought of her as an inferior Christian.  (How she got that interpretation I am at a loss.  But there it is.)  Her letter begins by saying that she is, “a baptized and confirmed Lutheran who believes in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church . . .” but ends the letter with, “Justification by faith said Martin Luther.  He got it right.”  The first part of the letter makes it sound as though she sought unity between the Churches, but her last line strikes a strong note concerning our differences and how she is glad for them.

 

I would assume that in naming the Christian Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, words with which we resonate, underneath we would mean very different things.  And therein lays the problem:  Communion means we are “in union” and we are not.  When someone approaches to receive Communion we say, “Body of Christ,” and expect the reply, “Amen.”  What does “Amen” mean but “Yes!” or “So be it!” or “I agree!”  As Catholics we believe, of course, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and that the bread and wine has ceased to exist.  But that belief assumes so much more.  It assumes that Jesus founded a Church with authority, and that it is the one true Church under the leadership of His vicar, the pope, that the way we are redeemed and saved is how it has been understood by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, that the Catholic priesthood is what we say that it is, that works matter, and, well, I could go on and on.  To make this person say, “Amen,” then means one of two things: She denies her Lutheran belief and has chosen to make a public pronouncement that what the Catholic Church teaches is correct or, it doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church teaches which is silly anyway and therefore I may do as I please.

 

But here is the good thing that happened:  Part of Jesus’ mission was, “That they may all be one.”  But respecting each other and not receiving Communion at each other’s churches, we paid homage to the fact they we are indeed not in union.  So then rather than superficially looking like we are all the same page, we were able to actually address something here that would otherwise have gone under the radar and solved nothing.  This person was drawn to ask the question and I was able to respond.  There is the road back to unity.  Not ignoring it.

WOULD TRINITY BY ANY OTHER DEFINITION SMELL AS SWEET?

There is no other dogma so central to Christianity than the one the Catholic Church celebrates this weekend: that of the Holy Trinity.  It is the building block upon which all Christian belief is constructed.  We hold, always have, and always will hold that it is essential to defining oneself as Christian.  It is not simply a belief in Jesus.  It must also be a belief in what He taught; which is a belief in His nature, which is in the unity of the Trinity.

It is interesting to note for fundamentalists who hold to a “if it is not in the Bible I do not believe it” faith that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and neither is the concept of Holy Spirit being part of the Trinity or that Jesus is of the same substance of divinity as the Father or that Jesus was fully God and fully human from the first moment of conception or that He was one person with two complete natures or how those natures function . . .  So neither the word nor much of the assumed dogma of the Trinity can be found in Scripture.

Some will argue that “it is illogical to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that its concept is not taught therein. This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity. Instead, the person should look to God's word to see if it is taught or not.”  Yet this is precisely the argument used in teaching against Purgatory.  It isn’t a Biblical word so it is thought a Catholic invention.  Yet the Church freely admits to completely making up the name but it did so to give a title to a reality that Christ and others give us in Scriptural teaching.  We say very little about what Purgatory is other than it is a something most must go through before entering heaven for it is clearly taught that nothing unclean shall enter before God.  Purgatory simply means that one is purged of their sins before entering heaven.

The teaching of the Trinity is becoming more of an issue recently as Mormonism is rises in notoriety.  There is some debate between two camps that argue whether a Mormon is in actuality a Christian or not.  (Not whether they are good people or not – but as to whether they can take the title Christian or not.)  A recent NPR show had a woman who is a Mormon stated emphatically that she is Christian and will not allow anybody to tell her otherwise.

Here is the main point of debate taken from Fr. Z’s blog, “Gods, for Mormons, were mortals who became gods. Mormons hold that “God the Father” actually has a wife, a “Heavenly Mother”, with whom he procreated “Jesus Christ” who also acquired “divinity”. For Mormons, the “Holy Spirit” is also the offspring of parents. For Mormons, four gods guide the universe, three of whom form a sort of “trinity”.”  In order to claim that they are Christian, one must completely redefine what the Tirnity is – much the same way that marriage must be redefined as something else before it can be applied freely to other forms of relationships.  For further reading he recommends going here.

N.B.  This is not a commentary on whether a person is qualified to be president or not.  This is a post about the most ancient teaching of the Trinity and what it means to be a Christian,

RANT - COUNTER RANT: A WHOLE LOT OF RANTING GOING ON

First an apology for all of the ranting going on here lately.

BUT I CAN’T HELP IT!

Angela DelBrocco wrote last week in the Akron Beacon Journal’s letters to the editor that “it is not respectable or professional” for Catholic institutions to be Catholic. She then dictates what the Catholic Church is supposed to do. They are “supposed to employ and serve many individuals from different background and faiths.” This is true enough. But then to make the leap that Catholic institutions such as hospitals MUST provide services that are directly contradictory to what it stands for as an institution by mandate of law. This forcing the Church to go against what it stands for is not only anti-Catholic, it is singularly un-American. She makes the assertion that if somebody goes to a Catholic institution that simply does not offer services such as the killing of her baby in her womb that those Catholics are “imposing” their “religious beliefs” on her but apparently it does not matter that she in turn is forcing her beliefs on Catholics. Catholics offer services and you can accept them or no. She, however, would force Catholics to, in essence, worship at her altar.

Wrapping the issue up in the cloak of “essential preventative health care” (another debate) she would demand Catholic institutions to teach, offer, and pay for things that it holds as abhorrent. This may actually seem Okay to her UNTIL the same tactic would be thrown back on her to force her to do something that goes against something she deeply believes in. It is a dangerous slope to begin sliding down and once it is in motion it is almost impossible to stop. Lost will be our ideal United States. This is an example of an unthinking mentality that wants to get what it wants now and however it can without thinking of the consequences down the road.

PART 2

Today Denise Woods writes in the same paper against the so called heart-beat bill. It would restrict abortions to that period before a heart beat is detected so all of the “morning after” treatments to “cure” pregnancy could still be used such as in the case of rape victims and so forth. That the state would impose this law on women is “the most egregious violations of individual rights imaginable.” I wonder if she would agree with Angela above who would, however, not think it an egregious violation at all to force everyone around her to not only recognize her right, but also to protect it, promote it, and pay for it? I will admit that this purely speculation on my part.

Missing from this equation is the belief of Christianity for almost all of its history and continues to be so in the Catholic, Orthodox, and a portion of the Protestant Churches that abortion is the most egregious violation of individual rights imaginable; that a mother would actively seek to have her child done away with. Somehow seeing that person as someone with dignity, worth, and having certain unalienable rights is forcing religion on others but being able to declare life that is singularly human and will be nothing but human is nothing – a life that can be snuffed out with no more moral concern that having a wart removed - is not somehow forcing belief on anybody. Indeed she accuses anybody of supporting life as having “ideological blindness,” but I would suggest that she cannot see the value of life past what she can see and touch.

WOULD A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME REALLY SMELL AS SWEET?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are formal names.

We pray, “In the Name of . . .”

We baptize, “In the Name of . . .”

We bless, “In the Name of . . .’

We are saved by The Name above all other names.

We hold God’s Name as sacred.

But did you know that your name is sacred also? Not in the same degree, but sacred none the less.

When you received a name at your baptism it became your name for eternity. Even marriage is “until death do us part,” but your name is yours eternally. God calls us each by name and when He does so, “the mysterious and unique character of each person marked with God’s Name will shine forth in splendor.” (CCC 2158-2159)

A person’s name demands respect. It stands as an icon of the person and is a sign of the dignity of the person who bears it.

I hope you like your name.

HowManyOfMe.com

There are or fewer people with my name in the U.S.A. How many have your name?

10 million people in the word may have your name. That number could be multiplied a number of times over if one considers all those who may have your name in the Kingdom of Heaven. But in the mouth of God it is a unique calling. Like a parent who calls your name out in a crowded grocery store you know it is a distinct call to you. Only more so. Every angel, St. Thomas tells us, is so unique that each represents a sort of species unto its own. Our names are unique in a similar fashion and when God calls us by them 10 million people will not look up for all will know that he spoke your name and your name alone.


In this life he calls us to reflect Christ. We all cannot possibly reflect Christ perfectly. In fact we can only stumble about trying to be like Him partially. But He calls each of us by name to reflect Christ in our particular and unique way. We know what it is. It is a calling that rings something inside of us, makes us feel alive. It makes us excited to wake and tired but happy to bed. We are animated in talking about it. It is constructive and beautiful. Sometimes it seems unreasonable and often life tries to beat it out of us as we are called to fill our “normal” social roles.

What does your name mean?

This is not a calling to a vocation. That comes later. This is first a specific knowledge of what you are supposed to do or who you are supposed to be. It is a basic movement without a job title. Perhaps it is a movement toward the poor, or creating something beautiful, or imparting knowledge, or ennobling society. The list is endless. But when one finally hears his name being called and understands it (a process that hits many people in their 20s) then one needs to decide what kind of vocation will best allow for the living out of my calling.

Fake name and generator.

Then before the heavenly gates it will not only be a matter of how well you respected The Name, but how well you respected the name by which He called you.

PAGAN SKELETONS - CHRISTIAN CLOSETS

Today we get to the series promised two weeks ago! A cyberfriend of Adam’s Ale by the name Atlas has been proposing some very interesting and thought provoking statements as of late in the comments section. They are classic statements of persons who do not have a particular belief in the Church and have many reasons for it.

Atlas, I appreciate your comments and hope you will continue. This is not an effort to convert you primarily. But your comments reflect what a Christian often faces in the world and you have provided me with a wonderful opportunity to reflect on them.

There are other sites that deal more specifically with apologetics and do a fantastic job so this not going to become a solely apologetic blog. For now a will limit myself to Atlas’ comments and a note of thanks to him because it has been fun thinking about it! So, here’s part one:

Atlas said...
To start off, Linda, Easter evolved from a Pagan ritual that celebrated the return of the Sun at the winter solstice. On December 22nd, the days stop getting shorter, it remains in the same spot in the sky for three days (the Sun is Dead), then on December 25th, the Winter Solstice, the Sun Rises and brings with it the coming of Spring and New Life. Christianity overtly stole this ritual from the Sol Invictus and Mithraism. In fact, Constantine the Great was an official member of Sol Invictus and is believed to have spliced the Early Christian cult, Mithraism and the Sol Invictus Cult.

This is not an uncommon claim presented to Christians and if one were truly not well versed in matters of faith and history it might give one pause for concern. Subtle though it is the implication is on one hand that the Christian celebrations lose credence because they are just modified pagan rituals or worse, on the other hand, the Christian story is false, being just a Christianized continuation of the pagan story.

But in a concisely worded response the Catholic Answers website responds:

“The fact that when it was first celebrated the feast of the Resurrection coincided with pagan celebrations doesn’t mean it was derived from them. The Jewish Passover (on which Christ was crucified) also coincided with such celebrations, yet this didn’t mean it was pagan.”

There are some other false implied assertions in such statements also. One would be that everything pagan is bad or evil and that any similarities are thus likewise tainted. C. K. Chesterton wrote on this:

“Let me set about making the matter clear. There is one broad fact about the relations of Christianity and Paganism which is so simple that many will smile at it, but which is so important that all moderns forget it. The primary fact about Christianity and Paganism is that one came after the other. Mr. Lowes Dickinson speaks of them as if they were parallel ideals --even speaks as if Paganism were the newer of the two, and the more fitted for a new age. He suggests that the Pagan ideal will be the ultimate good of man; but if that is so, we must at least ask with more curiosity than he allows for, why it was that man actually found his ultimate good on earth under the stars, and threw it away again. It is this extraordinary enigma to which I propose to attempt an answer.

“There is only one thing in the modern world that has been face to face with Paganism; there is only one thing in the modern world which in that sense knows anything about Paganism: and that is Christianity. That fact is really the weak point in the whole of that hedonistic neo-Paganism of which I have spoken. All that genuinely remains of the ancient hymns or the ancient dances of Europe, all that has honestly come to us from the festivals of Phoebus or Pan, is to be found in the festivals of the Christian Church. If any one wants to hold the end of a chain which really goes back to the heathen mysteries, he had better take hold of a festoon of flowers at Easter or a string of sausages at Christmas. Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.”

If you wish to read more of his grand thoughts on this go here.

Another problem is that for the assertion to be entirely true the entire Christian story must be false or the allegation makes no sense. To make that case one would have to first throw out all evidence of the contrary. This too is done a regular basis. Often only extra ecclesial evidence is accepted as untainted and even that which is secularly archived video tape (there were not many videos being made in Jesus’ day) is explained away.

In short, this statement designed to disturb the weak Christian only “works” by smoke and mirrors – winks and nods – innuendo and insinuation. But it is as insubstantial as a Fourth of July firework which may dazzle one for a moment and then becomes nothing more than some burnt pieces of cardboard on the ground.

THE END OF CHRISTIANITY (AGAIN)

Wednesday mornings I go visit parishioners at the hospital. One of my favorite people to stop and say hi to is a Jewish man who volunteers for the valet parking service for those visiting the cancer center. Walking in to the hospital today he calls out, “So Father, I hear they found the body of Jesus!” (Isn’t it strange how these great discoveries always seem to occur during lent? Why don’t they ever come to light in a perfectly good month like August?)

“Yes,” I replied, “Apparently I am going to be out of a job by Easter.”

“Don’t worry,” he called back, “I’ll save you a seat at the synagogue.”

Once, when I was in Austria taking a tour through a museum, a docent announced that a beautiful reliquary contained the relics of Jesus. Rather awe struck I asked her if she was sure of that for if true, Christianity had just been struck down to nothing more than a nice but false therapeutic method. (You will be glad to know that she checked her notes and discovered that it was actually a relic of the True Cross.)

But now, we are confronted with the actual bodies of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their son! What a yard sale we are going to have! Everything here will be about as useful as smoking paraphernalia, which has come on its own hard times.

“What do you think about them finding Jesus’ body?” is the greeting that has replaced “Hello” with many people as of late. I think we owe this movie producer an incredible amount of gratitude for doing what two thousand years of doubting Thomas’ could not: exposing the truth.

Forget the witness of the Apostles. Forget what the greatest minds in the history of humanity have contemplated and found true, forget the witness of the saints and the marvels that have been worked through their intercession as testimony to Christ and His mission. Forget that not even a credible whisper of this has been heard in all of history. Our only hope now is that the great Vatican conspiracy, which has all Catholics under its direct power and has mind control over all world leaders and scientist, will find a way to once again conceal this truth and allow the whore of Babylon to continue ministering to those who are hurting and lost in sin, caring for the sick, lonely, and disenfranchised, calling the rich and powerful to repentance and accountability, making education available, standing as a voice for peace in the world, and continue being the greatest contributor to the poor (including any nation) along with promoting art and science (with accountability and ethics). Our evil plan is hanging in the brink!

Or perhaps this is just a really insipid way to promote a movie.

EVEN IF ONE IS AS DRY AS SAND ON TOAST IN THE DESERT, GOD STILL WORKS

A kind soul gave me this book to read with the warning, "You will not like the first two chapters, but keep reading." They were severely wrong. "Will not like" was definitely a severe understatement. In fact everyone I mention this book to says, "Good book, but, OH!, those first two chapters." Last night I was out with a lovely couple who said they gave up half way through the second chapter out of the severe pain of reading it. But as I continue to read, fortunately, mercifully, things are starting to get interesting.

Not giving anything away, here are some thoughts from the author as we head into the great season of lent.

"The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians - when they are sombre and joy-less, when they are self-righteous and smug in complacent consecration, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths."

Reminds me of Saint Teresa who said, "Lord, save us from sour-faced saints."

One more outtake:

"If true . . . it was, very simply, the only really important truth in the world. And if untrue it was false. No half way house. . . It is not possible to be 'incidentally a Christian.' The fact of Christianity must be overwhelmingly first or nothing."

I can't think of a worthy thing to add.