On The Christian State

To preface what I am about to write, this was an idea I had some years ago about putting into my written life story a number of essays on positions I hold, and one of those had to do with politics. When I originally penned this back around 2005 or so, I was at a different place than I am now, which is why this will be a refined and edited version of my original transcript.  It is my hope that this will both educate as well as provide edifying reading.

Like so much else I have written - and that hopefully you have read and still are maintaining your level of attentiveness! - what I am about to say here is a microcosm of what was a proposed book I wanted to write at some point.  I have always maintained a strong interest in political and social theory, and this is reflected in my very identity.  As of this time (now 2019) there are many people out there who are putting out their own political and social theories; one that comes to mind is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the wacky socialist Congresswoman who often makes so many outlandish statements that it baffles the mind as to why she is taken seriously, if one is to be honest.  And, there are others - over the centuries we have seen volumes written by many people across a wide ideological spectrum, some of which made sense and others being outright dangerous if implemented.   I myself politically would be I guess what is called a paleoconservative Catholic Monarchist, although some years back I was also identified as a Christian Falangist (an American conservative political movement inspired by Lebanese statesman Bashir Gemayel).  As a relatively old-school Monarchist, I have also been associated with the Constantian Society and currently with the American Monarchist Congress and the Counter-Revolution.  However, the paradox here is that I also am a strong proponent for local government, and am sympathetic towards the "States-rights" movement.  As an economic Distributist, I am also not a fan of the IRS and would strongly support the abolishing of the income tax (people should not have to be taxed on money they rightly earned honestly, although I would not be opposed to a fair-tax system that would institute taxation at the lowest amount - taxes are a necessity, but shouldn't be a burden, in other words).   And, as a true Monarchist, I think the United Nations is a sham, and strongly oppose US involvement in it - the UN has done much more harm than good in the world, and its demise would not be mourned by me, I will just say that.  Additionally, although I don't necessarily identify as part of the "Religious Right," I also do sympathize with many positions they would hold, such as religious freedom, opposition to abortion and "same-sex marriage," and other issues.  As a movement though, I don't believe the "Religious Right" always embodies Christian convictions and there are two problems I have with it as a movement.  For one, the "Religious Right" in American politics tends to be rather fickle in some areas, having more in common with Machiavelli at times than with Moses.   Secondly, there is a fallacy that the "Religious Right" embraces that in order to be a Christian voter, one has to be a card-carrying member of the Republican Party.   This is a major fallacy, because more often than not the Republican career politicians are no better than their liberal Democrat counterparts, and if one is going to use Christian conviction as a voting criteria, often third-party independents represent Christian values more than do many Republican Establishment candidates.  However, the biggest departure I have with many of my fellow Christians who support the "Religious Right" is more fundamental and is at the core issue of this essay, and let me talk about that now.

There is a popular mythos perpetuated by many Christian conservatives about a place they call "Christian America."  This myth asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation, and thus we are supposed to be "returning" to its founding principles.  However, is this true?   Is America a Christian nation?   Well, yes and no.  Yes, in that if one talks about the grassroots values of American history, a lot of Christians of various traditions did shape it - many were persecuted sects as well as Catholics and others who wanted to actually use the New World as a place where the Gospel could be lived.  In this regard, they also continue the Judeo-Christian dimension of Western Civilization, which is important as well.   If you want to find "Christian America," look to the small towns.  However, I would also contend that on another level - institutional - America was not Christian, nor was it intended to be.   A Christian speaker by the name of Rob Skiba said once in regard to this that the first immigrants who came to these shores on the boat did have a lot of Christians counted among them, but also on that same boat were Freemasons, Enlightenment secularists, and others who had a radically different worldview from the Judeo-Christian position.  Many of those people eventually are who became the Founding Fathers of this nation, and their footprints can be seen especially all over Washington, DC, which for all intents and purposes is a Freemason monument on steroids.  The good news in all of this though is that even the Freemasons and secularists among the Founders recognized at least the value of the Christian worldview, and on a basic level they preserved that.  Unfortunately, in the last century, what little Christian influence the Founders had is depleting as secularization becomes more prominent in American society, and that should raise some serious concern for people of faith.  However, not only should it raise concern, but the informed Christian should also not be surprised either - secularism is at the roots of American beginnings, and its growth and proliferation should be expected unfortunately.  There have always been - and still are - strong Christian enclaves within the US, but they had little to do with the nation's founding and also have had dwindling influence as the true secularism of the Founders began to move away from any Christian moorings it had beginning in the 19th century and exploding in the 20th.  So, what are some ways I part company with many of my "Religious Right" friends?  Let us talk about that now.

To begin, I self-identify as a religious traditionalist, as anyone who knows me can attest.  In many aspects, that makes me different in many areas than leaders in the "Religious Right" movement in that I don't see everything they advocate as being truly Christian - there are many things they advocate, for instance, I would find downright reprehensible.  One particular thing is their baptism of rock music in many cases to create "contemporary Christian music," which I find pointless.  Efforts like "Christianizing" certain secular things will do little to solve the underlying issues that face us.  While some cultural appropriation can happen and is necessary (good example is Aquinas, who cleaned up Greek philosophy to make it compatible with Christian doctrine), we need to be careful what we appropriate.  Cultural appropriation in this context is a good thing, in that it represents a soteriological dimension on a societal scale - societies, like persons, can benefit from supernatural grace.  Supernatural grace, as we know, is essential for the restoration of things as they should be, in that it takes something and then elevates, perfects, and heals it according to God's purposes.  It happens in our individual conversions to Christ, and it also happens in societies which are transformed by the proclamation of the Gospel.  But, there are stipulations to this.  First, the appropriated things must be aspects of the common good - a benefit should be seen, in other words, in their preservation and appropriation.   Second, we need to ask if these things embody the attributes of truth, beauty, and goodness - if they do, they have potential, but if they don't they should be discarded in that they will be more harm than good.  It is one thing, for instance, to incorporate Roman law into the Judeo-Christian worldview - much of what Roman law and Greek philosophy offered was good, and it was based on universal truth, as well as preserving the beauty of established order.  It is quite another thing, however, to appropriate rock music - rock music by nature embodies rebellion against order, and its cacophonic form doesn't embody beauty or goodness.  What is true for society as a whole also applies to the individual person - God created the individual with certain attributes unique to them (philosophically called incommunicable properties) and thus by their essence they embody truth, beauty, and goodness.  God did create us, incidentally, as individuals, and thus individuality and free will are two very important gifts he has given each and every person who has ever existed since Adam and Eve in the Garden.  Even the unbeliever has the beauty of individuality of personhood, and that comes from God Himself.  When one accepts Christ as Savior and believes in Him though, it allows for the work of supernatural grace to come in and elevate, heal, and perfect that individuality into the person God originally intended - supernatural grace, provided by Jesus Himself by giving Himself in death for our sin, therefore restores us to the individual God created us to be.  As societies are built by individuals, it only follows that the work of supernatural grace flows from the individual into the society he or she is part of, and thus this leads to both transformation and restoration - it is a bi-product, in many ways, of the proclamation of the Gospel in the work of evangelization.  This therefore is where the true Christian state has its origins.

Building upon this now, for me the Christian society begins at its most fundamental element, which is the family unit.  Unfortunately, in this day and age, professing Christian families are about as dysfunctional and star-struck as their secular counterparts, and it has produced a nation of spoiled, selfish, lazy people.  The luxury of convenience in many cases has produced this mentality, and given everything comes in pretty little packages such as computers, smartphones, and shopping malls, and this makes productive labor a thing of the past.  As Catholic thinker Plinio Correa de Oliviera points out in his classic text Revolution and Counter-Revolution, this has caused a conflict of worldviews:

"In its material aspect, genuine progress consists in the rightful use of the forces of nature according to the law of God, for the services of man.  For this reason, the Counter-Revolution makes no pacts with today's hyper-trophied technicalism, with its adoration of novelties, speed, and machines, nor with the deplorable tendency to organize human society mechanistically.  These are excesses that Pius XII (specifically referencing a broadcast he made in 1957) condemned profoundly and precisely. (Plinio Correa de Oliviera, Revolution and Counter-Revolution.  Hanover, PA: American TFP, 1993. pp. 79-80).  

This obsession with and worship of "progress" is something that another Catholic writer, American TPF leader John Horvat II, called "frenetic intemperance" in his 2013 book Return to Order.  Horvat defines frenetic intemperance in that book in this way - a restless, explosive, and relentless drive inside man that manifests itself in modern economy by first seeking to throw off legitimate restraints and then gratifying disordered passions (John Horvat, Return to Order.  York, PA:  York Press, 2013. p. 17).  The late Reformed Protestant theologian Francis Schaeffer likewise identifies this problem in his classic book A Christian Manifesto when he notes the following:

"They have failed to see that all of this (referring to the rise in abortion, pornography, etc. - my add) has come about due to a shift in worldview - that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole.  This shift has been away from a worldview that was at least vaguely Christian in people's memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different - toward a final worldview based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance.  (Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto. Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 1981.  pp. 17-18)

This is further illustrated in the final quote I want to present to buttress what I am going to expound on shortly which is taken from Belgian Catholic political thinker Christophe Buffin de Chosal in his classic text The End of Democracy, when he says the following:

"Wealth, and in particular sudden financial affluence, has a disastrous effect on the morality of its beneficiaries.  And among the disorders observed, the most flagrant is the loss of the sense of reality.  Very quickly, the newly enriched person comes to believe he deserves his salary - and even that he deserves more than his salary.  He ceases to see poverty or the financial difficulties of those around him.  He thinks of himself as the norm and sees nothing excessive, scandalous, or unjust in making ten times more than certain modest workers.  This transformation can happen very quickly."  (Christophe Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy.  Arcadia, CA:  Tumblar House, 2017).  

All of the above writers note the same thing in different words - a misguided focus on one's own personal gain coupled with an unbridled gluttonous consumerism leads to a "me-centered" culture that forsakes the values that made that success possible in the first place.  For the Christian, this means that God is the source of our provision, protection, and direction, and if we lose sight of that we fail.  Based on the American obsession with celebrities - many teachers who work hard scrape by while NFL athletes, CNN talking-heads, and Hollywood actors get ungodly salaries based on nothing more than throwing a stupid ball around, spouting an opinion in the name of "journalism," or acting in front of a camera and microphone - we see exactly the worldview today that both Schaeffer and de Chosal as quoted above noted, and it also fits Horvat's definition of frenetic intemperance.  That, in turn, has led to an inflated and false sense of entitlement on the part of beneficiaries of this system where feelings outweigh facts and therefore a person's whole life can be ruined based on how said person supposedly "offends" someone with politically-incorrect language, whether intentional or not.  The basis of both economic and moral life then has shifted from the family (where it should be) to the faceless government buildings in Washington, DC, or the casting-couches of big movie studios in Hollywood, often in concert with each other.  It is important, as Chesterton, Belloc and others have submitted over the years, that the family must be restored as the fundamental basis of the economy, and it does so with the premise that morality also will follow as well as values are imparted that impact both personal development and business.  The next stepping-stone to this is the Church - things such as welfare and education were once the primary domain of the Church until she surrendered them to the secular state with disastrous consequence, and it is time that the Church reassert herself as the primary beacon of both the common good and of sound education. In the area of education then, where the Church lacks this can be picked up by either the military and/or private endowments which promote those things that aid in basic skills to function in society.  The military, as a matter of fact, should be the only government involvement in the education of future generations, in that the military itself should be grounded in the defense of the common good.  And, the military would be an extension of royal authority, if the system of government is a monarchy.   If a radical restructuring of education were to take place in this way, it would inevitably mean the restoration of a more classical educational curriculum that would shape students in a more well-rounded way to produce true statesmen and less celebrity.  To put it this way, it is time Johnny reads again, not to mention counting, reasoning, etc.  The home business ethic (the "Mom and Pop model," if you will) as well as a well-rounded classical curriculum in the academy are two vital components which would be perfected by the involvement of the Church, as the herald of supernatural grace that would aid in transforming individual worldviews which in turn would lead to positive societal transformation.  And, that is where the Christian State in the true sense begins.

This also entails Church leaders seeking to be less "culturally relative" and more truth-proclaiming.  We need bishops, priests, pastors, rabbis, etc., who will be leaders in the areas of both cultural and spiritual renewal rather than being trend-setters of societal norms, which many of them unfortunately are now (including as of this date the current Roman Pontiff).  If the Church is renewed in its mission with a passion to infuse society with the Gospel, what then follows is a transformation of civil government, so let's talk about that next shall we? 

Being that Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" has been in the news a lot, and this whole "global warming" and "climate change" hysteria has gripped many Leftists in the US these days, it is important to address that.  Our planet's welfare is indeed important, as God has made us a steward over it, but at the same time it must be understood that "climate change" is a part of the created order, and in the course of Earth's existence climate change has happened several times.  So, unlike Ocasio-Cortez's assertion that somehow airplanes and bovine flatulence will end the world in 12 years, in reality the methane emissions of dairy cows in Wisconsin have little impact on the ozone layer.  This is a weird theory that even some evolutionists have used to prove the extinction of dinosaurs happened millions of years ago, in that some actually say the dinosaurs farted themselves to death - what is the Leftist infatuation with farts, honestly??   While pollution and bad stewardship are issues, they are not the catastrophic alarmist triggers many radical environmentalists inflate them into - the key to reducing pollution is simple - if you make a mess, clean it up!  It is not as complicated as it sounds either.  We should definitely recycle more, as our consumer culture has a superfluous amount of waste that is seriously unnecessary, but like faith and work ethic, it starts with individual responsibility rather than forced government regulation.   I personally am also very much in favor of using biodiesel, ethanol, solar power, composting toilets, etc. - by all means use them!  Also, it has been pretty neat in recent years to see people building homes from discarded beer cans, soda bottles, and other such rubbish - a guy in Florida, as a matter of fact, built a "castle" from this stuff, and it was a clever idea.   Things like this in and of themselves are good, but they must be done with the free will and voluntary actions of each of us and not by government regulation and legislation.  Education and incentive again are the key elements here too.  If people did this sort of thing voluntarily, then Ocasio-Cortez would be seen as dangerous, insane, and irrelevant as she actually is, and this so-called "Green New Deal" would be properly dismissed for the ravings of lunatics that it actually is. On the issue of endangered species, I am definitely in favor of trying to preserve them too, but not at the risk of enforcing government regulation or sacrificing the common good to do so.  All of this is just a matter of becoming wiser stewards of the world God gave us, and this is something we must want to do rather than being forced into by insane and unrealistic regulations.

We now turn our attention briefly to foreign policy.  If I were in a position of leadership to do so, one of the first actions I would implement is this - pull the US completely out of the United Nations.  We need to focus on our own affairs instead of either playing the world's police (often with disastrous consequences) or letting foreign governments dictate to us our own policies - that needs to stop.  We also need to pick our friends better too - we often prop up Islamic dictators who slaughter thousands and even millions of innocent people, often aided with US dollars to do so.  We tend to choose allies and friends with the most wealth instead of aiding those who need us the most, and while it has been propped up as being diplomatically correct, it is morally wrong.  One example is Turkey - the current regime in Turkey is no different than the Young Turk regime that murdered 1.5 million Armenians as well as several million other Greeks, Assyrians, and others, yet we have marginalized the modern state of Armenia today to appease Turkey.  We need to rethink those policies.  We have also aided and abetted Islamic terrorists in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Syria, and in some cases the US has to take responsibility for the rise of both ISIS and Al-Qaeda.  In many cases, the beast we are feeding will turn on us and bite us too.  This flawed foreign policy goes back generations, as we did the same thing in both Germany after World War I and in Spain during the Spanish Civil War - in the latter case, we should have backed Franco but did not, and instead funneled money to Marxist "Republicans."  In the case of Germany, our harsh Versailles terms in World War I led to Hitler's rise to power later, and 6 million innocent Jewish lives (among millions of others) is what the price tag was on that mistake.  It is time to overhaul our diplomatic practices to reflect more conscience and less currency, and if we have ambassadors overseas, let them be the caliber of people like the late Henry Morganthau instead of like Hillary Clinton.  More could be said here, but you get the point.

In order for a Christian state to exist that is recognizably Christian, it would require more of an influence of Christianity in society than we currently see.  The American model, based on the noble but misguided notion of "separation of church and state," doesn't quite fly.  In order for a true Christian nation to exist, both Jews and Christians would have to have a status they don't currently have, and to start they should be given authority over all social programs, as secular government has proven largely ineffective at administering those (which it wasn't meant to do anyway).   This means a radical stratification then of religious liberty that also doesn't currently exist, because at the end of the day all religions are not equal.  A proposed order I would set forward would look like this:

Category I - Jewish and Christian denominations;  granted full priveleges, rights, and also authority over social welfare programs.

Category II - Secondary sects, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, etc.  These would be allowed fundamental religious liberty provided they do not proselytize Jews or Christians.

Category III - Immigrant world religions and atheists.  Immigrant populations of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. would have the freedom of religious practices as well as being able to maintain their own social organizations, schools, etc. They would be protected from harassment and persecution, but also subject to the prohibition of proselytism in regard to Jews and Christians.  In the case of atheists, as long as they didn't try to infringe upon the public display of faith of Christians and others, would have full freedom of conscience to believe as they felt led to do so.

Category IV - "Dark" occultists (Satanists, vampire cults, voodoo, etc.), New Age groups, Muslims, and controversial sects like Mormon polygamists.  There would be tight restrictions on these groups, and if deemed a threat, they could be deported from the country.  There would be a strict prohibition on the building of mosques, mirroring how strict Islamists treat Christians in areas they control in the world.  If occultic ritual sacrifice involving human victims or Islamic terrorism that results in casualties happen, the penalties of capital punishment for perpetrators would apply.  In other instances - such as child brides, etc., as practiced by Mormon and Islamic polygamists, as well as sodomy - stiff punishments such as involuntary castration and indefinite confinement, as well as stiff civil penalties paid to the victims of such atrocities.

Speaking of sodomy laws, they would require reestablishing and any activity associated with that lifestyle would be strongly discouraged and also publicly prohibited.  Treatment of gender identity disorders would also be reinstituted, as "drag queens" are not normal, and pedophilia would be treated as a felony crime in which involuntary sterilization of the perpetrator would be enforced.  This leads into the realm of "special-interest" non-profits who work against the common good, and those would also be regulated heavily - groups that pose a threat to religious liberties or other personal freedoms (ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc.) would be compelled to disband by regulation. The same rule applies to neo-Nazis, anarchist groups like Antifa, the KKK, and other such subversive groups.  Any actions perpetrated by these groups to promote agendas would be taken as an act of terrorism against the nation and dealt with accordingly. 

Returning to education, one thing that needs reform is the curriculum taught.  Evolution, for instance, would be taught in the context of the theory that it actually is, and as much of education would be returned to a religious basis, a Biblical worldview in regard to the sciences must be advanced.  Evolution should, if addressed, be taught honestly for the dehumanized theory it is and also noted for the tragedy that it has caused since its inception.  Therefore, it would not be proper to ban this and other controversial subject matter, as it is also vital for one to "know the enemy" as well in case such views surface.  However, this could only be possible after being grounded in the correct Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview, which would now be a responsibility of Church-sponsored public education.

Although much more could be said, we essentially have the basics, but at the same time another question arises, and that is this - what is the governing structure of a Christian civilization?  Without going into great detail, only one system of government over the centuries has proven itself ideal to be compatible with a Judeo-Christian worldview, and that government is monarchy.  True democracy, as noble as it sounds, never ends well and in time it becomes a tyranny.   Republics, while in purpose they have good ideas, also fail in that the continuity and stability of a king or queen is missing, and thus a republic can fall to a regime that could turn it into totalitarian hell.  Socialism, as both a government system and as an economic model, fails in that it is a direct violation of Judeo-Christian morality - socialism is legislated theft from the "haves" to give to entitled "have-nots" who did not earn it in the same way, and thus it is playing a bureacratic "Robin Hood" in stealing from some to give to others.  Fascism likewise is a bad idea, in that while grassroots, it also is feelings-induced and uses violence to advance itself, and is often intertwined with socialism.   Although a true "Nation Under God" will not happen until Christ returns to earth, I do believe that despite the imperfection of human nature there are some governments that are much better than others, and a monarchy is at the top of that list.  Although monarchy is the leader of one over a nation, it also promotes localized grassroots leadership in the name of the monarch and thus assures more personal liberty than a democratic system actually would.  And, in the case of Catholic monarchy as I would personally advocate, the Church would serve as a checks-and-balances system to the king, as a sort of national conscience.  This means that ultimately a monarchy is truly theocratic, as the ultimate rule of the nation is the Kingship of Christ over the temporal king.  And, that should be the goal of a Christian state.

At the present time, the possibility of Christian monarchy in the US is slim, if at all - America unfortunately was not founded in that way.  In order for an American monarch to exist, the continuity must be there - a potential American monarch would have to have connections to royal lineage that at one time had a vested interest in the Americas, and that could be a British, French, Spanish, or Russian line (or Hawaiian, although that means Hawaii would need to cease being a state and gain its independence).  This is the position that is held by noted Monarchists in the US such as Charles Coulombe, and I am in agreement with it.  So, what is a devoutly Catholic American Monarchist to do??   Monarchy can exist in a microcosm in the home and the family, and although we should respect the laws of the current US system as responsible citizens, there are things in one's own family and personal life one can do to keep the Christian state alive - education, political involvement, cooperation with like-minded conservatives who may not be Monarchist themselves but do hold to core values you do, etc.  This means that as a Monarchist, it is perfectly OK to listen to Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Tucker Carlson, and other noted conservatives, and it is also OK to work with them where there is common ground.  A political transformation, as my good friend Charles Coulombe notes, starts first with you, and is tied into the evangelistic mandate of the Gospel as well.  Supporting Christian monarchy can also be practiced by the revival of chivalric codes and of implementing things that would be responsible of you as a citizen of a Christian monarchy - that is why I advocate heavily for the concept of Noblesse Oblige as a life code.  Also, reflect the values of an ideal Christian state in your personal culture - find out what of the true, the beautiful, and the good resonates with you, and immerse yourself in it.  The quality of music, art, literature, and philosophy one engages with will determine much as well on a personal level.  Those of us who think this way may well be the bastions of Western Civilization in a society gone crazy with decadence, so it is important for us to be a light and a pinch of salt to season the culture around us.  If more of us would do that, a Christian state might be a possibility, and then people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could be consigned to the negative of history like the Emperor Diocletian, with whom she has much in common.

It is not a secret that what I have said is going to probably generate discussion, as a lot of things I talk about are not exactly popular.  But, for a society in decay, it is vital to explore alternatives to help the legacy of Western Civilization to survive, and in small enclaves it can thrive until the next Constantine comes along who will make a Christian state a reality.  Until then, we cannot be a Constantine necessarily, but we can be an Orestes maybe - Orestes, despite his imperfection and some dumb moves at the twilight of the Western Roman Empire, nonetheless must be admired for trying to preserve the core of what he believed to be Roman in the face of encroaching barbarity.  He wanted desperately to restore and preserve the Empire of old, and although he met a tragic end doing so, it was actually preserved - faithful, godly monks in monasteries all over Europe labored to preserve the best of the Greco-Roman legacy while at the same time allowing supernatural grace to do its work of elevating the best while healing the worst and perfecting the whole.   So, societies can receive salvation too, just on a different level.  And, that essentially is my discourse, although much more could be said on this.

A Primer on Ash Wednesday

Last week I talked about Lent, but really wanted to do a brief study for you on why we as Catholics observe Ash Wednesday.  Although the Eastern Church doesn't observe Ash Wednesday, it is an integral part of the Western Church calendar.  I think it is probably appropriate to give some historical background on the custom first, and then also some Scriptural background, as it has a lot to do with both the Sacraments of Baptism as well as with ancient customs of mourning. 

The practice of observing Ash Wednesday as the first day of Lent originated with St. Gregory the Great during his reign as Pope in the 6th/7th centuries.  The ashes come from the previous year's palm branches, which are incinerated and the resulting ash is then mixed with incense and either Holy Chrism or holy water and at the Ash Wednesday Mass they are distributed by the priest, marking each communicant on the forehead with the sign of the cross traced with the ashes while he says "Remember man, from dust thou hast come and to dust thou shalt return."  The purpose of this was to remind the communicant of several things:

1.  Genesis 2:7 reminds us that we were created from God from the dust, and into our being he breathed life.

2. Genesis 3:19 reminds us of our mortality - because of sin and death, our bodies naturally return to dust once the life leaves them (as also affirmed by natural science as well).

3.  Job 30:19 is a potent reminder of our own repentance that we must pursue if we allow sin to happen through us - ashes, in this case, are a sign of sorrow.

4. Many passages from Ecclesiastes during the entirety of the Lenten season serve to remind us as well of our mortality, and the mourning aspect of ashes comes into focus there.

In ancient times, the idea of "sackcloth and ashes" was one often associated with a corporate time of contrition in lieu of a calamity such as famine, or it also was a form of mourning the dead (Note Matthew 11:21 as well as Psalm 102:10).   This carried over even into ascetic penitential practices in the early Church, where often "sackcloth and ashes" were donned to indicate a personal penance was being undertaken.  The incineration of the previous year's palms also provides a sort of liturgical continuity with the Church calendar in that a sacramental is still a sacramental whether it is a branch or a pile of ash.  This physical action of the administration of ashes is therefore an ideal start to a penitential season as Lent is. 

There are those among more Fundamentalist Protestant sects who have serious issues with the imposition of ashes, in that they view this as a "display of piety" and thus would be, according to their strict Sola Scriptura perspective, some sort of show.  This is absurd on so many levels, as to begin with it identifies the person who wears the ash on their forehead as an imperfect being who, although in Christ, still struggles with sin and temptation - far from being "showy," it is a sign of public humility to honestly say that you are not perfect and in need of the grace the Cross gives us.  Also, if such detractors think ashes smeared on one's forehead is a fashion statement, let's think about that for a moment - why would anyone do it just to do it?  It has no aesthetic value to it, nor is it really even a popular display - the Cross is one of the most hated symbols in our modern society honestly.  It is what it is - a sign that we are sorry for our shortcomings, and we acknowledge only the grace afforded by Christ's death and resurrection helps us to overcome such things.  Admittedly, there is a sort of pride in wearing them though, in that it shows us God loves us.  However, it is not a self-serving pride, as every sacramental action also has an evangelical dimension in that it makes us a visible witness of our Christian faith.  The same Fundies who often castigate faithful Catholics for having ash crosses on their foreheads have no problems at all with carrying a Scofield Bible around the size of a Buick, and oftentimes they do advertise for show when they do that, although they also think they are being "witnesses." In reality though, said Fundamentalists often use the Bible to communicate a sort of stuck-up triumphalism at the "sinners" around them, seeing God's Word as a sort of "badge of holiness."  In short, they really have no room to accuse Catholics of "show" for having ashes on our heads one day a year when they themselves need a small cart to wheel around the giant Scofield that makes them look all "Christian" or something.  These people make me think of Ned Flanders on the old Simpsons cartoons, although Ned was a heck of a lot nicer than some of them.

Artistic rendering of King Hezekiah in sackcloth and ashes calling for a time of corporate national repentance for his people.

Bottom line of this is that Ash Wednesday represents for us a time of self-examination - it is one we should be doing every day honestly, but the pressures of life often make this impossible so the Church has set aside a season for us to do it in Lent.  Also, given that the Lenten season is traditionally also a time for catechumens to prepare for reception into the Church, it serves to remind us of our own commitment to Christ and our joining with the catechumens also communicates that even those older in the faith still need the grace of God to work within their lives too.  It goes without saying then that Ash Wednesday is not unscriptural nor is it some sort of self-righteous "showmanship" on the part of "them Catholics," but rather is a full expression and tangible demonstration of what our need for God is, and in contrast to pride or self-righteousness, the Lenten season conveys the opposite - we are not, in and of ourselves, righteous at all, and it is only through the grace of Christ that we gain righteousness.  At the conclusion of this time, we then celebrate at Easter the fulness of that grace, through His Resurrection and victory over sin and death.   In a couple of weeks, I will further examine Holy Week, in particular Palm Sunday, and I am also contemplating how the drama of the Gospel story is played out in these seasons of the Church year.  And, as I close, here is a lighthearted Catholic humor item to show that even a penitential season still affirms that a little laughter is the best medicine at times:

Lent - A Teaching

As I am writing this, we are one day into the Lenten season, having observed Ash Wednesday just yesterday.  As these articles have a catechetical dimension, it is important to also focus on some aspects of the Church/liturgical year, and Lent is a very important season in the life of the Church. I am not going into the particulars of Ash Wednesday, as I want to save that for another lesson, but rather this will be an overview of what Lent signifies from a Catholic perspective.

Being a catechist for sixth-graders at our local parish, one important aspect of that vocation is transmitting the faith as it relates to the liturgical year, and this past Sunday I gave the kids the lesson on Lent.  Of course, I anticipated the inevitable question, and one I personally wanted to find out about myself - from whence does the word "Lent" come?   Of course, that question was asked in the class, and I am sure that some of you reading this may be curious as well, so I am going to give a word study so to speak on the word "Lent" itself.

"Lent" is an Old English word, I found out, that has to do with the season of Spring, and it comes from the word lenctin which literally means "Spring."   As such, it also has to do with the word "long" or "length," and in that context, it refers to the gradual lengthening of days as Winter morphs into Spring.  When the season of Lent itself begins, the earth, for the most part, is still locked in the hibernation stage of Winter, as there is snow often on the ground and daylight, therefore, tends to be early, at around 5 or 6 in the evening.  This, therefore, means then that the word "Lent" is not synonymous with the fuzz one picks out of their navel (which is actually the word lint) but rather is based on the seasons of the natural world.  And, it makes perfect sense as being an ideal penitential season for us as Christians also.  (information is taken from a PDF document entitled "Lent" found at http://www.ecumenical-catholic-communion.org/eccpdf/lent.pdf - accessed 2/7/2019).

In the Church year, the Lenten season is generally about 40 days long, starting on the Western Church calendar at Ash Wednesday and ending the day before Palm Sunday, at which point Holy Week begins.  In the Eastern Church, Lent (or the Great Fast, as many Eastern traditions label it) begins two days earlier on a Monday.   There is, naturally, provision to prepare for Lent in the Church calendar as well, and in the older Roman and Anglican traditions there are three Sundays preceding Lent called Septuagesima, Sextagessima, and Quinquagesima, which designate the seventh, sixth, and fifth weeks before Holy Week respectively.  In the Christian East, these Sundays are indicated by fasting regimens - Sextagessima, for instance, would be called "Meat-Fare Sunday" in the East, as it is the last Sunday before Lent that meat can be consumed.  Likewise, Quinquagesima in the East is known as "Cheese-Fare Sunday," in that it is the last Sunday dairy products are allowed before the Lenten fast starts.  This period of preparation is actually helpful to the observant believer in that it makes the regimens of fasting and abstinence more gradual.   And, that leads to the next question - why is Lent 40 days in length?   To answer that, let us now look at the significance of the number 40.

Numbers have special significance in Scripture, in particular, the specific numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, etc.  One number that can be seen repeatedly in Scriptural accounts is 40, and here are a few examples of where we see it:

1.  Genesis 4-5 - the story of the Flood.  The rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights

2.  The Book of Numbers - Israel's wandering in the wilderness for 40 years.

3.  Matthew 4:1-11 - the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days

4. I Kings 19 - Elijah spends 40 days fasting on a journey to Mt. Horeb

5.  Acts 1 - Jesus spends 40 days instructing the Apostles after His Resurrection before he ascends to heaven.

In looking at just these examples, the number 40 throughout Scripture seems to indicate trial, challenge, and personal growth.  It also symbolizes purging and rebirth in many aspects.  Lent for us has a similar objective - the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes this relationship in CCC 540 when it states that Christ, through His own example, provides the pattern for us to unite ourselves as a Church each year in the season of Lent with His own overcoming of temptation in the wilderness.  For us, this involves voluntary self-denial via what the Church calls the three Lenten virtues - fasting/abstinence, almsgiving, and prayer (CCC 1436).  This connects Lenten observance as well to the idea of penance and indeed the true function of supernatural grace, which of course is to heal, elevate, and perfect us to be what God originally intended to be as he created us.  Christ, who was as God the Son perfect in every way, nonetheless led by example in His own practice of self-denial.   And, that leads to another aspect of Lent - the catechetical.

Lent was originally a season of preparation for those who were to be baptized and received into the Church via the Sacrament of Chrismation.  It was therefore tied directly with the Sacraments of Confession, Confirmation, and Baptism.  Even today in the RCIA process of the current Roman Rite, the catechumens and candidates are expected to go through what is called "scrutinies" during the Lenten season in order to better prepare them for their reception as full members of the Church at Easter, and often this involved a significant period of self-examination and renunciation of certain things in one's pre-conversion life that would hinder the new faith they have agreed to accept.  This tradition of Lenten observance goes back to at least the 3rd century, and believers were expected at that early time in the Church's liturgical development to share in the preparation of the catechumens by fully participating in the disciplines of fasting and penitent acts as well (Prokurat, Golitzen, and Peterson, Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church.  Lanham, MD:  Scarecrow Press, 1996. p. 194-195).   Likewise, Lent prepares the believer for the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as commemorated during Holy Week - it recalls the baptismal commitment of the believer as well as preparation for baptism of the catechumen, and it also emphasizes a penitential spirit (Robert C. Broderick, ed.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated Edition.  Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 1987. p. 346).  It emphasizes therefore that salvation is lifelong, and not merely a one-time event as some of our Protestant brethren believe.

Speaking of Protestant misconceptions, many of those come from the more iconoclastic, anti-liturgical and often hyper-fundamentalist subgroups within the Protestant spectrum as a whole.  Protestants in general - conservative and liberal - don't necessarily reject Lent and its observance, and often even encourage it although not in the mandatory sense that Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and traditional Anglican High Churchmen do.  Many of them do see the value of penance in the life of the faithful Christian and see no conflict with Lenten observance.  However, on occasion, some over-zealous Fundamentalists will take issue with Lent, and some rather bizarre allegations have sprung up in their circles regarding it.   One, in particular, comes from a page of one of these people who I know as a friend, and although this person is a friend, they are tragically misguided on this issue.  Often, this misunderstanding is rooted in one of the most destructive of "traditions of men" among conservative Protestants, that being ingrained anti-Catholicism.  For such people, even the mention of anything that can be remotely identified as "Catholic" is a trigger mechanism for them, and at this point, the speculations and mythology start to surface.  In the case of this particular friend of mine, here is what they stated on their website in summary - in this case, it is an argument based on the assumption of Sola Scriptura, in that for this person Scripture doesn't specifically set aside times of fasting, and thus based on a faulty exegesis of Matthew 6:16-18, this person believes God condemns Ash Wednesday observance and other acts of piety during Lent as "show," and thus Christians are only to fast "in secret." (information gleaned from an article "Lent is an Abomination," March 2014 on http://www.libertyadvocate.com/Lent.htm - accessed 3/7/2019)  However, is this the case?  Other than the ash crosses on people's foreheads on Ash Wednesday, many Catholics are actually quite low-key about their fasting and abstinence regimens during this time, and you really don't see them doing it otherwise other than maybe seeing Red Lobster and Long John Silver's picking up a little extra business on Fridays maybe.  Also, there are plenty of Old Testament references to seasons of fasting if one wants to get really technical about it - even the kings of Judah called fasts at certain times, with powerful results.  For the Fundamentalist who hates Catholics and thus wants to discredit Lent, however, this is not good enough because it is "Old Covenant" and Jesus didn't do it - what do they think He did for 40 days in the wilderness, for crying out loud??  Far from being "showy," many devout fellow Catholics I know are actually quite discreet with their fasting disciplines during Lent, and thus the charge of doing it "for show" is absurd.  Also, what some self-styled "critics" fail to grasp is that fasting is an act of worship, and as such it is a spiritual battle often in its own right - try passing the Ponderosa on a Friday during Lent as a Catholic, and you will see quickly how much of a struggle it is, but also there is a peace with overcoming as well.  That discussion now leads me to a short discourse on the difference between fasting and abstinence.

While often used interchangeably, fasting and abstinence are in reality two distinct disciplines.  The major distinction is illustrated this way

1.  Fasting has to do with the quantity of consumption - during Fridays of Lent when fasting is observed, it is recommended that two small meals and only one large meal should be taken for those between the ages of 18 and 65.

2. Abstinence deals with the quality of food consumed.  On Fridays, for instance, you don't fast meat, but you abstain from consuming it on those days.  This is also what is meant when faithful Catholics say they are "giving up something for Lent" also.

It is important to make that distinction.  In the Roman Catholic tradition, abstinence is actually rather mild compared to other Churches - the minimum that Roman Catholics are required to do fasting and abstinence is on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent.  However, if you happen to be Eastern Orthodox, the requirement is somewhat stricter - Orthodox are to abstain from all meat, dairy, alcohol, and other similar foods, and the so-called "monastic fast" is one of the strictest of all as it mandates what is called xerophagy.  Xerophagy is basically a bare-bones diet consisting of uncooked vegetables, fruit, juice, bread, and water.  It takes a lot of fortitude to carry out that type of fasting/abstinence discipline, and it is not something that someone who has special dietary restrictions or health concerns should undertake, and that leads to a couple of other things to note concerning this discipline.

First, fasting/abstinence is not to be treated as a dictatorial penance - fasting is first and foremost to be seen as an act of worship in that you are giving up a distraction of some sort in order to focus more on worshipping God.  That being said, fasting and abstinence do not always involve food - you can also abstain from certain recreational activities, behavioral actions, and other things (such as giving up watching a favorite sitcom during Lent).  Also, the Lenten observance is not about just giving up things - it is also a time to commit to more actions that glorify God or serve one's fellow man with acts of charity and giving.  For instance, a fast is little more than a diet plan in many cases for some unless that money one buys the weekly steak dinner is maybe invested in something like, say, the diocesan Bishop's Appeal or something similar.  Or, it could involve an act of charity, such as volunteering one's time at a shelter, a retirement home, or in some parish activity.  No one should be able to argue against the merits of that, provided they are done in the right attitude - not as a soteriological "brownie point" but rather to genuinely serve and be concerned about the needs of others.  Understanding Lenten practices in that light bring a whole new meaning to one's spirituality, and also promotes a level of spiritual growth and renewal for the person performing these actions.

I will continue this study next week by focusing more specifically on Ash Wednesday and a little history behind that, as well as the Shrove Tuesday traditions that precede it.  Hopefully, a study like this will accomplish two things.  First, for the faithful Catholic, may it give a better understanding of why we do what we do, and also a greater conviction to take our own commitments seriously.  For the detractor, especially the Fundamentalist Protestant, it will hopefully be educational in that a lot of bad speculation and mythology, rooted in the "tradition of men" known as anti-Catholicism, will be dispelled and one can better appreciate and understand the Lenten devotional practices even if they themselves do not feel any compuncture to participate in them.  If these teachings accomplish that, then all of us will benefit from the wisdom they hopefully will communicate.  Thank you, and will see you next time. 

The Slander of Christianity In Discussions About American Indians

Over the past couple of days, I have been in a sort of debate on social media with a post someone published regarding the American Indians in West Virginia, my home state.   While the post itself was interesting, it also drew out some "social justice warrior" and snowflake types who painted Christianity as somehow being an "instrument of White colonial oppression" and thus somehow "evil" to the "peaceful" Natives.   Thing is, does this actually have any basis in fact?   I want to talk a little about that today.

The subject of the American Indian is one that I am very intimate with, as it is part of my own history too.  Going back several generations in my own family, I have on my father's side about a one-sixteenth heritage that is Mvskoke (Creek).   A cousin of mine, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, who is actually a member of the Mvskoke Nation and teaches at their college in Oklahoma also has provided some valuable family history information on a 4th great-grandfather of mine by the name of Richard Taylor.  According to some transcribed oral histories (found at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Taylor-40820 - Accessed 2/27/2019), Richard Lawrence Taylor (1781-1884) was originally from North Carolina, where a small branch of the Mvskoke Nation had settled near the western part of the state.  My cousin mentions that he was registered as a member of the Mvskoke Nation with the Eastern Creek #11141 and that he fought in the Creek Wars in northwest Florida during the years 1814-1815.  His granddaughter, Parsilla Buckelew Richburg (1851-1931), was my great-great-grandmother on my maternal grandmother's side of the family tree.  Richard Taylor appears to have been a fascinating individual too, living to the age of 101 and having a HUGE family due to three marriages, the last to my 4th great-grandmother Nancy Hollingshead Taylor (born 1812).  This American Indian heritage was talked about and was a source of pride in my dad's family, although no one really could figure out where it came from until thankfully my cousin and other family members were able to research it more fully.   There is a lot more that could be said about this subject, as it would warrant a whole article for itself, and perhaps I can revisit it later.  For now though, the point is that I have American Indian heritage, and unlike Elizabeth Warren's publicity stunt, I can actually prove and document it.  That puts me into a position to say what I am about to say next.

On the social media post, many Leftist people were saying some disturbing things about the Church, mainly because one better-informed person noted that Protestant Christian sects such as the Moravians not only brought Christianity to the Indians in North Carolina but also literacy and a standard of living that helped them rise above some of the squalors they lived in at the time.   For making that point, some ignorant young girl who was perhaps in her teens or twenties got on there and castigated this guy for saying it, saying that Christianity "stripped" the Indians of their "native culture."  Others loved attacking the Franciscan, Jesuit, and Dominican missionaries in the Spanish Southwest, who likewise brought literacy and the faith to those Indians there and in Mexico.  Of course, to such people Christianity is seen as a "White religion" and thus an "oppressive tool of colonialism," and therefore must be eradicated for all the "damage" it has done.  Many of the people leveling this slander, however, are often sheltered young White kids who reap the benefits of Western Civilization (they have their smart phones, Chromebooks, and i-pods) and all of a sudden they become "social justice warriors."  If they are that adamant, then I would say perhaps that they need to set a precedent and leave all their luxuries behind and go away.  In contrast to the liberal claptrap many of these people spew so ignorantly, the evidence overwhelming documents that Christianity often benefits the cultures it is introduced to - after all, if it wasn't for the Moravians teaching the Cherokee to read, would Sequoyah have been able to create a whole language system for his people?  Sequoyah's accomplishments as far as the Cherokee language are concerned can be ranked with St. Mesrop Mashtots and his creation of the Armenian alphabet, as well as the numerous Aramaic-based scripts one finds among tribes in Central Asia and China that can be attributed to Assyrian Christian missionaries who worked among those peoples.  All of them, ironically, are connected to the spread of Christianity among their respective peoples.  Not only that, but also the hospitals, universities, and libraries we see in many parts of the world are the fruit of Christian mission work too, with some exceptions (many of the exceptions, though, can be credited to Jewish communities).  Also, the advent of healthy hygienic practices and other things we often take for granted are attributed in many cases to Christians of devout faith who used that faith to reach others.  Even classical antiquity as far as Western Civilization is concerned owes its survival to dedicated monks in medieval Europe.  A few books I would encourage people to read on this which document the contributions the Christian faith has made to civilization are the following:

Alvin J. Schmidt, Under the Influence: How Christianity Changed the World.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Thomas E. Woods and Antonio Canizares, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery History, 2012.

Mar Aphrem Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls - The History of Syriac Sciences and Literature.  Trans. by Matti Moosa.  Piscataway, NJ:  Gorgias Press, 2001.

These books show that far from being "destructive," in many cases Christianity saved human civilization, and often from its own negative aspects.  As Aquinas and Bonaventure both taught in their writings, it is to be remembered that God authored two "books," Nature and Revelation.  Nature should always bear witness to Revelation, and through supernatural grace Revelation heals, elevates, and perfects nature.  To put that into this perspective, supernatural grace has the capacity to restore things to the way they were created and intended, and this too is part of the missionary mandate of the Church.  This means that the Church has always mandated preserving what is good in a culture, and reforming what is bad.  So, if anything, contrary to some liberal White self-haters, the Indians actually benefitted from the fruits of exposure to Christian faith.  Although it is obvious that abuses happened, and persecution was real - no one can deny that for sure - a cursory look at history affirms that often those abuses and persecutions against Indians were often carried out in spite of Christian conviction, as those doing such things were often motivated by other things than spirituality - they were often more or less influenced by Enlightenment secularism in many cases, which was on the rise both in Europe and later in colonial America.  If one really looks at the evidence further, they may be surprised to find that often the greatest defenders of Indians were in fact Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.  The same thing is true today as well.  That leads me to address some disturbing things I have heard from some who want to either discredit the Judeo-Christian worldview or European/Middle Eastern people (read that as White people).

In the course of debating this issue with self-styled "experts" on social media and elsewhere, some things were very shocking that I heard coming from the keyboards of these people.   For one, when certain things such as the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe that occurred in Mexico in 1531 are mentioned, some of these weirdos online actually defend the pagan religious practices of the Aztecs, which incidentally included ripping the beating hearts out of human sacrificial victims, or flaying them alive so that some demonic pagan shaman can dance around in the skin until it rots off his body.  Such people think these despicable practices are somehow "superior" to the Catholic faith which later came to predominate in Mexico (including the ten million or so conversions that happened as a result of Blessed Juan Diego's witnessing of the appartion of Our Lady of Guadalupe).  Of course, what is also interesting is that many of these people identify also as "pro-choice," which essentially means that they also hold up the racist eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as almost a godlike figure (not to mention their adulation of sex pervert Alfred Kinsey, who was responsible for more human trafficking and sexual abuse of his "research subjects.").  It also explains why they also would gravitate toward socialism and anarchy (some of the more radical of these people are involved in Antifa and other terrorist groups) and would suppress the rights of those they disagree with in order to promote their own agendas.  In reality, the average modern "progressive" Bernie Sanders supporter has more in common with George Armstrong Custer when it comes to human rights than they would with someone like Wilberforce, who ended slavery in Britain peacefully in the 1800's. thanks in part (wait for it!) to Judeo-Christian principles.  There are a lot of contradictions on the Left side of the political spectrum on this and other issues, and ironically it is the Judeo-Christian worldview that shows how deficient those leftist agendas are.  Leftists talk a lot about "human rights," but then turn around and glorify butchers such as Che Guevara and Mao, and even pagan Aztec leaders like Tlacaellel, who more or less intensified the brutal human sacrificial system in Aztec religion (as if it wasn't bad enough already!) by slaughtering thousands on the pinnacle of the Temple Major in Tenochtitlan on a single day.  They cite the abuses of certain Conquistadors of the period as justification for this, but in reality it is as Warren Carroll notes in the following:

"Moreover, many Indians had the impression that the new faith was something alien, something belonging to White men which could only be mediated through them.  It is a danger that confronts all missionary work, and especially in a situation such as this was, where the differences between cultures were so sharp, the contact had been so sudden, and the break with the past so complete.  

The Indians waited, and watched.  What did Christianity really mean to their conquerors?  What did it really mean to them?" (Warren Carroll, Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness.  Front Royal, VA:  Christendom Press, 1983. p. 88)

I also want to note what my friend Charles Coulombe says about this as well, as it is important to see things in context here:

"At any rate, it so happened that, at the time of their discovery, there were no Indian nations capable of real resistance to the Europeans, save the Aztecs and Incas.  The bloodthirstiness of the former and the rigid interior conformity of the latter seriously depleted their ability to defend themselves against any technologically superior culture with which they might come in contact." (Charles Coulombe, Puritan's Empire.  Arcadia, CA:  Tumblar House, 2017. p. 17).  

The point of both quotations above is this - a combination of factors led to the historical events that unfolded, and rather than painting the Conquistadors and other European explorers as the sole "bad guys," it is important to remember that humanity as a whole has a concupiscent nature - Romans 3:23 reminds us of that when it says that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that is due to the events in Genesis 3, when sin entered the world through Adam's deception by Satan and his willful disobedience that resulted.  This means then - great revelation knowledge coming here! - that the Indians were not perfect either!  Indians had been warring with each other, enslaving and conquering rival tribes, and also engaging in barbarity (human sacrifice and other things) since before they arrived in North America over either the Bering Strait or across the Atlantic (in the case of the Solutrians, which I personally believe to be a valid hypothesis).  So, my question to the "social justice warriors" is this - are the Spaniards, Brits, French, and Portuguese somehow worse because they messed up on occasion too than the Aztecs, or perhaps were they all just products of sinful nature?  Also, is it fair to paint every White European who came to America as somehow "bad?"  To answer that, perhaps some of the detractors of "colonialism" need to take a more objective look at history, and they may be rudely surprised at the fact that many dedicated missionaries - both Protestant and Catholic - really reached out to the Indians in various parts of the Americas, and perhaps maybe the Indians of that time who were recipients of that display of Christian charity were actually grateful (God forbid, right?) for that service.  A careful and objective reading of real history may surprise many honestly. And, that leads to a final point I want to make on this.

The same young SJW girl who castigated Christianity as being "harmful" to the Indians also took issue with the name "Indian," insisting instead that we call them "Native Americans."  The interesting thing about this girl is that in looking at her profile, she was whiter than Wonder Bread, and probably has about as much Indian heritage as Elizabeth Warren if not even less.  Over the years, I have been in touch with many of my Mvskoke relatives, as well as a number of friends who are members of different tribal nations, and I have yet to find one who is actually offended at being called an "American Indian."   As a matter of fact, most of them could honestly care less, save a radical faction among them, and they even use the term themselves.  If I could get truly technical on this with the White liberal ding-dongs who insist on the "Native American" nomenclature, that too would be incorrect, as historically there are actually in that sense no Native Americans per se - the Indians were just the first to arrive, that is all, and they also came in successive stages and even booted out earlier arrivals who came before them, conquering and subjugating them long before the first European explorers even knew about the existence of the Americas.  Given the racial diversity among Indians (they are by no means a homogenous group), not all of them even came from the same place;  some crossed the Bering Strait, and others followed the Ice Age Atlantic ice shelf (probably fishing or hunting seals) across the Atlantic (that is known as the "Solutrean Theory," as proposed by Dr. Dennis Sanford and others), which means some Indians may actually be European themselves if one looks back far enough!  Therefore, if we want to battle semantics, our Liberal friends may want to reconsider that due to the fact that Indians themselves don't really care one way or another if you call them "Indian" or not.  They know who they are, and if they are not bothered by it (and having Mvskoke heritage myself, I am not either) than why should anyone else be?  Of course, this will naturally go against the mythology of "political correctness," but that mythology needs to die anyway.

Suffice to say, Christianity is not the "evil" it is often portrayed as being in the mythology of "political correctness," and as a matter of fact, even its detractors owe much of their own existence to it.  Rather than destroying civilization, Christian missionaries have often overwhelmingly been the saviors of civilization - Christianity finds and incorporates the best out of a culture and preserves it, thus making its benefactors better in many cases than they would have been without it.  It is true of European, African, and American civilizations, and thus is the narrative we need to propagate.  Thank you, and look forward to sharing with you all again soon.

Cowardly Christians in An Age of Political Correctness - the Shapiro/Grand Canyon University Incident

For some time now, I have been documenting how our American Evangelical Protestant friends are at this point essentially a house of cards about ready to collapse.  For many people, the delusion is that the Evangelical Christian of today is essentially the same as the Moral Majority activist of the 1980's, but more often than not this is far from the facts if one sees current events objectively.  One recent incident that exemplifies this well is the cancellation of a speaking engagement that conservative personality Ben Shapiro was supposed to have at Grand Canyon University, which is a well-known Evangelical Protestant institution based in Arizona.  I wanted to weigh in on this a little today, as it ties into some other observations I have made in the past as well as some I didn't touch on but have been watching closely.

Ben Shapiro

I want to first talk a little about Ben Shapiro.   Shapiro is a sort of "rising star" in conservative circles due to the fact he is articulate, can hold his own very effectively in a debate, and he also takes seriously the whole "know thy enemy" strategy as he prepares for his appearances in debates and such by reading up on the opposition (something more of us should do, just sayin').   He is the host of a radio program that is easily accessed online at his organization, The Daily Wire, and he is definitely worth checking out if you haven't done so already.  Also, as a devout Orthodox Jew, Shapiro is strongly pro-life, he advocates unapologetically for traditional marriage (one man and one woman), and also holds views that I as a traditionalist Catholic would share.  In other words, he is pretty sound in his convictions, and no conservative/traditionalist Christian should have any problems with where he stands, as on moral/social issues he is in complete agreement with us.  I first heard of Shapiro a couple of years ago, and honestly, I enjoy his broadcasts and try to listen to them at least once a week.  Also, like myself, he is not a 100% Trumper necessarily, but like myself, he rightly gives credit to where credit is due.  He is, in essence, a brilliant thinker who objectively observes the situation, and then responds accordingly.   I have nothing but the highest respect for Ben, and honestly, I would love to meet the guy in person.  If you want more biographical information on Ben, there is some good material at his website, www.dailywire.com.   

Now, let's talk a little about Grand Canyon University.   GCU, as it is popularly called, dates back to 1949 when the Arizona (Southern)Baptist Convention established it as Grand Canyon College.  However, in 2000 GCU ended its affiliation with the Southern Baptists and was for a time under management from a corporate entity called Significant Education LLC and was a for-profit enterprise (the first Christian for-profit educational institution).  The university re-instated its non-profit status in 2018 (due to a tax debt - go figure!).  It is now touted as the "largest Christian university in the world," within excess of twenty thousand enrolled students.  However, in all honestly, it is basically a Christianized University of Phoenix setup, and its academics I am not quite sure about.  My wife had originally attempted to enroll there for an elementary education program a few years back, but for some reason she just didn't feel comfortable doing so and backed out.  It was probably a wise decision on her part to do so.   That gives a bit of background on GCU, and to be honest I am just not all that impressed with it, and haven't been for a long time, but until they blackballed Ben Shapiro I never really took anything to do with them seriously.  However, given they are a highly visible presence in the American Evangelical spectrum, perhaps more attention should be given to them regarding what they are truly about. 

Turning now to the current focus of our discussion, the events surrounding it happened just this week, when Shapiro was scheduled to appear at an event at GCU but was abruptly cancelled due to some jibberjabber about "the school's commitment to promoting inclusion and unity on campus at a time when political divisions run deep."  Many felt that this excuse was lame due to the fact that GCU is supposed to be a "conservative Evangelical Christian institution," and that its own faith statement is not in conflict with anything Shapiro has said or convictions he holds.  Even a GCU spokesman admitted this, but then said "a high volume of rhetoric" in Shapiro's speeches is what led to the cancellation.  They then tried to justify this by saying that such "rhetoric" does not lead to "community-building" or "problem-solving," and that their stated position was to "bring unity to a community that sits amidst a country that is extremely divided and can't seem to find a path forward toward unity."  What they are really saying is this - "We don't want to offend anyone with the truth because it might cost us our tax-exempt status."  Of course, tax perks are only part of it, as there are even bigger issues I have seen at some other institutions, and I want to talk about that now ( Information on this incident from Jessica Chasmar, "Grand Canyon University cancels Ben Shapiro, Citing Schools Mission of 'Unity," published 2/4/2019 at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/4/grand-canyon-university-cancels-ben-shapiro-citing/ - accessed 2/5/2019).  

Anyone following my blog posts over the past few years knows of the rather negative experience I have had at my alma mater, Southeastern University, back in 2012-2013 when originally I had contemplated earning my Master's from there.  Southeastern, which like GCU identifies as an Evangelical Protestant university (although affiliated with the Assemblies of God instead of the Baptists), was but one example.  Also, you have read about the recent decision of a high-profile Pentecostal academic, Dr. Paul Alexander, who "came out" as transgender and decided to change his name to "April" after years of pushing the "gay agenda" amongst Pentecostal academic elites.   Other self-identified Evangelical institutions (Wheaton College comes to mind) have waffled on issues ranging from the "gay agenda" to embracing Islam, and the rise of such personalities as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Padgett, and other "Emergent Church" people among Evangelicals have spawned an anomaly called the "Evangelical Left," something honestly that would have been unconscionable only 20 years ago.  While there have been those occasional radicals and oddballs in Evangelical circles (two that come to mind are Tony Campolo and Ron Sider) for decades, in general, they didn't reflect their faith tradition and were even sort of shunned for their views.  However, in recent years this has changed drastically - I am not going to get into all the statistics, but Josh McDowell, James Emery White, Christian Smith, and others have documented these trends among younger Evangelicals in particular and it is disturbing.  Lest you think Catholics are unaffected, look at the recent actions of some among the Catholic hierarchy too - Cardinals Wuerl and Cupich, and Archbishops Dolan, Stowe, and others - and you see it there too.  Christians are acting ashamed to be Christian, and to stand up for traditional values, and not only that but we are becoming cowards when we think a MAGA hat is dangerous or that allowing someone like Ben Shapiro to speak at a Christian campus is somehow "divisive."  It is an obvious sign of the times, and let's examine that briefly.

In the Bible - which both Catholics and Evangelicals view as authoritative in all matters of faith and morality - Jesus Himself gives us a dire warning concerning this cowardice in Matthew 10:33 when he says this - "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."  Let me just say to preface that Church teaching is unchanging - while praxis can be adaptable, belief and doctrine are eternal.  For those who try to make Church teaching and Biblical commands fit their agenda, Jesus also has a warning for them in Revelation 22:18-19 - "18I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."  This warning didn't come in a vacuum either, for in Deuteronomy 4:2 God Himself warns that we do not add nor subtract from His commands, and in Deuteronomy 12:32 we are instructed to just obey those commands and not to "tweek" them to our liking, to interpret it in modern vernacular.  There is a reason for this - those commands and that law are from God Himself, and in themselves they are the perfect embodiment of faith and morality because they have divine origin and sanction.   Therefore, when we seek to compromise that truth because it is not "popular" with the current cultural paradigms, we commit a grave error.   GCU, by its own complicity, is doing just that.  When we also look at the parables of Jesus, in particular the classic "Parable of the Sower" found in Matthew 13, it is an indication that there will be some upon whom the Gospel will never take root, despite their exposure.   These people are the Laodiceans, and their fate is apostasy unless they have a heartfelt conversion to the truth and repent of their lukewarmness.  Apostasy, then, leads to eternal damnation if it is not dealt with and corrected.  Those who are in charge at GCU and other professed "Christian" universities need to recognize this fact, and they need to more clearly understand where their loyalties are and make some serious decisions.  In other words, what Ben Shapiro says is not what they should be worried about - as a matter of fact, Ben is probably more on-point than they are.   They should be worried more about offending the Holy Spirit than they are about offending the proponents of cultural conformity.   

I am not going to invest a lot of time on this issue except to say many Christians in the US need to grow some stones and "man up" a little, because the cowardice shown by GCU and even Archbishop Stowe in regard to the Covington boys is reprehensible, and it may cost us dearly in the future if we don't correct that now.  I am sure that great Christian leaders of the past - Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, Pope St. Leo XIII - are turning in their graves at how weak and wimpy American Christianity has become while our enemies are making gains even without popular support.  If we are to prevail in the culture wars (and we must, as our own freedoms to live our lives productively may be at risk) we need to stop apologizing for crap we are not responsible for, and be proud to take a stand for what is right.  If we don't, who will - let's remember the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler against Christians and Jews to remind us.   Have a good week. 

Some Thoughts on Perry Stone

For many years I have followed the ministry of Perry Stone, who at one time was an up-and-coming televangelist who in recent years has made a mark on the national scene.  I have a lot of vested interest in Perry and his ministry, and I wanted to basically just take some time to elaborate on that today.

Perry Stone is an evangelist who is affilliated with the Church of God (Cleveland, TN), one of the largest Holiness/Pentecostal denominations in the US and also perhaps the oldest (some would dispute that, arguing for the Pentecostal Holiness Church being the oldest of this tradition, but that is for another discussion).  His own ministry, Voice of Evangelism, is also based out of the same city as the headquarters of his denomination.  A part of his ministry is a weekly television broadcast, Manna-Fest, and he also has a plethora of published works from his headquarters office.  In recent years, Perry has been making somewhat of an impact on the Christian community, as he has become more widely known in just the past ten years or so.  Now approaching 60 and already a grandfather now, Perry continues to have a prominent profile, and as a result he naturally generates an abundance of both positive and negative feedback.  I am not here to either endorse or castigate Perry or his ministry, as personally I have no qualms with him, but like any human being he does have his strengths and weaknesses, and that is also important to remember.   My main emphasis here is to reflect on my own experiences over the years in regard to Perry and his ministry.

Perry and I share a lot in common.  For one thing, we were both born in the same home town (Parsons, WV), and even in the same hospital - the doctor who assisted in his delivery, as a matter of fact, employed my late great-grandmother at the hospital for a number of years.  It is also highly likely that we are possibly related through Perry's maternal grandfather, whose last name was Rexrode - back in my own great-grandmother's family, we are distantly related to the Rexrode family, and although at this time I would have to research it more, it is highly likely he and I may be distant cousins.  This is a huge reason why I take a personal interest in Perry, as I also know where he comes from.

Perry's other maternal grandfather, the late Rev. John Bava (1913-1997), was an Italian immigrant who later had a dramatic conversion experience and became a local Pentecostal minister who was well-known in the region on radio.  I remember some things about him from when I was a kid, as Rev. Bava was noted for a droll sense of humor and also was well-respected by many people of different denominations in the area.  However, Bava's real claim to fame was in a local record company, Cozy Records, he founded with his wife Lucy (Perry's grandmother) around the year 1940.  Although Bava and his wife were devout Pentecostal ministers, Cozy Records featured a variety of local talent, including Western swing groups, bluegrass bands, polka orchestras, and even some early rock and roll records.  The releases on that label are now highly valued by collectors, and a three-CD set was released recently of the label's content that is readily available.  Bava and his wife, as well as other local gospel groups, also recorded prolifically on the label as well.  Another rumor in our family I have to substantiate is that two of my own aunts actually sang on the radio with the Bavas back in the mid-1950's.   It would not be a surprise if this were the case, but it just needs to be verified first.
(information on Rev. Bava comes from Paul Vidal, "The Cozy Records Story," published originally in June 2002 at http://www.bigvjamboree.com/CozyRecordLabel.htm - accessed 1/31/2019.  Also, from https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/john-f-bava/29905149, also accessed 1/31/2019). 

Colorful picture of John and Lucy Bava from a Cozy Records research site

John and Lucy Bava were the parents of Perry's mother, Juanita Stone, who is someone I talk to on occasion on social media and she is a dear lady.  Perry's dad, Fred Stone Sr. (1933-2011), was from the southern end of the state, from a small town called Bradshaw in McDowell County, which today is still one of the most economically-depressed areas of West Virginia.  Fred was also a Church of God minister, having started his ministry in the 1950's and in addition to pastoring several churches in Virginia, West Virginia, and elsewhere, he also preached revivals back in the day.  Perry actually released a set of CD's of his dad relating stories of his ministry, and it is some inspiring stuff honestly - Fred was a man of integrity, and he also had to overcome a number of challenges, which is why I personally believe that many of the manifestations he witnessed over the years to be genuine, including cataracts falling off a man whom he'd prayed for at a meeting.  Fred was someone honestly I would have loved to have met and talked to, as he communicated a sincere humility and also an honest devotion to his faith, and that is admirable in itself.   He was also a major inspiration for Perry himself going into ministry, and I think also acted as a restraining force on Perry to prevent his son from being enamoured with the bright lights and celebrity status a lot of TV preachers seem to fall into.  It is my hope that after Fred's passing a few years ago, Perry will continue to use what he gained from his dad in his ministry, for if he does he will have a great impact on the lives of people in a good way.

The late Rev. Fred Stone Sr., Perry's father

Truth be told, Perry had some good mentors in his life, and I believe that is one reason why I have always had a great level of respect for him, even when I disagree with him on something.  That being said, I want to from this point focus first on some positives of Perry's ministry, and then I want to address a few areas I feel he needs some work in.

First, let me say that I believe Perry to have a legitimate call upon his life, and he also takes it seriously too.  This calling has led to him having some rather enlightening and rather revolutionary teachings that I feel are needed and that many have forgotten about.  Perry's teaching on the meanings of dreams and visions, for instance, are actually quite insightful, and I have learned much from those myself.  It was Perry's teaching that also encouraged me years ago to start writing down dreams I have and also understanding the underlying spiritual significance in them.   Perry was also one of the first people to expound on the whole Genesis 6 thing with the giants, and although I differ with him in a couple of areas, he did challenge me to explore the issue, and come to find out, many early Church Fathers, as well as later writers of the Church (notably Fr. Ludovico Sinistrari), verified much of what Perry said.  Also, the way he presents his teachings really piques one's interest in the subject, as Perry is a master communicator and he knows how to present his point in a way that grabs one's attention.  He has also made liberal use of illustrations and props in his sermons, both on TV and live, and this also makes the teaching just sort of pop out at you as you hear it.  These are some valuable strengths that Perry has which can be drawn upon even by people like myself who are Catholic catechists, and indeed I have used some of his techniques with success in teaching both adults and kids.  Naturally too, Perry is also quick to give credit to those who mentored him - his dad, his grandfather Bava, and other influential ministers - and it has given him a degree of teachability which also compels him to learn as well as teach others.  These strengths of character and witness are things I feel are the key to the success of his ministry too. 

That being said, I want to also honestly say that Perry is not perfect, and he has a few areas he could use some work on too.  This in no way devalues his ministry, and it in no way is a reflection upon him as a person nor does it judge his heart or spirit.  Rather, it is just some constructive criticism for him to take to heart because like the rest of us Perry is also a human being, and as such he has a concupiscent nature too.  What that means is that we cannot elevate him or anyone else onto a pedestal, for it will only lead to disappointment later when fallible humanity fails us (which it inevitably does).  Perry is not a "false teacher" or some charlatan, nor can he be accused of endorsing the "Word/Faith" heresy - on the contrary, he has rightly condemned that in many of his messages over the years.  Just because a preacher is on TV doesn't make him (or her) a "blab it and grab it" mouthpiece (although there are too many of those to be sure).  That is why it is important to evaluate Perry fairly and in Christian charity, and not as the result of a proverbial axe to grind.

One major weakness I have noted with much of Perry's teaching is that often he has excellent material, but he fails to document his sources for the material he presents, and thus at times errors can happen.  Perry is an intelligent guy, and no doubt he does "study to show himself approved," but he just needs to do so a little more judiciously.  Sloppy research on the part of a minister, academic, or anyone else is like leaving a back door open to attack by a vandal, and when Perry does this, there are people with their bows ready to shoot him for it, trust me.  He often tries to compensate for this by saying something to the degree that the sources are too many to mention for time's sake, etc., but still that is no excuse - he would be wise to invest the time to provide documentation for his position, as it would also challenge his listeners to check things out and study for themselves too.  God gave us brains for a reason, and we need to be good stewards and make generous use of them.  And, that includes proper research.  If Perry were to address this, I believe it would also help others who don't take him as seriously by labeling him a "TV preacher" and dismissing him as someone not worthy of serious consideration, and he could be used greatly of God to reach many others.  Perry deserves better, and his potential that God gifted him with is boundless - it is up to him now to realize that too. 

Another area that Perry needs some work in is his usage of overly-spiritualized Charismatic jargon.  One phrase in particular makes me cringe, and that is when he is describing something tangible and uses the term "in the natural" to do so.   For one thing, it sounds dumb (forgive me Perry for saying it, but have to be honest!) but it also could lead to a heresy.  In the early Church, a sect called the Gnostics threatened the survival of the Church due to their rejection of all matter as somehow "evil" and only "the spiritual" being good.  Although I know Perry and other Pentecostal people who use this "in the natural" phrase are not intentionally embracing Gnosticism, it is still disturbing that they would use terminology that presupposes those convictions.  Perry would do well to read some of Aquinas and Bonaventure on the subject, especially with the idea of God being the author of two "books," Nature and Revelation.   God created "the natural," and in Genesis we read many times that when he did he pronounced it as "good."  Nature reveals the glory of God, and we don't always need some esoteric prophetic utterance to see it either - look at something as basic as a snail shell, and you see it every day.  It would be good to see Perry get a true revelation of this, as it is needed today.  

A third thing I would caution Perry on is his deriding of "tradition" as if it were something bad, and that at times leads to a mild anti-Catholic attitude on his part that I don't believe he intends but it still communicates because of his own culturally-embedded "traditions of men."  Often, those who deride "tradition" as a cussword are themselves enslaved to the tradition of anti-traditionalism - this is what the warnings against "traditions of men" apply to.  Many long-practiced traditions are good things, and there is nothing inherently evil about them.  Some may justify good traditions for bad behavior, but it in no way nullifies the tradition itself.  Perry needs to understand that in his ministry and maybe rethink how he communicates that, as many devout Catholics are part of his audience and enjoy his teachings and this could ruin his witness with them.  Catholics who are inspired by the good fruit of Perry's ministry should become better Catholics, and not potential converts to Pentecostalism or be driven away from ecumenical dialogue because of a deeply-embedded anti-Catholicism that manifests itself in certain teachings.  Hopefully, should Perry read this, he will take that to heart.

The fourth thing I am concerned about in regard to Perry's teaching is not Perry himself, but some of the company he keeps.  Over the years unfortunately, Perry has associated himself with some questionable characters, and he might want to rethink those associations as they could come back to haunt him later.  One of those individuals was on his program several years ago, a guy who calls himself "Dr. Miller."  The "Doctor" was, honestly, an ignorant hick who couldn't string an articulate sentence together, yet Perry promoted him for God knows what reason.   Not to use an overly-religious cliche here, but honestly this "Dr. Miller" creeped out my spirit, as something just wasn't right with the guy, and fortunately Perry hasn't had him back on since.  I am also concerned with Perry's association with Randy and Paula White, both of whom are scandalous to the same degree as Jim and Tammy Bakker were in the 1980's.   I understand that Perry has been good friends with them since they were all young ministers together, and his friendship is not the problem - it is perfectly fine to be friends with whomever you choose, but quite another thing to be publicly associated with such individuals when they are morally or doctrinally in error.  Randy White, for instance, was caught more or less schnockered, was stopped for driving under the influence in Tampa, and he and Richard Roberts also seem to be good drinkin' buddies.  Then, he and Paula's divorce is an issue, especially since Paula has gone practically secular now - she was problematic to begin with, as she did embrace a "blab it and grab it gospel" much like her predecessor Marilyn Hickey did, but then she hobnobs with those openly hostile to true Christianity (Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce Knowles, and her new rock star husband, to name a few) and she has rebranded herself a "life coach."  Randy and Paula needed to step away from the pulpit years ago, as their fame and celebrity status corrupted them.  If I were Perry and did count these people my true friends, I would be encouraging them to seek some counseling and also would advise them to step back from public ministry for a while until they get some issues straight.  Maybe Perry has done this, and good for him if he did, but if he hasn't he may need to take this into consideration.  Another guy Perry is associated with who raises some concerns is Bill Cloud.  Cloud, a Church of God minister as well, is also in essence a Judaizer, and this could open doors to heresy as Cloud has the potential of being another Joseph Good, a Judaizing TBN star who later outrightly denied the divinity of Christ, a BIG heresy for one professing Christianity.   By advocating the practice of Jewish ceremonial law, Cloud in essence was (at least several years ago) preaching a gospel of "salvation by works," and that too is dangerous.  Perry knows better than that, and it would be a judicious move if he would distance himself a little from Bill Cloud on that issue too.  

A final thing I want to talk about in regards to some weaknesses in Perry's ministry is his emphasis in recent years on daily Communion.   As a Catholic, I am definitely on-board with the idea, but it is how we understand it that is different.  Perry sees daily communion, especially in his book The Meal that Heals, as a way to get God's promises to be more real in one's life.  He is on the right track, but is missing some crucial things.  For one, the Eucharist is a sacrament, and as such, its main purpose is to dispense a supernatural grace that aids in our own elevation, perfection and healing.  However, the Eucharist in itself is not sufficient unless one embraces the whole truth, and that boils down to this - the Eucharist, via a mystery of faith which cannot be explained, is the Body and Blood of Christ, shed for our sins.  Our partaking of it is like a form of time-travel in that it takes us back to the very foot of the Cross itself, where that Body and Blood does its work of redemption upon us.   At the center of the Eucharist then, we don't just have a desire to be "healthy, wealthy, and wise," but rather we have Jesus Himself, and the Eucharist is our entering into Him.  Jesus is to be the focus of all of our faith and what we do, and that is the one area Perry misses.  If Perry ever accepts the Eucharist as the Sacrament in which the Real Presence of Christ is entered into by us, a teaching like this could be radically transformed in such a way that it indeed would change lives.  But, the way he presents it now falls short of that.   Again, Perry needs to study more on this one. 

I offer these evaluations not in any way to condemn Perry, and I am hoping no one takes it that way at all.  Rather, I like many people see a great potential in Perry and his ministry, and if he would work on some weak areas he could become so much more of what God wants him to be, and thus reach even more people.  Also, while I would probably be ecstatic if Perry would ever formally convert to the Catholic faith, at the same time, he needs to grow to a better understanding within his own faith tradition.  If he does that, then God can still use him in a great way.  Perry is family, and I love him because he is both biological blood but also a brother in Christ to me, and while I may have some concerns, at the same time Perry doesn't deserve to be unjustly attacked, and he can be assured I will always have his back and come to his defense if anyone spouts false witness against him.  However, as with everyone else, if you like watching Perry's program or attending his meetings, always be ready to embrace the good of what he has to say and quickly discard that which is not good - that is a rule of thumb we should exercise with anyone.  Fried chicken is delicious to eat in other words, but don't swallow the bones; just digest and savor the meat.  On that, I will wrap up, and hope this will be edifying to those who read it.