Worshiping Mary

I have heard many, many times an accusation against the Catholic Church and its practices, an accusation I myself made rather blindly, and an accusation which I now see is highly illogical and based in gross assumption:

"Catholics worship Mary."

I feel a need to deconstruct this accusation, in part because I myself, completely and totally despite myself, have been drawn further and further into understanding Mary since I became Catholic.

What is the cause of this?  I assure you that this a spiritual drawing-toward 100%; it is not a result of social pressure or common discussion.

I read no Catholic books on Mary.
I have no Catholic friends, so hearing her discussed is out.
My pastor is not at all particularly devoted to Mary, so she is more or less absent from my parish life.

Why, then, am I being drawn toward her?  Quite simply, it is because she is reflecting God toward me, and showing me more of his character, his sovereignty, and his love.  Sounds ridiculous, right?

But I have heard many a non-Christian describe experiencing and coming to understand more of God's beauty through a sunset

... or experiencing and coming to understand more of God's majesty when viewing a mighty plain or mountain range

... or experiencing and coming to understand more of Jesus' love and humility by serving the homeless and poor

... or experiencing and coming to love God more through a CCM song on the radio.

So why can't I experience and come to understand God more through a human being, a woman, his mother?  The truth is that Evangelicals have no problem with the idea of a "thing" witnessing God to us and helping us become closer to Him, so why do they have such a problem with a saint doing the same?

Answer: because it's a "Catholic" thing, and Catholicism is automatically wrong whenever it differs from what they do/believe.

Human beings are God's greatest masterpiece and his greatest tool of spreading the Gospel.  A rainbow or a sunset cannot compare, in all their beauty, with the God-beauty that is inherent in each human being.  How much more so with a human being who has freely, totally dedicated themselves to him by their own decision, i.e. a Saint?  Rainbows and Sunsets do not choose God, therefore they cannot reflect what it is to be sold-out to him.

But a human, a saint: they can choose God, and therefore are the greatest tool of reflecting his truth to them.

Mary, in her ultimate submission to God through bearing his son, has become the greatest of his servants.  She reflects him to me now, and the more I want of God, the more I also want to know and understand her, because all she does is draw me closer to him.

Now, on the point of worship, here is something to ask:

What is worship?

Worship is an action of the heart; worship does not have its substance in physical things or acts.  Yes, physical things or acts can greatly aide worship and even be channels of worship that confer God's presence, but ultimately, the heart is the decider of whether or not worship takes place.

Any evangelical knows that praise and worship music played and hands raised does not a worshiper make.  Many an Evangelical has lamented that they have stood in a "worship" service lifting their hands and singing the songs but left their hearts far from God the entire time.  It's human and we all do it--it's easy to "go through the motions" even if your heart isn't in something.

Once again, music played and hands raised does not a worshiper make.

Similarly, I could also don an ornate rob, set my laptop on a lectern, and pace in circles around the laptop swinging a censer of incense and chanting, but that too would not be worship if my heart was not set on adoring the laptop.

Worship is not in the garb worn, nor the language spoken, nor the actions taken, but in the heart.  The aforementioned actions would have the appearance of worship, or in philosophical terms, the "accidents" of worship, but they would not have the substance or worship, which only comes from one's heart attitude.

Coming to Mary ... it is true that many of the actions, words, etcetera of Catholics regarding Mary have the appearance of worship, but I can tell you now that I have never met a Catholic who had a heart attitude of worship toward her.  I have met Catholics who give little regard to Mary, Catholics who admire Mary, and Catholics who have a very strong devotion and loyalty to her, but none of them, I can tell you with certainty, have been "worshipers" or "adorers" of Mary.

To one who has no familiarity of a person and their manners or a group and their manners, it is nearly impossible to judge the sincerity of an action.  This is the same reason that Italians, known for their kissing greetings and vigorous embraces, could easily mistake German people to be cold and unloving.  This would be an easy generalization to make, since Germans do not display emotion in those manners, but it is not a reflection of what is felt in their heart, but merely a reflection of the community whose characteristics they have internalized.

I have a two-part challenge to those who believe Catholics worship Mary.  If you are among this number, and if you are strong enough to do this, I challenge you to do the following:

1. Ask a practicing, believing Catholic who is the real deal about their personal devotion to Mary.
Don't ask someone who only says "I grew up Catholic."  They have forgotten their home.
Don't ask someone who claims Catholicism, but anyone with a brain can see that they don't live it.  They are many.
Don't ask someone you know is a weak Catholic.  You are hedging your bets.
Don't ask a random person with a Rosary on their rearview mirror.  Most are just sentimental decorations.
Don't ask anyone over 60.  They grew up in a different time. They won't be able to relate it to you.

Don't know anyone like that?  In that case, you can ask me.  By God's mercy, I hope I fit that description.  847.769.4742.  I may have to call you back.  The toddler/baby life goes from 0-100 in seconds at times.

2. Pray to God the Father and ask him about Mary. 
Ask God to show you what is true and not true about her.
Ask him to show you how/where Marian beliefs originated.
Ask him to show you the truth regarding Mary.
And mean it. 

This is no different than what you ask a non-believer to do.  This is very reasonable.

Challenge issued.  Challenge accepted?  If you have the grit.

If your God is so powerful . . .

Can he create a rock so big, even he himself could not lift it?

Whoa.

This question is rather old, yet is continually brought up as if it's a new one, and continually stumps any theist, though it's usually used against Christians in particular. The trump is set up with a few questions pitched at the believer which the inquisitor is sure will result in a strong and assured "yes."

"Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe God is all powerful?"
"Yes."
"Do you believe God can do anything?"
"Yes!"
"Then answer me this: if your God is so powerful, can he create a rock so big, even he himself could not lift it?"

Actually the question makes a very good point, and I'd even say that it's pretense is right on. It's pointing out how a God who is all powerful, and can do anything doesn't make sense. I agree-- it doesn't make any sense. A lot of angry Christians have said in response "Well, that question just doesn't make any sense!" My fellow believers, I'm sorry, but you're wrong: the question makes perfect sense, and the non-believer is right. It's not the question, but the God itself that does not make sense.

Now, here's where we get tripped up:
"Do you believe God can do anything?"

You should say no, because

GOD CAN'T DO ANYTHING


The believer really does have a good heart desire: they love God, think very highly of Him, and are eager to come to the defense of anyone questioning the Lord's eternal qualities. OF COURSE they're going to say God can do anything-- a higher being who can do anything is pretty much what the whole idea of God is based around! But in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, there are things that God cannot do, and you'll see what I'm talking about here:

-God can't lie
-God can't go against his Word
-God can't not do something he said he will
-God can't do something he said he wouldn't
(which is why)
-God can't destroy Satan
-God can't flood the earth a second time

-God can't self-destruct, or end his existence
-God can't create something that doesn't make sense
-God can't create anything beyond himself, since adding to what is already infinite simply is not possible. Despite what 7-year-olds would have us believe, there is no infinity+1

(and therefore)

-God can't create a rock so big, even he himself could not lift it.


Make sense? Our God is all-powerful (meaning whatever can be done, He has the power to do), but that doesn't mean He can do anything. Ready for another humdinger? Can God imagine vastness, such as the vastness of eternity? I'd say no, God can't imagine vastness because it requires him to imagine something beyond himself, against which he can measure. That is impossible, for God is all, and cannot be measured against, or beyond.

Time is Meaningless

This is going to be a weird one.

Since I was a young lad, I've been very familiar with the idea of heaven. Really, don't most people believe in heaven, somehow? For the most part, yes, especially when it comes to loved ones passing away-- everyone believes their grandma/uncle/best friend went to heaven. Now, whether they themselves are also going to heaven is something a lot of people assume, and if not, it's just not something they think about.

Heaven is . . . peaceful? Painless? Happy?

. . . Eternal?

Sure, sure, why not? But have you ever considered what eternity really means? I have, and to be perfectly, vulnerably honest, it kinda scares me. It blows my mind, for one thing. All I have to do is think about the idea of eternity for about 2 seconds, and I'm done; my mind is blown. It keeps going? Life never stops? There is no end to existence?

This really is something that can't be imagined, and that's why it blows your mind. Someone who doesn't believe in God, and therefore, heaven, may be moved to think:
"yeah, that's why I'm glad I don't believe in it, because it doesn't make sense."

But you have to believe in eternity, whether or not you even believe in God, because after you die, the universe will go on, and on, and on, and even ten quintillion years from now, when the universe will supposedly collapse on itself and end up as a single, infinitely small black hole singularity, time will still go one. So yes, everyone must believe in eternity.

But I suppose the idea that you'll be around for it is what makes it scary in light of it's never-endingness. For a long time, I've found myself with the heebie-jeebies when I think of myself being eternal. These heebie-jeebies also leave me feeling a bit guilty because I know that eternity spent in the company of my infinitely loving, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely perfect Jesus would be full of joy and wonder. I mean, what kind of Christian am I to be scared of spending eternity with God?

But I've had a thought in recent weeks that I've found comforting. A thought which has, for the most part, dissolved my fear of spending eternity with God.

There is no time in eternity.

I've realized that the idea of time in light of eternity is quite ridiculous. It's not as though eternity will have "begun," or "keep going," or anything of the sort. It's not as though, epochs into my future with the Lord, I'll look back and say "Wow, it's year 15,587,000,072,576. Cool!" There will be no new establishment of time markation, as if there is a new year zero, and we can begin measuring again from that point.

Eternity will not have begun. Rather, eternity will be a new state.

Looking back at past instances in my life where my belief in God was challenged in relation to various aspects of God's existence, I wish I understood then what I do now. There's obviously the paradox of the Trinity (one god that is three gods, somehow) to tangle with, but I'm not going to go there right now because I think it's impossible to explain (and 2000 years' worth of great theologians would concur). But consider how people wrangle (Christians included) with the idea that God has always existed; how is that supposed to make sense? "If God wasn't created, where did he come from?" we're asked. "How can God exist if he never began?" The typical theist's response is that "God is surely outside of time," or that "time does not apply to God," which is scoffed at by the inquisitor, and rightly so. The response given by the believer is playing right into the hands of the inquisitor, as it fails to address the real question, which should be:

"How can you say that time even exists?"

Because, as a concept, time is not particularly founded. What is it? How does one measure time? Really, when you come down to it, time is just a human method of understanding the universe. It is impossible to prove time. So, when we're asking how God exists if he never began, we're not getting the whole picture. The truth is, the very concept of "beginning" itself implies time. To try and shoehorn the idea of an infinite God into something like time, which is entirely a human idea that cannot be proved, is absurd.

To add, most people today who do not believe in God, when questioned on the origin of the universe, would reply that they believe in the Big Bang. But frankly, I find it much easier to accept the idea of an omnipotent God to whom time does not apply, than to accept the idea of everything somehow coming out of nothing at some distant point in the past. A Big Bang needs a catalyst, and a catalyst could not simply manifest itself out of nothingness. The problem with the Big Bang is that it tries to fit the idea of existence as having begun at some point, i.e., time. But at least belief in a God existing outside of time puts the question out of our ability to answer.

It's not like you're going to be able to explain the existence of existence anyway, so you might as well point to a God to explain it all. At that point, at least you can say it's out of your hands.



It's a long time coming, but here is my point:
Scripture says that when we see the Lord in heaven, we will become like him. Here we find ourselves essentially sharing in his God-nature thanks to our union with God through Jesus Christ. If time is a human concept, one that does not apply to an infinite being such as God, then time will no longer apply to us, either. Eternity will be our new state. Do you think God fears the vastness of eternity? No, because there is no timeline to His eternity-- it is simply his state. And eternity will be our state, too, then, and thus, there is nothing to fear.

We will be like God.

On The Immaculate Conception

I can't believe I'm doing this . . .

I am not writing this to convince you of the truth of this Catholic Dogma.
I myself am not wholly convinced of this Dogma's truth.
I am writing this to convince you that this Catholic Dogma is not as unreasonable as you may think.
I hope you can come to at least give it that much credit.

Please read this with an open mind. Circumspection, I've come to see, is invaluable to those who wish for Christian unity, and to understand their brothers and sisters in Christ of another denomination.



Most of the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church are not in place for Mary's sake, or for Mary's glory at all. Most of the Marian doctrines, you would be surprised to hear, are actually about/there to clarify the person of Jesus Christ.

No way.

The sad thing is that most Catholics don't even know that, and when the Catholic Church's own people misinterpret and misunderstand its reasons for certain beliefs . . . how can Protestants be expected to understand them? After all, we have to admit it: the Marian doctrines do sound kinda weird, and on the surface, many seem somewhat contrary to scripture. However, when you look back in history, you find that they actually came about as a way of explaining Jesus.

But we sorta take Jesus for granted today, or rather, we take understanding what he was for granted. Back in the first few hundred years of Christianity, there was no shortage of controversy regarding the incarnation, for example. People struggled internally and fought and argued externally over a lot of ideas and theology centered around Jesus.

-How could almighty God become a human?
-How much was Jesus God and how much was he a man?
-Did Jesus always know he was God?
-Did Jesus have two wills?
-Where does the Holy Spirit fit into the Father-Son relationship?
-If Jesus is God, and God is indestructible, how could God die?
-For that matter, how is it possible for God to suffer?

. . . among others; you get the idea.

When I first started learning of all these struggles and questions in the early church, I would often think things like:

"Seriously? Why is that important? I don't see how it affects my faith."
or
"Well, duh. Wasn't it obvious? Of course Jesus (fill in the blank)."

Now I'm a little older, a little wiser, and a little more open-minded. To answer my first thought: the more things change, the more they stay the same. There are things that Christians struggle with/argue about today that were totally off the radar back then, too. Every era of Christianity has its pet topics that don't tremendously affect the faith, but are nonetheless contentious among believers. To answer my second thought: well, of course it's obvious to me today, with 2000 years of Christian theology and understanding at my disposal. But how did we get that understanding? Why is it obvious to us? Because once upon a time, (insert random Christological fact) wasn't so obvious, and people had to struggle to figure it out.

Enter: the Marian doctrines, and their reason for being. You can't explain a lot of things about me, for example, without relating me to my parents. Take my last name, my near-sighted blue eyes, or my birthday--none of these things about me can be fully understood or explained without understanding my parents, or otherwise involving them in the discussion. So it is with Jesus and the Marian doctrines. No matter how weird or scripturally off they may seem, there is a reason for them to be, and those reasons, oddly enough, have nothing to do with Mary herself.

EXAMPLE:
The title "Mary, Mother of God"
WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE:
Holy Cow! You're saying that Mary gave birth to God? What the heck does that imply? Calling her God's mother makes it sound like she's greater than God, or otherwise of a similar level or stature, which is pure blasphemy. And doesn't this mean that Mary came before God? No way.
ULTRA-LAME, TYPICAL CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Well, of course Mary is the Mother of God-- she gave birth to Jesus, who is God! Therefore, she was God's mother. Duh, Protestants!
IMPORTANT DETAIL OVERLOOKED BY ALL:
English sucks. The original title is the Greek word Theotokos, which would be more accurately translated as "God-Bearer," or "Birth-Giver of God," which sounds a lot less blasphemous than "Mother of God."
WHAT CATHOLICS OUGHT TO SAY INSTEAD:
Mary was not given this title to make her look more holy, or even to give honor to her. In the early church, there were a good deal of Christians who rejected the union of God and man, and thus, saw Jesus as two different beings somehow coexisting. Those who believed this referred to Mary as Christokos, or "Mother of Christ," affirming her as the mother of only a human, not God. This division of the divine and human natures of Christ cheapens the incarnation, and therefore, the salvation of humanity. Therefore, to affirm the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, Mary was officially given the title Theotokos, or "Mother of God." Mother of God is there to affirm Jesus' divinity, not to make Mary look exalted.

See what I mean? Not as bad as you thought, right? Moving on to the Immaculate Conception . . .

The idea of the Immaculate Conception, roughly stated, is that Mary was conceived, through the miraculous power of God, without the stain of original sin, and thus led a sinless life.

NOOOOO, THE BIBLE SAYS ONLY JESUS WAS SINLESS!!!!

I know. Take a deep breath, my friends. Remember what I said at the beginning of this blog.

POINT 1:
Do you believe that you can be sinless, by the power of God? You should; the Bible says we can. Paul wouldn't talk about conforming to the whole image of Christ if it wasn't possible, since the whole image of Christ would obviously lack sin. This, of course, is all done through the grace of God, but rest assured, it is possible. Has anyone ever gotten there, ever? No one knows except God, but it's certainly possible, according to scripture (I'd wager that John made it). This too would seem to conflict with verses about everyone sinning except Jesus, unless you take into account that 1) this state of sinlessness is only obtained through the grace of god, and 2) those who achieve this state still have sinned, so it's not as though they don't need redeeming.

So, if I believe I can be sinless through the grace of God, why couldn't Mary have been sinless, too? After all, we know that grace is a gift, so it's not like Mary earned her state of sinlessness. Isn't it logical that God would give more grace to the person that would raise his son, than to a Midwestern, 20th century American Joe like me? Anyway, it's not like anyone's saying that Mary conceived herself immaculately. God's the one who did it; He gets the credit, and frankly, can't God do what He wants with His grace?

POINT 2:
We're all born into sin, right? Sin is the heritage that we receive from our parents: the sin nature, the flesh, the part of us that inherently rejects and disobeys God from the moment we are conceived. The stain of the original sin has been passed down through humanity ever since the beginning, and each of us is born into it ("surely I was sinful from the moment my mother conceived me," anyone?).

Well, if sin is a natural state passed on to each of us from the moment we enter our mother's womb, thanks to her own inherent sinfulness, which was inherent in her very humanity (thanks a lot, Adam!), in order for the chain of sinful birth to be broken, wouldn't Jesus have to have come from a sinless woman? If Jesus was born out of sin, as the rest of us are, wouldn't that have given him the same stain? Going further, the idea of Jesus as the "Second Adam" set forth in scripture necessitates a break from the line of sinful humans giving birth to sinful humans, and therefore, a new Adam would need to be conceived without a sinful parent.

By the way, if you are bothered by this idea because it implies that Mary didn't need redemption through Jesus' cross, consider this: who's to say that Mary didn't eventually sin after Jesus' birth, even if she was originally sinless? It's not like the sinless state is impossible to fall from, even if you're created that way. Just a thought . . .




That's all I really have to say in this blog. Remember, I just wanted you to think about this matter, and give it some circumspection. Even if you can't entirely swallow it (I have my struggles as well), I hope you at least see that it's not as looney or unreasonable as it initially comes across. Really, it's not even about Mary, or intended for her honor-- most of the Marian doctrines are not-- it's about Jesus.

From Ignatius of Loyola

In 1491, Inigo de Loyola was born in what is today known as Basque Country, in northern Spain. He eventually became a soldier, and won many battles as a knight in the service of his lord, the Viceroy of Navarre. However, when his lord's fortress in Pamplona came under siege in 1521, Inigo was struck by a cannonball, which wounded one leg and shattered the bones in the other.

Inigo had to undergo extremely painful surgical procedures to repair the damage, after which he was laid up in bed recovering for nearly a year. During that time, Inigo had little to do, and he spent much of his time daydreaming. He had always desired to be in the service of a noble king, and that is what had lead him to become a knight. Inigo felt that if he could serve a benevolent lord with courage and devotion, he would have found his life's calling. Thus, much of his daydreaming focused on gallant deeds and heroic triumph in service of an imaginary, noble lord, as well as wooing a beautiful woman. Inigo ultimately found, though, that these daydreams left him feeling empty and exhausted.

At some point, Inigo was given a copy of De Vita Christi, a book written about the life of Jesus, a man whom Inigo had heard about all his life, but had never taken an interest in. Inigo was amazed by the self-sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, and subsequently, he wanted to read books on the saints-- those who had followed Jesus Christ selflessly, even to the death. As Inigo read more and more about Jesus and those who followed him, he began to feel that he himself was a fraud, a worthless soldier who had only sought what would bring him glory and prestige. Inigo felt shame at the lives of the saints and their utter devotion to God, in the face of his self-serving devotion to the Viceroy of Navarre.

It was at this point Inigo realized that his lifelong desire to serve a benevolent lord wasn't an impossible dream, but instead was staring him in the face: there is no more benevolent lord than the Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Inigo realized that these desires weren't merely of his flesh, as he had formerly thought, but were in fact planted in his heart from childhood by God to lead Inigo to Him.

Inigo decided to dedicate his life to God, and to serve Him forever. Inigo understood that in order to serve God, he had to empty himself of himself. He eventually took the name Ignacio, after a famous saint whose example he wished to follow, and founded the Society of Jesus, which we know today as the Jesuits.

This man changed history. But how does one change the world for the glory of God? With an attitude like this:

"Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding and my whole will. All that I am and all that I possess You have given me. I surrender it all to You to be disposed of according to Your will. Give me only Your love and Your grace; with these I will be rich enough, and will desire nothing more"

Conviction stirs my soul when I read this, and hopefully yours as well. If all Christians could have this attitude . . .

A psalm of thanks

Praise be to God, the almighty father
He alone knows all things
He alone has planned all things

They said to me: Surely, God has not planned this
Surely, you have missed God's call
For the Lord rewards those who follow Him
And from those who do not follow Him
He withholds his blessing
And you are clearly not blessed

But I sought the Lord, and he allowed me to find Him
I said to God: Here I am, use me Lord
To you I dedicate my life
My will is to do your will in all things

I asked God to direct my steps, and He led my feet
I asked him to teach me, and He taught wisdom
He did not repay my shortsightedness with scorn
Nor did he look upon my doubts
as if they were a withdrawal of my commitments
God did not pay me restitution for my pride
nor the consequences of my sins

The Lord is gracious and generous
His rewards are not as we see them
nor his instructions as we would expect
His ways are beyond our ways
And his plans much further than our plans

I sought the Lord and he answered me
He did not answer me in the manner which I expected
Or with the things I expected an answer from
But the Lord did indeed answer me.
I did not perceive His ways
But he taught me them nonetheless
I did not fathom God's goodness
But he graced me with it despite my imprudence

selah

I wish to make the Most High my dwelling place
There will I find peace, there I will stay
He has brought me thus far, and I will not doubt Him
The Lord is good to those who love Him always
Always is the Lord good.

Just in case I gave you the wrong idea

I only write in this blog about what I've come to see as definite. It's Kevin-Brand Theology, which is generic at best, and most stores don't even carry it in stock.

I have a tag for short little posts like this, "Kevin on Kevin's ideas," not because I think I'm just that darn important, and can't get enough of talking about myself. Rather, I have that tag and I write these quick little entries to give you the sense that

I don't think I know everything.

It may seem like I do, given how certain of a tone I can take in these blogs. But I want you to know that:

a) I only write about things that I'm fairly certain on, so you don't get to hear all the things that would make me shrug my shoulders like a sad bear and say " wwwww . . . idunno." Those would undoubtedly give you a better perspective on what I think of myself, but there's really no point in posting them-- I can't stand Christians who stir up a bunch of muck with high-minded questions and then sit back smugly and watch people scratch their heads, all the while pretending to be very modest by claiming no answers (and the blogosphere is full of these types).

b) I only write about those certain things after doing a lot of reading, head-scratching, annoying my wife with incessant questions, and so forth. And these blogs take me A LONG TIME to write-- several hours each, probably. So don't go thinking that this all just springs forth from my ivory towered head on a regular basis. There's a reason I only average two entries a month.

and

c) As far as this stuff being certain, you should know that I'm notorious for changing my mind. After all, you're reading the blog of an Evangelical/Pentecostal who became a Roman Catholic, which I'm sure indicates without saying that I done a lot of mind-changing.

The point is: am I certain? Right now I sure am. Will I always be? My record says otherwise. I may very well be embarrassed by reading this stuff someday.