'I'm Not Promiscuous'

Scarlett Johansson claims "I'm not promiscuous" -- according to a CNN.com post (8:46 a.m. EDT, October 10, 2006).

The report claims Ms. Johansson said,

There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow -- which is not to say that I'm not open-minded about sex...but I wouldn't say I'm a serial monogamist, either.... I work really hard when I'm in a relationship to make it work in a monogamous way.

This would be funny if it wasn't such a classic example of fallacious logic that falls under the category of "distinction without a difference" or "fallacy of fake precision." I could be wrong here -- but I don't think you can marginalize monogamy? (Ooops, sorry. This is America.)

The capstone sound byte, however, was saved for last. The "not promiscuous" star says:

I get tested for HIV twice a year. ... One has to be socially aware... It's part of being a decent human, to be tested for STDs. It's just disgusting behavior when people don't. It's so irresponsible.

Aside from the obvious contradiction, notice the great leap of logic here. It might be socially responsible to contract HIV and spread it around, but it's irresponsible not to get tested.

This is an example of why our educational system needs to teach logic along with basic reading, writing and arithmetic to every kid in school. I mean, what good does it do if you can read, write, and calculate a statistic if your social intercourse is so fallacious?

Suddenly, the inside of a whale's belly smells refreshing.

The Gravity of Loving the Law

For years I could never understand why King David loved God's law. It was a conundrum, a paradox, possibly a contradiction. How could anyone love that which restricted freedom? And laws certainly did that. But David insists:

From the 119th Psalm:

"Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day (96-98), I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law (112-114); I hate and abhor lying, But I love Your Law (162-164); Great peace have those who love Your law, And nothing causes them to stumble (164-166).

My middle name is David so I take note of this power hungry, courageous, arrogant, sex-starved-adulterous man that God loved -- not that I'm any of those, mind you -- but I take note just in case.

What don't I get? Our courts and jails are full of people, many of them like me, I suspect, who are battling the law, or have lost their temporal battle with it. What is there to love about the law, unless you're an attorney chasing ambulances during the day and later stealthing off to the bank's night deposit.

But then, I later reasoned, I loved science. Why, I've got a B.A. in Physics -- although the grades weren't that good. (Yes, that's a B.A. not a B.S.. I'm told four semesters of German, which I never learned, was the difference.)

What I loved about physics and science was that things were predictable. If you stepped out of a 3rd story window, you fell -- perhaps to your death. But it was predicable. You could count on it. You could plan your life around things like gravity. When you got up in the morning, you didn't have to worry about what the gravitational constant would be during the day. As your alarm radio clicks on you're not going to hear:

Okay, folks, well tomorrow it's going to be sunny with a spot of rain in the morning. For our sailors out there, the wind will be coming from the Southeast at 10-20 knots with a moderate chop on the lake. And, oh, by the way, don't forget to take your gravity boots, and charge up those gravity tires. During rush hour, the gravity index will be down to 0.7...promises to be a messy drive home. Try your best to stay in your lane. Be safe out there.

Sure, if you're not careful, you can fall on the playground (they really should outlaw jungle gyms), but GRAVITY IS GREAT. Sounds like a good bumper sticker. Or how about, "GRAVITY KEEPS YOUR FEET ON THE GROUND."

Maybe that's what David was talking about. Maybe he loved gravity.

Want a copy of the Gravity poster? Here's a link to it's creator's, Gerry Mooney's website. Gerry Mooney's Gravity Poster

Returning to Apostolic Traditions

[Note from Stan: The following essay was written before Alex Jones came into the Catholic Church with dozens of members from his former independent charismatic church. He later earned two masters degree and was ordained as a deacon in the Catholic Church. The "Rev." in this title refers to his Protestant status at the time. 

Two DVDs are available by Deacon Jones.  Alex Jones: Journey of Faith (includes "No Price Too High,"  "Dinner with Alex Jones, "and bonus documentary footage), which tell the story of his conversion to Catholicism,  and Wisdom From Above, the 13 part Bible Study on The Epistle of James that played in many Catholic television networks for years. Pictures and additional links for these two products can be found in the right-hand column, if you scroll down. 

RETURNING TO APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS
by Rev. Alex Jones

Pastor of the Maranatha Christian Church
Detroit, Michigan

Copyright, 2000, Alex Jones.

How great and marvelous are the works of our God; how deep and unsearchable are His purposes and plans. Paul said it well:


Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out.(Romans 11:33)The greatest discovery in my life occurred on a hot, summery August night in 1958 when the Holy Spirit opened the doors of God's life and knowledge to my heart. From this religious experience in 1958 until now an unrelenting hunger has gripped my heart to know more and learn more about this wonderful God and His glorious church. Who is He? What is He like? What does He want? What pleases Him or displeases Him? Where do I fit into His grand plan? What has He done for others? All of these questions flooded my heart on that August evening and has never ceased to make their presence felt.

For the past forty years I have been on a pilgrimage to know as accurately as possible the purposes and plans of this marvelous God. Aside from my college studies and resulting degree and post graduate work in Education, I have read books, attended various church services, dialogued with Christians from differing backgrounds, argued with different sects, briefly attended a bible college, and experimented with several variations of the Protestant background I grew to love. I have courted both Arminian and Calvinistic theology, embraced and then discarded Premillennial eschatology, practiced various forms of religious worship, preached holiness and sanctification, and generally enjoyed the spiritual experiences of my Pentecostal heritage. Yet underneath all of these searchings, practices, and activities was the gnawing desire to "dig deeper," ask questions, and find the will and wisdom of God.

I found that wisdom quite by accident. It was during a lesson preparation for a Wednesday evening bible study on the second chapter of 1 Timothy that I stumble across this treasure buried in a field. Pursuing information to reenact a first century worship service, I read the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, and it was there, in the writings of the early Christian writers, I unearthed a clearer truth of Christ and His Church.

Finally, after years of searching I found the truth of Christ and His Church: His Church was liturgical, it was hierarchical, and it was catholic. I learned that as the Church grew it kept a written record of lines of descent from the Apostles themselves. Protestant claims of small bible study groups scattered through out the ancient world were pure fantasy. They simply didn't exist. The Christian church was and has always been united, apostolic, and catholic. The rise of heresies forced the Church to cling tenaciously to what they had received from the Apostles. All of the churches from Gaul to India had a core belief and method of worship that all agreed could be traced directly to the Apostles.

The second century Church had an organized liturgy that included scripture readings, psalms, litanies, responses, and an orderly, systematic eucharistic service. The center of Christian worship was not the operations of the gifts of the Spirit, which were in great abundance, nor was it the histrionics of great preachers. The center of Christian worship was and has always been the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist. To the early church the Eucharist was not a spiritual symbol of Christ, it was Christ Himself being re-presented to the Father at every gathering.

Not only was the Church's hierarchical structure and Eucharistic-centered worship different than I expected, so was its teachings. Men were not saved by accepting Christ as their personal Savior, but by immersion in the regenerational waters of baptism. Men were not saved by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith -- a faith demonstrated in good works and holy living. Christians did not seek "blessings," but, to the contrary, willingly sacrificed their lives for their Lord. It was there, in the face of the Apostolic Fathers, that I saw the true essence of Christian spirituality. It was not today's Americanized faith of prosperity or materialistic blessing, nor was it the pentecostal faith of endless exhilaration and emotional excitement. It was a deep, devotional faith of the heart that called forth self-sacrifice, penance, suffering, and righteous living.

With this enlarged understanding of the development of Christian belief came a clearer understanding of the Bible and our most treasured tradition, sola scriptura. This theology teaches–that all we need to know about the revelation of Christ and His Church is contained within the pages of the Bible. Hence, the Bible is the authority for all questions on faith and morals. We have shortened this teaching into, "if its not in the Bible I don't believe it." On the surface this sounds admirable and correct -- "if we cannot read it in the Bible, then discard it, it isn't true." But the problem with this approach is that each of the 28,000 churches and denominations all claim support from the one Bible! Each and everyone one of them claim the "truthful and correct" interpretation of the Scriptures. From Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses every last one of them interpret the Bible differently. We've grown so accustomed to these variety of interpretations that we call the Bible "unclear" in many passages that so that we can allow for differing opinions and interpretations.

Take, for example. Jesus' statement to Nicodemus that he must be "born of the water and of the spirit" (St. John 3:5). Three interpretations have been offered by Christians:

1. Amniotic birth fluid (the first birth) and the Holy Spirit's indwelling (the second birth),
2. The word of God and the Holy Spirit's baptism,
3. The waters of baptism and the Holy Spirit's indwellingJesus statement certainly had one meaning! Although it isn't stated in John's gospel account, I'm sure Jesus explained what He meant to Nicodemus. But how does that help us? Which of the interpretations listed above is true? All three cannot be true! Yet Christians build their faith on one or the other interpretations listed above.

It doesn't seem to matter how scholarly or erudite bible students are; even scholars who wear all of the trappings of academia, differ significantly on many important doctrinal matters! Much study and research do not seem to be able to bring agreement or consensus on what the Bible says.

Another problem with "the bible only" tradition is the belief that, along with diligent study, the illumination of the Holy Spirit (St. John 14:25; 16:13) will unlock the truths of the Bible for all who listen to Him. Certainly study of the Scriptures and the illumination of the Holy Spirit are essential to personal spiritual growth and unlocking the spiritual content of the Bible, but try telling 28,000 differing, bickering churches that their 28,000 differing views on the Bible are indication of their either being scripturally inaccurate or not Spirit-lead. Surely the Holy Spirit does not have–28,000 interpretations of God's word.

Unfortunately, this noble but unsubstantiated tradition has limited us to an extremely narrow perspective of the Christian Church. It not only limits the Christian's world-view of the development of the church, its doctrines, its saints, and its history, but it does not tell the full story of the Christian Church and its practices.

For example, precisely how did the early disciples conduct worship services? How did Christian worship evolve? What did Jesus teach His disciples on the road to Emmaus? (St. Luke 24:45) What did He teach the apostles about the kingdom during His forty days before His ascension? (Acts 1:3) How did the apostles baptize new converts? In what part of the world did each Apostle plant the gospel? What happened to Peter after Acts 12:17 and Paul after Acts 28:31? What happened to Mary, the Lord's mother? The Bible does not say. How did the Church evolve after the death of the last Apostle? Since the Holy Spirit was given to the Church to guide it into the truth, how was He evident in the centuries after Acts? What directions did He lead the Church in the application of Christian revelation? What great men and women did He raise up to shepherd the Church? How did the councils of the Church deal with the practical applications of Christian revelation to the needs of the day?

The Church had a vibrant, rich spiritual life that was not totally captured by the New Testament. There were martyrs, great saints, great evangelism, and great examples of self-denial and sacrifice in the early church that we do not read about in the Bible. The culturally-diverse church at Antioch went on to become the driving force in Christianity. Great saints such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Anthony, Basil, and the two Gregorys are unknown by most Protestant readers. The great thinkers of the Church: Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, to name a few, are totally ignored by the mass of Protestant Christians. Yet it was these men that withstood heresies and heretics, hammered out Christian thought, and formulated the very New Testament doctrines and theology we believe as Protestants today. One must remember the New Testament contains many letters (epistles) that were limited in their scope to indigenous problems in local churches. Unfortunately, we only get a glimpse of church life through the pages of the New Testament.

Think about this. Limiting ourselves to what's contained in the Bible is similar to us limiting ourselves to "mastering" the Constitution of the United States but ignoring the Fathers that created it, the history of the Thirteen Colonies that occasioned it, and the history of the country it brought into existence. We would indeed be knowledgeable about the basic rules of American government, but would totally ignorant of:
1. The Bill of Rights
2. The Fathers of this country,–
3. The great Supreme Court decisions that interpreted it,
4. The amendments to the Constitution,
5. The slavery issue leading up to the Civil War, etc.Do not misunderstand me. The New Testament is the inspired word of God. It does contain God's will of us. We must live by its principles and commands. It does accurately and faithfully relate the life of Jesus, His teachings, and the teachings of the Apostles. But it must be receive with the total revelation of the Church. The Bible is not the "pillar and foundation of truth." The Church is! (1 Timothy 3:15) What the Bible gives is an "accurate" but not a "complete" picture of God's working through Christ in the Church. Mark ends his gospel with,
Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it (Mark 16:20).But he does not tell us where they went or what they did! Acts reveals the beginning of the Church with tremendous power, but leaves us wondering the outcome of Paul's trial in the twenty-eighth chapter. Nothing is said of the other eight Apostles. Did they work miracles? Did they die for their faith? If so, how and where? Consequently, viewing Christianity through the eyes of the New Testament is like trying to view New York city through a first floor window at the World Trade Center.

We must also consider that the Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the Apostles and Prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church, He left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit! The New Testament, as we have received it, was not finally canonized until 393 A.D. Until then, what gave the church its cohesion between the Apostles and the canonization of the New Testament? What determined orthodoxy of faith in the face of heresies and heretics? Except for a few minor variations, why did the Church worship God the same throughout the world? How could writer after writer call the Church "catholic" (universal) without the unifying element of the New Testament? What kept the Church afloat until the New Testament could be canonized? In fact, what was the "rule" scholars used to admit certain books, and exclude others from the New Testament canon?

The answers to these questions is found in the Traditions of the Apostles handed down to the Early Church Fathers. This sounds strange to Protestant ears. We have been taught the Word has preeminence over everything! Yet we have ignored the very Church that has gathered, preserved, and produced the Word. Does the Tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers have precedence over the Bible? By no means! The Bible with the Traditions of the Apostles and Church Fathers give us the total picture of God's work in and through the Church.

The Jews well understand the place of tradition in their faith. The Torah was given by God to Israel at Sinai, but there was also an "oral tradition" called, the Talmud, on how the Torah should be applied. For example, the Torah stipulated the times and types of sacrifices the priest should offer, but did not always tell how the animal was to be slaughtered, dismembered, or presented on the altar. Judges were to administer justice, but the Torah did not tell how court was to be held. Engagements and marriages were to be held, but the Torah did not detail how or where the marriages were to be performed. The details and applications were handed down through oral, priestly traditions.
Of course oral traditions did not have the authority of divinely inspired literature, and many times Jewish traditions conflicted with revelation knowledge. These were the traditions Jesus condemned (Matthew 12:2, 10; 16:12; Mark 7:1-23). Yet He followed certain traditions:

1. He accepted the title of Rabbi
2. He gathered about Him disciples
3. He wore a beard
4. He recognized the tradition of feet-washing for guests
5. He rarely ventured outside of Israel to have contact with Gentiles
6. He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath
7. He recognized the "seat of Moses" as the legitimately ordained teaching office of the Jewish religion (Mat.23:1).

Apostolic Tradition, however, differs significantly from Jewish traditions in that Apostolic Tradition contains ALL that the Apostles handed on to their successors, both written and oral. It is the total revelation of Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church, not accumulative practices and interpretations that many wrongly assert today. This sacred tradition (Gk. Paradosis = "that which is handed down") IS divine revelation transmitted from one generation to another as a sacred body of knowledge. It is the "faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In 2 Thessalonians Paul admonished the Thessalonians:
Stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.(2 Thessalonians 2:15)He wrote to the Corinthians:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, (paradosis) just as I passed them on to you . (1 Corinthians 11:2)To some who refused his authority, Paul appealed to the universally practiced but unwritten traditions of the church:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice (custom)-- nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)These statements made by Paul show that practices and traditions recognized by the Apostles had begun to develop within his lifetime. In fact, he quotes teachings attributed to Jesus that cannot be found in the gospels:...remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should– receive their living from the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14)Hence, the Christian faith began to grow well beyond the pages of the New Testament. Customs, practices, traditions, all practiced and recognized by the Apostles, guided the first century church through its formative years. Without knowledge and familiarity with ALL of the Church' s teachings, our grasp of the Christian message may be good, but certainly it is not complete.
So, let us return to the beginnings of the Church and rediscover the precious treasure of Apostolic Tradition. Let us take another look at the long history of the Church of Jesus Christ and enjoy the fullness of the Christian faith.

Merry Christmas and the Spirit of Individualism in America

"Merry Christmas"

and the spirit of individualism in America

Stan Williams, Ph.D.

During this Christmas Season, more than others in recent past, I’ve noticed the onslaught of public sector officials to rewrite history and the fundamental reason we take off work this time of year. To some of those whom we elect or appoint to positions of authority, the separation of church and state has become life’s obsession. No longer is it Merry Christmas, but Happy Holidays, or Season’s Greetings. We’ve even seen this revisionist shift in Christmas Cards (ah, excuse me, Holiday Cards) from otherwise well-meaning Christians, including the White House.

But this just makes sense to me. At least it is consistent with America’s history of protesting and maniacal obsession with individualism. In America, the land of the free, we should be free to think and conclude whatever we want (ah, excuse me, that should be “whatever ME want”). The reality and truth of history, or the reason for the season, is no match for individualism.

This is an interesting twist on the concept of democracy, or the rule of the majority, especially when our attention, with the fight for democracy in Iraq, is so often a front-page news item. Of course, we have never lived in a pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic. Yet the democratic principles are still on the books. That is, the will of the majority should take precedence and not the will of the minority and surely not the will of the individual. Although that too is changing.

We give lip service to democratic principles because we believe that there is some truth in what the majority believe, hold dear, and embrace as truth. Underneath the concept of democracy and our fundamental pursuit of happiness is the Biblical concept that God has written His Divine conscience on all of our hearts in the form of a natural law that keeps our minds rooted in reality the way gravity keeps our feet rooted on Earth.

Democratic principles and our institutional sense of right and wrong brings me back to the importance of the meaning of words. Words have etymologies, or a history of where they came from and why they are used. Words express a culture's remembrance of truth through a default sort of democratic principle. Words are not voted on in a polling booth, but are imbued in the rules of language by the use of the majority. As time and events shape a culture’s identity, so words change to reinforce what is learned and what should be remembered. Certain words change in subtle ways and take on new, but not always more truthful, meanings. Unfortunately, our culture’s obsession to remember history in certain ways drives the move to change, not just the meaning of the words, but to change the actual words as well. Thus, we are in the midst of changing from “Merry Christmas” to “Season’s Greetings.” Even “Happy Holidays” is being discouraged because the term Holidays is a permutation of the original phrase “Holy Days.” And while the term Holy means to be “separated from,” and individuals in America just love to be “separate” (it has a distinct, adventurous connotation don’t you know)... few Americans want to be identified with the institutional church that repressively declared what days were to be holy and celebrated “apart” from our everyday, secular lives.

But this is to be expected in America. Specifically, it is to be expected because “Merry Christmas” is itself a permutation, and shift from history, and from reality. “Merry Christmas” is the perfect idiom for America, the land of the free, the brave, and the individual. “Merry Christmas” sounds safe today, but it’s entomology points to King Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy, and the British Parliament's subsequent Penal Laws that were also successfully applied in parts of the American Colonies.

If you’re unfamiliar with that part of British and American history here's a synopsis. The Act of Supremacy (1534) and the Penal Laws (beginning in 1559 and continuing for centuries) were successful attempts to erase a part of history and suppress the roots of Western religious culture, replacing them with a protest against institutionalism. These legislated acts established the King of England as supreme head of the Christian Church and outlawed the evil practice of Catholicism with exile or death. Never mind that a few years earlier (1521) Henry VIII was declared "Fidei Defensor" (Defender of the Faith) by the Pope for defending the Catholic Sacraments against Martin Luther's rebuff, and never mind that to this day the initials F.D. appear on all British coins to celebrate that fact. The Act of Supremacy was the ultimate protest and helped to reinforce the concept of "Protestantism" as a powerful word ladened with historical meaning. As much as the Act of Supremacy established the British Monarchy as an institution, it was ironically the ultimate act of individualism — the supreme act of a King to press his individual will on an entire culture and force it to forget its roots and change its religious practice under penalty of death. Two hundred years later, this cultural embrace of individualism would create quite a problem for the British Monarchy when America wanted to be separate, and take individualism to the next level. But at the time being a protestor against institutional authority was very popular.

And so it is that the phrase "Merry Christmas" carries on this protesting tradition to shroud our roots in fog. In an etymological protesting sort of way "Merry Christmas" might remind us how a woman and a man put their individualism aside and obeyed the greatest institution of the Universe. "Merry Christmas" should remind us that the individual is very important to God, but only when that individual obeys God. But "Merry Christmas" doesn't do that very well, unless you strip away its protesting artifacts and go back to the original words. There you will find three words that were the focus of this most holy of days: Mary, Christ, and Mass. For it is in the Mass that we remember Mary's obedient "yes" to life, and Christ's obedient "yes" to death. It is at Christmas, in the Christ Mass, that we celebrate the incarnation and the selfless cooperation between God and a woman that made salvation from individualism and self-importance possible.

Words have meaning... and, unfortunately, "Merry Christmas" doesn't say it all.

Catholic Apologetics in a Baptist Pulpit

Dear Reader:

Here’s an email Pam sent to our Kids and me.  None of us can believe she did this.  I’m still shaking my head.

—Stan

Mon, 25 Jul 2005

I Went to Church with Tom

I’d like to tell you of my church experience with Tom (Pam's adult brother with cerebral palsy). He and I did a lot together this past weekend (including bowling—very fun) while my parents were in Alfred, NY attending my dad’s 65th high school class reunion!!!! Before I returned him home Sunday night, we went to the Sunday evening service at his Baptist church in Taylor, Michigan.

They are currently without a pastor since their senior pastor retired, and they had a guest speaker—a missionary from Bethlehem—who had slides of his little fledgling church. One slide had statistics about the population of Bethlehem, and 70% of the city is Catholic. 

He then proceeded to tell a series of stories about Catholics and their ignorance of the Bible, their breaking of the 3rd Commandment (worshiping graven images, because they have statues in their churches), their addition of 7 books into the Bible, and their practice of only praying once a week when they went to Mass, and baptizing infants, when they should be waiting until after they are saved. 

When he equated Catholics with Muslims and said he was there to teach them the truth, I could not sit in my seat any longer. I got up, walked up the side aisle and stood next to him in the pulpit. When he turned to me (in shock, I think) I said to the people, "With all due respect, I could not let him say wrong things about the Catholic Church anymore in front of this dear congregation of people" I then asked them if I could clarify some things. Of course, at that point one of the pastors came up and said he would talk to me on the side. But I said I had to say something in front of everyone, because I was raised thinking all these things were true about the Catholic Church, too, but then I learned the truth about what Catholics believe, and it’s not what is being perpetuated among Protestant churches, and I can’t let that continue. We don’t worship idols, and we didn’t insert books into the Cannon of Scriptures, rather Protestants took them out, .... and I would have said more, but the pastor asked me to step out with him, so I did.

We talked in the lobby for another half hour until the service was done. Here is a sample of our conversation.

Pam: I can’t sit by and hear someone spread lies about the Catholic Church and listen to your congregation give assent with their “Amens!” and laughter to hear what they think is the silliness of Catholic people and their beliefs. That’s how I was misinformed about the Catholic Church, too. Now that I know the truth, I can’t sit by and let that happen anymore.

Pastor: Well, if you have questions about our beliefs, I’d be glad to talk to you any time.

Pam: No, I don’t have any questions about what you believe. I only want to make the point that this spreading of misinformation about the Catholic Church needs to stop. This is not helping the unity of Christians as Christ prayed for.

Look, do you have pictures of your family in your home? Well, back in the earliest times of the church, they didn’t have photography, so they used sculpture/statues, ...paintings, and stained glass, to show the Holy Family (Mary & Joseph) and the disciples and other important people in Christ’s life. That doesn’t mean they worship these things. Have you ever been to a Mass?

Pastor: Yes, I have. And they do elevate Mary to a place above all other people, and don’t they believe she was sinless? They even call it the Immaculate Conception.

Pam: Yes, they do.

Pastor: Well, that’s where we disagree. No one is sinless since Adam and Eve.

Pam: But Mary was chosen to be the New Eve....

(Another pastor came out and introduced himself and we did not pursue this line of conversation further, but I wish I had been able to say, “The Bible even says that she is sinless! In Luke 1, what does the Angel Gabriel say to Mary? “Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” If you are full of grace, there is no room for any sin! “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” This beautiful Angel with direct access to God Almighty hails Mary as sinless and claims that she is blessed above all other women. That’s why the Church calls her Queen of all Saints! Yes, she is elevated. The Angel straight from God said she was and the Church is merely perpetuating that truth.)

(Also, consider this: The Arc of the Covenant in the OT was so holy, no man could touch it without being struck dead. It had to be transported on poles and carried by priests. What did it carry? Symbols of Christ. --Manna (Jesus is the Bread of Life), --The Ten Commandment Tablets (Jesus is the Word of God come to fulfill the Law), and the --Budded Rod of Aaron (Jesus is the Resurrection). So, if the contents of the Arc were pointing to Christ, what was the Arc itself pointing to? Mary. Marry carried the Son of God in her womb for 9 glorious months. If God demanded that the OT Arc be untouched and reverenced, how much more the real living Arc of the NT. If God wants His Son carried by a sinless, holy temple, He can do that. He’s God! He found a way through the Immaculate Conception.)

Pam: (My next concern had been the story the missionary told about him needing to correct the priest about the Cannon of Scripture—what books are accepted as part of the Bible.) Everyone in Protestantism has the story turned around. Luther’s German Bible has all 73 books. Even the first King James Bible had the 7 “contested” books in it, which you refer to as the Apocrypha! The Protestants took them out after the Reformation (in the early 1800s).

Pastor: That’s where we disagree.

Pam: But, we don’t have to, if you read history. History doesn’t lie.

Pastor: Well, the Cannon was decided during the Councils of Nicaea and Trent.

Pam: That’s right, and all 73 books were in the Bible then. And who do you think called those Councils? The Catholic Church. There were Protestants there at Trent, yes, because they were invited but they had no vote. They were simply observers. But, who was given authority to decide what books are in The Word of God and what are not? Not individuals (and not individual denominations)! The authority was given to the Church that Christ established through the Apostles!!! (I should have added, “The Nicene Creed calls the Church ‘the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.’” Do you accept that Creed?) So, after consulting with these councils, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide their decision, the Catholic Church proclaimed that the contested books should remain.

[Here are some facts I did not have at my fingertips at that time: The same list of books confirmed at the Synods of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419) and Council of Florence (1442), were also confirmed at the Council of Trent (1546, Session IV). In other words, that list was right from the beginning—the first 3 hundred years after the Church was established, and it was confirmed at the Council of Trent.]

Pastor: Well, we’re just not going to agree on these things, but if you have any other questions, please feel free to come talk to me.

Pam: But, I don’t have questions. I just want to clear up what Protestants misunderstand about the Catholic Church, so we don’t create greater divisions between us.

At this point, a woman from the congregation entered the lobby where we were and said:

Woman: Pastor, you know me. You know that I’m Catholic, and I go to Mass in the morning and your church at night. I bring people to your church with me and to my church, too. I love them both. And, you know I don’t pray just once a week, and you know I’m saved. That was not right what the missionary said about Catholics not praying much, and not being baptized right, and that Muslims and Catholics are to be grouped together as if they weren’t even Christians. You have to speak to him about that. That’s not right.

Pastor: OK, I can agree with that. I’ll speak to him after the service.

Pam: But, in the meantime, everyone is saying, “Amen,” to everything he throws out there about Catholics, and your whole congregation is assenting, by their laughter, to the lies that are being told them. (And, I don’t blame the missionary. He is just passing on what he thinks is the truth about Catholics.)

But, we have to stop this. It’s not bringing unity among Christians. It’s making Catholics appear as not even in the same ballpark as Christians.

Pastor: OK, I’ll speak to him. We’re getting together after the service.

Woman: Well, you have to agree that the missionary asking one Catholic woman how often she prayed does not give an accurate picture of how all Catholics are. Come on, Pastor, that was a cheap shot!

Pam: You could get that response from any Protestant, as well. People do not always practice what their church teaches. For instance, the Church has scripture readings and prayers that they encourage Catholic Christians all over the world to pray every day, morning noon and night. No matter what their language, we have the same scriptures to read and prayers of meditation on any given day. Do all Catholics do that? No, but then do all Protestants pray every day either?

Pastor: Well, that’s a good point. Even for Baptists.

Woman: And, I bring Catholics to your services all the time. I’d hate for them to hear what we “preach” about them. Pastor, you’ve got to set them straight. Pastor, you know me. You know I’m not like what he’s describing Catholics to be.

Well, I have to go now. (And she left the church.)

Pam: (I began to appeal to the other pastor.) Since you are a Baptist Church, let’s talk about baptism. The missionary said baptism should be in a certain order with salvation, namely after one is saved. If the Bible is your only authority, what are you going to do with the scripture that says, “Baptism now saves you?”

Pastor 2: Yea, I know. It does say that. I’ve read that, too.

Pastor: But, we interpret scripture differently than you do.

Pam: And where do you get the authority to do that?

Pastor: From the Holy Spirit!

Pam: Then why do other people/pastors who claim the same thing (that the Holy Spirit is their authority to interpret the Bible) come up with different answers from you? If it’s the same Holy Spirit, it has to be the same answer! Instead, trying to do this on our own has resulted in over 33,000 different denominations!

God knew we would need a way to interpret His Word, so he gave us the Church (with the Holy Spirit) to do that.  The authority comes from Christ, to His Church, founded on the Apostles and passed on through the priesthood with the laying on of hands. You can go to any bookstore and buy a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church for $8 and know the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches! You don’t have to misunderstand anymore or spread things that are not true. You can read it for yourself and also see the scriptures they use to back up their claims! It’s all written down for you to examine.

Pastor: Well, we’re never going to agree, but if you have any questions for us...

Pam: Please understand, I don’t have any questions about what you believe. I only want you to be correct in what you teach your congregation about what Catholics believe! We do have to talk again, though.

Pastor: Thank you for your respectful manner in speaking with us. We would be glad to continue the discussion further any time.

Pam: Thank you, too, for your kindness to me, for listening to my concerns, and for agreeing to speak to the missionary about the two areas you do agree he needs to be corrected in.

 (I’ll just rephrase them now: 1] not generalizing about the whole Catholic Church on the basis of one Catholic person’s practice, and 2] not grouping Catholics with Muslims but rather Catholics with Christians. Protestants and Catholics can learn much from each other, and we need to be telling the truth about each other.)

Well, I just thought it would be helpful for you to know that this happened, because as I was able to tell the congregation before I was ushered out, “I once believed all these same things about the Catholic Church that this dear missionary has said. But now that I know what the Church really believes and teaches, I cannot sit by and allow these misrepresentations of the truth of the Church be perpetuated any more.”

Thanks for listening.

Love,  Mom

The Bible Interprets Itself

The Bible Interprets Itself

November 29, 2004

Stan Williams, Ph.D.

This is therapy.

Last night in a noisy jazz club I got into an argument with a few Lutherans who claim they're not Protestant but the original "catholic" church. Since Luther was excommunicated, so their thinking goes, and didn't voluntarily leave the Catholic Church he (and they) are not "protesting" anything and so they shouldn't be considered Protestants.

This is fascinating logic. If Lutherans are the original Catholic Church I wonder what happened to the church that kicked Luther out?

I was also informed that these particular folk are part of an independent Lutheran Church and left the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (recently) and neither will they have anything to do with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American because they, too, teach wrong doctrine. Again, fascinating logic. I wonder how excommunications and defections enhance one's authority? And how do we know, just within Lutheranism, which the "true" Catholic-Lutheran Church? By what method, just within Lutheranism, is truth measured infallibly?

I was also told that Catholics have an erroneous Bible insofar as it has 72 books in it and the Lutheran Bible (?) has 66. This is fascinating reconstruction of Lutheran history, insofar as all of Luther's Bible translations had all 72 books in them.

By what authority do these Lutherans use only 66 books?  Surely not Luther.

But the most fascinating thing I heard all evening was that the Bible interprets itself. I've head this before. But it leaves me slightly confused.  Where in the Bible am I informed as to which of the 66 or 72 are supposed to be in the Bible? Or do we not need an infallible authority (e.g. a church council) to establish an infallible authority (e.g. the Bible)? And why does the Bible not include one or more of the dozen of letters and writings from the early Apostles such as the Gospel According to Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, or The Didicae? Who determined what was to be in the Bible and what was to be excluded? If the Bible can interpret itself, then surely it can resolve it's own evolution. And if the Bible can interpret itself, then why are their 20,000 + different Christian churches all claiming that the other church is misinterpreting the Bible?

Before the Protestant Reformation, the answer was very simple. In fact, the answer now is the same as it was for the first 1500 years. There is an authority that listens and obeys the Holy Spirit as prescribed by Christ.

Or, where does the Bible say that the Bible is the only authority on morals and faith apart from men, led infallibly by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it?

As a Roman Catholic there is a very easy answer to the authority issue, because it is so explicitly stated in the Bible. And contrary to what many non-Catholics believe, the teachings of the Church are infallible not simply because they come from a man who is the head of an institution, but because they come from the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said they would. Here is the doctrine and process in a few Bible verses.

----

Jesus tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

But such authority is not arbitrary but inspired and infallibly brought to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Again Jesus is talking: "The Holy Spirit...will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26)  "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, will guide you to ALL truth. (John 16:12-13)

And then, Jesus says to the Apostles, "RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23)

Thus, infallibility ONLY comes through the Holy spirit, and yes through men in leadership who have been given that blessing.

----

Now non-Catholic Christians disagree with this, because in their Christian culture they've been taught that no one is infallible. And within their Christian upbringing they are absolutely right. There is no infallible promises to any of their non-Catholic church leaders. That is their experience, their life, their teaching, and even Catholics agree with that teaching. Why? Because somewhere in history non-Catholic leaders have either been excommunicated (as Luther was) or voluntarily defected from the church and by natural consequence excommunicated themselves. Therefore they have been separated from the above promise of infallibility.

It is only reasonable then, that non-Catholics are offended when someone tells them that what they believe about infallibility is true, but only for their own church. And what is true for their church does not, by logic or any other extension of authority, extend to another church. To do so is like someone with O+ blood claiming that everyone else must have O+ blood. Or, it's like the leader of one organization demanding that another organization follow the first organization's by-laws.

The verses quoted above explicitly state and define infallibility; and you will never read of a Lutheran theologian claiming them for himself or his church. Non-Catholic theologians will continue to say that no one is  infallible (that is what they know from personal experience), and that is the claim echoed loudly, and clearly, and continually by all non-Catholics.

This, too, is fascinating. Because the non-Catholic proclamation about how no one or no church is infallible, IS in the form of an infallible statement. It is a universal, dogmatic, timeless declaration of fact...to those that say it.

And so, logically, if no one is infallible, how then does anyone know absolute truth? Or, how can one even be so infallible to prescribe that no one is infallible?

The Catholic Church has a simple answer. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church (which contains all believers, including priests, religious, bishops and the Bishop of Rome) and through prayer, fasting, dialogue, debate, and study...the will of God about a particular issue is arrived at and proclaimed by the Church as true. The process in each case takes years. Never has a Pope arbitrarily, outside that normally very long process of discerning God's will, made any dogmatic proclamation. And never has a Pope made a proclamation of truth without the consensus of the other bishops of the church. Thus, while the Pope is said to have the office of the keys, he has never used them without being in union with the doctrine of the full church. Furthermore, no doctrine has ever been proclaimed unless the church can confirm that the doctrine was believed and held true during the lives of the Apostles and in keeping with their direct teachings. Therefore, although some doctrines have been proclaimed since the last apostle died, the Church can demonstrate that the first church under the Apostles' leadership held such beliefs. Like the law of gravity, the proclamation of the law later on does not create it, but only explains and articulates what has always been true.

Response to Barb

A response to Barb's comment found in the comments here:
https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2004/11/the-bible-interprets-itself.html
It was too long to post in the comments section of that post.

Hi Barb. No offense, either. 

Let me clarify.

The foundation of the Catholic Church in the New Testament is legendary. Church doctrine, of course began BEFORE there was a NT. Over the first 300 years of the Church the Scriptures of the NT were written, passed around and finally collected together. There was NOT a NT at first. So, Christianity is not based on the NT, but on the oral teachings of the Apostles. And that has lasted about 2000 years without change except in how to interpret passages in the face of modern apostasies.

Protestantism, however, came about after 1500 years. You see, Protestantism makes the assumption that the Holy Spirit was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity. How can that be?  (This also applies to the Deuterocanon books in the O.T.... If the Bible is the inspired word of God, so the argument goes, and there are 7 books in the O.T. that shouldn't be there (as Protestants claim), then how did the Holy Spirit get it wrong for so long?) The only way that Protestant argument holds water is if they assume the Bible for the first 1500 years was NOT completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. --- The priesthood is mostly celibate (some Catholic priests are married, and if you count the 20 other Catholic Rites other than the Roman Rite) there are many married Catholic priests. (Christ was male and celibate if you recall...thus the model). I don't see how that is a weakness in any way, for it requires strength and discipline of purpose. and clearly a calling by God. (see this post based on thoughts from a Protestant theologian, John Piper: Evangelical Sing and Celibate Benefits.)

I'm glad you included the word "seeming" as a qualifier to "guaranty of salvation via ritual and confession" for that is a perversion of Catholic doctrine that only the uninformed and prejudiced believe. There is no guaranty of salvation in Catholic doctrine. Ritual (if you're referring to the sacraments, is clearly a way to pass on God's grace and mercy....but only to the person who has a right disposition of heart. (That is what the Church teaches.) The PHYSICAL act is important in the same way the GOD BECAME PHYSICAL.) But if there is any guaranty of salvation, even if you're Protestant, confession and turning from sin is part of it...and that is the purpose of the Rite of Reconciliation (Confession to a Priest), ashes on Ash Wednesday, and parts of the Eucharistic liturgy including taking communion ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.)

As to forgiving the mafia I'm not sure how you know the hearts and minds of people you have never met. Do you suppose that a gangster going through the motions with no intent of changing his life is forgiven in the eyes of the Church? That's ridiculous...and the only truth to it is in the perverted and imaginary minds of anti-Catholics who want to hold onto their false understandings of Catholic doctrine for fear of becoming Catholic if they actually understood the truth of it. Fulton Sheen famous said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”  God's mercy and forgiveness is available to all with a contrite heart who seek and obey him...regardless of their past life. Your concept of the Catholic rite of confession is probably grotesquely perverted if you think that going through the motions without the contrite disposition of heart (true repentance) is part of Catholic teaching. It is not, and never has been.

Now, what you refer to as "social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness" I have no idea, unless you expect Catholics in their individual lives to be without sin (which is the goal for all Christians). I know more than a few Protestants who participate in social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness. But if you're referring to church teaching, I'm be curious what that could be?

You mention Church "tradition." Let's not equivocate. There are two kinds of "tradition." Tradition (with a capital "T") refers to Sacred Tradition that is part of the church's teachings. Thus, the Bible (esp. NT) is a Tradition of the Church. Lower case "tradition" are things all Christians do that are NOT part of doctrine, but more in keeping with devotional practices. The Sacramental Liturgies of the Church are "T"raditions that have been passed down by both Biblical and Early Church practices. Ironically, Protestants have many of these Traditions that they call doctrines that cannot be found in in their history or in the Bible (e.g. Sola Scriptura)

It is true, as you say, that the Catholic Church, in terms of its communication tools, can and have learned much from their Evangelical and other fellowships.  But those are not doctrines. Catholicism makes a distinction in the hierarchy of believes that does not formally exist in Evangelicalism. There is at the highest level (1) DOGMA, (2) DOCTRINE, (3) CANON LAW, (4) WORSHIP PRACTICES, and finally (5) PRIVATE DEVOTIONS. Only dogmas must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine is what can be publicly taught, Canon Law are the administrative rules that govern Dogma and Doctrine, Local Parish Worship Practices are geographically diverse based on a country's culture, and Devotions are what's allow privately but not publicly. Since Evangelicalism isn't structured like that, it only takes a single Evangelical pastor to elevate his private devotion to the level of a dogma— thus tens of thousands of different denominations...there's no central authority to interpret what is true.  Not so in Catholicism. No so.

I'm not sure how you can classify music (per se) as "Catholic" or "Protestant" unless the hymn was written by a Protestant. But the Church does not make such distinctions. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (by Martin Luther) is in all Catholic hymnals...but then Luther wrote that while he was still Catholic (but that's just an aside and not a issue for inclusion).

This need to better study the Bible is finally taking root in the Catholic Church in America. You have to remember, however, that the Catholic Church has a very large presence in countries that are illiterate and such is history. It has not been but for the last several hundred years that "reading" and "literacy" has even been widely available in the Western World.  You don't have to be literate to be Catholic, but most Protestants and Evangelicals believe you can't be a Christian unless you can quote Bible verses and study the Bible (clearly a l.c. tradition of Sola Scriptura Evangelicals). That is why older Catholic Churches were filled with statues and stained glass and mosaics of Biblical and famous Christians, and of course, paintings....almost all that exist in famous galleries around the world are by Catholic painters.

Yes, there are Wesley hymns in Catholic hymnals. Catholic. But then most Protestants don't realize that when John and Charles Wesley were writing hymns they both believed in the real sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Hymns-John-Charles-Wesley/dp/1878009559) as the Church of England still believes, along with Orthodox and Lutherans (although Lutherans have a minor difference in understanding about it). This is all very Biblical based in the Gospels (esp. John 6) and throughout Paul's writings. It has been that way since the first century and the last Supper. It's only been in the last 200 years that Protestants changed that doctrine, essentially ripping it out of the Bible because it was too Catholic.  It was studying John 6 that finally removed the scales from my eyes and thrust me into Catholicism.  Here's the story: https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2016/08/corpus-christi-commentary-on-john-6.html

J.R.R. TOLKIEN´S TAKE ON THE TRUTH

An Interview with Author Joseph Pearce
on "Lord of the Rings"

NEW YORK, NOV. 15, 2001 (Zenit.org).- Catholic convert Joseph Pearce is author of two popular books on J.R.R. Tolkien, "Tolkien: Man and Myth" and "Tolkien: A Celebration" (both Ignatius Press).

With the film release of "Lord of the Rings" scheduled for next month, Pearce mused about Tolkien (1892-1973) and his work in this interview with ZENIT.

Q: There have been criticisms of some fantasy stories because of their allegedly pagan orientation. Do you see Tolkien´s works as being part of this genre or is it different?

Pearce: Tolkien spoke of myths and fairy stories, rather than "fantasy." He was a lifelong practicing, and very devout, Catholic who believed that mythology was a means of conveying certain transcendent truths which are almost inexpressible within the factual confines of a "realistic" novel.

In order to understand Tolkien´s "philosophy of myth" it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: "not facts first, truth first." Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.

Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil -- all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting.

There is no need for Christians to worry about the role of "story" as a conveyer of truth. After all, Christ was the greatest storyteller of all. His parables might not be factual but they are always truthful.

Take, for instance, the parable of the prodigal son. Probably, Christ was not referring to one particular son, nor one particular forgiving father, nor one particular envious brother. The power of the story does not reside in its being factual but in its being truthful.

It doesn´t matter that the prodigal son might never have existed as an actual person; he exists in each of us. We are all, at one time or another, a prodigal son, a forgiving father or an envious brother. It is "applicable" to all of us. It is the story´s truth, not its facts, that matter.

This was Tolkien´s point. Furthermore, there is more truth in "The Lord of the Rings" than in many examples of fictional realism.

Q: In recent years, magic in diverse forms such as games, TV shows, etc., has been very popular among young people. Given the way magical powers are presented in the "Lord of the Rings," do you think that there could be any dangers for youngsters?

Pearce: There is very little of what could be termed magic in "The Lord of the Rings." There is much that is supernatural, but only in the sense that God is supernatural, or that Satan is supernatural, or that good and evil are supernatural.

It would be more accurate to describe the so-called magic in "The Lord of the Rings" as miraculous, when it serves the good, and demonic, when it serves the evil.

Tolkien´s Middle-Earth, the world in which "The Lord of the Rings" is set, is under the ultimate power of the One God. It is also under the corrupting influence of Melkor, the fallen angel who is Tolkien´s Satan.

The greatest of Satan´s servants, Sauron, is the Dark Lord who is the enemy in "The Lord of the Rings." In other words The Fellowship of the Ring is in a fight to the finish with Satan´s servants.

How can Christians possibly object to a quest, the purpose of which is to thwart the evil designs of the demonic enemy? Far from being a "fantasy," "The Lord of the Rings" is a theological thriller.

Q: Do you think this was Tolkien´s intention?

Pearce: There is no doubt that "The Lord of the Rings" is a profoundly Christian myth, but that is not the same as saying that it is an allegory.

Tolkien disliked allegory because he saw it as a rather crude literary form. In an allegory, the writer begins with the point he wishes to make and then makes up a story to make his point. The story is really little more than a means of illustrating the moral.

Tolkien believed that a myth should not be allegorical but that it should be "applicable." In other words, the truth that emerges in the story can be applied to the truth that emerges in life.

There is, therefore, a good deal of truth in "The Lord of the Rings" even though its author never set out intentionally to introduce it allegorically. This is, perhaps, a subtle distinction but one which Tolkien believed was important.

Q: What values do you think "The Lord of the Rings" has to teach us?

Pearce: The values that emerge in "The Lord of the Rings" are the values that emerge in the Gospels.

In the characterization of the Hobbits, the most reluctant and the most unlikely of heroes, we see the exaltation of the humble. In the figure of Gandalf we see the archetype of an Old Testament patriarch, his staff apparently having the same power as that possessed by Moses.

In his apparent "death" and "resurrection" we see him emerge as a Christ-like figure. His "resurrection" results in his transfiguration.

Before he laid down his life for his friends he was Gandalf the Grey; afterward, he becomes Gandalf the White. He is washed white in the purity of his self-sacrifice and emerges more powerful in virtue than ever.

The character of Gollum is debased by his attachment to the Ring, the symbol of the sin of pride. The possessor of the Ring is possessed by his possession and, in consequence, is dispossessed of his soul. The wearer of the Ring always becomes invisible to those that are good but at the same time becomes more visible to the eyes of evil.

Thus we see that the sinner excommunicates himself from the society of the good and enters Satan´s world.

Ultimately, the bearing of the Ring by Frodo, and his heroic struggle to resist the temptation to succumb to its evil powers, is akin to the Carrying of the Cross, the supreme act of selflessness.

Throughout the whole of "The Lord of the Rings" the forces of evil are seen as powerful but not all-powerful. There is always the sense that divine providence is on the side of the Fellowship and that, ultimately, it will prevail against all the odds. As Tolkien put it succinctly, "Above all shadows rides the Sun."

Q: Many lament the depravity in the mass media today. What can we learn from Tolkien about improving the quality of entertainment?

Pearce: The greatest lesson we learn from Tolkien is the objective nature of truth. Evil is real; and so is good.

Goodness is the real presence of God; evil is his real absence. Tolkien has no time for the amoral relativism that is so prevalent in much of what passes as modern entertainment.

The fact that Tolkien´s myth contains more truth than most of what passes as realism serves as a damning indictment of the false vision being presented by today´s mass media.

ZE01111520