Finding Freedom Through Unbound

I am weak! I need freedom from my weakness. This is how I used to think. Now I am attempting to embrace my weakness.

No, I am not throwing myself a pity party, nor am I being self-deprecating. Rather I am attempting to exercise my freedom. Confused? Let me explain.

Society states that what is important is success, wealth, and happiness. Al these things we should strive to grasps or possess. But what if you don’t have those things? Are you helpless? Are you unlovable or discontent?

These are the thoughts I wrestle with and it is easy for me to fall into despair. Yet the good news of Jesus Christ frees us from these thoughts and attitudes. It tells me that it is okay to be weak. The God, who loved me, created me with all my imperfections, doubts and fears. Freedom comes when we receive the good news.

How I viewed Freedom

Often it’s easy to view freedom as walking away from something rather than walking towards someone. I heard the following example:

Imagine you are a slave. You are being bided on when out of the corner of your eye you see a man. He pays the highest price for you. You cautiously go up to the man worried about your fate. Then you hear the words, “I freed you.” The man tells you to go live your life, but don’t fall into slavery.

I know that in my own life that is how I viewed God. To me, God is like the man, who paid the highest price. I thought I was right with God if I did not fall into sin. Yet my thought process is slowly changing.

“ Freedom is not just the absence of slavery to sin, but the presence of a love relationship with God”

My thought process began to change when reading the above quote. While I strive to not sin, to be in freedom requires more. It requires a relationship with God my father.

Freedom Through Unbound

I first read the quote in the workbook for the Unbound course; so what is Unbound?

Unbound is a book and class that offers Christians a practical guide to Deliverance. Now when my small group leader approached me about doing this course, I had no opinion. I didn’t really know about deliverance.

Honestly, If I had known I probably would have stayed away. I tend to be rational and logical. I am not the type of person to diagnose every problem as a spiritual disease.

But I knew nothing and therefore have sat through three lessons on deliverance. So what is deliverance?

Neal Lozano defines deliverance as, “ the breaking of power behind habitual patterns of thinking and acting that limit our freedom to accept God’s love and turn away from that which blocks His love.”1

Thus deliverance is much less about casting out evil spirits. Rather it is about renouncing the lies the spirits make us believe.

What I Want From Unbound

I am excited about the journey. God wants to deliver me from lies of my own making. I have come to realize that I lack trust in God’s promises. I want to be able to say with the Psalmist:

Even though I walk through the valley

of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil,

for you are with me;

your rod and your staff

they comfort me. Psalm 23:4 (RSV second Catholic edition)

I want to know that God’s got me regardless of the circumstances. I think renouncing fear will help me trust God’s goodness. Renouncing perfectionism will help me rely on God and not myself.

I am weak, but my God is strong.

  1. Neal Lozano, Unbound: A Practical Guide to Deliverence(Chosen Books 2010), 67

Click here if you want to learn more about freedom.

picture of library with statue of stoic philosophers

Stoic Philosophy

Lessons It Can Teach Christianity

So it should be no secret by now that I love philosophy. Recently I started reading about philosophy more and more. I also recently started using Apple News app. Found an interesting article on Stoic philosophy.

It all started when I realized that I wasted so much time on mindless social media and Netflix.

So I took drastic measures. I deleted Twitter, Netflix, Youtube and Youtube TV off my phone. Now I had a problem. What could I do when I needed to actually waste time? Enter Apple News.

Apple News allowed me to educate myself during those rare moments of downtime. And wouldn’t you know it, they have a philosophy category.

One day while skimming through the category, a headline caught my eye. It read Is ancient philosophy the future? Intrigued, I decided to read.

Is Ancient Philosophy The Future?

Donald Robertson wrote a fascinating article about the rise of ancient philosophy among young people. He seeks to address the question, Why the rise in Stoicism in modern society? He ties the answer to the core principles of Stoicism.

The Core principals of Stoic Philosophy

To be a stoic, you must believe the following:

First, must adopt a rational framework when confronting today’s problems.

Second, you must differentiate between what you can control and what you can’t.

Third, you must recognize that the judgments you make about certain situations change your emotional state. For example, the judgment you make about rain effects your attitude about a rainy day. The rain itself as nothing to do with your emotional state.

Fourth, you must recognize that you live for a higher purpose.

Master, all four and you are on your way to becoming a Stoic.

While Donald Robertson article did not convince me to be a stoic philosopher, it did tell me a thing or two about evangelizing young people. So many core principles of Stoicism can be found in Christianity. Donald Robertson even draws a comparison between Stoicism and St Francis Serenity Prayer. So why is Stoicism growing and Christianity shrinking?

Five Things Stoic philosophy emphasizes better than Christianity.

1. Rationality

Let’s face it Christianity has a bad representation as anti-science. Even if most of the blame goes on protestant evangelicals and creationist, The Catholic Church suffers from this stereotype as well. Just the other day someone asked me if I believe in dinosaurs. Yet as controversial as the Big Bang is, very few people know that a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître discovered it. Faith is rational, let’s embrace that.

2. Stoics Teach How to Live a Good Life

Sometimes Christians can get so weighed down by what not to do that we forget why we’re doing it in the first place. Jesus came to give life and give it abundantly. Christians are called to have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control. Yet most of the time we walk around with a chip on our shoulder and a holier than thou attitude. Christianity is meant to give us a good life, not outwardly, but inwardly. We need to emphasize the goodness of Christianity more.

3. Stoics Have Deep and meaningful conversations

Don’t rock the boat. Sometimes we take Christian meekness to the extreme. We are afraid to be raw and vulnerable because we don’t want anyone to discover what a horrible sinner we are. Instead, we have surface level conversations. Likewise, we are so afraid of losing our faith that we don’t dare entertain opinions outside of our own. Yet deep conversations require a vulnerable confrontation with someone not like you.

4. Stoic Philosophy Offers Emotional Resilience

This is something Christianity should offer in abundance. Most of the modern churches fail to deliver. St Paul wrote,

for I have learned, in whatever situation I find myself, to be self-sufficient. I know indeed how to live in humble circumstances; I know also how to live with abundance. In every circumstance and in all things I have learned the secret of being well fed and of going hungry, of living in abundance and of being in need. I have the strength for everything through him who empowers me. Philippians 4:11a-14

St Paul knows the secret to being content is having confidence that comes from trusting in Jesus. Yet we never hear about this inner freedom thatGod promises. You hear about the next life and the freedom that awaits us. You hear that God wants to bless you now. If you’re not blessed you lack faith. This is not the Christianity St Paul describes.

5. Stoic Philosophy Performs Action

Unlike Christianity, stoicism emphasizes being a good person. There is no gospel to be proclaimed or preached. Rather, a person exemplifies Stoicism by transforming their character. Christian have made a blind confession of faith the only requirement for membership. Yet the Christian gospel demands transformation. Too many Christians pay lip service to Christ without radically changing their heart. The moral is that if you’re going to preach the gospel, your behavior better conform.

Conclusion

The world is hungry for guidance in these chaotic times. They long to know answers to questions such as why are we here and what is our purpose. Young people value deep radical friends, who know how to have intellectual conversations. If Christianity is going to evangelize it needs to be rational. It needs to offer a community that is not superficial, but intellectually rich, where people practice what they preach. Until then philosophy will remain an appealing alternative.

Read more about Philosophy here

Don't miss out!
Subscribe To Newsletter

Receive Genesis Devotion and updates on the latest blog post 

Invalid email address
Give it a try. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Indianapolis Archdiocese made the correct decision.

A Reflection On The Debate Regarding Gay Teacher

Headlines filled my twitter feed. Indianapolis archdiocese removes Catholic standing from Jesuit school over a dispute regarding the gay teacher.

Immediately, the usual suspects begin rushing to the school’s defense. They cite unjust discrimination. Catholic Church only cares about sexual sin. They target gay and lesbians to make themselves feel more righteous.

I have heard it all and I’m here to set the record straight. This is about authority. It has nothing to do with the teacher’s sexual orientation.

Let me explain.

Defending the Indianapolis Archdiocese

Public verse Private Sin

So the Archdiocese justifies the firing by saying,

All faculty are ministers and as such, they’re public and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic teachings.

But the liberal Catholics cry, why don’t you fire every Catholic, who uses contraceptives?

When I entered into the Twitter debate, my favorite example was why don’t they monitor food intake and fire people for gluttony and greed.

The problem with all of those examples is that they are all private sins. Gluttony requires a person to take pleasure in food.

Thomas Aquinas said it best, “too soon, too expensively, too much, too eagerly, too daintily.”

There’s a certain internal attitude one must have to be greedy or gluttonous.

Contraception is something a person does in the privacy of one’s own home.

Just like the government, the Catholic Church can’t invade the privacy of the marital chamber.

Marriage; however, is a public declaration. It is a signing of a piece of paper that becomes part of a public record.

The Catholic Church believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

By participating in a same-sex marriage, the teacher has publicly declared an opposing view on marriage that is contrary to church teaching.

Anytime anyone publicly declares anything contrary to church teaching, that person will be fired.

An analogous situation would be participation in a black mass or working for an abortion clinic.

I believe that if the man had not been married and just in a homosexual relationship, there would have been no justification to fire him. Thus it is not an attack on his orientation.

Rather it is a direct attack on the Archdiocese’s authority over marriage.

Speaking of authority….

Who’s the boss? Archdiocese or Brebeuf Jesuit preparatory high school

First, What does Catholic mean?

At its very basic Catholic means universal.

To be universal, the church must be united.

To achieve this unity, a Catholic organization must be united with Catholic authority.

The bishop is the supreme authority over Catholic organizations in a diocese.

The school wants to be independent. They say, “always maintained control of our school’s operations and governance, including our personnel decisions.”

Sorry, you can’t be independently universal. That makes no sense.

Final thoughts

Ultimately liberal Catholics will make this story about unjust discrimination.

Don’t be fooled, it is solely about authority.

Does the church have the authority to define marriage? Does the bishop have authority over Catholic organizations?

Any Catholic in good standing should answer yes to those questions.

Yet a Brebeuf Jesuit preparatory high school wants to answer no to those questions and cries when their hand gets slapped.

Catholic means having universal assent with church teaching. There’s no room for individual conscience.

Thus the Archdiocese is right.

Bishops Say The Craziest Things

a Reflection on USCCB General Assembly 2019 June

Hating on the bishops is the latest fad on Twitter.

I can understand why. The latest sexual abuse scandal has broken everyone’s trust. I feel like the bishops are out of touch. I feel it especially when they tweet out:

Problem with Bishops’ Statement

At first glance, I did not think much of the question. Yet I could not let it go. The problem is that everyone should have the same answer as Simon Peter

” Jesus said to the twelve, “will you also go away? Simon Peter answered him, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, and we believe and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6:67-68a RSV Second Catholic Edition

I stay not because the homily is good or because the music moves me. Faith formation programs while important are not the reason I stay. Rather I stay because somewhere along the way, I became convinced that the church through Jesus had the word of everlasting life.

Problem With Communication

Bishop Barron’s solution

I stay because the Catholic Church is the truth. Perhaps then people leave because the truth is poorly communicated.

Bishop Barron seems to think so. Twitter criticized Bishop Barron for suggesting that the church imitate the style of Dr. Jordan B Peterson.

Now I had never heard of this guy. A quick google search reveals that he is a psychologist with moderate political videos.

He is not a devout Catholic. If anything, he flirts with Christian morality when it fits his agenda.

To be fair, Bishop Barron did say to imitate the style of and not the substance. But why? Christianity should be all about proclaiming the truth.

Yet people join the ranks of the religious unaffiliated not out of ignorance, but out of lack of relevance.

Parish’s Disfunction

I don’t want apologetics!

I want community.

Thus the below tweet intrigues me.

_

Is USCCB right? Are parishes dysfunctional?

Yes and no.

First, we need to understand what a parish is.

I have written about parishes before. In that post, I said, “I think most Catholics leave, not because protestant services are more entertaining or because they don’t understand the Eucharist, but because it’s easier to feel like you belong.”

I stand by that statement. Most parishes are awful at fostering that sense of belonging. Furthermore, parishes have no incentive to foster belonging. A parish receives its authority based on geography. That’s a shame for all those people driving 20 or more minutes away.

This also explains the Latin Mass phenomenon. Despite what your Trad friend would love to brag. The Latin Mass feels like a community because it groups together like-minded people. It has nothing to do with pre-Vatican II Liturgy.

Bishops so close, but not exactly

So I do agree parishes don’t work. Yet parishes don’t work, not because younger people migrate. Rather they never found that authentic community. Most of what parishes offer appears inflexible and unwelcoming. Most people do not know anyone’s name or notice when they don’t attend.

So we should do away with the parish right?

Rather I think a change of attitude is in order. Parishes are not merely places to procure the sacraments. They become places where the community is found. After all, when two or three is gathered in Jesus’s name, he promises to be there.

Interested in learning more? I’ve written on how to foster community and still stay reverent here

Psalm 139, Politics and Pride

I never thought of Pride Parades when thinking about Psalm 139:14

Psalm 139:13-14 happens to be my favorite scripture passage.

For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful,

I know that full well. Psalm 139:13-14

Psalm 139 reminds me of my identity in God. Often I’m tempted to identify myself as something other than a child of God.

Sometimes I am the helpless girl in a wheelchair.

In those times I recite Psalm 139. It reminds me that I am wonderfully made by God my father.

That was true until I heard about the controversy.

David Haas and Psalm 139

I have an embarrassing confession.

I like David Haas’s music.

My traditional Catholic friends can laugh, but David Haas made Catholic hymns accessible to me.

My love for David Haas music began with the song You are Called.

You see, I remembered You Are Called as my favorite childhood hymn. I decided to look into the composer.

That is when I discovered, With You By My Side.

This glorious hymn even has as an electric guitar solo.

Obviously, my taste and criteria for a good hymn have changed. Yet I still have a soft spot for David Haas music.

David Haas disappointed me!

David Haas, according to HuffPost, created a song based on Psalm 139:14 called You’ve Made Me Wonderful.

Cool, I thought to myself, until I read, David Haas dedicates this song to the LGBT and those celebrating pride.

Ouch, I have whiplash from the way the Catholic Church has treated LGBT over the years.

In 2017, Chicago diocese withheld funeral rites to those in open relationships.

In 2019, we have Catholic music composers dedicating hymns to the LGBTQ

All the while, faithful Catholics are confused about how to respond.

Not very universal for a supposed universal church.

My main point is that we need to not be afraid to stand for truth.

Psalm 139 is proclaiming the truth that all humans are wonderful and full of dignity and that God can be found everywhere.

Let’s stand on that, no political pandering necessary.

Black Mirror: Striking Vipers

Social Commentary About Porn and Love

Black Mirror spoilers below

Black Mirror is one of my favorite Netflix shows.

It combines all my favorite things: Philosophy, sci-fi, and technology.

Seasons 1-4 always made me think. In fact, while at Yale Institute for bio-ethics, a bunch of students got together and had an informal discussion on the ethical issues in the episode The Entire History of You.

Thus when I discovered season 5 was out, I knew I had to binge watch it.

Sadly season 5 of Black Mirror was disappointing.

In my opinion, the only thought-provoking episode was Striking Vipers.

As I watch Striking Vipers, I couldn’t help but wonder if Black Mirror producer, Charlie” Brooker, intended to say something profound about porn and love. Let me explain.

Synopsis of Black Mirror’s episode Striking Vipers.

There are three main characters. Danny and Karl are best friends from college. Danny has a girlfriend, Theo, who he eventually marries. Since starting a family with his wife, Theo, Danny has become estranged from Karl. On Danny’s birthday, Karl gives Danny a gift, Striking vipers, a game similar to Mortal Combat. This game is played in Virtual Reality. The game allows the players to take on different avatars. Karl takes on the female avatar Roxette and Danny takes on the persona of Lance.

That is when things start to get weird!

Danny and Karl enter into a sexual relationship in the virtual reality game. Lance (Danny) has sex with Roxette (Karl).

I am not sure what it means for each person’s sexuality. Are Danny and Karl homosexual? Is Karl living out transgender fantasies? Maybe, the Virtual reality game is no different than porn?

The show leaves these questions primarily open-ended. Yet it does suggest that both Karl and Danny are not homosexual.

What’s interesting to me is what the game does for Danny and Theo’s relationship. Danny becomes more addicted to having sex in virtual reality. He pulls away from his wife and family. She eventually finds out why.

Their solution is to have one night where they both get sexual gratification. Danny gets to play the game and Theo gets to go to the bar without her wedding ring.

Black mirror’s commentary

The premise of Black Mirror is to use technology as a commentary on societal issues.

I believe VR technology reflects the issue of porn in modern society. Porn gives us unrealistic expectations. Thus, the reality is no longer satisfactory.

While playing the game, Danny can no longer be satisfied by his wife. He gets his satisfaction from the unrealistic avatar in the game.

The show seems to say that playing the game is similar to the wife picking up a man. Both people are not faithful. When someone watches porn, they also are not faithful. They are using someone else for their own gratification.

Black mirror: Happy ending?

Some people cite the ending as happy. Both parties were able to compromise. Yet they ignore what Theo, Danny’s wife, said,

If I wanted to I could have anyone I wanted..but I’m loyal. I make sacrifices because it is a partnership. Does marriage get boring and dull, yes, even I find it boring. So tell me if I’m not wanted.

In modern society, we tend to equate love with the warm feelings we get or how attracted we are to a person. Karl embodies this philosophy in the show. He chases after Danny because it is the “best sex he has ever had” Karl tells Danny that he loves him. This makes Danny realize that they must face the reality of their feelings. Yet in reality, it isn’t love. We need to reclaim the ancient philosophical notion of love

Aristotle’s Notion of Love

Aristotle says that in order to love the other, we must love ourselves. If we truly love ourselves, we will not use anybody else for our own gratification. Rather love is doing for the other’s stake. In other words, if we love ourselves, we will want to pursue a virtuous life. As part of the virtuous life, we should extend unearned love to others. Likewise, one needs the community to be virtuous. This notion of love can also be seen in Catholic teachings.

Catholic Church on Love

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.”153 They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.”154 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together. (CCC 1644)

For Catholics, Love is giving of oneself to another. This includes sacrifice. We are called to lay down our lives for our spouse. This is hard work. We don’t do it alone. We do it with the grace of Christ.

Black Mirror shows the consequences of our modern hedonistic lifestyle when given the right technology. Maybe we should reinterpret love as the act of self-giving.

Want more commentary on Love? Check out Matt Fradd’s interview with Christopher West

Misogynistic Attitudes in the Catholic Church

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, “the church is misogynistic.” It treats women differently. It sees women as nothing more than baby incubators.

As a woman, who hopes to work in ministry, I see more men than women leaders. A look at the top Catholic apologetics proves my point; they are all men for the most part.

Yet it has not always been that way.

I remember being challenged and intrigued by St Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle. Thus, I believe the church as always given a voice to women in ministry. It’s not always single women either. In fact, my confirmation saint, Elizabeth Seton, was a mother and widow before founding the sisters of charity. She founded the first Catholic free school in America. Oh, and I can’t forget that she was a convert like me.

So there has been and always will be a bunch of amazing Catholic women in the church. So where is this supposed misogynistic attitude coming from?

Confronting Misogynistic Attitudes

So I am facebook friends with this guy, who created a facebook group for Catholic converts. We agree on almost everything except women in ministry. He argues that women cannot teach men. Respectfully I believe this is a misinterpretation of St Paul.

Is St Paul Misogynistic?

A lot of liberal progressive Christian’s dismiss the writings of St. Paul. They claim that his opinion regarding women reflects a misogynistic culture. Yet everyone is cool with St. Paul when he writes,

”There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

Basically, you can’t agree with St Paul only when he says things you agree with and only claim cultural misogyny when you disagree. Instead, let’s look at some conflicting passages.

St Paul’s writings

” Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?” 1st Corinthians 14:34

Ok, this looks bad in modern society.

How can a person say that men and women are one under Christ and demand silence? Furthermore, St Paul contradicts himself in the same letter.

1st Corinthians 11:5, “But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved”

If women are to be kept silent, then why are they praying and prophesying out loud to God. Has St. Paul gone crazy?

No, of course not.

1st Corinthians 14:34 refers to certain duties such as giving homilies. Women were not to speak within sacred structured worship. Rather a male clergy was commissioned to preach and teach. This is true of Jewish synagogues and is also true of the early church.

Modern Day Catholic Church: Still Misogynistic?

Catechism on Women

When I began writing this, I wanted to know what the Catechism said about women’s role in the church.

Surprisingly I didn’t find much.

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being a man” or “being a woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness. (CCC 369)

So there is just one paragraph on men and women’s roles. The Catechism emphasizes the shared dignity of both men and women. Yet, it also stresses the being a man or being a woman is willed by God. This seems to imply an inherent difference.

Code of Canon Law: Women

According to the 1917 Code of Canon law and the 1912 encyclopedia article, women were not capable of receiving sacred orders. Thus, women were forbidden from ministering at the altar.

In religious and moral matters, the common obligations and responsibilities of men and women are the same. There is not one law for a man and another for a woman, and in this, of course, the canons follow the teachings of Christ. Women, however, are not capable of certain functions pertaining to religion.

I will address why women are not capable of sacred orders in my next blog post. For now, let’s accept that as a valid claim. Yet women do serve the altar in most modern masses. How is that possible?

Enter Code of canon law of 1983.

Canon law 230 section 2 is the problem. It states that both male and females can serve as liturgical functions on a temporary basis.

Since section 2 does not specify gender; it is okay for females to be altar servers on a volunteer basis.

In traditional Catholicism, altar servers were considered to be a minor religious order required in order to be a priest. Now they are on a volunteer basis.

Future of the Catholic Church

I live in a world where women pretend to be like men to survive. Thus, it can seem wrong to claim that men and women are made differently. It can seem wrong that men may be better at something. So when the church yet again stops women from serving, the world will cry out that the church is misogynistic. Yet we faithful Catholics know the truth. We know that we have a special role to play beyond the altar.

To learn more about amazing women doctors of the church,
check out this article here

wear, clothes

What Not to Wear: Mass Edition

Growing up I loved the show What Not to Wear on TLC. I loved seeing people get an updated more modern and sophisticated look.

In my own life, I like to dress up. I am not a girly girl by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t go out of the house in sweat pants. I always dress up for Mass.

Although I must confess that I’ve worn jeans to mass before.

I didn’t think what I wore to Mass was such a contentious topic until I saw this tweet.

Dear Catholic men: Why are you wearing cargo shorts and flip-flops for Sunday Mass? You wouldn’t wear anything close to beachwear for a) a job interview, b) a wedding, or c) dinner with the Queen of England, and you know it.

Patrick Coffin’s point is that we should show respect because the king of the universe is present. Does God actually care what we wear? What does the Bible say about our clothing?

Old Testament Clothes

So the first mention of clothes occurs in Genesis chapter 3.

then the eyes of both were open and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:7

So in the garden, they were naked.

This represents innocence.

Yet when sin entered they wanted to cover up. They felt shame and guilt. This translated into being embarrassed about our bodies.

Yet our bodies are not shameful. Your body was created by God. In fact, God gives us clothes.

and the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin and clothed them. Genesis 3:21

God clothes Adam and Eve with garments of skin. The plants were not sufficient because their sin required a blood sacrifice. Thus, clothes function to hide our shame and guilt. God already knows what I have done. He knows our bodies. Thus clothes are for us. It is to protect us from being vulnerable.

So how does this affect the New Testament community?

The writings of St. Paul

After the gospels and book of Acts, there are the letters of St. Paul. Letters can be tricky. When I read the letter, I am reading the answer without knowing the context or question. Nevertheless, we know that the letter authors were writing to churches. They were correcting problems.

St. Paul had problems with the church of Corinth. Things were getting out of hand. Here’s what St Paul said about women’s attire in the church.

For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

Don’t grab your hair veil just yet!

Paul is recognizing the fact that women are subordinate to men.

Now feminist, hear me out.

Paul absolutely believes that man and women are equal under God.

Yet he recognizes that women have a unique role and purpose. Our job is to be a helpmate to men. In Paul’s time, both men and women wore veils. Yet in the house of God, women should veil to show their unique relationship. Likewise in Paul’s time, having short hair associated you with a less honorable class of women such as prostitutes and lesbians.

Hence women should dress in accordance with their God-given role.

Paul elaborates on this in his letter to Timothy.

Similarly, too, women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds. 1 Timothy 2:9

Paul does advise against braided hairstyles, gold ornaments, and expensive clothes. Yet his main goal is to emphasize modesty. Our reverence to God is shown not by being flashy, but by good works.

Take away

So the point is not so we can have an excuse to dress however we want. Our clothes do reflect our hearts. If we are respectful and reverent, we will put more effort into our appearance.

Yet this issue can’t fit in a 280 character tweet.

A person’s holiness is not measured by what they wear, but rather by what they do.

I think I’ll keep wearing my nice dark jeans and a nice modest top.

Behold Your Mother

Everyone has a mother. Maybe you don’t know your mother. Maybe she wasn’t a very good mother. Maybe, like me, you had the best mother in the world. Regardless, you had a mother.

Motherhood deserves recognition because you would not exist otherwise. They for whatever reason decided to have you.

In honor of this special day, I would like to take a moment to showcase mothers in the Bible.

Biblical Mothers

There are a lot of good mother figures in the Bible. Samson’s mother and Hannah stand out to me.

In Judges 13, we learn that Samson’s mother was barren. God told her that she would bear a son, who would deliver the Israelites from Philistines. God instructs her to not drink wine or strong drink and to not eat anything unclean.

Hannah’s story is similar. She was also barren. Hannah prayed in the temple. She vowed that if God looked on her affections and gave her a son, she would dedicate him to God. (1st Samuel 1:11)

I think the actions of these Old Testament women foreshadowed Mary, the Mother of God.

Mary, the mother of Jesus

John 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, “behold your mother” and from that hour the disciple took her into his own home

In Luke chapter 1:28, the angel greets Mary as being full of grace. In Luke 1:42, Elizabeth exclaims that Mary is blessed among women. Last Jesus in John tells us to honor her as a mother.

Death Just Got Weird: Reviving Pigs Brains

cemetery with grave stones reminding people of death

“Bioethics is a fascinating field of philosophy because we don’t have to make this shit up”

Professor Arras said that countless times in my many lectures on bioethical issues. I have never felt that more clear than when I read the headline:

Scientists- We kept pig brains alive 10 hours after death. Bioethicists- “Holy shit.”

Explanation of the Experiment

Basically, the scientist decided to test the hypothesis that brain death is irreversible. They took 32 pig’s brains from slaughtered pigs. They waited for four hours. Then the pig’s brains where plugged into BrainEx for six hours. (if you want a detailed description on how the system works please see here). The study concludes that certain brain cells were alive. The cells were not communicative with each other. Yet, they were performing basic functions. Thus, the scientist created all sorts of problems for ethicists.

Death

I spent most of my undergrad philosophy career studying death and dying issues. When we die is a fascinating question. One that has implications for us spiritually.

Life After Death

Catholics define death as a separation of the soul from the body. So do we have a soul? Certain people are blessed to have an experience of what life is beyond the grave. For the rest of us, we have this inner longing for something more than biological. It is this inner longing that points to the Catholic understanding of the soul. There are 7 reasons to
“believe in a soul.
One is the philosophical idea that the existence of one thing necessitates the existence of another. For example, the existence of a male dog necessitates the existence of a female dog. The desire for something more than our biological self necessitates an actual immortal existence.

What is the Soul

Ok, so we have proven that an immortal soul exists in humans. My question has always been where and what is it? I always assumed consciousness was the location of the soul.

I was wrong

The soul according to Catholic thought is the life force of the body. It does not just reside in one part but animates the whole. For this reason, the soul is unquantifiable. Thus, science has had to resort to other philosophical meaning about death.

Scientific Death

There are 3 different views on when we die. The views are whole-brain death, the essence of the human person, and circulatory-respiratory standard. All three fail to pinpoint when you die.

Whole Brain

Death occurs when either circulatory and respiratory functions stop working. Death also comes when the whole brain including brain stem has stopped working. Two problems with this definition. First, the brain is not responsible for the integration of bodily functions. A brain dead patient can still perform the functions of life. This includes healing wounds and digesting food. Second certain individuals with lock-in syndrome are considered brain dead. Yet these individuals actually are aware. Thus it appears one can be alive even when brain dead.

Essence of a Human Person

For these people, it matters not that an organism performs biological functions. What matters is what makes us human. If we lose what makes us human, we are dead. Proponents argue that what makes us human is the capacity for consciousness.

The problem with this view is that it ignores humanity’s biological nature. We are more than mere minds. Common sense tells us that we still exist even if we lose our mental capacity.

Circulatory-respiratory Standard

Death occurs when circulatory-respiratory functions stop working. It explains the difficult cases such as locked-in syndrome and prenatal humans. Yet it fails to account for the importance of mental life. Humans are more than body’s that can pump blood and breathe. Second, it creates problems for organ donation. The dead-donor rule only allows organs to be donated from dead persons. If respiratory function still exists then under the Circulatory-respiratory standard the person is still alive. It is better to get organs from a patient on a ventilator. Yet this would be illegal under the dead donor rule.

What About the Pigs

The revival of the pigs begs two philosophical questions. First, was the experiment to revive an animal ethical? Second, What does this imply for those undergoing brain death? If cells in the brain can be revived, can we really say a person with no brain functioning is dead? If such a person is not dead, can we ethically procure organs from them? It calls for a new standard of death. One that recognizes that death is a gradual progression. We are not minds trapped in an organic body. Nor are we mere organic bodies, but we are both.