First I want to share this quote from St. John Henry Newman's The Mystical Rose. He says:
Look at the Protestant countries which threw off all devotion to [Mary] centuries ago, under the notion that to put her from their thoughts would be exalting the praises of her Son. Has that consequence really followed from their profane conduct towards her? Just the reverse - the countries, Germany, Switzerland, England, which so acted, have in great measure ceased to worship him, and have given up their belief in his divinity, while the Catholic Church, wherever she is found, adores Christ, as true God and true man, as firmly as ever she did, and strange indeed would it be if it ever happened otherwise.
Now, let's be real - strange indeed it IS that countries like France and Italy now have also followed in the footsteps of the Protestant countries of Europe in failing to honor God and worship Christ faithfully. And I usually don't like to sound too anti-Protestant, because it's not really the case that all Protestants are heretics just for being Protestants. Having said that, I do think there is a sense in which Protestantism tends to lead to secularism. Now, I invite your comments, and even disagreements on this, but I think that this saint who famously said, To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant is on to something here. I do think that a post-enlightenment, humanist, Protestant approach to Christianity naturally leads to - first, a kind of "religious but not spiritual" Christianity that turns real devotion into a cultural tradition, which then in the next generation leads to kind of "spiritual but not religious" disillusionment that turns that tradition into a burden which those who see themselves as more enlightened cannot wait to throw off.
What do you think?
I'm back, up and running, and ready to go - I should have a new JOURNEY episode within the next week or so - and because you are my loyal peeps, here is an exclusive, just-for-you, behind the scenes SNEAK PEEK into my new office:
This was for March 24th, recorded for the Ascension App
Thanks for your patience - here is our next installment of The Journey - it's session # 96, but I'm also calling it PART 1 of a "miniseries" on John chapter 6.
Whoever watches it first, please let me know if it looks good or if there are any problems with it - I get through the first two sections of the text on the feeding of the 5,000.
Enjoy!
I mentioned in The Journey that I wrote a song based on Isaiah 2, which is one of my favorite OT passages:
In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain, and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!
I hope you like the song!
Here is the list of Bible versions I tell my students are UNACCEPTABLE for serious study of the Scriptures and the Early Church - for the most part it's always because these versions of English translations fail my test passages in serious ways - this is a quote from my syllabi:
[Note: The REB, CEB, GNT, KJV/New KJV, and NIV/New NIV versions are NOT adequate translations for the study of Scripture or early Christianity.]
I'd be happy to hear if anyone wants to try to change my mind on any of these, but note that I do not allow (and am constantly fighting against) the ever-popular NIV (which I call the Not Inspired Version).
Next up, I'll re-post a couple of my older videos on this topic...
Here's Matt Walsh's take on it - he says what I'm thinking...
if you watch this, I'd love to hear your thoughts
So here are the verses I look at to check whether a Bible translation is a good one:
These are mostly in the NT, but with regard to the OT, I don't want a Bible to minimize the phrase "Son of Man" so for me a Bible cannot render "son of man" or even "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13 as something like "human being" - that's a paraphrase and while it may convey the correct meaning for SOME OT passages, it does not convey the correct meaning for all of them, and you lose the connection to Jesus' own self-identification as the Son of Man in the NT, especially in Matthew 16:13-15.
Matthew 6:7 - better not say "vain repetition" or imply that repeated prayers are bad - Jesus was criticizing going on and on extemporaneously, not memorized prayers. The word "vain" is nowhere in the Greek!
1 Cor 11:2, and 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6 - better not render the word "teachings" just to avoid the positive connotation for tradition(s), especially if Col 2:8, which has a negative connotation (human traditions) is...
