To Forgive

Some time ago I saw this article linked on a friend's Facebook page. Mehmet Ali Agca is the man who tried to assissinate Pope John Paul II in 1981, and he now states that he has embraced Catholicism.

This immediately brought to mind a song written about the amazing and well-known event of Pope John Paul visiting Agca in prison and extending forgiveness to him. I have just found that song on the internet as well, here. Give it a listen! What strikes me the most about the song, and my fondness for it at that time, was that neither the song writer nor myself had much use for Pope John Paul II back in the mid-1980s. Obviously, neither did Agca. But the act of forgiving and embracing someone who tried to murder you is just an overwhelming testimony to Christ. How else but by Christ's grace is such a thing possible?

Here are the song lyrics, and some commentary by the artist.

In God's Name

I watched an interesting DVD last night entitled "In God's Name." This National Geographic production wove together comments and events from the daily lives of 12 spiritual leaders. The documentary began with the event of 9/11 and its impact on the two filmmakers, which lead them to ask where was God when this happened. The production of this film was their quest, which they discovered afterwards was in itself a religious act, for finding that answer.


Some of the details which struck me: Neither the Chief Rabbi of Israel nor the leader of the Sunni Muslims nor of the Shia Muslims could escape commenting indirectly at least at the longstanding animosity and violence of one people against the other. All three condemned violence as in direct violation of religion. Yet all three made some allowance, politically, for its use in some circumstances.

The Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America was an interesting figure to me. I was struck by how clear it was that he had completely conformed his life to what he felt was the call of the gospel. Yet, his comments about reason being yet another powerless human tool stood in clear contrast to the comments of Pope Benedict's on the need for all things human to begin in reason and broaden to the ultimate flowering of reason, which is faith. He also spoke of how he doesn't not have the image of any quest for God, but that it is only God who seeks him.

I was particularly struck by a piece in the "bonus material," that which didn't make it into the TV production of the film, where the Bishop was addressed with the question "What is the meaning of life?" Rather than answer from his own experience of faith, he insisted that the question needed to be reworked because so many people in the world do not have the luxury to do anything but wonder where there firewood would come from so that they could make porridge for their meal. "Most people can't think about the meaning of their lives, so it isn't the right question to ask" was the gist of his response. I don't know if there is a personality similarity or if there is something in Lutheran theology that makes this kind of response sound so familiar to me. But I do think this is an example of someone making something abstract. His intentions, I could see, were pure and consistent, but not only in this question, but in others, it seemed he was trying to answer life's questions to him by looking into the needs that other people had, thereby avoiding his own need, his own response. He was deeply concerned and committed, personally, about discovering justice for "people everywhere," but his responses lacked a certain quality that struck a strange chord in me. It was not about Jesus' call to him, or a personal encounter with truth. He is at a "liberal" pole of Lutheranism, but I felt as a conservative a very similar regard not towards social justice but towards doctrinal truth. With the same piece lacking. Yes, God seeks me first, but it is because of this that I seek Him. Without my seeking God and my acknowledging that seeking, something is missing in my humanity.

The Dalai Lama and Mata Amritanandamayi, a Hindu spiritual leader, both struck me as examples of what Fr. Giussani might call those with the natural religious sense. Frankly they seemed the happiest, and the most focused simply on childlike love without all the complicated notions of reason, doctrine, or commentary on political or social issues. It was ok to them to waft away certain questions of ultimate truth and to just focus on this fleeting moment. Perhaps from that came their intensity for the fleeting moment, because it is all they had.

The Shinto priest made me chuckle to myself. Shinto is a religion of Japan whose beliefs, if any, have been pretty much lost in history. What remains are various ritual practices that represent a very basic animism and a desire for good luck. This Shinto priest had been a corporate executive when he was asked by the Emperor to care for the main shrine. It was clear that he was essentially a secular Joe with nothing remotely profound to say at all. And it's not like that matters one whit to anyone who practices Shinto! People just don't matter in that scheme.

Pope Benedict came across, unfortunately, as sort of institutional and distant, because he never gave any personal comments to the camera. All the shots of him were from otherwise public addresses, from pre-written talks. If this documentary had been conceived of after 9/11 I wonder if work had gotten underway to graft Pope John Paul II into the documentary, as it was nearly four years later that he passed away.

The President of the Southern Baptist Convention was featured, and for some reason it was hard for me to watch him without battling certain uncomfortable notions in my mind. I could feel how much he wanted this to be an opportunity to "share the gospel" in the way an Evangelical would think about it. Again, he was an example of someone completely given to the gospel as he understands it, but with him it struck me that he had a very low view of the sacramentality, if you will, of his own life and his own thoughts to have any value. While no one could doubt his sincerity I felt from him that Christ's message is something that one's essentially speaks, rather than something that transforms your very being, thereby Christians becoming "other Christs" whose very act of breathing is a sort of preaching. Don't get me wrong, I am completely all for making the gospel message explicit with words. If we lose that we risk losing everything into confusion. But there is a Eucharistic aspect that is needed when we preach. We don't just have a message, we become transformed into a message.

I wouldn't say this was highly insightful, but it was interesting.

About that Battle of Lepanto...

I have a cold that I'd been keeping at bay, but this evening it has exploded upon me. So, more than usual I am piecing my thoughts together as I say, or write, them. So, bear with me.

In my poking around the internet throughout the day (and since last night) I've found a variety of reactions to Obama's victory, as I'm sure you have too. The ones that concern me the most are the ones that express fear or despair or a certain sense about divine judgment. Let me just say up front that I understand what it feels like to work hard for a campaign or to be highly emotionally invested, and then lose. I know there is just so much a human body can take before wanting to just cry or moan or throw something or get depressed. As a temporary emotional or physiological reaction, I understand these things. And we do have cause to be very concerned about what could pass into law, particularly FOCA, with the Democrats controlling the entire federal government. And, as I heard Scott Hahn repeat so often in my grad school and employment days, God's judgment generally takes the form of allowing us to have what we ask for.

Here's my concern, if I can finally spit it out: "We the people" are in a bit of a mess, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. The man in that chair can do a lot of bad, and probably can do some real good, too. But mostly I think the President reflects the nation, and the aspirations of the nation.

Wait, let me try this approach. You've heard, I suppose, about the battle of Lepanto. Kids in our neighborhood dressed as soldiers from the battle of Lepanto for Halloween. I've always heard it billed as the occasion when the meager number of Christian troops defeated the attacking Muslim invaders by means of praying the rosary. So, many have adapted this in praying for this election cycle, for example.

I'm not in the least against praying the rosary, praying for elections, praying for Muslims or praying for victory in spiritual battles. But. I read another account of this battle that has really got me thinking. It is from the book The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane. To summarize in a somewhat choppy, cold-befogged way, her rendering of this battle went like this: Islam, which had embraced the truth that man is free (i.e. created by and responsible unto God, but not under any dictatorship, human or divine) until about the 13th century, had recently (in 1571) become dominated by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks, unlike the earlier Arab Muslims, had no concept of man being created for freedom. They held the "pagan" belief that the universe is a closed system, that creation is "finished," that change is impossible, and that God determines an exact role for man which is enforced by a some pagan representative and out of which man may not escape. Contrast this with the Christians involved in this battle. They, she holds, had a lived experience of freedom (primarily because of Saracen influence in Spain and Italy). And it was this the Turks were bent on stamping out. If you follow my rambling attempt to draw out this comparison, what I'm saying is the picture Lane gives is Lepanto was a battle of "Authority" against "Freedom" -- as she understands these terms. (Oh, go read the book for yourself. Please!)

Ok, here, really, is what I'm trying to say. Let us not live as pagans who believe the government is our master, or the answer for, or the menace to, our lives! We belong to Christ, who reveals to us the Father! We need order, yes. I'm not advocating anarchy. But brothers and sisters, human beings are free. What I understand that to mean as I say that right now is that God has created us and bids us live. But His proposal is so, so, so, infinitely more than winding up a clock and watching it go! He has revealed Himself. He has given His life for us to share. He is the Redeemer of the world, and we are there with Him. He sends forth His Spirit to recreate the face of the earth, and guess whom He sends it to and through?!?! We are not called to have our eyes fixed on some human thing, whimpering like a puppy and saying "Mother may I?" What saint do you know of who said "Oh dear, the government is not letting me be holy. Shucks, I'll just hide here for better days ahead, or run over there where I'll be safer." No. The saint lives with God here, now -- where and whatever here and now happen to entail.

If we are honest as we pray remembering the battle of Lepanto, the first thing we need to pray for is our own knowledge of what it means to be free, and what it means to be the agent of the God of Freedom. We need to purge from our hearts the paganism Lane describes.

Fifty points for everyone who made it to the end of this post. I feel like my head will explode. Sorry for the wordiness, but it gives me an excuse to come back and be more concise about this again later.

Muslims Becoming Christians

I have been following with great interest the posts at Intentional Disciples generated in response to the baptism of Magdi Allam, a former non-practicing Muslim who lives in Rome. There has been an on-going debate, with one of the blog authors asserting that it was a glaring mistake, from a missiological viewpoint, for Pope Benedict himself to give this baptism such a high profile.

Lots of other interesting posts too: here, here and here. Here and here too.

Oh, go ahead and read the whole blog while you're at it!