Pentecost Sunday Reflections Upon Speaking in Tongues

On this Pentecost Sunday, I thought it might be a good time to share some thoughts on speaking in tongues.    A good place to begin would be today's reading from John 20:19-23.


On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.  Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

My own background on this issue--well before our journey to the Catholic Church--has also been a great influence.  As my grandfather was a minister and my great aunt a medical missionary to Africa, this was an issue that came up from time to time.  The Charismatic understanding of speaking in tongues always troubled them.  I remember one account, for instance, of missionaries coming back from the field and visiting a church where speaking in tongues was being practiced.  They hurriedly left, as I recall, because they heard most profane things being said in one of the obscure languages of the mission field.  

When I worked in the late 1980s in Seattle for an Assemblies of God Church, I also had an experience that will always stick with me in a most negative way.  I was on my way back to Seattle Pacific University after work and riding beside me was a colleague from the church.  I remember as the bus neared the Freemont District where I would exit, my seatmate began to loudly "talk" about church and faith.  He wasn't actually speaking to me at all, but was using me as an excuse to witness to those on the bus.  We should all be willing and able to articulate our faith in public, but there is something very disagreeable about excited and disingenuous expressions of faith like this.  Like the way I see many  of those on the Charismatic side, their faith seems to my perspective to reflect something more akin to emotionalism than reason.

As we read in 1st Corinthians 14:28, speaking in tongues without an interpreter is contrary to the teachings of Saint Paul.  Speaking in tongues, then, is a ministry tool (to address a specific manner of need in spreading the Gospel) which focuses more upon the hearer than the the speaker.  That is, the speaker is trying to share the Gospel of Christ with someone of a different culture.  The act of speaking in tongues is to convey the Gospel, as opposed to "puff-up" the speaker, conveying true humility rather than pride, and spreading and strengthening the people of God.

The above does not mean that all those who practice speaking in tongues are doing something wrong and contrary to biblical teachings, but it does, at the very least, suggest strong caution.  I'll agree that it is a difficult and complex topic.  There is, for instance, the case of Heidi Baker in Mozambique.  Unless it's all a fabrication and a lie--which I don't propose--God is performing wondrous and powerful acts of healing through this diminutive woman.   Of course, this is the mission field, the truly legitimate place for speaking in tongues.  It's truly challenging to address such a deep topic in a blog post, but I offer my thoughts and reflections on this topic only as points for your consideration.

In conclusion, below is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this important topic.

Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

Observations on Kaiser's Emergency Triage

The other day my wife presented serious symptoms at the Skyline Kasier Permanente facility in Salem, Oregon.  Although her symptom presentation suggested the possibility of a serious medical condition--e.g. stroke or possible blockage in the brain--we were directed to wait an hour before a nurse saw her.  As soon as she was seen, the care was wonderful.  I can't stress that enough, in fact.  

Still, as this is the second time we have experienced a serious triage error at Kaiser Permanente, we think it's important that people know they should press to be evaluated by a health professional if symptoms suggest an emergency.  "Assembly line medicine" can still be a serious concern even at the best of facilities.  You are ultimately the best advocate for quality care and continuity of care, and sometimes you must be willing to escalate things to the next level.  I'm sure glad we did.

Sing a New Church--Not!

Back in 2008, I was trying to lead a little crusade against OCP's hymn Sing a New Church.  As you have probably guessed, the venture was not terribly successful--except it did lead to "Reflections on a Hymn."  I even got chewed-out by a fellow at OCP who accused me of some unpleasant (and untrue) things.  At any rate, I thought perhaps this excerpt below from a letter on the topic might be of interest to some of my fellow Catholics.  Perhaps this is a good time to re-visit this issue?  

(As an aside, Delores Dufner could not have been any more kind or gracious in her communications with me.  I appreciated her answering my questions for the article I mentioned previously.)

What a wonderful joy it has been to arrive home to the fullness of faith found within the Catholic Church!  Our family joined with our Catholic brothers and sisters on Easter Sunday of 2005.  Before that day arrived, our spiritual journey had taken us across a varied landscape of Christian traditions: from Free Methodist and Lutheran Churches to the disintegrating Episcopal denomination.  It was Father George Wolf and Pastoral Associate Bryce Hermann, at Salem’s Queen of Peace Parish, who took the time to patiently answer the many questions our family raised throughout RCIA.  These questions were not only addressed with intelligence and reason, but their thoughtful answers reflected a deep kindness and love of God and His Church.

One of the things of which I am profoundly aware (and thankful) is that, while the Catholic Church is not moved by the aimless cultural winds of our time, it likewise is not a democracy.  I would like to respectfully offer a concern regarding an issue of liturgical music, but it is offered with the understanding and awareness that I may be in the wrong.  I raise these concerns in good conscience, but, if correction is necessary, then, I will humbly ask your pardon and be on my way to serve God as best as I can endeavor.  To fail to share my concerns with you, however, would be a violation of my own conscience, as I believe that the Mass is done a dishonor by the use of a particular Oregon Catholic Press hymn entitled “Sing a New Church.”  

This concern is not raised lightly.  For several weeks now, I have been in contact with both (Redacted) at OCP as well as (Redacted) from your own office.  I have joined with other Catholics to respectfully make our concerns known regarding this hymn and its theologically incoherent--and spiritually dangerous--message.  When it became clear that constructive progress towards removal of this hymn was not being realized, I decided that it was best to contact you directly.  I’d also like to add that, although I have made (Redacted) aware of this effort, this endeavor is not aimed at any particular parish, but wherever this hymn may be in use in Catholic Churches.  In other words, my complaint really concerns the oversight and accountability OCP works under with regards to the Archdiocese of Portland.

In these tumultuous times, it becomes even more critical that our theology and doctrine always be expressed with clarity and truth.  To do otherwise not only dishonors the Mass, but it leads Catholics astray towards moral relativism and the lie of modernism.  It further serves as an exceedingly poor witness to non-Catholics, those who may be searching (as our family was) for the Truth.  As my father-in-law John Collier (the sculptor of the Catholic Memorial at Ground Zero and many other pieces of religious art across the country) frequently points out, the Catholic Church used to be the place to go for the best art and the finest music.  Why are we allowing the Mass to become a place now filled more with reflections of a quickly passing culture than with quality liturgical music of both substance and beauty? At the very least, when our music borders (or crosses the line) into heresy or self-centered praising instead of worshiping the Living God, “life itself, immutable,” why are we not standing up and raising our voices in protest?

If you would permit me, I’d like to take a moment to quote from a recent article (“Bad Poetry, Bad Theology”)  from Catholic Answers’ magazine This Rock  by Anthony Esolen.  This passage begins with a quote from the hymn itself.

Summoned by the God who made us,
rich in our diversity,
gathered in the name of Jesus,
richer still in unity,

Let us bring the gifts that differ,
and in splendid, varied [sic] ways,
sing a new Church into being,
one in faith and love and praise. (“Sing a New Church”)

Here the worshipers are like the mythological Amphion at his lyre, singing to raise the walls of Thebes from the earth. 

Again, I’m not saying that the typical singers in our churches intend such nonsense! But the nonsense has to seep in, eventually. And note what it replaces: Jesus instructs us to say, when our work is done, that we have been worthless and unprofitable servants. Do any contemporary show tunes meditate upon that saying? It is instructive to note by contrast the last verse of “The Church’s One Foundation,” which in noble yet simple language gives us the true source and the end of our love:

Yet she on earth hath union
With God, the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we,
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with thee. 

Rest assured, if no stand is made, the likelihood seems strong that more hymns embracing the heresy of universalism will be waiting for us right around the corner.  The hymns we sing in Mass should point straight to God--not to ourselves or human qualities such as diversity.  As the eloquent Saint Augustine wrote in Confessions, “...I am inclined to approve of the custom of singing in church, in order that by indulging the ears weaker spirits may be inspired to feelings of devotion.  Yet when I find the music itself more moving than the truth it conveys, I confess that this is a grievous sin, and at those times I would prefer not to hear the singer.”   I believe that my concern echoes these words, because “Sing a New Church” is, after all, proclaiming a new church, and that cannot be the same Church founded by Christ and entrusted to Saint Peter and the apostles.  

In fact, the very idea of a new church implies that the one true Church fell into ruin, and this, in turn, would make our Savior a liar when He promised in Matthew 16:18 that "even the gates of Hades will not overcome it." It's also suggesting that we build the church, which would mean more than simple cooperation with God. It is painting the stark picture of a church instituted by man (not God) and for man. Without the Cross, however, songs simply exalting each other smell strongly of the heresy of universalism and denial of Christ. If all we see is ourselves, we've missed the point of everything.  

E-mail 101 / Back to the Basics

As a governmental tax auditor by day, sometimes it's hard to find office time for writing projects.  That only makes sense.  Some of you may have noticed, however, that I've recently begun writing for a variety of agency or workforce related publications to broaden my experience in what I call "Communications 101." 


So far, my writing has been well received.  It's started some interesting dialogue with my colleagues in state service.  I've been waiting a few weeks to share the latest, but I think the editor must be experiencing some technical difficulties.  


Since not many of you would see the little publication anyway, and I'm not charging for it, I thought I'd go ahead and offer my readers a sneak peek today.  Later, when it's available online I'll probably add a little update to this post.  (Original publisher is International Association of Workforce Professional's Oregonizer.)  


As an aside here, please also see my piece on adaptive communications.  I'm likely going to continue writing these communication pieces with hopes that it will help my eventual transition from number-cruncher to more of a public affairs position with the state.  Hope you like it!

Back to the Basics, E-mail 101

By

Karl B. Erickson

Electronic mail has become such an integral part of our daily lives that it might be helpful if we took a step back and examined the way we use e-mail in a fresh light.  Whether you’re an electronic whiz kid or someone’s whose VCR still is blinking “12,” I hope that you will take something good away today.  To that end, I’d like to quickly discuss two main areas relating to e-mail communications: organization and etiquette.  

It always surprises me when someone with a messy or cluttered desk can know precisely where something is, removing the desired item deftly from an overflowing stack of papers.  When it comes to e-mail, though, the overflowing inbox approach isn’t usually the path to success.  Unknowingly, you may be missing important messages.  At the very least, it will slow you down.  If you find yourself with an overflowing inbox, try investing an hour to rein it in.  

First, go through your messages and delete anything that really doesn’t need to be saved; be brutal.  Don’t be an e-mail hoarder!  Second, try creating folders for categories of messages, and then transfer those messages out of your inbox.  Third, for messages being retained related to appointments, try copy/pasting the message into the comment or detail section of the calendar appointment—and don’t forget to delete or file away the associated e-mail.  Fourth, remove your e-mail address from unnecessary distribution lists.  (Do you really need the daily cute cat photo?)  Fifth, don’t forward “chain letters” and similar spam.  Your co-workers will thank you, and this will also reduce the likelihood of inadvertently spreading malware or a virus (usually via e-mail attachments).

How do we feel as shoppers when we’re on the receiving end of poor customer service?  Usually, it gets under our skin, but we may avoid taking the time or effort in following-up on the matter.  It’s not an astonishing revelation to point out that most everyone with whom we work and interact each and every day at the office is a kind of customer.  E-mail etiquette includes everything from the language we use to its tone and other characteristics.  When it comes to language, for example, are we keeping our messages clear and concise, or do we tend rely heavily upon acronyms, inconsistent abbreviations, or office jargon?  We should try to tailor our message for the person(s) to whom it’s directed.  That’s called adaptive communication.

Tone (the way things are said, or the message behind the message) can be challenging, but the key again is tailoring it for the audience—and being courteous.  We all should know by now to avoid using all caps or repeated punctuation marks; most everyone recognizes it as rude. Bear in mind that a brief salutation of some kind can be a good way to begin a message—as opposed to starting immediately with what you want.  (It’s also a way of reminding yourself that you’re writing a human being and not a computer.)  Another way to ensure appropriate courtesy is imagining that everyone may someday read a particular message.  Be careful about assuming something will remain anonymous or confidential.  Speaking of confidential, take care never to e-mail Social Security Numbers or passwords; that’s just asking for trouble.

Whatever we might be doing at the office, most professional interactions can be described as involving customers (internal or external) in one way or another.  That being the case, ensure that your communications are clear and respectful.  Your colleagues will thank you for it!

Thoughts on Ashley Judd's "Conversation"

This is taken from Ashley's website.

Unless you've been hiding under a large rock for a good number of years, you're sure to recognize the name of Ashley Judd, an acclaimed actress and busy philanthropist, as well as a representative of Population Services International--not to be confused with Steven Mosher's Population Research Institute.


Although I should disclose that I haven't finished the book as yet, I have been favorably impressed and moved with what I have read of All That is Bitter and Sweet.  Anyone who dismisses this gifted and giving woman out of hand is greatly underestimating her commitment to and eloquent defense of her strongly-held positions.  It's also important to note the influence of her difficult and dark childhood upon the positions she holds today.  While we may disagree with her on points, her motivations seem to spring from those sorrows, lending a degree of greater credence, I think, to her words.  


It's also important to add a warning.  I suggest it's all too easy for people--me included--to look very cynically upon the true and substantive humanitarian work done by select celebrities: from George Clooney and Angelina Jolie to Bono.  While it's true that with some celebrities it's almost as if they are making amends for their success, soothing their own consciences.  Still, I suggest, rather than over-speculation along those lines, it might be more fruitful to endeavor to imitate their good in some small (or great) way--as well as extending the benefit of the doubt with regards to their underlying motivations when possible.  We don't, after all, have to agree with someone on every point in order to appreciate the good that is accomplished.  Let's thank God the work is getting done, instead of self-righteously complaining about the supposed insincerity of the workers!


Recently, on Ashley Judd's blog she posted a somewhat long-winded essay entitled "The Conversation."  (As an aside, her concluding N.B. or "Nota bene" reminds me of Hillaire Belloc's humorous words of warning regarding public thanks in prefaces from in The Path to Rome, but we'll leave further comments on that for another day.)  Perhaps not surprisingly...she recently tweeted that she penned the essay in twenty minutes, or so.  Not exactly shocking news.  While slogging through the text is difficult on account of the overabundance of cliches, popular psychology references, euphemisms, and melodramatic language usage, there is ultimately some meat for the reader to digest--if one can keep at it.


First of all, apparently what enouraged her to write the article in the first place were unkind comments concerning her recent "puffy" appearance offered by members of the media--and others.  The comments have indeed been most loathsome--not to mention stupid--and I certainly can agree that there's been a shocking lack of respect and decency in the media...but is this really anything new?  


Furthermore, for a member of the "Hollywood Elite" to fault the media with regards to her personal treatment in this context seems problematic to say the least. I am unaware, for example, of this actress standing up for either Catholic or conservative women when they are routinely taken to task for their positions or appearance.  What about the case of Bristol Palin?  Has Ashley Judd raised her voice in defense of any women with whom she disagrees?


There is also a self-centeredness or complacency apparent within the essay, which I will only lightly touch upon.  Suffice to say, she seems to take herself so seriously that it's difficult to draw the same conclusion about her.  If a little less were said...it would say a great deal more.  In fairness, perhaps the language is unduly influenced by her emotions, but she still should have known better.


The section of her essay that really sparked my desire to share a few rough thoughts today was her opening paragraph quoted below.    


The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.


While I agree with some of the points raised within her essay--e.g. sexualization of children by popular culture--her usage of the word personhood is what really drew my attention.  It's an interesting word choice.  To those of us within the Pro-Life Movement, at least, the word evokes the fundamental right of the unborn--to be born.  (Would it make a difference, Ashley, if we were to simply refer to unborn girls?)  Why precisely does one have to be born to be endowed with personhood?    


When we learn someday the full magnitude of the evil of abortion, I fear many of us are in for a rude awakening.  It's time to stop sacrificing our children on the altar of Molech.  You, Ashley, recognize the value of children and the importance of safeguarding them.  We agree in shielding the weak from harm...but you turn a blind eye to the unborn.  Why this tragic error in logic?  Who could be more innocent?  What crime have they committed to justify their end?  Food for thought--and perhaps a conversation, or two.

Reflections for Holy Saturday & Easter

Whether Catholic or Protestant, it should go without saying that Easter is one of the most important days on the calendar.  Some of my fondest memory as a child involve Easter recollections. It's so odd to me to be asked casual questions by friends or colleagues like "So, any plans for the weekend?"  I know they mean well, but to me the question betrays an emptyness in the speaker's heart that's difficult to face--or understand.  


At least, it opens a door to an opportunity to talk about the true meaning of Easter: Christ.  I hope others are able to use these akward moments to at least endeavor to remind others of the joy of Easter, of Him.  After all, isn't that what it's all about? I hope you will join me in praying for those souls who don't know Christ or His Church.


Below is an ancient prayer for Holy Saturday.  (This prayer is also quoted within one of my favorite personal essays, "Mysterious Tools.")  You may also want to check my Easter reflections from last year.

Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead." 


I hope all of my readers have a wonderful Easter!

Zimmerman...Guilty until Proven Innocent?

I wasn't going to wade into this particular debate, because so many others are covering the issues so thoroughly--from traditional news to the blogosphere.  What more can my small voice hope to add?  ...Of course, when has that stopped me?  


I thought I'd just offer a few quick observations regarding this.  Based on the initial reports out of Florida, I was as infuriated as anyone at the situation.  What possible justification could there be to shooting an unarmed youngster?  I, more or less, accepted the media's presentation without question until other issues came to light recently.  Don't you hate it when our preconceived notions are shown to be--just maybe--not the whole story?


From how the incident was initially described, George Zimmerman  appeared to be "shaking" Trayvon Martin.  This refers to police field contact of a suspicious person.  While private security is within its authority to make contact with individuals on private property, it's a little different when a Neighborhood Watch volunteer makes such a contact in a public place.  If that is what occurred, it certainly would suggest poor judgement at the very least.  When this is combined with some of the language on the 911 recording, it's hard to feel a lot of pity for Mr. Zimmerman.  He went against the instructions of the dispatcher, after all.   


Still, the fact of the matter remains...are we innocent until proven guilty?  New information suggests that it's at least possible that Trayvon was striking Mr. Zimmerman's head repeatedly into the concrete.  Yes, it may have been foolish for him to approach this situation the way he did in the first place, but I suggest everyone give some thought to how you will feel and act if the evidence ultimately finds the shooter innocent of wrongdoing.  Are you going to apologize to Mr. Zimmerman?


My mind goes back to one of my early jobs.  I was working security in northwest Washington State one night when I happened upon a scene where a man's head was being slammed repeatedly into the concrete by assailants.  It was early morning in this downtown coastal town, and there were no helpful policeman ready to come and assist me.  I knew that I had to take some personal risk to stop the attackers, or this man would probably be killed in front of me.  Fortunately, I was able to stop the attack with a non-lethal device, but I can sympathize with someone being brutally attacked in that manner.  If it's indeed true, perhaps his final action is more understandable in this light--if not the actions preceeding it.


Whether, or not, that's the case, however, I think it's even more important that we bear in mind that Mr. Zimmerman has not yet been charged with a crime--so far as I know.  Furthermore, even if he had been, he remains innocent until proven guilty.  Don't let the media be the judge and jury.