Following up on my post from yesterday: “I Have No Authority Except Jesus”.

One possible objection to my earlier post would be something along the lines of: “Yes, obeying your church elders is all well and good when they teach what is true, but if they teach something false, then it is imperative for you to disobey them and do what is right, even if it means leaving that church for another one or starting your own.”

And perhaps even further: “You see, that is exactly what happened in the Reformation.  Martin Luther rebelled against the authority of the Catholic Church because the Church was teaching lies.”

There are two possible scenarios here:

1. There is no Church which has completely true teachings
2. There is a Church which has completely true teachings

Let’s take the first scenario first, which is generally the Protestant belief.  There is no church (or “denomination”) that is uncorrupted in her teachings.  If that is the case, then we all have a problem following the command to “obey the elders of the church” because guess what? the elders of every denomination are teaching some things that are false!  They are teaching baptismal regeneration is true when really symbolic-only baptism is true (or vice-versa).  They are teaching that abortion is always wrong when really abortion is sometimes okay (or vice-versa).

So if the first scenario is indeed reality, it is impossible to follow this Biblical command!

I am Joe Baptist, but when I read the Bible, it seems clear to me that when Jesus said “Take this, all of you, and eat it.  This is my body” he meant it literally.  But that is definitely not what my Baptist church teaches.

Or I am Episcopalian and the Episcopalian church teaches that women priests are valid and that people who suffer from and act upon same-sex attractions are not committing sin.  What do I do?  Since there is no Church which has completely true teachings, the best that I can do is find another church, maybe the Lutherans or Anglicans or Methodists, which I agree with on more of the teachings than I do the Episcopal church.  Or I decide that women’s ordination is the most important issue, and so as long as I can find a church (except the Catholic Church heaven forbid) that does not ordain women, even if I disagree with that church on many other things, I will go to it because I really believe this issue to be vitally important.

Either way, when I go to the new church and my elders find out that I don’t believe in, say, infant baptism, then once again I am in a bad state because I am disobeying the teachings of the elders of the church, since I think “believer’s baptism” is the only valid kind.

In answer to the second objection regarding Luther, if this scenario is the reality then there is no big deal because the Catholic Church had corrupted teachings for however long and so Luther came and established his own church with, presumably, teachings which were truer.  People then came after Luther (and are still coming after him) and broke from him because they said many of his teachings were false in this or that area, and what we have left is the current situation of thousands of divided churches, none of which teaches the fullness of the truth.

So let’s take scenario 2 now:

2. There is a Church which has completely true teachings

Now we have two possible sub-options:
a. I am in full communion, that is to say united, with this Church, or
b. I am not in full communion with this Church

If I fall under option “b”, then that means that I am going to some other church that does not have uncorrupted teachings, in which case I cannot always obey my elders.  However, I now have the option of entering full communion with the Church that teaches the truth on all matters of faith and morals, or I could go to another church which has corrupted teachings and end up right where I started.

If I fall under option “a”, then how happy I am!  This Church has been preserved from error in her teachings by God, and I can fully and faithfully follow the Church’s teachings because I know that they are all true!  I can follow the Biblical command to obey the elders of the Church.

In answer to the second objection regarding Luther, if this scenario is reality then Luther broke from Christ’s Church and in doing so disobeyed the legitimate elders of the Church, establishing his own church which has errors in its teachings.  Others came after Luther and did the same, compounding his errors and creating new ones.  We are now in a situation where there is still the Church preserved from error in her teachings but also there are innumerable other “churches” or ecclesial communities where some of the truth is taught but also where errors are taught as truth.

You all know which scenario I think is the reality.  I ask you to consider these arguments in thought and prayer and thank you again for reading my thoughts.

I lived in a world filled with women.  Our husbands spend at least nine hours away from us each day, and we find ourselves surrounded by other women–except for our children, who might happen to be male.  It seems to me a hyper-feminized world, and I can’t help feeling resentful at times of the change wrought by the Industrial Revolution.

Let me explain what I mean.  It seems to me that God’s design for male-female interactions is complementarity.  We need men to balance and fulfill our femininity and men to us to do the same for their masculinity.  Any time we cut ourselves off from our complementary sex, we become unbalanced and lose out on the fullness God intended.

I suggest that corporate America is hyper-masculinized.  Women generally have to leave a little, or a lot, of their femininity at the door if they want to succeed; granted, this is not the 80’s where women have to wear shoulder pads, but women usually have to choose between some aspect of their feminine vocation–wife and motherhood–and some aspect of their professional life.  Many companies are trying to bridge this gap, offering daycare at work for nursing mothers and encouraging women to work from home, so as not to lose valuable trained employees after maternity leave is over.  Yet, the fact remains that the working world makes it hard to be both a good employee and a fully engaged mother.

Equally, I think that my world, that of a full-time wife and mother, is hyper-feminized.  At daily Mass, I see women.  At the grocery store, I see only women.  Out for a walk, I pass other women.  I wonder if this feminine world does not discourage me from balance; it seems that my feminine tendencies of over-emotionalizing and talking too much and frittering away time have easy access to excess in my feminine world.  Our husbands are off to work, and we are not our best selves without their strength and masculine objectivity.

This comes to mind today because my wonderful husband invited me on a hot date this morning, to join him at work for lunch.  I was excited to see him during the day and had a great time. I felt exhilarated by the bustle of his corporate cafeteria as people rushed past, and part of me longed for that world again.  A world where my ideas, not my capacity to keep babies fed, matter.  A world where I receive raises and accolades based upon my good performance, not who I am as a person.  A world that challenges my intellect and compliments me and keeps me abreast of the swiftly turning culture mill.

I would not for anything change places with a mother who has to work a salaried job.  The thought of missing my childrens’ first steps and first words is a sad one.  So, I have given up my commute in heavy traffic and business lunches and heels and pearls–okay, actually I still wear heels and pearls.  I have given up that world, but I could and I do wish for a world of complementarity, where I would be around the balancing influence of men.

This is a large part of my desire to raise our family as farmers.  Devin’s presence in our family is such a gift, and it is one that I want to enjoy daily for more than a few hours.  With that in mind, I promise a Part II blog post tomorrow, discussing pre-Industrial Revolution culture and male-female complementarity on the farm.

Sounds like basic common sense to me.  Goodness, how sorely we need that.  Check out Ron Paul’s response to the media-induced swine flu panic.  (Though, I shouldn’t speak too loudly, since it was the swine flu scare that gave me a chance to speak on television.)

Great news!  Dyer Dairy recently opened its doors in Georgetown and is offering raw milk for $5/gallon.  I encourage you to consider adding raw milk to your family’s diet, even if the cost is a little higher.

I know the consumption of raw milk is somewhat controversial, but it is totally safe when cows are healthy and eating green grass.  The benefits have been numerous for us.  We did not get the flu this winter, despite many rounds to which we were exposed.  Our sons perpetual congestion cleared up as soon as they began drinking raw milk formula, rather than the ultra-pasteurized processed powdered stuff they had been fed since birth (why anyone thinks that is a good idea for babies is beyond me).

The current difference between commercial pasteurized and commercial organic is really only one of marketing.  Horizon et al do very few things differenty than their non-organic competitors, and don’t appear to take very good care of their employees and cows.  Consider trying raw milk; it is creamy and sweet and contributes to your health.

Featured on the 10 o’clock news last night, my coworker informed me today!

My friend John gave me a CD by a Christian man named Norm Wakefield focused on equipping men to be faithful and strong disciples of Christ.  I found many encouraging and helpful ideas in Mr. Wakefield’s talks, which spanned many hours, and I also found several errors in his statements based on his understanding of the faith through his Evangelical Protestant tradition (or lens).

One important point he makes, which he spends a long time on, is the idea of jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction, in Mr. Wakefield’s parlance, is equated with authority.  He rightly points out that we men, as head of our families, have authority given to us by God the Father and that we must accept this authority and use it to help lead our families in a Christ-like way.  I couldn’t agree more.

Then he makes several other statements about authority which are very interesting, and I will respond to them in this post.

But first, notice how we all have human authorities in our lives?  At home when we were children, our parents were our authorities; at school our teachers and principals were.

In civil society, we have authorities at many levels: city council, mayor, county leaders, state legislators, federal legislators, and ultimately in our nation the President of the United States (currently Pres. Barack Obama).  Do they really have authority over us though?  Yes.  We see this if we break a law because if it is found out then the police come and give us a ticket or worse arrest us and judges and a jury try us for the crime and we may go to jail for decades or even be executed!

At work, in business or academia, we have authorities over us: I personally have 6 levels of people in the authority chain going right up to the top of my company.  Anyone of those people could tell me what to work on, tell me to quit wasting time, reassign me to a different group, etc.  If I don’t do what I should, I could be demoted or fired.

But what about in the Christian faith?  Ah, here it is different, is it not?  Here, surely, we have no authority over us except Jesus Christ who is God Himself?  And that is exactly what hundreds of millions of Christians say.  “I accept no authority over me except Christ” when it comes to their Christian beliefs and their church.  Is that the way Christ intended us to be as Christians?

Let’s now see what Mr. Wakefield has to say about authority (jurisdiction):

“Pride will destroy a jurisdiction.”
“Don’t trust Mohammed: who gave him jurisdiction?  Nor Buddha.  Why should I listen to him?  He doesn’t have jurisdiction.”
“Where men do not submit to their elders, there will be destruction and disorder in the church.”
“If a man won’t listen to the elders, to the church, if he won’t submit to their jurisdiction, Paul says ‘I will  deliver such a one to Satan’ and his jurisdiction.”

Bold words, no?

He also mentions that (St.) Peter tells Christians to submit to the government, superiors in the work sphere, human institutions, and authorities for the Lord’s sake.

Three questions immediately pop into my mind:

1. What does Mr. Wakefield mean by “church”, and which “church” has authority from Christ?

2. What does Mr. Wakefield say to the hundreds of millions of Christians who submit to authority in every area of life except for in the “church”, where they claim Christ only is their authority?

3. What authority does Mr. Wakefield have that I or any Christian should listen to him?

He says that “pride will destroy a jurisdiction” and “where men do not submit to their elders, there will be destruction and disorder in the church.”  Yet he utterly fails to see that Martin Luther and the leaders of the Protestant revolts did not submit to their elders, the bishops of Christ’s Church, and that did indeed lead to “destruction and disorder” in the Church.  It led to schism upon schism and a thousand splinterings afterward in Christ’s Church, explicitly against Christ’s command in John 17 and St. Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 1: “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”

So what exactly does Mr. Wakefield mean by his statements?  He seems to mean “church” in the smallest sense possible: i.e. the group of people that meet at Pastor Joe’s home or who rent space at the local school on Sundays or who have a church building (e.g. Pecan Street Baptist Church) and meet there.  The “elders” of the “church” are presumably whoever founded it and became pastor and whomever he chose as assistant pastor and as “deacons” perhaps.

Mr. Wakefield again: “If a man won’t listen to the elders, to the church, if he won’t submit to their jurisdiction, Paul says ‘I will  deliver such a one to Satan’ and his jurisdiction.”

So when and how many times has this happened in Christ’s Church through history?  How about the Manichees?  The Monophysites?  The Docetists?  The Arians?  The Nestorians?  The men who chose to reject the elders of Christ’s Church and their authority must have been delivered to Satan and his authority.

Well then when exactly did it become okay for a Christian to throw off the yoke of authority of Christ’s Church and follow their own ideas of what is true?  How about the 1500s?  Did St. Paul’s words cease to apply once we reached the 1500s and Martin Luther rejected the authority of Christ’s Church?  Where is it written in the Bible that St. Paul’s words, which Mr. Wakefield affirms here, would quit being true during the year 1517 AD?

Without one, apostolic, and universal Church that Christ established and which teaches truth in faith and morals, following the jurisdiction of someone within the “church” makes little sense.  And in practice what really happens?  A person who disagrees with the “elders” just leaves and goes to the church down the street or founds their own church in which they are the elder! “Now it says in the Bible that people have to listen to me otherwise they are handed over to Satan!  Now I am the elder.”  We see how ridiculous these verses become if Christ has no Church but only a thousand individual, contradictory and divided “churches” with a thousand different “elders” who were never given rightful authority within the Church in the first place.

This demonstrates the need for apostolic succession.  Christ gave his apostles authority, which all Christians agree on, but then of course that authority didn’t evaporate after 100 AD.  No!  This authority was passed on by the apostles to their successors, by God’s grace and intention and the laying on of hands by the apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders.  These are the true elders of Christ’s Church, the bishops in union with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter himself.

Christ is the Rock on which the Church is built, but that does not preclude Him also building the Church on Peter the rock, and on the “foundation” of the apostles, as it says in the Bible.

In this post I wanted to challenge the widespread notion amongst Protestants that God has given us human authority in every area except for the Church, and then to challenge the notion that Mr. Wakefield states that the Church is just the local church apart and disconnected from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Thank you for reading; I welcome your feedback, challenges, and ideas.  You can read a follow-up to this post here: What if the Elders are Wrong?

Apparently, we missed the celebration of St. Gianna Molla yesterday.  Between the remembrance of St. Peter Chanel, martyr, and St. Luis de Montfort, we were swamped.  Much love to you, posthumously, St. Gianna.  Your courage and elegant combination of motherhood and educated professional life is such an inspiration to me.

I think St. Catherine knows how much I long to defend the Church, as she did.  I dream of speaking on television and wonder how I, I lowly housewife, will ever get my chance.  So, today, on her feast when she has special gifts to give, she gave it to me.

I was walking into Mass at the Cathedral when I saw the KEYE television camera and reported.  I wondered what the story might be, when the reporter approached me and asked if they might speak with me about the Bishop’s decision to withhold the Precious Blood during this swine flu scare.  I was excited to oblige and was able to explain to the reporter the full presence of Our Lord in both species of Communion, the bread and wine.  Later, during Mass, I felt the camera on me as I received Communion.

What a tremendous gift from my patroness!  Now, she just needs to obtain for me a regular gig as the faith consultant for KEYE.  Yes, I think that would do just fine.

Update: I just checked KEYE’s site, and here is the story.  I’m sure I sounded more educated and reverent than that.  I recall saying something about the “presence of Our Lord being fully contained in either species.”  Hmmph.

Today, we remember this little firebrand of a woman who was uneducated but corresponded with Popes.  This woman who was so humbled by her twenty-five siblings but was wedded to Our Lord, bearing a red brand around her ring finger.  She began receiving visions when she was only six years old and lived a life packed full of mysticism and hilarious practicality, dying exhausted at 33.  She was a wit and a charmer and a holy hand of God.

St. Catherine, patrona mia, pray for us.

And, well, the woman herself–incorrupt and preserved as a article of veneration in her hometown of Siena, 630 years after her death.

Last year, if you recall, we hosted three rounds of swallowtail butterly caterpillars on our dill plants.  This year, I had seen no caterpillars, however, and was becoming worried.  I walked outside yesterday, however, and there she was.  Big beautiful black butterfly with turquoise dots, somewhat like this one.

She delicately danced from stem to stem, laying little butter-yellow eggs all over our dill.  That probably means our days of eating dill dip are over, but we don’t mind.  We planted it with butterflies in mind and are excited that we can offer a nursery for the hilarious caterpillars that will soon emerge.