The Christian Vanguard

Having started teaching catechism at my parish again, I forget that some of the kids really are starting from scratch, and some didn't know how to read bible citations. So, I made this handout to teach kids how to read, understand, and write bible citations. Hope you find it useful and any feedback is welcome! 

I came across this quotation from Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ, from which the ICOC springs. It reads,  "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever."  This is interesting because there seems to be a trend within the Evangelical world to disassociate with their historical roots. I know many Protestant Evangelicals, including the ICOC, who are squeamish when I call them "Protestants." 'We're not Protestants,' they'll object, 'We're just Christians.' This is to be completely ignorant of history. While I consider "Protestant" to be something of a bad word, I don't understand why it would be to a Protestant. I can use it in a value-neutral way, and it can easily i

I had to read and give an assessment of Peggy McIntosh's essay on White and Male privilege for my Feminist Philosophy class. Peggy McIntosh writes about the parallel between white and male privilege. She defines privilege as “unearned assets” to which she is designed to be oblivious to. What these assets are exactly, she doesn’t exactly say, but she does give some personal examples of white privilege from her own life, carefully qualifying them as “not a scholarly analysis” and “not intended to be generalizable.” From this list she says there’s some similar male privilege, like being dominant in school teachings. She expresses her frustration at men for not seeing and denying this privilege. Given this, she takes a meritocracy to not exist in the US. She makes a helpful distinction in these privileges by saying that they aren’t unjust to have, and that everyone ought to have them. But distinct from that are certain privileges that are mutually exclusive to the rights and just

I had to read Audrey Lorde's speech "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" for my Feminist Philosophy class, and then give an assessment.  Audrey Lorde is calling fellow feminist to give more attention to poor and colored minorities, as well as other minorities. To ignore such perspectives is to be part of the racist patriarchy, which is antithetical to feminism. She cites one paper in the conference she was attending, saying it was too limited in scope by not acknowledging her point of view, it presumes she had nothing to say. Shes goes on to emphasize that differences are good, and can be strengths, so they shouldn’t be ignored, and so she shouldn’t be ignored either. It is these differences that will defeat the racist patriarchy. She brings up an interesting point that if the women who attend such conferences are really concerned about the plight of women in the racist patriarchy, then they would be hypocrites to ignore poor and colo

Some Protestants have cited the following from Aristides , a 2nd century Christian, against the doctrine of Original Sin.  And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. Does this show that Aristides taught children (some translations have "infancy" instead of "childhood", while other translations, like the Syriac, doesn't have it at all!) don't have original sin? Not at all, and to think that it does is to read it into the text. So, the Protestant wants to say that if a child dies in infancy, then he dies without sin. And he can only die without sin if he has no Original Sin. This is not true. Catholics believe in Original Sin and we also believe that infants can die without sin. How? Through baptism. An infant who is baptized can pass through this world without sin. It isn't true that t

The iconic soup can. What is the big deal? Well, it's not really a big deal, and that might be the point. This paper on Andy Warhol's possible Eastern Christian aesthetic has helped me see that. It's an interesting paper, and I think it's worth a read, especially if you are Catholic or Orthodox. The basic idea is this: the aesthetic style of icons, no context and no space, is present in some of Warhol's work, as evidenced by the soup can, Golden Marilyn Monroe, and Silver Liz. Okay, I see that. I think that's pretty plausible. And I didn't really see that before, but I did have some vague sense of it. I just never really unpacked it because...it's a can of soup. Icons help us encounter a transfigured and holy person. That is why icons lack space and context. Is Warhol trying doing this too? Well, if he is, it doesn't work. Yes, in some sense, all of creation is good, and goodness is convertible with beautiful, so in some sense, all of creation is b

This last year I had the honor of helping teens at my parish go through their Confirmation. I put some work into it, and I want to share that work with others. We used the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism and below are my lesson outlines and quizzes. Let me know if this benefits you in any way!  Lesson Outlines Quizzes 

I just watched one of the videos from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology for their " The Bible and the Virgin Mary " series. It's good stuff all around, and they presented an argument for Mary's sinlessness and immaculate conception I hadn't heard before, but is really common sense. The argument is from Genesis 3, when God is rebuking Adam, Eve and the Serpent, and God says to the devil,  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed The seed here is Jesus Christ, who crushes and defeats Satan, and the woman is Jesus' mother, Mary. There can be enmity between Jesus and Satan because Jesus is sinless and perfect. He is not under Satan's domain. And likewise, Mary has enmity towards Satan because she too was not born under his domain. But this means Mary is likewise sinless, and this, as Saint Pope John Paul II said, necessitates her immaculate conception. 

Here is my review of Patrick Madrid's book Search and Rescue

The following is a review and analysis of the Catechism/Confirmation class I taught at Holy Innocents. This is mainly for future review and comparison. Drop out rate I started with 39 boys.  3 of them did not finish  8% drop out rate, 92% completion rate  Assigned work Total class points were 233 8 quizzes were assigned The 8 quizzes were worth a total of 58 points Quizzes were 25% of class points 10 homework assignments were given Homework was worth a total of 155 points Homework was 67% of class points 1 extra credit assignment was given Extra credit was worth 10 points Extra credit was worth a 4% boost 1 report was given Report was worth 20 points Report was 9% of class points Grades Out of 36 boys, 8 earned passing grades.  1 boy earned an A. 4 earned a B 3 boys earned a C 7 boys earned a D 21 boys earned an F 77.7% failed, while 22.3% passed The mean percentage is 51% Median percentage was 55% Standard deviation is 23 Lowest grade was 6%

I came across an open air preacher at CSULB. He didn't seem any kind of offensive or distasteful like many others are. I begin to talk to him at the 21:30 mark when he revealed to us that he was an Open Theist . I didn't really communicate what I was trying to communicate all that well. I haven't looked into Open Theism in like five years, so I was extremely rusty. Besides, he seemed kinda friendly, and didn't care so much if I didn't slam-dunk on this point. The point I was trying to articulate was this: God makes promises. These promises are special, infallible, because they are guaranteed. There is no way they could be false. However, in Open Theism, this is not necessarily true. It's possible that some state of events in the future may not occur even if God says they will occur. Perhaps in practice God never makes a mistake in Open Theism, but so long as it is possible, and necessity is a necessary condition for infallibility, then in principle, God could b

Julia: Hey dad, what's this? Dad: That's a cocoon, sweetheart. Julia: A cocoon? What's that? Dad: A cocoon is where caterpillar turns into a butterfly. Julia: A butterfly? Oohhh I want to see the butterfly! Dad: Well, you're going to have to wait for that, sweetie. Julia: Awww. But why can't we just take a peak now? Please? Dad: Because you're going to hurt it. If you take it out, you'll kill it, and the caterpillar will never grow up into a big beautiful butterfly. Julia: I don't want to kill it. Dad: Good. Now leave it alone. Julia: Can I take a picture of it? Dad: Sure thing. *Click* Julia: Hey dad! Look! The flash was able to see through the cocoon! Dad: Wow sweetie, that's neat! That kinda like how baby Rachel is in mommy's tummy, isn't it? Julia: Oh, you mean that triangle picture with no color? Dad: Yes, that's called an ultrasound, dear. Julia: Do the pictures hurt baby Rachel? Dad: No, they don&#

The following is a reply to a Bible study a protestant sent to me. It is only an exercise for me concerning Catholic apologetics. Nothing I haven't said before, but I'll keep it up here just for reference.  The stated purpose of the Bible study outline is to aid those who wish to seek truth by having people compare the Catholic Church to the Bible. A protestant assumption is being made here, however, that the Bible alone is the measure of truth. It is not, for scripture itself says that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15) and that we are supposed to hold fast the traditions passed on to us (2 Thess 2:15). Further, Christ comes to establish a Church and one that will not fall (Matt 16:18). While this is perhaps a great weakness for protestants, it is not the focal point of this study. As the quoted Constitution on Revelation says (which is properly entitled Dei Verbum ), we hold both the Church Tradition, or the deposit of faith, and scripture on the

Matthew 23:9 is cited as contrary to the Catholic practice of calling priests "father". This is not a good understanding of the text. First, this would exclude calling even our biological fathers "father" and clearly Jesus didn't mean that (Matt 15:4-6). Nor does he mean this in a spiritual sense as he also warns us to not call other people teachers (v. 8 & 10), but clearly we have hundreds of well accredited and trained theological professors at seminaries all across the world. So what does Jesus mean? As indicated in v. 11, he means that we do not take these titles so that they supplant the place of God, because that is pride. The preceding two paragraphs starting at the beginning of the chapter make this evident that this is the issue with those whom Jesus is criticizing and why. With that in mind, consider the second problem with this understanding of the text, which is that it is actually done with approval elsewhere in the Bible. In the parable of

Last night I had one of the most satisfying dreams ever, in which I got to see and play with a great friend that I lost last year. I was walking down the neon lit street into a middle class neighborhood when I bumped into my friend Julia. I haven't seen her in almost a year, so naturally I am thrilled to see her again. She expresses hesitation to dialogue with me, but I try to assure her that I am up to no funny business and that I'm genuinely happy to see her again. Somewhat skeptical, she allows me to walk her to a cafe where she was scheduled to do a spoken word poem (which is odd because that's not like her to do). Afterwards, we hung out and laughed a lot.  I woke up almost in tears because such great happiness was over and learned to be unreal. I love dreaming. Rarely do I get nightmares. But what this all points to, and what I take consolation in, is the hope that at the end of history, I get to be reunited with all my lost friends, Julia included. 

At the recommendation of my professor, I purchased a Great Courses audio course titled, "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills." Here is my review.

I want to list some of my favorite spiritual films, because in cinematic culture, those who want to get a good Christian message across do so terribly. I mean, look at "God's Not Dead", "Fireproof" "Left Behind" and I'll stop there. It's just as bad as modern Christian music. I read somewhere that these films get Christianity right, but they get all the rest of the culture wrong. So these films are films that I like that strike a good balance. Calvary : A priest knows his days are numbered and continues to try to administer God's graces upon his small Irish town.  Risen : Tastefully done. This story follows a Roman soldier during the climatic days of Jesus' ministry.  The Way : A father tries to finish El Camino de Santiago for his deceased son. Meets broken people along the way.  A Man For All Seasons : The story of St. Thomas More's martyrdom. How we could use someone like him today.  For Greater Glory : An acc

I received Fr. Robert Sirico's book for free from a promotion I saw on Facebook from the Acton Institute . Here is my review .

Here is my review of the "Faith and Science" contribution to Catholic Answers series "20 Answers".

No. God knowing what you will do in the future does not mean you don't have free will. Whatever it is that makes something true, God knowing it isn't a truth maker. If God knows I'm going to wear jeans today, His knowing it isn't what makes it is true. Whatever makes it true is how God knows it, otherwise, he wouldn't know it at all since there would be nothing true to know (or, if God knowing something in the future makes it so, how did He know it in the first place?). To make the case more apparent, say I am currently wearing jeans. Then God currently knows I am wearing jeans. But God knowing I am wearing jeans at this moment isn't what is making me wear jeans at this moment, anymore than God knowing the past is makes makes the past true, and so, it isn't true of the future as well. 

Here is my review of Trent Horn 's contribution to the Catholic Answers "20 Answers" series.

I purchased the entire "20 Answers" Book set from Catholic Answers . I intend to review them all. Here is the first review , of Matt Fradd 's contribution, "20 Answers on Atheism"

No. Only God is omniscient, and this, unlike some of His other qualities, cannot be shared. Some Protestants, like one I recently talked to via text, said that in order for Saints to hear our prayers, they must be omniscient. This doesn't follow. Since prayers aren't all that make up truth in the world, and omniscient is knowledge of all that makes up truth, omniscience isn't necessary. Add to this the fact that prayers are finite, even if numerous,  Saints can still be aware of all our prayers without being omniscient. This same Protestant also argued that since prayers come from everywhere in the world, they must also be omnipresent. For the same reasons as before, this also doesn't follow. I didn't think to bring it up at the time, but 1 Peter 5:8 reads,  Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. This was written for all Christians at all times at every place. And surely, the devil can temp

Here is my Amazon review for Sir Roger Scruton's book, On Hunting

People are confused about art, or if not confused, willfully ignorant. You see people trying to be edgy or avant-garde by looking at garbage and calling it art. I don't mean art that is bad in technical skill (like a child's finger painting) or even immoral (I'll use my better judgment and not cite anything here), but literally a thing that doesn't belong to the category of art but that some people want to claim it is. What art actually is, I won't explore in depth here, but I do want to say that realism is a necessary condition for something being art.  I have to be careful about the word "realism" because that's somewhat technical in the art world.  By realism I mean that whatever the subject is in the artwork, it has to capture (or at least attempt to capture) the essence of the thing. And this presupposes that things have real knowable essences. So I mean metaphysical real essentialism. The image must be trying to take a form, something like a

I saw a little girl on the beach throwing rocks into the ocean. She looked back at her parents for approval, while they cheered her on, telling her what a good job she was doing. This seemingly pointless endeavor was the cause of much joy and amusement. It reminds me of the view of art that art is useless, to take away its unduly emphasis on its utility. Roger Scruton makes a point that if in creating (in something like architecture) you put a things utility first with no regard to its aesthetic worth, it will become useless, because no one wants any part in something that is so ugly. When something is beautiful, then people want to participate in that beauty. Throwing rocks into the water seems to be like one of those things that is completely pointless and has have no utility, but because there is something beautiful about it, we want to do it anyways. It's a gratifying paradox. That children do this more than adults I think clues us into some of the aspects of throwing rocks

I see it said often that we need to do something about the "problem of teen pregnancy". I don't think so. What is problematic about pregnancy? Nothing, unless you're a liberal, but I see conservatives say this too, and I'd rather not think they're being inconsistent. Maybe there is something wrong about teen pregnancy, and not just pregnancy itself. If so, what is it? I think there is the assumption that the child cannot be cared for properly, and that is the root of the problem. But I'm wondering, if these pregnancies did not happen out of wedlock, which I think is another assumption being made, would the child be able to be provided for thus eliminating the "problem"? If so, then the problem isn't that teens are having children, it is that there are children being born out of wedlock. And so the solution is the encouragement of marriage, not the encouragement of condoms or something silly like that.  There is the issue of whether teen

2016 is in the books now. I look back on my life this last year, and if it had a theme, the theme would be "Woman". Women have played a significant role in my life this year. Here are some ways that is.  It should be noted that the absence of male friends was a thing. A lot of this had to do with the fact that many of them got married and moved away, or got married and had become preoccupied with marital life. Their friends ended up being other married friends. As I'm single, I became distant to a lot of them. That's okay. That's life.  The biggest presence, numerically anyways, of women in my life happened early in the year when I got promoted and had to supervise about 50 women at my job. Many of them were old enough to be my grandmother, and I'm sure that had some kind of effect on me. Some of them called me their second son, and I was really nice to a lot of them. As I was running the warehouse, I couldn't really have a sick day. If I didn'