Faith Forum - faithforum's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Patron saint of Bakersfield, via Fresno

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:53:03 PDT

A lot of people don't know that Bakersfield has a patron saint.

She, of course, has never been here. As far as I know, no one who has lived in Bakersfield has ever been formally recognized as a saint.

She never lived in Fresno either.

But St. Therese de Lisieux, for whom Mother Teresa was named, got to be the patroness of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno (which includes Bakersfield) because a Fresno bishop happened to be in Rome when St. Therese was canonized.

Bishop John G. MacGinley was chatting with Pope Pius XI in 1925 at the declaration of sainthood. That was just 28 years after Therese died of tuberculosis on Sept. 30, 1897, at the young age of 24, in a Carmelite convent in Lisieux, France.

The bishop asked if the newly sainted could become the patron saint of the Fresno diocese.

I'm guessing the Pope felt the Fresno area really needed a saint (what with the Grapes of Wrath just a few years away), so he said okay as long as a church was named in her honor.

The former Our Lady of Victory Parish, established in 1919, was changed and ,
became the first parish in the world dedicated to St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

She was born Marie-Françoise-Thérèse Martin on Jan. 2, 1873 to Louis
Martin, a watchmaker, and his wife, Zélie-Marie, both very religious people.

She wanted to be a nun and she nudged her way into the convent a little sooner (age 15) than was the norm at the time. She kept a diary that was later made into a book, Story of a Soul, and was so profoundly theological — but in a light and breezy way — that it was the cornerstone of her sainthood.

A patron saint is a protector and an advocate for a person to God.

So we have a young French woman who lets God know about the special people in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

Now you know.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

P.S. The Californian will soon have a full-length story about her

Pope slights validity of other Christian churches

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:12 PDT

Pope Benedict XVI, in what some see as a retreat from the ecumenical movement of Vatican II, has in the last week resumed Latin Masses and asserted Catholic supremacy over other Christian churches.

The Second Vatican Council in 1962 to 1965 ushered in a more cooperative approach between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches.

What the Pope has done in the last week is seen as "a step backward" from that approach.

Reuters reported Bishop Wolfgang Huber, head of the Protestant umbrella group Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), said the new Vatican document effectively downgraded Protestant churches and would make ecumenical relations more difficult.

As an ex-Catholic (first 28 years, Mass seven days a week, altar boy in the Latin Mass era), who is now an Episcopalian after dabbling for 28 years as a Lutheran, the Pope's position amuses me.

The Latin Mass was stupid for almost anyone outside of Italy.

If you can't understand what the priest is saying, why bother. (I acknowledge that the Pope is not saying Latin will sweep all Catholic Churches, but it could go to anyone that wants it).

And the Catholic notion that it is the only true church — my mother bought into that; when I told her I was switching to Lutheran (an argument could be made Luther made the Catholic church better and more honest), she told me I was going to go to hell — smacks of only Catholics are in heaven.

I'm not even sure only Christians are in heaven on the theory that a merciful God would allow theists in.

I'm thinking the Pope ought to lighten up a little with a German brew, whose ingredients were made by God for the benefit of all humanity.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Are some sinners not welcome at church?

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:01:49 PDT

Members of the Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad, Ca. are being tested by their marquee invitation, "All are welcome."

Does that include Mark Pliska, 53, a convicted child molester?

Some members have left the church.

A regular message at churches is "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Another is all are sinners.

Should a church get to choose which sins they allow in their midst, and which they do not?

How would you react if a child molester wanted to go to your church?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:04:20 PDT

Easter week seems a good time to ask this question — do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

The question presupposes you believe in Jesus and he was both God and man.

So you can address those issues too if you want.

I found the following article helpful in analyzing this topic.

In a nutshell, it says the Roman soldiers had every reason including their own lives to protect the tomb, and the apostles were too scared to be seen out in public until Christ appeared to them. Then their beliefs were so strong, they became martyrs.

It also said Christ appeared to his number one enemy, Saul, and that led to Saul's transformation to Paul and one of the key writers of the Bible.

There are arguments against the resurrection. Here's one. It essentially says the resurrection accounts are based on hearsay and contradictory reports in the Bible.

Another one reports that Biblical accounts are unreliable and factually incorrect.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Episcopal bishops support gays, snub nose at greater Anglican church

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:54:18 PDT

Episcopal bishops meeting in Texas, saying the church embraces "all of God's children" including gays, refused to meet Anglican demands to change that position by a Sept. 30 deadline.

This is the latest in a feud that pits minority conservative dioceses, such as the San Joaquin Valley, against the more liberal Episcopal leadership which supports equality for gays and women in the church.

Episcopals are the American arm of the Anglican church. Up to 2.3 million people are Episcopals, which are part of the 77 million people in the Anglican church worldwide.

A month ago, Anglican leaders (called primates) met in Tanzania, and gave Episcopalians until Sept. 30 to pledge not to consecrate another partnered gay bishop or authorize official prayers for same-sex couples.

The Episcopal bishops response on Tuesday was to reject that settlement.

It remains to be seen what will happen now.

But already conservative members of the Episcopal church aren't happy with a majority leadership who recently rejected a Bakersfield bishop, the Rev. Mark Lawrence, to be bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina.

Lawrence had enough votes, but Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori -- head of the American Episcopals -- declared three deciding votes were not cast properly under the rules.

Jefferts Schori has also supported the ordination of a gay bishop in 2003.

Who do you believe is following God's commands in this controversy — the minority conservatives or the majority leadership block?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

KGET on The Colbert Report

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:25:01 PST

Why is it that "Bakersfield" is a punchline? Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" featured a news piece by KGET Channel 17 last night, and all Colbert said was "Bakersfield" and he got a laugh.

Are we that funny? Are people laughing because they're shocked we have news here? Or are they laughing because of the type of news that comes out of this town?

In this case, Colbert showed portions of a KGET report about a Christian doctor who has rules for who he will and won't serve based on his religious beliefs. The doctor refused to see a young child because her mother has tattoos and piercings, forbidden in Leviticus 19:28.

Colbert used this story for his feature "The Word," getting another laugh for the term "WWJD" - What Would Jesus Dispense. A funny line: "Say Ahhmen." The piece was hilarious. But I laughed more for the jokes about the Hippocratic Oath than the punchlines containing "Bakersfield." Watch it for yourself!

Hey, you Catholics, get back to confession

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:49:09 PST

Under the stuff you can't make up, the Archdiocese of Washington is starting a media blitz to get Catholics back to confession.

A story by Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post notes the archdiocese has launched a major marketing blitz, advertising on buses, subway cars, a billboard, the radio and in 100,000 brochures in an effort to get people back to the confessional.

Seems that what used to be long lines of people waiting to go to confession, and the priest hearing a relentless outpouring of sins by his parishioners for hours, has not been scaled back to 30- or 45-minute increments or by appointment.

The ad slogan is, "The Light Is On For You." (who wants a light on when you go confess your deep dark sins?)

Ask any Catholic and they will tell you some, or many, confession horror stories in their life. When I was a young adolescent, I went in and told Father Altar Boy Coordinator about some impure thought I had that Sister Mary Better Than All Of Us made me feel so guilty about that I nearly fainted in the booth.

Indeed, when I became a Lutheran, the two reasons I cited were a better insurance plan and a direct confessional to God without any of the prayer penance. Plus you could go to heaven right away without the Purgatory intermediate step, which could be lessened with buying votive candles or novenas. Poor people obviously had to stay longer.

So, what up Catholics. Are you going to go back to confession or are you going to put your archdiocese is the position of asking whether an ad campaign is good stewardship of the Lord's money?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Where do the palms come from?

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:48:37 PST

We're planning a story on Palm Sunday, and where the palms for this service come from. What's your church's tradition?

I remember as a child watching adults trim the palm branches from the trees on the grounds of my church in San Diego. It was fascinating to watch. While we'd be out playing on the blacktop (there was no playground, this was a pretty poor Catholic school) a group of very dedicated parishoners would climb the massive palms and prepare the fronds for Mass.

The church made do with the resources that were right there on the grounds. But not every church has palms growing on its grounds. Where does your church get its palms?

— Posted by News Editor Christine Peterson

Jesus was a rich man, the Rev. Dollar says

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:20:19 PDT

The Rev. Creflo Dollar, who drives a Rolls Royce, is one of several so-called prosperity preachers who believes Jesus was a rich man.

His account is explained in a story by John Blake of the Cox News Service.

The Rev. Dollar says Jesus' wealth began in the manger when kings gave him gold, and continued as he supported 12 disciples and wore clothes so expensive that Roman soldiers cast lots for his robe.

Dollar, senior pastor of the 23,000-member World Changers Church International and resident of a $1 million home in the wealthy College Park neighborhood near Atlanta,
is one of the more outspoken preachers on the wealth of Jesus.

Other religious leaders say Jesus was poor, needed donations from women to support himself (Luke, Chapter 8) and needed to borrow a tomb.

What do you think? Did God bless Jesus with wealth or spiritual riches, or both?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

The role of women in church

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:45:29 PDT

Californian staff writer Mark Barna will have a story in Saturday's paper about how various churches use the Bible to restrict or encourage the role of women in church.

Some prohibit leadership roles, especially if it involves preaching or advising men, while others want women to be dynamic leaders for all.

First Timothy 2:12 says, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be silent."

Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And Matthew 28:7-8 says women were the first to tell others that Jesus had risen from the grave.

We had a blog in July about whether women should be pastors. This issue goes beyond that as to whether women should ever have leadership roles over men.

What do you think?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Does being a good person get you to heaven?

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:04:28 PDT

People who cross my path believe that being a good person will assure you a happy eternity.

Religion isn't so much the criteria as taking care of each other, the earth and the animals.

The idea is that God will reward a good person with a happy afterlife.

Do you believe that will do it for you?

Or do you think you must believe in Christ, God and the Holy Spirit — and exhibit the qualities they espouse — in order to be with them in heaven?

Is the belief enough?

How about the Gods in other religions — Muslims, Hindus, Buddists etc. In the end is there a big happy family in the same place?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Slurping Christ's blood out of the same cup

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:50:27 PDT

There's an interesting little tradition in some churches where during communion, people drink wine out of the same cup.

It happens at St. John's Lutheran and All Saints Episcopal, and I'm sure at some other churches too. The wine represents Christ's blood.

A minister has a white cloth which he or she uses to wipe off the spot on the cup where the last person drank.

The churches offer alternatives -- a small individual container or dipping the bread in the cup.

I will admit the first time I saw this I went, "ewwww." And I take the alternatives each and every time?

I haven't heard of anyone getting sick from this practice, but I don't want to be the first.

And there must be some good reason for this, but I haven't a clue what it might be.

Anyone else think this is a little weird?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

P.S. At least it is wine and not that awful grape juice that Methodist churches provide. But that's another topic.

Can women be pastors of a church?

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:18:07 PDT

Joan Houk, a Roman Catholic from Pennsylvania, is one of 12 women participating in a ceremony Monday in which eight will problaim themselves priests and four deacons.

Of course, the Catholic church won't recognize the ceremony and and women face excommunication as a result of it.

It's not just the Catholics. It's the Lutherans of the Missouri Synod, Pentecostals and other church who believe the Bible prohibits women from becoming pastors or leaders in the church.

That position is based on teachings of Paul — 1st Timothy 2:11-15 and 1st Corinthians 11:2-16 and14:34-36 — which says women need to be silent and let men do the talking.

That's poppycock. Ask any woman.

Besides, if we listened to Paul, women wouldn't be allowed to braid their hair either. (1st Timothy 2:9). That clearly shows he was writing about women of his time — not women for all time.

I prefer to believe Jesus was a higher authority on all this. And one doesn't have to look beyond Luke 24:9-10 to see who it was that proclaimed the greatest gospel in the whole book — He is Risen.

Those folks included Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, the mother of James. What they had in common was they were all women.

But forget that.

There may be jobs that women can't do because they require heavy lifting (not sure anymore if there actually are such jobs).

But basic requirements to be a pastor, a deacon or elder in a church is knowledge of the gospel and the ability to speak. That makes women eminently qualified.

I can't figure out why any church doesn't get that. But women can certainly figure out which churches don't recognize the role they can have in serving God.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Cell phone line to God?

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:41:09 PDT

So we just put up a story on local churches that are getting mammoth crosses on their property, thanks to cell phone companies. Turns out inside these crossses are the guts of a cell phone tower.

While the practical part of me thinks this is a great idea, there is a part that asks, "Is it appropriate to have random phone calls being transmitted through a religious symbol?"

I mean, should someone be able to use that tower/cross to call a phone sex line? Or how about just calling someone and berating them? Is that the kind of stuff folks want funnelled through the cross?

And how about other religions? Should folks turn one of those tall mosques into a TV station broadcast antenna? Or maybe a WiFi hub at the local synagogue?

What do you think Bakersfield?

-- Posted by Davin McHenry

Are Christians supposed to be prudes?

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:56:01 PDT

"I think sex is there for procreation and a good deal more." — Hugh Hefner

Hef is right.

I've seen a lock of back-and-forth talk on these blogs about how uptight Christians can be when it comes to sex and how society has gotten messed up by our "unenlightened" attitudes.

Would it shock you to learn that the Bible not only portrays sex as a good thing, but it tells people to have lots of it?

Now, before anyone goes jumping to any conclusions, I want to be clear: God intended for sex to be enjoyed in a very specific way — namely, within the confines of marriage. As it says repeatedly in the Old Testament book Song of Solomon — considered the Bible's definitive book on sexuality — "Do not stir up nor awaken love until it pleases" (verses 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4).

However, God did create us as sexual beings. Genesis 1:27-28 says, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'"

Think about that: God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the earth, and, well, there's only one way they could do that. So essentially, since God commanded them to do it, sex is a holy act of worship as long as it is within the confines of marriage.

Not that having children is the only reason for husbands and wives to be intimate. I Corinthians 7:3-5 says this: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone, but to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you due to your lack of self-control."

In other words, if husbands and wives aren't coming together in the Biblical sense, there is a strong likelihood that one or the other — if not both — will stray, which could cause the marriage to crumble. One of the Ten Commandments is, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), and there's no need to if husbands and wives are being intimate on a regular basis.

All of that said, the Bible condemns any form of sex that falls outside the one-man, one-woman model as being immoral. Even just looking at someone with lust in your heart is considered adultery (Matthew 5:28). I Corinthians 6:18 has this to say: "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."

Following these teachings may make us seem "uptight" in the eyes of the world — and believe me, being committed to what we call "purity" is easier said than done. However, making the effort doesn't make us prudes, in my view; it just makes good sense.

Tell me, Bakersfield: Does waiting on sex until marriage make someone a prude? Or do you think the Bible has it all wrong, that any form of sex between consenting adults should be OK?

— Ray Hacke

How would Jesus view illegal immigration?

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:11:11 PDT

The Bible teaches that we are to be kind to foreigners: "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:34).

The Bible also says this: "Submit yourselves to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king as supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right" (I Peter 2:13-14).

So the question, then, is this: Where would Jesus stand on illegal immigration?

On the one hand, you could argue that immigrants who come to the United States without going through the proper channels should be welcomed with open arms, no questions asked. The vast majority of illegal immigrants who come here are fleeing lives of extreme poverty or persecution in their native lands, and the Bible repeatedly instructs us to be kind to those who suffer. As Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25:40, "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

But what about the flip side of the coin? The fact is, illegal immigrants are violating the law by being here — and on top of that, many of them take advantage of government-funded schools, hospitals and social services without paying taxes that go toward those services. Some could argue that this is a form of stealing.

Would Jesus encourage a man to steal a loaf of bread for his starving family when the BIble specifically says, "Thou shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? Since Jesus is also God, and God is just, would He support the agents who round up illegal immigrants and ship them back where they came from? Consider what Numbers 14:18 says: "The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished."

Here's what I think: Jesus wouldn't necessarily turn illegal immigrants back — in fact, He'd probably try and grease the wheels so those who already are here could be here legally. However, He'd also make them earn their legal status in this country — perhaps by doing some kind of community service.

I also think Jesus would advise those who wish to come here illegally to be patient and wait where they're at until they could come here properly. The Lord rewards those who wait on His timing (I Timothy 6:13-15); those who don't sometimes suffer disastrous consequences (read about Saul in I Samuel 13:8-14).

But I'm not Jesus, so that's all just speculation on my part.

What do you think, Bakersfield?

— Ray Hacke

Welcome to the new Faith Forum blog

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:58:16 PDT

Welcome to the new version of our Bakersfield.com blogs.

As you can tell, there are some big changes. We have moved from our original blog provider, Typepad. Now we are running our blogs on our own system, the same one we use for our user profiles and blogs.

So what does this mean for our loyal blog readers? Well, a couple things.

First off, to comment on our new blogs you need to be registered with Bakersfield.com. You don’t have to have your name attached with your posts. You can choose to post anonymously. But you have to be registered. You can sign up here. Curious about what we use the info for? Here is our privacy page.

Don’t want your real name used? No problem. You can pick an online handle. And others will be prevented from masquerading as you.

FYI, If you just want to read the blogs, you do not have to be registered.

So what does the new blog system offer? Well you can customize your comments a lot more than before. You can add links, images, even tables.

And if you want to start your own blog to share your opinions, you can do that too.

Got ideas or comments on our new blogs? Feel free to leave a comment or send me an e-mail.

Davin McHenry
Web Editor
dmchenry@bakersfield.com