April 15, 2005

So here I sit on the rear deck of my rented house, smoking a cigar and sipping a Courvoisier V.S.O.P. (by this you may deduce that my wife, Bonnie, is not home, nor will she be in the next several days) surrounded by redwoods and listening to the rushing sound of the rapids from the river beneath, feeling strangely sad.

I have just read of the passing of John Paul II.

To my catholic readers, you must know by now that I am not of the Roman persuasion. And I'm not sure that I agree with Henry Kissinger's comment that John Paul was perhaps the greatest man to live in the previous century. Something urges me to think that Einstein, Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan (and possibly, the two Roosevelts) fit in there somewhere -- not to speak of the notion that one or two non-"celebrities" may also qualify.

(Children playing on the banks of the river below, a breeze stiff and comfortable in a cool sort of way wheeze the limbs above my head.)

I am sad for my catholic brethren, sad that the world has lost a great man, and sad owing to my personal grief for this incalculable loss to humankind.

Believing as I do that when the natural sustenances of life leave us, we should be allowed to die with dignity and grace, I disagreed with John Paul (and Jesse Jackson) on the sad fate of Terri Schiavo.

I note with shocked and wry grin that my conservative friends have themselves an unexpected bedfellow. This gives new meaning to the term, apoplexy. Nor do I agree with his insistence that the war in Iraq was or is, unjust. The reason, or one of the reasons suggested that he opposed this war was that he had survived the Second World War and that was enough for him to conclude, enough! Given the supposition that Saddam was at least a junior caricature of Adolf,

"It is also worthy of note that friends of Florida judge George Greer describe him as a low-key conservative Christian, a Republican, a family man, a dog lover. Appellate courts have found over and over again that Greer simply followed the law in deciding a sad and controversial case. But for that sin, the Pinellas County Circuit Court judge was invited out of his Southern Baptist Church.* It is amazing to my simple mind that conservatives would grow hemorroids over the fact that every 'strict constructionist' judge ruled in favor of allowing Terri to die. Conservatives are no better or worse than liberals when suborning the law to bend to their own opinions." -- Cynthia Tucker, The Atlanta Journal

I would think that he would think that any force equal to the task of destroying evil and emancipating those under despotic dictatorship should be applauded, not discouraged -- viz., his position on Kosovo. I saw a twisted question yesterday. It asked, "What Would Jesus Bomb?" My thoughts were arrested at first. And then sanity returned. Against despotism and tyranny Jesus would use any "bomb" at his disposal, for example, a whip, or for example, insult and invective; of which he was rather talented. I wonder if any collateral damage occurred in the temple? Probably not. Jesus' whip was likely more accurate than our 'smart' bombs.

Among the things endearing of Pope John was his warmth, his smile, his approachableness and his moral rectitude. He stood on the right side of the abortion issue and recognized homosexuality for the unnatural perversion that it is. Many have politicized these concerns, but they were never political, not now, not ever. The catholic shepherd is to be admired and now missed for his courage in keeping his followers focused and if not in every case, stabilized.

It is reported that the Pope believed that "conversion" was not required for salvation. My question is, conversion to what? It is unclear that he meant conversion to Roman Catholicism, or conversion in the sense that protestant evangelicals mean it -- in the sense that Jesus meant it when he said, "you must be born again." Did the pontiff mean conversion to Roman Catholicism or conversion to Christ? They are not one in the same.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again." -- NIV

The traditional Christian position is that one must be born again. One must receive Christ as his or her own personal Lord and Savior. Add to this the force of John 14:6, and you have a plausible, forcible argument!

Still and all, I wonder if the Pope may be right. It has always haunted me.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -- NIV

How does one reach out to God the best one knows how, despite the accident of birth (if one can conceive of such a thing as an "accident") in some dark continent, or in a culture unaccustomed to the New Testament? How can such a one reach out in whatever description of faith, how can one reach out to a God who is love, and not have Him reach back? Is it possible that Jesus meant that his death, burial and resurrection is the payment for the sins of all humankind, regardless of how their faith is structured?

Could he have meant that without his sacrifice there is no remission of sins? Isn't that also a plausible argument? Please tell me where it is written in the Sacred Page that one must know the "Roman Road," or "The Four Spiritual Laws," or the meaning behind the acrostic God's Riches At Christ's Expense (G-R-A-C-E)? Perhaps what is required is not "conversion," but an authentic, instinctive desire to know God and experience his love, as a newborn would its mother's breast.

After all, to expand on Jesus' analogy, how much does an infant to do with its birth?

So now on this balmy Saturday afternoon in central coast California, a truly great man has left us to meet the One he served so admirably well. It would not surprise me to learn that he will find all the pomp and circumstance trappings of the institution he represented, gone. Instead, he will find Someone even more warm and approachable than he. It should be a joyous meeting. For all the beauty of life surrounding me, I would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I wonder if he is enjoying a heavenly cigar and a quality cognac with Billy Sunday and Jonathan Edwards, on a deck under the trees, overlooking a river and listening to the rapids?

Amen, John Paul. Amen, indeed!

-- PDM

Home