Uncategorized

Last weekend I was browsing headlines the lazy way, by seeing what comes up on the default AOL homepage, and one caught my eye, “Flood victims turn to prayer”. And I thought to myself, have we become such a secular society that when victims of a natural disaster pray, it makes national headlines? It sounds obvious to me, not at all newsworthy. I didn’t click on the headline, so I don’t know the context, but when I looked for it again today it took forever to find this story from the NY Daily News. Not a lot of surprises in the story, it mostly describes people’s reactions, weather service reports, and impacts on communities. What is interesting though, is that despite the headline, only the first two paragraphs in a two-page article mentions anything at all about prayer. Ok, maybe we’re not so secular that prayer makes headlines, but maybe we’re so polarized by religion that adding “prayer” to a link generates hits?

Then there’s the case of the teen who lost an arm to an alligator in Florida. I saw the first headline and ignored it, thinking it was too bad, but equating it with the all-too-common headlines of someone losing an arm or leg to a shark while surfing. I didn’t give the story a second thought until I saw the headline “Teen: God was with me when gator bit” and I checked it out. I was expecting a self-righteous “God saved me” but what I found instead was a humble acknowledgement that he couldn’t have survived if something divine didn’t intervene. But just like the NY Daily News article, only one paragraph out of 24 said anything related to the headline.

And then of course, who can forget the catchy headline, “God Busted for Selling Drugs Near Church“? Nothing religious at all in this article, but I still clicked.

But seriously, our God doesn’t need headlines. Our lives should be all the publicity he needs. What kind of press are you giving God? At work we have what we call “the 60 Minutes Rule”, meaning we should always ask ourselves if we would want what we’re doing to be reported on 60 Minutes. The hyper-religious might have a similar “700 Club Rule” or “World Net Daily Rule” but you get the picture. If you were interviewed on camera would the world know you’re a Christian? If you loudly proclaim it for the world to see, would those that know you best agree? Think about it, you never know when a headline might find you.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted. It’s been hard keeping up while chasing around my three year old or holding my eight month old. Even harder with a single computer that has to be shared. So not only haven’t I been able to post, but I haven’t been able to keep up with related news either. So it’s easy to go another week without finding the time to read up on all the blogs, Christian news, “main stream media,” and so on to come up with something to write about.

I haven’t been motivated spiritually either, but I’ll get into that in a second. I don’t go into too much personal here, because that’s not the point of this blog. But I can relate my personal struggles to the headlines of the day. So I want to flash back a few weeks to the headline that Sen. Barak Obama finally severed ties to his church of 20-ish years. I defended Rev. Wright here and here although I don’t necessarily agree with, yet understand, the reverse-segregation of that church. I also don’t really buy into Obama’s politically expedient religiosity, or his stated motivation for leaving his church. So I wasn’t surprised by the news. I was disappointed though, that it took so much grandstanding and media-whoring, from a guest preacher no less, to expose that church for what it is.

I feel for Barak. Despite my doubts as to the sincerity of his faith, his church was still a community he was a part of for a long time. I sure he has many deep relationships in that church. He’s probably shared as many victories as defeats while, “rejoic[ing] with those who rejoice, and mourn[ing] with those who mourn.” (Rom 12:15) And as he would frequently state in his defenses of Rev Wright, that here was the man who married him, counseled him, and baptized his children. But he had to say, “Enough.” He had to turn his back on so many memories, so many friends. All for the sake of politics. Is it worth it? I don’t know, but I understand why he fought so hard to postpone the inevitable.

I relate to some degree because right now I’m wrestling with my own congregation. I look at all the relationships, the victories, the defeats, the spiritual growth, and spiritual setbacks. And I ask, was it worth it? I ask, because I look around my congregation and I see a group of people who don’t seem to get it, who appear to be going to church for the sake of going to church. And I can tell by the focus of the recent sermons that I’m not the only one who sees it. It wasn’t always this way, and in talking with other brothers, no one can really put their finger on what’s going on. There are the easy buzzwords of “discipleship” and “evangelism” followed by the usual pep-rally preaching to try and stir up some “spiritual fervor” (Rom 12:11). But our history has shown that in the long run that doesn’t work. And that’s probably why it’s not working now.

It would be easy (not emotionally, granted) to walk away. From the outside looking in, one could understand, even sympathize. I could justify the decision as being expedient. And I could look at the example of Sen. Obama of doing what has to be done. But I won’t, I can’t. Unlike Obama, I won’t make the easy decision. I can’t do what would be expected, what would be understood. No, I’m going to stay and fight. Make the hard decision, do the unexpected, be misunderstood. Why? Because that’s the right thing to do.

Sen. Barak Obama speaks eloquently of change, inspires those around him, and offers hope to so many looking for a better country. But how can I trust the rhetoric when he won’t stand up and fight for his faith, his community? How can I trust his faith when it is so easily cast aside for the sake of politics?

I have news for Sen. Obama, the most crucial battle he’ll have to fight in his bid for the White House isn’t foreign diplomacy or a struggling economy. No, the most crucial battle will be for his very soul. And it will be the hardest fought and can’t be won with rhetoric or with a smile and a handshake. It can only be won with sincerity and deep conviction. “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” (Is 7:9) “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt 10:22)

There are some crazy Christians in the Antelope Valley. First, the Antelope Valley Press (link will expire in a week) reported on a woman whose home was vandalized after she spoke out against the Lancaster (CA) City Council displaying the slogan “In God We Trust”. She wants it treated as a hate crime, which I’m inclined to favor. Nothing like showing the love of Jesus by spray-painting “In God We Trust” on someone’s house.

The same day, Kieffe and Sons Ford in Mojave apologized for using a well-worn spam email in an ad campaign telling non-believers to “sit down and shut up” because they’re in the minority. After first being blogged about here, the story was eventually picked up overseas. I never did hear the ad before it was pulled. I guess I missed out.

The funny thing is, if we really believe, “In God We Trust” then does it really matter if others disagree? I don’t mean that in an inflammatory way, but rather if we really believe that then why retaliate against someone who believes differently, or tell them they need to shut up?

The irony? While my wife and I were discussing this over lunch, we were enjoying our In -N-Out burgers with “John 3:16” printed on the bottom of our sodas. Isn’t Free Speech a wonderful thing?

A pretty unsettling title for a Christian blog, don’t you think? But the truth is, I’m a total geek for the TV show Lost. Last night was the big finale, and I haven’t watched it yet SO DON’T SPOIL IT. But I usually read up on the “Doc Jensen” preview put up at Entertainment Weekly and it inspired me to post. (I admit to falling way behind and lacking motivation, so at least this gets me logged on.)

Religious themes are stashed all over in the show as there is an ongoing tension between the theological and philosophical, the empirical and the spiritual. There are mysteries throughout, and one of the funnest parts of being a “Lostie” is trying to keep up with other fans’ theories as to what in the world is really going on.

Early on, the main theory was that the island was Purgatory, but the writers/producers have said that’s not true. And there’s been too much science since the first season for that to be the case. There’s always something mystical going on, but usually later explained by science. But we still have unexplained healings, apparent moral judgements by “smokey”, and ghosts, a lot of ghosts.

My theory, once Purgatory was shot down, was that the island is Eden and all that we’ve seen since season two have been the results of people trying to exploit Eden for science. I’ve expanded to think that the purpose of the Dharma Initiative was in fact to scientifically either create or prove/disprove God. I’m still sticking with that theory in some form, but the show is good at proving most fans wrong.

I hope the show doesn’t take a strong anti-religion theme, which has become too common of late. But Doc Jensen sees the signs. I’ll post his observations and let you figure the rest out. Namaste!

”GOLDEN JESUS” AND OTHER SUBVERSIVE SYMBOLS

I know some of you don’t buy my theory that the smack-stuffed Virgin Mary idols were an encoded reference to Karl Marx’s critique of religion as the opiate of the masses. But what do you make of the golden Jesus statue belonging to Hurley’s mom — the one he almost employed as a club in last week’s episode? According to a simple Google search, ”Golden Jesus” happens to be street slang for heroin. Explain THAT one, non-believers!

Okay, fine: coincidence. But what about ”Oceanic 815”? Ever do research into that? ”Oceanic Feeling” was Sigmund Freud’s famous term to describe the (misunderstood) yearning for/belief in God. But almost as a parry to Freud’s thrust, there’s ”8:15,” which correlates to the Bible’s most famous oceanic survival tale, the story of Noah’s Ark, in which God destroys the world, then rebuilds it through a ”chosen one” and his family. The verse, Genesis 8:15, is famously one of the shortest in the Bible: ”And God said to Noah:”

And then there’s ”Bearing 305,” which is the directional heading the freighter needs to take to the Island, lest it get lost in the time-storm anomaly. This surely links to John 3:05, which was also one of the Biblical citations on Mr. Eko’s stick. It reads: ”Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and spirit.’ This verse is part of a larger passage that serves as the foundation of ”born again” Christian theology. However, it should be noted that the story of this verse involves a discussion between Jesus and a learned man named Nicodemus, who walks away from his initial encounter with Christ deeply confused.

Taken together with ”Christian Shephard” (Jesus) + ”Empty Coffin” (Empty Tomb) – ”Christian Shephard was a boozy, emotionally abusive, untrustworthy, adulterous jerk of a man,” and the sum total is a show that is supporting its ongoing thematic debate between science and faith with cleverly constructed symbols and allusions that mirror that discussion — and specifically grapple with the most critical, non-negotiable elements of the Christian faith: the claim that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead.

Am I wrong?

It was reported yesterday that the youngest daughter of Steven Curtis Chapman was killed in an accident at their home. My thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. It is tempting to take Satan’s approach to Job that it’s easy to glorify God when everything is going well. But one’s faith is truly tested when the inexplicable happens. Steven Curtis Chapman has certainly glorified God through his music, but also through his family and the adoption non-profit he founded. For tragedy to strike his family directly like this must be gut-wrenching as he is likely wrestling with the question of “why?”

To relate to this songwriter, I turn to another- Horatio Spafford. If the name isn’t familiar, he’s the writer of It is Well With My Soul, one of my favorite hymns. This is the story “behind the music” (courtesy of Wikipedia):

This hymn was writ­ten af­ter several trau­matic events in Spaf­ford’s life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871, shortly followed by the great Chi­ca­go Fire which ru­ined him fi­nan­cial­ly (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the S.S. Ville Du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business. While cross­ing the At­lan­tic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with an­o­ther ship, and all four of Spaf­ford’s daugh­ters died. His wife Anna sur­vived and sent him the now fa­mous tel­e­gram, “Saved alone.” Shortly afterwards, as Spaf­ford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daugh­ters had died…

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,

When sorrows like sea billows roll;

Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,

It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,

Let this blest assurance control,

That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,

And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!

My sin, not in part but the whole,

Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,

Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,

The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;

The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,

Even so, it is well with my soul.

This weekend, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian made $55 Million and came in first at the box office. Were you one of those who caught the movie this weekend? According to projected numbers, you weren’t. In fact, by some accounts the movie took in $20 Million less than anticipated. Obviously, you weren’t doing your Christian duty. What? You didn’t know that besides going to church on Sunday you were supposed to go see this movie? At least that’s the expectation of Hollywood execs, who believe that Christians are supposed to buy lockstep into anything resembling “Christian media.” And what better example than the movies based on the popular book series by C.S. Lewis. Maybe not enough Christians went to see the movie because the Christian message in the movie was diluted. According to a review in the San Francisco Chronicle, “The Christian allegory, unmistakable in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” is nowhere to be found in “Prince Caspian…” Alas, Lewis without Christianity just isn’t Lewis… [W]hat the movie needed throughout [was] a feeling of the consequences of living in a world without the presence of benevolent creation. Those are the true stakes of the battle.”

When I was a kid, I loved these books. But not because I’m a Christian. They were well written, imaginative, and of course the cartoon was really cool. I remember when a friend of mine was telling me the story of Aslan was representative of Christ. When re-watching the cartoon, and rereading the book, I didn’t see it. I guess the Spirit hadn’t yet blessed me with enough depth of theological insight to pick up on it, and I was embarrassed years later when I learned that my friend was right. I guess at that age, I was still immune to the efforts to market Christianity. (see my last post for my opinion of Stryper)

But who is it that is marketing the Gospel this time around? The movie was made by Walden Media, but it needed the muscle of Disney to distribute it. That’s right Disney, once one of the hottest targets for the Religious Right for promoting the “homosexual agenda.” But that’s old news. This is the second Narnia movie and there will be more and Disney hasn’t been in the crosshairs for a while. But it shows how difficult it is to be consistent across the board in supporting Christian media or even Christian businesses. They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but marketing makes the strangest of all.

A case in point is a recent article in Newsweek on Penthouse expanding into more mainstream markets. I guess print media’s share in the multi-billion dollar porn industry has dwindled considerably due to this new-fangled intra-web thingy. But what’s most funny is that one of Penthouse’s “honest” endeavors is a Christian-dating site. Goes to show that when money is going out of your wallet, you never know who you can trust.

Oh wait, yes you do. You know you can trust in God. Don’t put your faith in Christian media: Christian music, Christian websites, or Christian television. Put your faith in God above and in Jesus his son. The Gospel doesn’t need to be marketed to be powerful and effective. “As it is written: ‘See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.'” (Rom 9:33)

So all the talking heads tonight on cable news are still obsessing over Rev. Wright. He spoke this morning at the National Press Club and, much to Sen. Obama’s chagrin I’m sure, he did a Q&A following. His prepared remarks were much like his speech to the NAACP, but I admit that during the Q&A he crossed a couple of lines. But I continue to think that the media focuses too much on the content and not the context.

I’m not going to break down every word from this morning. I’d just be repeating myself anyway, just like all the talking heads tonight (and tomorrow, and probably the next night too). But I want to call you attention to some of what’s being written on the subject in the blogosphere. Specifically from the links to the right, comments from preachers, writers, and theologians. Opinions that, to me, carry more weights than the “experts” we find on cable news.

First over at the God’s Politics blog, Diana Butler Bass, an author with a PhD in church history, relates to Rev. Wright’s speech on Sunday. Then the On Faith community lists several blogs from authors, theologians, and preachers putting Rev. Wright’s words in perspective. Finally, the Beliefnet God-o-Meter lists several comments questioning the political consequences of Rev. Wright’s continued coverage in the press.

I don’t have much else to add, but I do want to offer my $0.02 on what Sen. Obama could do to overcome the bad press this is continuing to provide. If I were Sen. Obama (which would also assume that I’m black) I would embrace Rev. Wright’s characterization of the African American Church instead of hiding from it. I would adopt Rev. Wright’s cadence. And I would begin to preach the social change that frames the context of the worst of Rev. Wright’s rhetoric.

Isn’t that what we want in the leader of the free world? If his church is condemning American international, racial, and economic policies (note “policies” not the country itself) wouldn’t it make sense to project himself as the agent to bring about the change being called for in those sermons? If his hope is in Jesus, shouldn’t he have the same ambition as President Reagan to let his little light shine, and desire America to be “a city set upon a hill” instead of the imperialistic hypocrites that much of the world presently views us as?

I don’t see it happening. Not with the overriding fear of the ever-present Separation of Church and State. But it would be a refreshing change from what even Rev. Wright recognizes as just “playing politics.”

So I’m on the road this week for work, so I’ll have an opportunity to post more often than once every couple of weeks, which regrettably has been the trend of late. Besides being able to blog more regularly, I also get to watch TV! I don’t mean to glorify the idiot box; in fact we don’t have cable at home because there’s not enough worth watching to justify the price and there is too much depravity to want it if it was free. But I thrive off of being able to catch up on news and sports when I’m off the road. So I turn on the TV and start flipping and what do I find? The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, speaking at a NAACP event. Ok, I can see that, given how much press his relationship with Senator Barak Obama has gotten and how much traction a snippet of an “un-American” sermon has had in the press. So I watched, figuring I’d get a few minutes before the news went on with their regularly scheduled programming. And I watched. And I watched. Shockingly, the whole speech was broadcast. And now I’m watching all the talking heads dissect every word while announcing that that special we were going to show will eventually come on sometime later tonight or early tomorrow morning. Whodathunkit?

I’m not going to add my voice to the fray and offer yet another view of his speech and how it plays in the presidential election. But I will say this: he’s good. In fact, he’s really good. But it wasn’t a sermon. And it wasn’t from the pulpit. I was impressed with his delivery, the depth of his preparation, and even the substance of a “Change is Going to Come.” I posted before that such language is wholly appropriate for a politician or an agent of social change. Personally, I don’t know is theology. I don’t even really know is politics. But I do think a mountain has been made of this molehill. And it comes down to a media that is thirsty for a villain.

I was earlier reading a debate on why do we lump the whole Muslim religion in with the acts of extremist terrorists, but we don’t do the same for Christians or other religious groups? Now the example given was weak, and draws a firm distinction between religion and nationalism. But as hostile as our culture seems to be towards Christianity, the media still doesn’t paint with the broad brush of saying that Rev. Wright represents Christianity as a whole, nor does Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Fred Phelps, Warren Jeffs, or Joel Osteen. But they make good news.

So here was an opportunity for a proclaimed man of God to have the national stage, politics aside. His introduction too, given I think by Rev. Wendell Anthony (they don’t show the introduction as often as replays of Wright’s speech) was a fiery “sermon” describing a God of hope, not of hate; of peace, not of war; and of unity, not of division and a servant of God, in Wright, that continues a long tradition in Christianity of “troubling the waters”. This was a unique forum for Ambassadors of Christ to a world increasingly hostile to religion permeating a diverse culture. Combined with the extensive press Pope Benedict XVI received a week ago, and you could argue that Christianity is finding itself in a rare positive light.

Positive, because these headlines aren’t being dominated by homophobia, war-mongering, race-baiting, blue or red, corruption, or scandal. Instead the headlines are about humility, change, and hope. Despite theology, denomination, or political affiliation, I would argue that God is being glorified by these men and these opportunities. And for that, I say Amen! Do I agree with everything they say? Of course not, but it doesn’t matter because as Paul wrote, “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

I was able to listen to the ceremonies at the White House this morning (thank you XM Radio!) and I’ll post thoughts on that later after I have a chance to review the transcripts.

But I wanted to first follow up on the Newsweek article I linked last night. I want to primarily talk about the role of the Pope as a political and moral authority on the world stage. I’m no papal historian, so I just want to pull some quotes from the article and comment.

There are centuries of history tying the papacy to politics, empire building, wars, and corruption. But more recently, with less explicit political power, the Popes of the 20th Century have been agents of positive change helping WWI refugees, opposing Nazism and communism, and advocating what John Paul II frequently called the “Culture of Life.” Now the first Pope of the 21st Century, Pope Benedict XVI has some awfully big shoes to fill.

The Newsweek article points to John Paul II’s visit to Poland in 1979 as a watershed event in global politics not appreciated or recognized at the time. It wasn’t until the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Politburo collapsed that hindsight saw his visit as the catalyst that gave birth to the Solidarity movement. What’s striking about that visit, the article notes, was how Pope John Paul II never talked specifically about politics or economics. Rather, he focused on the country’s religious history and identity.

Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Lecture on Faith and Reason in 2006 is compared to JPII’s Poland visit by Newsweek as Benedict’s first geo-political battle. His statements are often reported in the press as insensitive, feeding anti-Muslim sentiment while fueling Islamic extremism. Yet the article points out that the opposite is really true and how it has forced Muslim leaders to look inward in the fight against Islamists.

Such an accomplishment sounds impossible in a world where it is widely felt that, “religious and moral conviction is irrelevant to shaping the flow of contemporary history. They may give meaning to individual lives; but change history? Please. The world has outgrown that.”

I think both John Paul II and Benedict XVI look like religious leaders should. Instead of directly attacking the current headline, they appeal to people’s hearts by applying the Gospel. Instead of debating red or blue, they address human nature and the power of the resurrection. Division of church and state? This approach is far from the theocracy that so many Americans fear and should be used as examples of how our candidates should approach their faith- as moral compasses, not policy defining.

The article continues to compare Benedict to John Paul in terms of the long range influence of their theology. The author notes how popular John Paul II’s encyclicals are in seminaries, but notes that should short change what the current Pope offers. Where I’ve come to admire Pope Benedict XVI the most is how his writings are Christ, not Church, centered. His is a theology, much like his predecessor’s, that can be embraced by Christianity as a whole.

One example from the article describes how a child asked how Jesus could be present in the Eucharist when we can’t see him. Transubstantiation is disputed in Protestant churches, but the Pope didn’t bog his answer down in that debate. Instead he replied, “No, we cannot see him; there are many things we do not see, but they exist and are essential … We do not see an electric current; yet we see that it exists. We can see that this microphone is working, and we see lights. We do not see the very deepest things, those that really sustain life and the world, but we can see and feel their effects … So it is with the Risen Lord: we do not see him with our eyes, but we see that wherever Jesus is, people change, they improve, there is a greater capacity for peace, for reconciliation …” And that answer, I believe, can be embraced by Catholic and Protestant alike.

Likewise another child asked about having to go to confession. Again, the Pope didn’t reply by answering, “whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven and whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven,” and defending the role of the priesthood. Instead he described confession much like grace was described during the sermon at my church a couple of weeks ago. “It’s very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true: our sins are always the same, but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week, even if the dirt is always the same … Otherwise the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. Something similar can be said about the soul, about me: if I never go to confession, my soul is neglected and in the end I’m always pleased with myself and no longer understand that I must work hard to improve …”

I just read a thread on a message board mocking the current Pope- comparing him to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, harping on his involvement in the Hitler Youth, and noting how he’s “soooo much more boring than the last guy!” But those close to Benedict note that still waters run deep, and that while he may not have the magnetic personality of John Paul II he has a depth of practical theology that more than makes up for it. I happen to agree. And I look forward to this Pope being an Ambassador of Christ on the world stage.

Today, Pope Benedict XVI stepped on American soil for the first time. Despite his timing, it is not a political trip in the truest sense but is purely business, speaking at the United Nations marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See a rundown of his itinerary here.

I’m following this visit with great interest. I grew up Catholic, was a good altar boy (spare the jokes), was Deputy Grand Knight of my campus Knights of Columbus, and saw, within spitting distance, Pope JPII when he visited Denver for World Youth Day. The book “His Holiness” continues to inspire me despite my lapsing from the Catholic faith and embracing what I feel to be a truer (evangelical? fundamentalist?) Christianity. When John Paul the Second passed away, I watched with breathless anticipation the selection of the new Pope, praying that his predecessor would follow his footsteps in leading the Catholic church in a more ecumenical, less traditional direction. While staunchly conservative (not necessarily in the political sense) Catholics cheered the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger I was skeptical of the “Pope’s Rottweiler“. And to be honest, I haven’t followed him much since with the exception of applauding his statements in Regensburg, Germany where he “suggested that Islam had lost its reason and the West had lost its faith.”

So I read with joy this article in Newsweek on the Pope’s evolving role on the world geo-political stage. I’ll be back later with more comments on the article, but encourage you to also follow the Pope’s visit through the On Faith blogs linked here and over on the right.