James, a bond slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion, salutation. (James 1:1)
James B. Adamson begins his commentary with the assumption that James is the brother of Jesus. He argues this point in detail in his introduction. I have chosen not to include that detail because I prefer to start right away with the text of the Epistle and Adamson’s related commentary. However, if anyone is interested in the arguments presented in the introduction, please let me know and I will write about them. Alternatively, readers can order the commentary.
I have been working my way through the Book of James using the commentary of James B. Adamson1. As I read, every section seems relevant to our political conversation so I decided that I may as well share it here. This first article in the series will introduce Dr. Adamson and explain his unique approach to James. This is important in my opinion, because it adds to the enjoyment of the work.
In the Epistle of James, Chapter 3, James continues his teachings on wisdom. The first half of the Epistle instructs the Christian on the duty to guard his tongue. Adamson refers to James 1:26 for example.
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. (Bible quotations are taken from the Catholic Bible NABRE unless otherwise stated).
This is an essay for politicians who seem to have forgotten the important relationship between mercy and judgment in 2025. It’s also for their colleagues and loved ones.
If you’re wondering why I’m picking on politicians, it’s because there is a raging epidemic of politicians who don’t feel they have to answer to anyone, least of all their constituents. Nor do they bother to respond to the pleas of religious leaders begging them to change their ways. This is particularly reckless behavior because it is the duty of religious leaders to care for their immortal souls.
I should have known this would happen, but I never considered it. And now it’s time to say good bye to Pope Francis. I have spent quite a bit of time watching other people’s tributes to him. I couldn’t imagine how they could say anything so soon, but of course they aren’t writing blogs on their own schedule. They have editors, managers, and advisors. But their tributes were helpful. I’ll link them at the end.
After Cardinal Pell passed away, I happened to watch a 1993 debate between Pell and Father Uren SJ. Also participating in the debate were Catholic lay people and priests on both sides of the debate. (The two sides sat in separate groups.) The debate was published by Church Militant Australia. Judging by the comments, this organization expected viewers to be sympathetic to Pell and his group. I thought it demonstrated Cardinal Pell’s delusions of grandeur.
Fighting Vatican II and the Jesuits
As a non-CatholicI knew nothing about the debates taking place in the decades following Vatican II, so I didn’t realize that Pell was part of a faction that has been fighting Vatican II since the beginning. Nor did I know that this faction is fighting the Jesuits in particular.
Pope John Paul’s Encyclical on Contraception
The debate centered on an encyclical letter from Pope John Paul, which contains his teachings on contraception. It became clear that Pell thought it was his job to bring members in line with this encyclical, even though it contradicted previous teachings. His response to objections from other participants, was to act as thought his word should be final. Many of the participants seemed insulted by this approach.
Father Uren Explains That an Encyclical Can Be Debated
Father Uren explained that an encyclical letter is not supposed to be above debate. But Pell argued that it should not be debated at all, at least not on television. He stopped short of demanding obedience.
Why Did This Video Shock Me?
I am not going to argue any of these points because I am aware that this Pell faction still exists today. What I hope to do is explain what shocked me about this video. I was shocked because I realized that the insults Cardinal Pell has given to Pope Francis were part of this old debate. Even though this debate is now more than 30 years old, this faction is still determined to keep the Church captive to its own idea of what the Church should be. It wouldn’t matter to me if not for the fact that these people have been successful.
Hubris is not a strong enough word. Arrogance is better. This is one of the most outrageous things I have ever witnessed. And it may even explain Pell’s support of Donald Trump.
I thought highly of Cardinal Pell when I saw how he conducted his debate with a well-known atheist, so it pained me when he publicly supported Donald Trump’s bad behavior and criticized Pope Francis.
There was more than one occasion when he was publicly disrespectful to Pope Francis. Now we know that he was also disrespectful in private. It has come out since his death that he was the author of an anonymous letter criticizing Pope Francis.
Pell Tries to Influence a Our Election
Pell’s insults to Francis were hurtful to me when I first heard them. Now that I understand what was going on I can hardly believe this man would carry his fight into the Vatican and rail against a sitting pope. And it wasn’t just Pope Francis who he opposed. He opposed the Jesuits as a group. The conservative Catholics seem to blame the Jesuits for Vatican II.
You could say that when Pell tried to influence our election It was as if the rest of us didn’t exist. Regardless of Pope Francis’s contributions to the world, all Pell cared about was this obscure debate. Pell lost touch with everything but his own delusions of grandeur. It’s embarrassing.
Catholic Democrat Joe Manchin’s position on the child tax credit has put him at odds with important allies such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Orthodox Union. Unfortunately, these groups are in a somewhat embarrassing position after objecting to the bill’s mandate that faith-run pre-kindergarten and childcare programs obey federal non-discrimination statutes. Manchin used their objections as an excuse for his own objections, which have more to do with his dislike of helping those in need.
Political negotiations first broke down when Manchin proposed to White House officials that the bill maintain elements of the original legislation but omit an expansion of the child tax credit. Then, this week Manchin told reporters he supports the child tax credit, but only if there is a work requirement for the parents involved.
Senator Manchin has been trumpeting his work requirement for months despite his religious allies’ prediction that if the requirement becomes part of the law families who don’t pay income tax due to lack of income would not receive the benefit.
In a September 7 letter, bishops voiced support for the child tax credit expansion without the work requirement.
“It is especially important that the credit remain fully refundable to ensure the most economically vulnerable children benefit from this family support.”
The National Association of Evangelicals has not taken a position on the Build Back Better Act as a whole, but the group’s vice president for government relations, Galen Carey, has consistently expressed support for the child tax credit provision. He was asked this week about tying work requirements to the child tax credit.
“We support making the child tax credit fully available to the families who need the help the most,” he said in a statement. “Work is critically important to human dignity but having a particular level of earned family income should not be a prerequisite to accessing support for their children. Full CTC refundability is what makes it such a powerful anti-poverty tool.”
The Poor People’s Campaign, a faith-led activist group that often advocates for liberal-leaning legislation, has been protesting against Manchin’s position for months. The Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, called Manchin’s excuses a “regression back to the tired debate of deserving and undeserving poor.”
Progressives may have forgotten what an incredible accomplishment the child tax credit was because it was just one item on a very long wish list. We may have also forgotten to give the Biden administration credit for its implementation.
This benefit was perfectly aimed at the most vulnerable members of society–children. And it had the added benefit of demonstrating how valuable the nation’s children are to the President and the people alike. In my opinion, if the child tax credit is all that can be salvaged from the Build Back Better Act, its survival will be a cause for celebration.
President Biden has a clear mandate. I urge his administration to extend the child tax credit–without Manchin’s work requirement.
The last article left unanswered questions. Should progressives hope for political success under the logic of Christian theology? How are Christians to understand failure and disappointment in this important work?
Since the 2020 election, the question of the hour has been Where do we go from here? The answer to this question depends on your view of reality. From the secular point of view, we have heard sound political proposals and strategies. In a video no longer available on YouTube, N.T. Wright answers it with Christian eschatology. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
“There is no excuse for Christians not being involved in the work here and now,” Wright says, but the question is, how? He begins by rejecting two common reactions to the current political situation. The first one is, “There’s nothing we can do.”; the second one is, “Our clever planning will bring God’s kingdom.”
Wright stresses that Christian eschatology is similar to Jewish eschatology. He bases this on scriptures from the Old and New Testaments. From the Book of Daniel, chapters 2 and 7, he concludes that when God sets up his kingdom that can’t be shaken, He will set it up here on earth.
Where is Heaven?
The Jews were creational and conventional monotheists. Therefore, they did not envision Heaven and Earth as two separate realms. Heaven and earth are meant to come together, but how, and in what form?
The coming together of Heaven and Earth and the future renewal of creation will be like the resurrection of Jesus. It will be the creation of something new out of the old.
Paul’s eschatology shapes the mission of the Church. Heaven and Earth, or the two ages, will overlap…or rather, they do overlap.
“God has made the world so it will flourish under wise obedient human care.”
The creation knows it is meant to flourish under the wise rule of human beings…God has subjected the present creation to futility because He designed it to work properly under the image-bearers.
So how are we to apply Paul’s eschatology to the efforts and disappointments of progressives? N.T. Wright says Paul’s ‘monotheism and election’ is a new version of the Church’s mission in which we go out in prayer, expecting set-backs, and believing that God has a secret way to rescue the world. In other words, this vision is not triumphalist. It starts with sharing the pain of the world
We are justified in order to be justice-hungry people in an unjust world. We are put right in order to be putting right people for the world.
Is it possible that Christianity doesn’t know what is unique about its own teachings? The Pontifical Council’s document on New Age implies that Christianity fears the New Age. However, Aquarius may be more compatible with Christianity than Pisces was. There’s no need to fear the New Age. The real problem is that the world is stuck in the Age of Pisces. The Council should have addressed that problem instead. Evidence of the world’s wrong turn can be found in the increasing influence of Hermeticism at a time when it should be fading away.
Hermeticism is not compatible with the Age of Aquarius. Siva/Hermes is associated with Hermeticism. Pisces was the age of Siva/Hermes. However, Saturn rules the Age of Aquarius. Saturn is the planet of Brahma. Brahma and Siva/Hermes have different characteristics and preside over different types of societies.
Brahma, Hindu God, Creator
Why Doesn’t the Pontifical Council Deal with These Things?
Perhaps the Pontifical Council doubted that an astronomical age has real effects in the world. If so, Christians are right and wrong at the same time. The New Age will have real effects in the world, but the Church is the remedy.
What does an Age of the World Mean to Jesus?
I don’t consider Brahma and Siva/Hermes to be gods, but I think they have a type of reality. Jesus seems to have known that two competing orders of justice confront the human race. They are the Justice of the Rupture and the Justice of the Whole. If that is the case, we need the Church (the Justice of the Rapture) to tell us how the human race is expected to exist in a cosmic order ruled by the Age of Aquarius (the Justice of the Whole).
The Secular World is Equally, or maybe more, Mistaken
How is it possible that the secular world’s expectations of the New Age are wrong? Maybe the secular world doesn’t understand the importance of the Planet Saturn in myth and religion. At the beginning of the Age of Pisces, Siva/Hermes claimed Saturn for himself because it was central to the religious system that legitimated his rule. However, Saturn is not his Planet. Saturn is Brahma’s planet. Brahma will rule over the Age of Aquarius. This means she will reign over the cosmic order. (Edward Moor called Brahma ‘she’.) ((Edward Moor F.R.S., The Hindu Pantheon, T. Bensley, Bolt-Court, Fleet Street, 1810))</p>
Madame Blavatsky was Wrong
The significance of the planet Saturn was either not understood by Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, or it was deliberately obscured. The result is that the Theosophists did not usher us in to the new age. They saddled us with a hashed-over version of Saivism. The entire effort was a waste of time because the coming age does not belong to Siva/Hermes. Madame Blavatsky was wrong.
Blavatsky’s writings contributed to the racism of the Nazi Party. They were also influential in modern physics. Her determination to rehabilitate Lucifer/Siva as the god of the New Age turned him into the patron of the Bomb. This association is problematic, in spite of the fact that the age of Lucifer/Siva is over.
It’s true that one of Siva’s names is The Destroyer, but Siva’s destruction is not annihilation. It is the destruction wrought by time. The Bomb on the other hand, is all about annihilation.
What will the New Age Look Like?
Christianity fears the New Age. However it seems to me that the Age of Aquarius is not in conflict with Christianity any more than Pisces was. Aquarius might even be more compatible with Christianity. New Age believers, on the other hand, believe it is opposed to the Church. The Church seems to have been confused with an age of the world.
Don’t Fear the New Age
Section 6 of the Pontifical Council’s document says, there is a choice to be made between Aquarius and Christ. I agree. It can be argued that there is an attempt to oppose Christ to Aquarius. Interpretations of Aquarius may have led to the current belief that the ancient separation of male and female will no longer be in force. Some say humans ‘should be systematically called to take on an androgynous form of life. This will allow the two sides of the brain to be used in harmony at the right time. This is one instance where the Church is seen as opposition to the new age. The phrase, ‘should be systematically called’ might explain the motive and exuberance behind the transgender movement.
Conclusion
New Age movements have been celebrating the coming of Aquarius. However, Aquarius doesn’t look so promising at this time. I’m sure believers didn’t expect it to begin with an environmental and economic crisis. That’s one of the risks of making predictions. The New Age movements seem to be obeying their own erroneous interpretation of the cosmic order. In this way, they’ve turned it into dogma. Does an age of the world need humans to implement it? I don’t think so. Maybe the secular world is the one that lacks faith in the power and nature of the ages. They think Aquarius will be their age and they prefer to face it without the Church. But the planets are indifferent to human thriving.
Christianity fears the New Age. Or maybe the Christians merely fear the human interpretation of it.
See Also: the Shechinah, divine attribute of kingship
It’s disconcerting to talk about Christian grace in a blog like this.You think about it later and worry about how you phrased it, or how others might take it. There is the fear that it will be misunderstood in the context of common assumptions about what is required to be successful in this life—that it will be interpreted as boasting.
And I realized after publishing the last post that I didn’t mention Jesus. Or did I?
Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely; the peace of God given to the restless; the unmerited favor of God…Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve.Grace is getting what you don’t deserve, and not getting what you do deserve. [Grace] is Jesus Christ in redeeming action
By the world’s standards grace is extraordinary, strange, and counterintuitive.
