Thanks, Keith. I understand. I had hoped that the language might evoke recollection of a variety of ways we allude to the story of Christ. In particular, many saw immediately the allusion to the story of the prodigal son, which, as NT Wright points out, prefigures the story of Israel recapitulated on the cross. And those from a liturgical tradition such as mine seemed to recognize the allusion to the words of institution in the Eucharist, which are all about the gift of memory, "Do this in remembrance of me." The use of echo and allusion in language aimed at those who don't have the relationship you have is a strategic decision. When folks are skeptical and mostly ignorant of our story, best practice is to choose language that flies below the radar in order to keep the conversation going, knowing that the gift of trust will enable them to understand our story over time. It is a dialectical process. If you insist on words that trigger puzzlement in such persons, you shutdown the conversation. So it's best to unpack the story over time as the relationship develops.

Keith,

What does this evoke for you: "until we receive the gift of memory that leads us home"?

I explained that above Keith. I don't have to mention the word "Christ" for a sentence to be about Christ, right? My entire paragraph was about Christ. Perhaps the distinction between an echo, an allusion, and a quote is familiar to you from Scriptural study? My text is filled with allusions that many Christians would get, but it is not necessary to catch the allusions to get the basic point I was making to my non-Christian audience. 

katievs & John, 

One other point on the language of memory: it guards against the contemporary impulse to reduce redemption merely to a human decision to embrace a proposition about Jesus, to make it merely an act of the intellect. Memory implies a history, and a history implies a relationship. To remember that relationship is to resume that history, which implies the actions that constitute love. Think about the parable of the prodigal son(s). So, if it's not both about Christ and relational, it is not Christianity. Memory is the ancient way of speaking of redemption, but it is particularly helpful in our time.

John Murdoch, 

Two responses: (1) we don't live in a fallen world; we live in a redeemed world. A new aeon. Time has been bisected by the Cross. Those with eyes to see, see resurrection. All things are new.

(2) Predestination does mean that the Eternal God wills to be forever with us. It does not mean that God causes or wills evil. You raise an important issue of theodicy that is worth a wider discussion. The blasphemy is in our naming of our evil as God's will. The classic example of this is the uniform patch 'God is Good' on the shoulders of SS guards as Auschwitz. Humans do evil, not God. Evil is contrary to God's nature.

katievs, I did not extract the gospel's essence; I encoded it completely in sparse language. There's a world of difference. I would object to the behavior you describe. Here' s an example of the gospel in the most concise form I know: God is the one we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our entire story - all of Scripture - is encapsulated in the Gloria. Which is why we sing it endlessly....

I don't believe you reach non-believers with words they can't understand. The mysteries are comprehensible only to those for whom our story has become their story, a gift of the Spirit. You only understand faith if you see it. You only understand hope if you see it.  You only understand charity if you see it. So encounter and relationship come before words. The words have meaning only in relationship. Unpack the words as the seeker is readied by the Spirit. Living hands of Christ first, the mysteries later. 

Fr Craig or Craig, as you prefer.

Redemption as recollection of our identity is seen first in the Jewish Passover liturgy which is the basis of our liturgy. In Exodus, the Hebrews knew YHWH in Joseph's time, but no longer remembered God by Moses' time. But God remembered them. Sin as a forgetting of one's identity is a forgetting of one's history with God. And what is a relationship but a history with another whom one knows as subject? We know God only because we have a history with God. To know God is to know ourselves as creatures. Alienation from God in all forms consists ultimately of forgetting this history which is a love story between Creator and creature. Hence Augustine describes salvation in terms of memory (Confessions, ch 10?) 

When we encounter Christ, we encounter Creator, and are reminded that we are creature, in need of grace. Note that we remember our sin and then re-member Christ in Eucharist, and only then enter his presence.

John and katievs, 

I certainly could re-write that paragraph, but, as I mentioned in the text, my audience was non-Christian, and my goal was to communicate in language comprehensible to those unfamiliar or skeptical of the gospel because of the caricatures of it to which they have been exposed. But allusions (placeholders for me, really) to the doctrines of sin and redemption in Christ are in my text, and they are easy for me to unpack. If that would be helpful, I would be happy to do so.

I think you are correct in your interpretation of Mourdock's words. The concern of my reflection, however, is less with Mourdock and more with what I have called the parody of Christian doctrine that is operative sometimes among Christians but more often among Christianity's critics. Note how my friend 'heard' his words. She represents those whom I'd most like to reach in this piece, for much misunderstanding animates skepticism toward the life of faith in our time.