One of the favourite forms of ancient literature was the farewell address attributed to a great person, and in which that person's legacy is summarized. The author of John uses this technique in today's gospel pericope (13: 31-35) to express the core of Jesus' teachings.
The essence of this address is that the disciples (hence, the Church) should love one another as Jesus loved us, with a radical, unconditional, unlimited love. Quite a tall order. In John's gospel, Jesus is not found teaching love of neighbour or love of enemies, as elsewhere. In John it is love of one's fellow Christian, whereby outsiders will know we are Christian. Whilst we acknowledge the centrality of love of others, including our enemies, in the Christian message, John is quite right. It must start here among us who are called to be Jesus in the world and to build the Divine Kingdom.
In his nineties, the apostle John had to be carried into Mass on a stretcher at Ephesus where he would preach propped up on one elbow. On the day he died, he was so weak he could not even raise himself. His final words, uttered in that last sermon were: "Little children, love one another; that is enough."
Notice that the old commandment, Love God and neighbour as oneself, issues in a new commandment from Jesus, to love one another as he loved us. Both are commands. To love is to not an emotion or a feeling or an idea; it is a decision we choose to make. We may not at some moments very much like a spouse, dear friend, or frustrating child, but we continue to love them because we obey the command calling us to commitment. Love is a commitment made, for the love of God.
In our Acts reading (11: 1-18) Peter is made to tell us that God has no favourite people, that all who love God and try to do right are acceptable. What a concept! That means we as Catholic Christians must be radically inclusive and non-judgmental. Let that sink in. That is the kind of people we are to be. If the world sees bigotry, exclusion, and self-righteousness in us, it will reject our Christ. And that will be on us.
So, as Jesus tells us today, it will not be by our theological correctness, or our moral purity, or our impressive knowledge that we will be known as Christians. It will be by our love, demonstrated in acts of self-sacrifice and service.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
St. Alphege: Walking the Walk
Born in 954 CE, Alphege began his religious career as a monk in Gloucestershire, then decided to be a hermit in Somerset. In response, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint Dunstan, appointed Alphege Abbot of a monastery in Bath. Then in the year 984 he was ordained to be the bishop of Winchester. There he became noted for two qualities: personal austerity and lavish generosity.
In 994 he met with Danish chieftains Anlaf and Swein who had raided London and Wessex. As a result of their meeting, Anlaf became a Christian and gave up his war-making. In 1005, Alphege became the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior clergy in England.
Six years later, Danes again overran southern England, captured Canterbury, and imprisoned several clergy for ransom. All the ransoms were paid except for the conquerors' demand for the outrageous sum of three thousand pounds for Alphege. (In today's US dollars, that is $20.7 million.) He forbade it to be paid, so he alone was not released by the captors. After a drunken feast, they killed him with ox bones, and he was buried at St. Paul's.
Alphege is often called "Canterbury's first martyr" and is noted for his Christ-like humility, his self- giving and his remarkable integrity.
In 994 he met with Danish chieftains Anlaf and Swein who had raided London and Wessex. As a result of their meeting, Anlaf became a Christian and gave up his war-making. In 1005, Alphege became the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior clergy in England.
Six years later, Danes again overran southern England, captured Canterbury, and imprisoned several clergy for ransom. All the ransoms were paid except for the conquerors' demand for the outrageous sum of three thousand pounds for Alphege. (In today's US dollars, that is $20.7 million.) He forbade it to be paid, so he alone was not released by the captors. After a drunken feast, they killed him with ox bones, and he was buried at St. Paul's.
Alphege is often called "Canterbury's first martyr" and is noted for his Christ-like humility, his self- giving and his remarkable integrity.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Culture Conquers Church
In the traditional historic Church, we are accustomed to arriving at our parish church named for the Saint under whose protection it is dedicated. And the Communion will clearly be stated, e.g. Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox, Ecumenical Catholic, and so forth. Faithful pass through a narthex into the nave where they join with the ordained and other commissioned ministers in the sanctuary, worshipping God following tried-and-true ancient tradition.
In the emerging paradigm, the worshipper arrives at a "campus," often a "satellite campus" entering a "worship centre" whose "auditorium" or "space" affords a light and sound show on a "stage," where one can receive a "worship experience." More and more the church is named for a vague concept like "Comfort" or "Abundance," "Wisdom" or "Journey," and sometimes for the geography, "Lake Crest" or "Church on a Mound." Sometimes the congregation even sports a snazzy promotional name, like "Church on a Roll" or "Church that Gets It." Many promote themselves through logo window decals for cars and high visibility public events. One often has to guess the flavour of such a congregation, because it either has no denominational affiliation (so, where do they get their teachings?) or the denomination's name has deliberately been reduced to small type on advertising or eliminated altogether, to gain advantage in attracting new folks.
There is certainly a different ambience. I don't want to judge the sincerity or effectiveness of these newcomers to the Christian scene. But I do ask myself certain questions about this phenomenon. For example, shouldn't the fundamental teachings of a religious congregation be identifiable? To say "We believe the Bible" is nonsense; there are more than thirty thousand protestant denominations unable to agree on its interpretation. I would be confused if the congregation's belief system is whatever the pastor thinks that week and, if it is, I would be particularly interested to know about his theological education and training.
I would also love to know the extent to which the worship experiences take root in the believer's life beyond simply an emotional high. A non-sacramental system must surely touch a worshipper in a different way, perhaps with an immediacy that is missing from churches deeply rooted in the two thousand years of Christian history. As with all of us, by their fruits ye shall know them.
In the emerging paradigm, the worshipper arrives at a "campus," often a "satellite campus" entering a "worship centre" whose "auditorium" or "space" affords a light and sound show on a "stage," where one can receive a "worship experience." More and more the church is named for a vague concept like "Comfort" or "Abundance," "Wisdom" or "Journey," and sometimes for the geography, "Lake Crest" or "Church on a Mound." Sometimes the congregation even sports a snazzy promotional name, like "Church on a Roll" or "Church that Gets It." Many promote themselves through logo window decals for cars and high visibility public events. One often has to guess the flavour of such a congregation, because it either has no denominational affiliation (so, where do they get their teachings?) or the denomination's name has deliberately been reduced to small type on advertising or eliminated altogether, to gain advantage in attracting new folks.
There is certainly a different ambience. I don't want to judge the sincerity or effectiveness of these newcomers to the Christian scene. But I do ask myself certain questions about this phenomenon. For example, shouldn't the fundamental teachings of a religious congregation be identifiable? To say "We believe the Bible" is nonsense; there are more than thirty thousand protestant denominations unable to agree on its interpretation. I would be confused if the congregation's belief system is whatever the pastor thinks that week and, if it is, I would be particularly interested to know about his theological education and training.
I would also love to know the extent to which the worship experiences take root in the believer's life beyond simply an emotional high. A non-sacramental system must surely touch a worshipper in a different way, perhaps with an immediacy that is missing from churches deeply rooted in the two thousand years of Christian history. As with all of us, by their fruits ye shall know them.
The Case for Socialism
President Abraham Lincoln once remarked that government should do only what the People cannot do for themselves, or not so well. That has always seemed to me to be the most reasonable statement concerning the legitimate role of government. What the People cannot do for themselves certainly includes coining money, operating the national armed forces and intelligence services, providing for equal treatment of citizens, and myriad other functions.
As regards what the People cannot do so well, think Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid The programs maintained are enormous; and they have been well-managed until our Congress began to interfere with their operations, steal dedicated funds, and cut operational budgets. The practicality of central government management is obvious, and should be extended to our health care system and public education, as it is in every other developed Western nation.
How would that work? Well, our central government would then negotiate directly with hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers, and practitioners to get best possible prices for every service. Without a parasitic health insurance industry in the way, we the People would be ensured much lower costs, and the expense of coverage for all our citizens would be funded directly by federal taxation. Wouldn't you want to pay higher federal taxes, knowing that you would never again have to pay for medical and health-related expenses out-of-pocket? Wouldn't it be assuring to know that you could never face bankruptcy by trying to meet your own or family's health-care costs? Wouldn't it be morally satisfying to know that the working poor no longer have to choose between medicine and rent, or between medicine and food?
The same principle of central governmental efficiency could also be made to work for funding higher education. More and more Americans are being priced out of the market or else saddled with huge student loan debt. Socialized higher education would mean that parasitic lenders would be taken out of the equation, as our national government negotiated costs and began to fund public higher education. In addition, our country would benefit significantly by having a better educated work force that can be more competitive in the world. Wouldn't you pay higher taxes, knowing that America could again be the educational and economic leader of the world? Wouldn't it be nice to know that you don't have to live among uneducated people and the ensuing economic insecurity?
The time has come to invest in our people, in our quality of life, and in our future as a nation. The socialization of the medical care system and of public higher education can make that happen.
As regards what the People cannot do so well, think Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid The programs maintained are enormous; and they have been well-managed until our Congress began to interfere with their operations, steal dedicated funds, and cut operational budgets. The practicality of central government management is obvious, and should be extended to our health care system and public education, as it is in every other developed Western nation.
How would that work? Well, our central government would then negotiate directly with hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers, and practitioners to get best possible prices for every service. Without a parasitic health insurance industry in the way, we the People would be ensured much lower costs, and the expense of coverage for all our citizens would be funded directly by federal taxation. Wouldn't you want to pay higher federal taxes, knowing that you would never again have to pay for medical and health-related expenses out-of-pocket? Wouldn't it be assuring to know that you could never face bankruptcy by trying to meet your own or family's health-care costs? Wouldn't it be morally satisfying to know that the working poor no longer have to choose between medicine and rent, or between medicine and food?
The same principle of central governmental efficiency could also be made to work for funding higher education. More and more Americans are being priced out of the market or else saddled with huge student loan debt. Socialized higher education would mean that parasitic lenders would be taken out of the equation, as our national government negotiated costs and began to fund public higher education. In addition, our country would benefit significantly by having a better educated work force that can be more competitive in the world. Wouldn't you pay higher taxes, knowing that America could again be the educational and economic leader of the world? Wouldn't it be nice to know that you don't have to live among uneducated people and the ensuing economic insecurity?
The time has come to invest in our people, in our quality of life, and in our future as a nation. The socialization of the medical care system and of public higher education can make that happen.
Easter IV: What Dedication?
Today's episode, John 10: 22-30, takes place on the Feast of the Dedication. But what does that mean? Well, it means the dedication of the temple and the feast is what you and I call Chanukah, described in the Old Testament in the 4th chapter of I Maccabees, also in the 10th chapter of II Maccabees The feast goes back to the Seleucid occupation of the holy land, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes defiled the Temple by sacrificing to Zeus on its altar, rendering that holy place ritually impure. Judas Maccabee and his brothers led a successful revolution to free their land. Then in triumph they purified and dedicated the Temple to divine service. Naturally, Chanukah was second only to Passover in having political significance for Jews, as it coincided with restoring Jewish hegemony in their land.
Jesus is walking in the Temple on that occasion and is asked whether he is the Messiah, the king expected again to lead a revolution to drive out occupiers, but also expected to bring in God's Kingdom in its fullness (a perfect world), convert all nations to Israel's God and raise the dead. Following rabbinic custom, Jesus doesn't answer directly. He says look at my deeds. There inquirers will find that Jesus has re-written the messianic job description. He offers spiritual liberation and peacemaking.
Jesus then goes on to describe himself in shepherdly language, an analogy easily lost on many. Objectively, sheep are woolly and cute, but also stupid, gullible and easily panicked. Jesus' appropriate analogy concerns the relation between shepherd and sheep, the essence of which is dependence, and radical trust. It is out of that relationship that we carry on our assignment, ceaselessly struggling to help bring in the Kingdom of God, a world of justice and peace.
Jesus is walking in the Temple on that occasion and is asked whether he is the Messiah, the king expected again to lead a revolution to drive out occupiers, but also expected to bring in God's Kingdom in its fullness (a perfect world), convert all nations to Israel's God and raise the dead. Following rabbinic custom, Jesus doesn't answer directly. He says look at my deeds. There inquirers will find that Jesus has re-written the messianic job description. He offers spiritual liberation and peacemaking.
Jesus then goes on to describe himself in shepherdly language, an analogy easily lost on many. Objectively, sheep are woolly and cute, but also stupid, gullible and easily panicked. Jesus' appropriate analogy concerns the relation between shepherd and sheep, the essence of which is dependence, and radical trust. It is out of that relationship that we carry on our assignment, ceaselessly struggling to help bring in the Kingdom of God, a world of justice and peace.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Easter III: Two Tales of Resurrection
Today's readings include two very different resurrection stories. The first, in Acts 9, describes the dramatic conversion of Paul from mainstream Judaism to the Jesus Movement. The account is in disagreement in almost every detail from Paul's earlier telling of the story, but an historic element is not what is truly important. Any first-century Jewish reader would have recognized that the tale is based on the story of the conversion of Heliodorus, which appears in the Catholic Old Testament in the book of II Maccabees, the third chapter. Heliodorus, on behalf of Syrian authorities, enters the Jewish Temple to carry out his misdeeds. A bright light appears and he is thrown to the ground, blind. He is then nursed by the High Priest, regains his sight, and becomes a promoter of Judaism. In the story of Paul he represents Jewish authorities, is on his way to persecute Christians, and is thrown to the ground by a blinding light, which is the Risen Christ. Paul is nursed by one Ananias and becomes a convert to the Jesus Movement. The passage then ends with Paul proclaiming in a synagogue that Jesus is Son of God. What is important is that Paul was open to God's new thing, willing to change course..
In the second reading, in the twenty-first chapter of John, we find Peter going back to "business as usual," commercial fishing. As he does so, Jesus appears on the shore and, by his presence, triggers a huge catch of fish for Peter & Company. Then he trumps the Last Supper with the First Breakfast where they recognize him in the "breaking of bread." The symbolism is palpable. The apostles must return to fishing for people, Jesus' continuing presence will ensure great success, and in the Eucharist Jesus will be present and recognized, and spiritually feed his successors and their flocks.
Next, Jesus engages in a strange conversation with Peter. Now that Peter's attention is back on the apostolic mission, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and Peter says sure. However, Jesus employs a Greek verb implying self-sacrificial, other-directed love even to death. Peter replies with a different, and lesser, verb for love. Then the exchange is repeated. Finally, a third time Jesus asks, but using the lesser Greek verb himself and receiving the same reply from Jesus. (Notice that Peter has now done penance for his denial of Jesus three times.) We don't know whether Peter was hurt because the question was posed three times, or because Jesus used a less intense verb. In any event, Jesus concludes the passage by making it clear to Peter that he will indeed die for him, a manifestation of the highest form of love.
These stories challenge us to be always open to God's new directions for our lives and community, and like Peter to accept the unconditional commitment that Jesus makes on our lives. He will not settle for less.
In the second reading, in the twenty-first chapter of John, we find Peter going back to "business as usual," commercial fishing. As he does so, Jesus appears on the shore and, by his presence, triggers a huge catch of fish for Peter & Company. Then he trumps the Last Supper with the First Breakfast where they recognize him in the "breaking of bread." The symbolism is palpable. The apostles must return to fishing for people, Jesus' continuing presence will ensure great success, and in the Eucharist Jesus will be present and recognized, and spiritually feed his successors and their flocks.
Next, Jesus engages in a strange conversation with Peter. Now that Peter's attention is back on the apostolic mission, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and Peter says sure. However, Jesus employs a Greek verb implying self-sacrificial, other-directed love even to death. Peter replies with a different, and lesser, verb for love. Then the exchange is repeated. Finally, a third time Jesus asks, but using the lesser Greek verb himself and receiving the same reply from Jesus. (Notice that Peter has now done penance for his denial of Jesus three times.) We don't know whether Peter was hurt because the question was posed three times, or because Jesus used a less intense verb. In any event, Jesus concludes the passage by making it clear to Peter that he will indeed die for him, a manifestation of the highest form of love.
These stories challenge us to be always open to God's new directions for our lives and community, and like Peter to accept the unconditional commitment that Jesus makes on our lives. He will not settle for less.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Low Sunday (Part 2): Thomas
The second part of today's reading deals with Saint Thomas. The text suggests that Thomas was absent during the appearance of the Risen Christ and, hearing about this experience, declares that he will not believe unless he can physically inspect the wounds of Jesus' resuscitated corpse. In the vignette that follows, Thomas is back with the group, Jesus makes another surprise visit, and after making the requisite inspections, Thomas kneels and declares, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus then says that people who have not had that experience, and yet come to believe, are the most blessed.
This story becomes much more interesting when you understand the sub-plot in terms of the early Christian communities that formed. The Johannine Christians, the community that released this reflective, late and anti-Semitic gospel, are believers in literal, physical resurrection of the body of Jesus. They were likely comfortable with Saint Paul's characterization of the Risen Christ as a glorified and imperishable body (I Cor. 15). On the other hand, they were surely displeased with communities that described him as a shape-shifter. (Mark 16:9 et seq.) And it is certain that they disagreed with the Thomist community who believed in a non-physical, spiritual resurrection.
With that insight, it is easy to understand why Thomas is pictured as really dense throughout John's gospel, That is so clear in today's tale where Thomas sees the Risen Christ and yet still refuses to believe in the physical resurrection without conducting a medical exam on-the-spot, after which he "gets it" and fails to his knees in worship. Who is that stupid? Well, for the Johannine community, the answer is those folks in the Thomist community who don't agree with us on resurrection details.
I am reminded of how often Christians get bogged down in minutiae. Yes, Jesus was experienced as alive and leading his Movement again, and that experience took different forms. It seems to me that what is important is that He lives and leads us even today into God's future.
This story becomes much more interesting when you understand the sub-plot in terms of the early Christian communities that formed. The Johannine Christians, the community that released this reflective, late and anti-Semitic gospel, are believers in literal, physical resurrection of the body of Jesus. They were likely comfortable with Saint Paul's characterization of the Risen Christ as a glorified and imperishable body (I Cor. 15). On the other hand, they were surely displeased with communities that described him as a shape-shifter. (Mark 16:9 et seq.) And it is certain that they disagreed with the Thomist community who believed in a non-physical, spiritual resurrection.
With that insight, it is easy to understand why Thomas is pictured as really dense throughout John's gospel, That is so clear in today's tale where Thomas sees the Risen Christ and yet still refuses to believe in the physical resurrection without conducting a medical exam on-the-spot, after which he "gets it" and fails to his knees in worship. Who is that stupid? Well, for the Johannine community, the answer is those folks in the Thomist community who don't agree with us on resurrection details.
I am reminded of how often Christians get bogged down in minutiae. Yes, Jesus was experienced as alive and leading his Movement again, and that experience took different forms. It seems to me that what is important is that He lives and leads us even today into God's future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)