Category: Moral Life

Posted on

What Does Jesus Mean by "Dishonest Wealth?"

In the Gospel for this past Sunday (which I commented more on here: 25th Sunday),    Jesus makes reference to “dishonest wealth.” What does this expression mean? More literally the Greek μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας  (mamona tes adikias) is translated, “mammon of iniquity.”  Now “mammon” is a Hebrew and Aramaic word and has a wider concept than just money. It refers to wealth in general and, even more generally, to the things of this world on which we rely. But what is meant by the expression “dishonest wealth?” Why is it called dishonest?

There seem to be various opinions and theories. None of them absolutely exclude the other but they do include some differences in emphasis:

1. It refers to wealth that we have obtained in dishonest or illegal ways. Now I personally think that this is unlikely since the Lord’s advice is to take this “dishonest wealth”  and give it others. But the usual remedy, if I have stolen from others, is to return what I stole to them. It is true the Lord’s advice follows a parable where a man stole (or embezzled) money. But the Lord is not praising his theft, but rather, his determination to be clever in worldly matters. The Lord wishes his disciples were as clever and thoughtful in spiritual matters. Hence it seems unlikely that the Lord means by “dishonest wealth” merely things we have stolen. If we steal we ought to return it to the rightful  owner, not make friends for ourselves of third parties for our own ultimate gain.

2. It refers to the fact that money and wealth tend to lead us to dishonesty, corruption and compromise. Since it tends to lead to iniquity it is called (literally) the mammon of iniquity. It is a true fact that Scripture generally has a deep distrust of money. For example:

  • How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 18:24).
  • Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Tim 6:9-10)
  • Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God. (Prov 30:8)

It’s funny that, knowing passages like these, most of us still want to be rich! But at any rate,  this interpretation sees the expression as referring more to where money and wealth lead rather than to money and wealth themselves. Of itself,  money is not evil, neither is wealth.  But they do tend to lead us into many temptations, to corruption and unrighteousness. Hence mammon is called “unrighteous” or “of iniquity.” Some also consider this manner of speaking to be a type of Jewish hyperbole since it assigns unrighteousness to all wealth,  even though it only tends to lead there.

Over all this position has merit but I personally think it is incomplete and needs to be completed by a wider sense of unrighteousness. Simply chalking something up to Jewish hyperbole (exaggeration) may miss the fact we are not simply to dismiss hyperbole in Scripture. I have often found that the Jewish hyperbole found in the Scriptures is there for a reason. The usual reason is that we are being asked to consider that the exaggeration my not be a total exaggeration after all and, that  there is more truth than exaggeration in the hyperbole. This notion is developed in the third theory.

3. It refers to the fact that this world is unjust,  and thus, all its wealth has injustice and unrighteousness intrinsically attached. We live in a world where the distribution of wealth, resources and money are very unevenly and unjustly distributed. Now world wide economies are very complicated matters and there may be any number of reasons for this. Some areas of this planet are just more fertile than others. Other areas have more oil etc. There is often a role that corrupt governments play in unjust distribution as well. It is a true fact that we are sometimes unable to effectively help the needy in certain countries because corrupt governments and individuals divert what is intended for the poor. But there is just no getting around it, this world has a very unjust and unequal distribution of wealth and resources for any number of reasons. We, in America, live at the top of the system and we cannot wholly ignore that our inexpensive goods often are so because workers in other parts of the world earn a mere pittance to manufacture or harvest our cheap goods. Much of the convenience and comforts of our lifestyle are provided by people who earn very little for what they do, often without medical benefits, pensions and the like.

Now again, economies are very complicated and we may not be able to a great deal to suddenly change all this. But we ought to at least be aware that we live very well and many others do not, and that our high standard of living is often the result of the cheap labor elsewhere. When I buy a shirt in the air-conditioned store and take it in my air-conditioned car back to my air-conditioned house with a walk-in closet, it ought to occur to me that the person who made and packed this shirt probably doesn’t live nearly as well as I do, earned very little for the work  at that I can buy the shirt for less than $20 for reasons like this.

Now I am not calling for boycotts, (they probably just hurt the poor anyway), and I am not sure exactly how we got to such inequities in this world. I know it annoys me when some people simply want to blame Americans for every ill there is. There are other factors such as international corruption, bad economic theory and the like. There’s plenty of blame to go around. But the fact is, this world is an unjust place and every bit of wealth we have is somehow tainted by that injustice.

So this final theory is not so quick to call Jesus’ expression “Jewish Hyperbole.” Rather it considers as quite real the notion that worldly inequities are so vast and and at so many levels that all the goods, comforts and conveniences of this world are tainted, are steeped in unrighteousness and inequity. None of it is clean, none of it is fully righteous. In this sense, Jesus rightly calls it “dishonest wealth.”

If that is the case, then what to do? Jesus is not unclear, for he goes on to counsel that we befriend the poor with our “unrighteous mammon,” that we be generous to others who are less fortunate. We who live so well need to remember that the monetary cost of a product may not fully express it’s true human cost. If we have been blessed (and boy have we been blessed) then we are called to bless others.

A final disclaimer – The question of poverty and or worldwide economies are complicated. I do not propose simple solutions. I am not an economist,  I am not a socialist, I am not a communist. I am simply a Christian trying to listen to what Jesus is teaching. I am trying to internalize his teaching that I ought not be so enamored of the wealth of this world. For, it is steeped in unrighteousness even if I don’t intend that unrighteousness. I think I hear the Lord saying, “Be on your guard with money and worldly wealth. It’s not as great as you think. In fact, if you don’t learn to be generous, it may well be your undoing.”  There is a powerful  scripture addressed to us who have so much. It seems to offer hope for us if we follow its plan. I would like to conclude on it:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life  (1 Tim 6:17-19).

You know I would value your thoughts, distinctions and additions.

About 20 years ago I toured an old coal mine in Pennsylvania near Scranton. I was amazed at the conditions and hardships the coal miners had to endure. I have often thought of them and that tour when I turn on a light or an appliance since our power plant is fueled by coal. My comfort comes at a higher cost than my bill suggests.

Posted on

Cultural Meltdown File: On the Sexualization of Children

A six year old girl in the Detroit suburbs was kicked off her cheer-leading squad because her mother objected to the following cheer the 5 – 7 year old girls were being taught:

Our backs ache, our skirt’s too tight, Our booties shake from left to right.

Jennifer Tesh, the mother of a six year old on the cheer-leading squad voiced an objection to this cheer. She was informed it had been going on for years and that she should not question it. When she did ,the squad told her that her daughter and she were no longer welcome and she must leave the squad. They further indicated that she could return next year but would be on “probation.”

 Here is more evidence of the cultural meltdown of the last few decades. Teaching six year olds to reference their “booty” (i.e. hind parts or buttocks) in a cheerleader chant is not “cute” as some say. It is highly inappropriate and a sexualizing of children.

Sadly, the sexualization of children has been going on for a long time now in provocative advertisements, sit-coms, the fashion industry, the entertainment industry (especially that portion directed to young  teenagers), certain beauty pageants and other settings such as cheer-leading. Many of you on this blog in the past have also told me how difficult it is to buy modest clothes for your children, especially the girls.

Not only are children sexualized, they are also exposed to sexual matters at dramatically young ages. This also is done through themes in movies and music as well as  sitcoms aimed at children, and by internet pornographers.

These are very serious matters and surely invoke the Lord’s anger, for he has said, But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea  (Matt 18:6).

In recent years the sexual abuse of children has reached horrifyingly high levels (1 is too many). It has been usual to lay this at the feet of the Catholic priests, celibacy  and the Church. Yet, the truth is that it has also occurred in huge numbers in other settings as well, such as public schools, in the family and at the hands of Internet predators. We cannot overlook the fact that our decaying moral fabric and hyper-sexualized culture contributes to the sinful sickness of the sexual abuse of children and minors. Having six year old girls dance provocatively and reference their “booty” is further evidence of the moral meltdown of our times. It would have been unthinkable a few decades ago for such a thing to happen.

We need to reverence and respect the innocence of children. To encourage and call cute what is essentially lewd behavior is deeply sinful and harmful. Not only does it endanger children and disrepect their innocence, but it also influences an increasing perversion in our culture of the sexual abuse of children.

God bless Jennifer Tesh and parents like her who stand up against what is wrong, who swim against the tide that is flowing to the immoral swamp. She probably has no legal recourse but at least she can say she taught her daughter to do what was right despite the cost.

Posted on

From Mediocrity to Magnificence: A Meditation on the Fruits of the Holy Spirit

What do you expect from your relationship to Jesus Christ? I have come to discover that many do not expect all that much. In effect they hope that faith can kind of help them “muddle through” life and offer them a few consolations that, perhaps things will be better some day, and in heaven. Others see the moral life described in the scriptures more as a duty than a description of the person being transformed by Jesus Christ. And because they see it as a list of duties,  rather than the result of grace, they tend to resent it, consider it unrealistic, or just feel overwhelmed by it. Very few expect to be able to radically live this moral life and experience it happen in their life.

But I ask you, is this the best that the death of the Son of God can do for us? Did Jesus die on the cross so I could suffer boredom, have a tepid and distracted prayer life, and be morally mediocre? Did Jesus die to offer me a life filled with resentments, disappointments, or moral weakness? Where is the joy, where is the victory over sin, where is the vigor of hope and the intensity of love? Where is the progress, the clarity, and the experience of God changing my life?

Scripture describes the Christian life as consisting in  joy, victory, confidence, hope, love, self mastery and so forth. This is the normal Christian life. Consider just a few passages in this regard and understand that passages like these are describing what is to be the normal Christian life. They are not giving  us things to do but describing what happens to the Christian who is being transformed by Jesus Christ:

  1. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! (2 Cor 5:17)
  2. I kneel before the Father,  from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.(Eph 3:14-21)
  3. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin…..count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master…But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. (Romans 6:6-7,12-18).
  4. Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:2)
  5. But you know that Jesus appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning….No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:5-6; 9)

Now do not dismiss these texts or diminish their radical meaning. They are describing the normal Christian life. That is, they are describing what a Christian ought routinely to expect from their relationship with Jesus Christ. Certain words and phrases  jump out: New creation,  old is gone, his glorious riches, strength, power, grasp, wide, long, high, deep, surpassing, filled, fullness, immeasurably more, sin done away with, no longer slaves, brought from death to life, righteousness, obey, set free, wholehearted, cannot go on sinning, born of God. Look at these words and phrases! They are not tepid. They are strong and vigorous descriptions of what happens to person justified and being transformed by the grace of Jesus Christ. THIS is the Christian life.

One other way the Church and the Scriptures have traditionally described the Life of the Christian is through the setting forth of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. They are found in Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. The Church has added to these nine three more fruits, really by way of distinction more than addition: generosity, modesty and chastity. I set them forth for you below. I realize You may not have time to read them all now, so I have also set them forth in a PDF document that you can print and set aside for later instruction. The PDF is here: Fruits of the Spirit

But know this, they are not for you to achieve, they are for you to receive. They are fruits of the SPIRIT, not fruits of you. The Christian moral life is a gift to the believer, not an imposition on the believer. These fruits describe what begins to happen to the Christian who is being transformed by the indwelling Holy Spirit  and the grace of Jesus Christ. These describe the normal, the “to be expected” Christian life.

Don’t accept mediocrity. Expect great things in Christ Jesus. Remember this is the Blood of Jesus Christ we are talking about here and there is power, wonder-working power in the precious blood of the Lamb.

The Fruits of the Holy Spirit: (The analysis of the Greek is from William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible)

1. Love – ἀγάπη (agape)– to love with a God-like love, unconditionally, and vigorously, not counting the cost, not being based on mere reciprocity. It is wanting only what is good for the other. This sort of love is distinct from other forms of love in Greek such as eros (passionate love), philia (warm love most common in the family or among close friends, brotherly love), and storge (the love of affection usually for family members). Agape love is far above these and is, of necessity,  a work of God so as to come to its fullest expression. Hence it is rightly called a fruit of the Holy Spirit

2. Joy – χαρά (Chara) – The joy referred to here is more than a passing worldly joy. It is deeper than an emotional experience. It is rooted in God and comes from him. Since it does not have the world for its origin, but rather comes from God, it is more serene and stable than worldly joy which is merely emotional and lasts only for a time. For example, note the following uses elsewhere in Scripture and see how it is always connected, not to the world, but to the faith and to God:

a. Ps 30:11 – You have turned my mourning into joyful dancing. You have taken away my clothes of mourning and clothed me with joy,
b. Romans 14:17 – For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit
c. Romans 15:13 – May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit
d. Phil 1:25 – Knowing this, I am convinced that I will remain alive so I can continue to help all of you grow and experience the joy of your faith.

3. Peace – εἰρήνη (eirene) – This is normally used in the Greek Bible to translate the Hebrew word shalom. This sort of peace is more than an absence of conflict. Rather, it is the presence in the human person and their relationships of everything that should be there. It is a kind of equilibrium that comes from trusting in God and the experience that everything is alright, that everything is in the hands of God. On account of this experience the human person does not obsessively seek to control people and things and is more content to allow things to unfold, rather than to control and manipulate the outcomes of life. In this sense, they become more peaceful toward others.

4. Patience – μακροθυμία (makrothumia) – Generally, the Greek world applied this word to a man who could avenge himself but did not. This word is often used in the Greek Scriptures in reference to God and his attitude to us. In the human person this fruit of the Spirit causes us to be more willing to suffer the difficulties of life and of other people. We are less needful to avenge wrongs and slights and are more able to endure the imperfections of people and this world. By this fruit we can forebear the crosses, miseries and difficulties of life in this world.

5. Kindness – χρηστότης (Chrestotos)– In Greek, old wine was called “chrestos” which meant that it was mellow or smooth. Christ used this word in referring to his yoke that which was easy (Matt 11:30). That is to say it did not chafe, it was well fitting and accommodated to the wearer. So kindness here refers to an attitude that goes beyond mere justice or what is required to a something wider and more accommodating.

6. Goodness – ἀγαθωσύνη (agathosune) – This word is more difficult to define, in that it rarely occurs in secular Greek. It’s biblical use seems generally to mean doing what is right and best for others in every circumstance. This might at times include rebuking or disciplining. At other times it would include encouraging or reassuring. The key point in the word seems to be what is good or best for the person. Here are some other instances where the word is used in the New Testament and one will notice that it places goodness in the context of instruction, truth and faith. Hence, goodness here can have different applications than just being a “nice guy.”

a. Rom 15:14 – I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.
b. Eph 5:9 – For this light within you produces only what is good and right and true.
c. 2 Thess 1:11 – To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power.

7. Fidelity – πίστις (pistis)  This is the common Greek word for being trustworthy, being faithful and reliable. In the Bible the word is more commonly used in a nominative form simply to mean “faith,” that is, the act of believing in God. By extension it can mean the quality of being faithful. The connection between the two concepts can include the fact that if one believes in God they will tend to be more trustworthy and reliable since their faith imbues them with a sense that God is watching and they are accountable. Further, they are trustworthy because true faith makes them more inclined to respect others and the commitments they make to them. As fruit of the Spirit fidelity comes as a result of the Spirit’s promptings that we live up to our commitments.

8. Gentleness – πραΰτης (praotes) – There are different ways that this word is used in the New Testament. Basically, it means to be submissive to God and to be humble enough to be taught by God. Toward others it means to be considerate. Another common way of translating this word in English is “meekness.” Aristotle defined meekness (πραΰτης ) as the mean between being too angry and not being angry enough. There is a place and a need for anger. Not all anger is sinful. It is right to be angry over injustice, for example. The meek person has authority over their anger. They are able to summon its energy but control its extremes. The Greek word here was also used to describe an animal that had been tamed. Hence meekness refers to us having tamed our anger.

9. Self control – ἐγκράτεια (egkrateia) – This fruit is sometimes called “continence.” This fruit or virtue was understood in Greek of one who had mastered their love and desire of pleasure. There is a place in life for pleasures and desires. Without them we would perish. Since the fall of man however, our desires are often inordinate and excessive. There is need for the virtue of self mastery that moderates and regulates them.

Now these are the nine fruits of the Spirit annunciated in Galatians 5. To these,  Catholic catechetical tradition adds three by distinguishing:

10. Generosity – To be generous is similar to kindness,  as set forth above, in that it is to give beyond what is required by justice. It is distinct from kindness in that it tends to refer to money and things whereas kindness is a little broader and includes matters of attitude and behavior as well as things.

Two More fruits are set forth in Catholic Tradition by seperating out two specific forms of continence:

11. Modesty – refers to observing a proper reverence for mystery in terms of the body. Hence more private areas of the body are clothed in such a way as to keep hidden what is appropriately unveiled only in certain places or before certain people, e.g.: a spouse or sometimes a doctor, people of the same sex and so forth. Modesty may include not only covering certain parts of the body but also covering the shape of the body to some degree. Finally, modesty would also include things such as posture, behaviors related to the comportment of the body and language. The word modesty is related to the word “mode.” Hence, by modesty one observe a middle position between inappropriate disclosure and excessive prudishness. Standards of modesty allow for some variance between cultures and even within cultures. Hence the context of beach may call for different standard than the workplace and so forth.
 

12. Chastity – Refers to the virtue wherein we exhibit proper sexual expression based on our state in life. For the single person, the member of a religious order and the priest,  it involves total abstinence. For the married person it involves total fidelity to one’s spouse.

Posted on

The Cross is the Tuning Fork of the True Faith

A Cross, not a cushion – Some argue that religion, faith, is a man made fiction, meant to soothe our difficult life with stories about ultimate victory in a heaven somewhere. I believe is was Karl Marx who thought of religion as an opiate of the masses in that it blunted the difficult reality of life in the same way that opium dulled the minds of drug users. But a charge like this cannot apply to the true Christian and Catholic Faith. There are consolations, to be sure,  from faith. Yet at the center of the true faith is a cross, not a cushion and this is an important corrective to those who think of religion merely as something to soothe us.

The cross also goes a long way to speak to the Divine origin of our Holy Faith. If the faith were an invention of man what is the cross doing there? I don’t just mean Jesus’ cross, I mean ours. Jesus did not just carry his own cross, he told us we’d have to carry ours. And this teaching on the cross is not just an incidental sidebar, the cross is absolutely central. Now it seems to me that if our Holy Faith were man-made, there would not be a cross as the central tenant, but rather a pillow, a giant fluffy pillow.

Man made religion would exult pleasure, prosperity, consolation, affirmation and so forth. But true religion, God’s Holy Faith, holds up the cross, the cross of repentance, self-denial, self-discipline, sacrifice, living for others, and so on. This hardly seems to be something that we human beings would devise, given as we are to selfishness. And what’s even more amazing, and surely something no human being would think up on his own, is that the cross truly brings life. It is in losing our life that we find it and gain it (cf  Matt 6:25). No human wisdom is this….it must be from God!

The Cross is like a tuning fork –  It’s what you use to be sure that the preacher is “in tune” with the true faith of God or to discover that he is just preaching a false version of the faith, one not of God. There are false preachers out there today and one way to tell that they are false is that they seldom or never mention the cross. They talk about prosperity and blessings, rewards and gain. Nothing intrinsically wrong with those to be sure. But do they mention the cross? Do they mention self-denial, self-discipline, repentance and the fact that we are all called to share in the sufferings of Christ? If they do not, they are not of God. Beware the preachers of the “prosperity gospel.” Beware of a cross-less Christianity. There is joy in faith to be sure, but there must also be the cross. God does not only affirm, He also disciplines, matures and quickens the Christian, always with love.

St. Augustine rebuked the false shepherds of his day in these words:

“The Apostle says, ‘All who desire to live a holy life in Christ will suffer persecution.’ But you say instead…’All things will be yours in abundance!’ Is this the way you build up the believer? Take note of what you are doing and where you are placing him. You have built him on sand. [But] The rains will come….! [Rather,] put him on the rock. Let him be in Christ. Let him consider Scripture which says to him: God chastises every son who he acknowledges. Let him prepare to be chastised or else not seek to be acknowledged as a son. (sermo 46:10-11)

The video below from a very strange little comedy called “Dogma.”  The scene here depicts a mixed up bishop who wants to refashion the Catholic Faith and make it a more “pleasant affair.”  It’s a pretty silly scene but there is a serious point: The cross is like a tuning fork. Without the “A 440” of the Cross the whole symphony is out of tune. With that in mind, watch this video of a false teacher (comically portrayed) who wants to substitute a pillow for the cross, a false Jesus for the real one a false teacher who  exults affirmation in the place of transformation.

Posted on

Thoughts on Tolerance

Permit me a few thoughts on the issue of tolerance. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a frequently misunderstood concept that some have called the only “virtue” left in our neo-pagan society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:

Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]

In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of something as good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”

Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.

However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent  lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably.  Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.

In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it. However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law,  see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.

So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

  1. The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
  2. The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human beings. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.

Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today but one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom”  of which we disapprove.  As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

And further, what if our objections do simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance?  Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests. We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.

An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.

Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a holier-than-thou attitude and an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well.  In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very tolerant. Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.

Please add to this discussion.

I first saw this video at Patrick Madrid’s blog. It demonstrates comically how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.

 

Posted on

The Perils of the Pious: How the Devil Can Hijack Holy Practices

Many years ago I heard a Protestant Minister say that Satan wasn’t all that concerned when a person went to church because he could drag a soul to Hell from a church pew just as soon as from a gutter or brothel. Now preachers are given to hyperbole and perhaps some distinctions are in order here, especially for a Catholic. We do in fact believe that the Sacraments, if received fruitfully, do strengthen us and provide a sure help against the incursions of the evil. That said, we ought to also acknowledge that there are certain temptations common to believers and church-goers. Perhaps we could refer to these as the “Perils of the Pious,” or the “Risks of the Religious.”  What are some of these?

1. The Risk of Ritualistic Reductionism – This temptation is to reduce holiness and righteousness to the following of a few simple rules. One becomes proud of the fact that they go to Mass on Sunday, put some money in the basket, say a few prayers, maybe even the rosary. Now these are all good things, but the danger becomes thinking this is all we must do. We can too easily tell ourselves how good we are and not look at the deeper drives of sin in us such as unrighteous anger, rash judgment, sensuality, greed, and injustice. We think, “I am basically a good person  because of my religious observances.” On account of this thinking, we are not prone to consider that there may be some pretty ugly things about us that need attention.

Many years ago there was a woman in my parish who came to daily Mass and stayed to pray the rosary as well. In many ways she was very holy, and certainly pious. But she had a deep wound in her heart she refused to see. At least once a week she would lament to me how the “neighborhood was changing.” This was basically code for the fact that it was becoming African American. Her laments about this were quite bitter and she thought she’d have to leave the neighborhood on account of it. I suggested to her that perhaps she could love her new neighbors, get to know them, and evangelize. She rebuffed this in strong terms and said, “We’re not going to have them come in here and change our church!”  In further discussions between us it was clear that she couldn’t see her racism for the sin it was and she often protested that she had been going to Church all her life. She had reduced holiness to the following of rituals, to saying a few prayers. These are good things,  but somehow she thought this exempted her from looking at other things, or perhaps it blinded her.

The Pharisees had reduced faith to the following of 613 rules. Now this may sound impressive at first, but many of the rules were about washing things, not eating certain things and so forth. They weren’t that hard to follow. In addition to reducing holiness in this way, they also interpreted the rules in a very minimalistic way. You may recall the rich young man in the Gospel who, when being reminded to love his neighbor asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor?  (Lk. 10:29). In effect what he is trying to do is minimize the concept of “neighbor.” It is as if to say, “If I have to love my neighbor, let’s define neighbor strictly and keep this whole thing manageable.” This is what the Pharisees did, they reduced holiness to a very narrow spectrum and thought they could buy God off by these observances.

There is more to holiness than ritual observance. To this peril of the pious the Lord says, For I desire mercy more than sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6). Jesus reiterates: If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. (Matt. 12:7).

2. Crass Comparison – The religiously observant exhibit important virtues that are praiseworthy. Going to church and praying, reading Scripture, and financially supporting the Church are good things. The religiously observant also strive to avoid serious sins such as fornication, immodesty, drunkenness and the like. They may not live perfect lives,  and surely they admit that, but they do strive to heed God’s Law. However, this too can lead to the tendency to rashly judge others and to show a lack of humility. It becomes too easy to congratulate ourselves for being decent people. We can think, “At least I’m not like that prostitute or that corrupt city official!”  But in the process we can lack the humility to see our own sins as significant, or to see ourselves as in need of great mercy.

The fact is, being better than a prostitute or a corrupt city official is not the standard that’s going to get us heaven. The standard that we must meet is Jesus Christ. Now if we really grasp this and understand how far we are from meeting that standard, then we will humbly cry for mercy. But the peril of the pious is to compare ourselves to others, not to Jesus. Too easily we can become smug and superior, arrogant. We can become unaware that we too need boatloads of grace and mercy to even stand a chance of getting to heaven.

To address this peril of the pious Scripture also speaks: To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

3. Checking off the God-Box – There are some people who are religiously observant not so much because they Love God but more because they want to control Him or overcome their fear of Him. We can too easily reason that because we have said certain prayers, or followed certain rules we have “checked off the God box.” Once we’ve said our prayers we can feel safe and get on with our day.

Perhaps this attitude is rooted in fear, and so the thinking is that I have to placate God to get what I want from him. If I don’t pray, perhaps bad things will happen, or good things won’t happen. So I need to pray, but the motive, conscious or unconscious,  is more to advance my own agenda and self-interest than loving attentiveness to God.

Another more cynical form of this is to pray and fulfill religious duties more as a strange way of keeping God at a distance. The thinking here is that God has to be honored for my life to go well. Hence, I will do some quick devotions, (i.e., check off the God-box) and then I can feel free to get on with my day. St. John Vianney said of some who pray in this manner: And still worse, there are some who speak to the good God like this: “I will only say a couple of things to you, and then I will be rid of you.(Catechisme sur la priere: A. Monnin, Esprit du Cure d’Ars, Paris 1899, pp. 87-89).

God wants whole hearted devotion, not perfunctory practice. And we can too easily think that quick devotions, good though they are, will be sufficient. But love is extravagant and wants to do more, not less. God wants love, not lip service. Religious rituals and recited prayers are beautiful things, but they are not the end of our relationship with God they are the beginning. Yet there are some among the religiously observant who think that perfunctory observance will buy God off or permit them to run off in their own directions for the rest of the day. To them the Lord says, This people draw near with their words, and honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists [merely] of tradition learned by rote, (Isaiah 29:13).

You may wish to add to this list. The main point here is that our flesh and the devil can take beautiful things of the faith and twist them for other, less holy purposes. Beware these perils of the pious, these risks of religious.

This video is a rather “humorous” interview with the Devil and how he actually likes the Church because it provides him opportunities to take good things and twist them for bad outcomes. Not sure I agree with everything in the video (e.g. it seems to imply that being right is a form of arrogance) but it is fun and thought-provoking.

Posted on

Why is the First Sin called the "Sin of Adam" not the "Sin of Adam and Eve?"

Original Sin as you (hopefully) know is that first sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they ate the forbidden fruit  of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-7). It is clearly a sin that involved both of them. And yet, both in Scripture and Tradition when this sin is referred to formally by name it is called the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” It is also described  as coming to us “through one man”  not “through Adam and Eve” or “through a man and a woman.” Consider the following quotes from Scripture and then from the Catechism:

  1. Like Adam,  they [Israel]  have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there. (Hosea 6:7)
  2. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man….death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam…. (Rom 5:12, 14)
  3. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)
  4. All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man…. (CCC # 402)
  5. Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin….(CCC # 403)
  6. How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. (CCC # 404)

Why just Adam? Now, to be sure, both Scripture and the Catechism describe the Sin as involving both Adam and Eve, but neither formally refer to it as the “Sin of Adam and Eve” but only, the “Sin of Adam” or “Adam’s Sin.” Sin comes to us through Adam. Why is this?

I want to propose several answers, not all of them politically correct. Now in doing this I am not hereby indicating that everything I am about to say is the formal teaching of the Church. Some of what I present is speculative. Hence I hope you will feel free to critique it and add to what I have written as well as subtract. Here are a few “explanations” as to why it seems fitting that Original Sin is referred to formally as the “Sin of Adam.”

 1. Parallelism – St. Paul makes it clear that we are saved by Christ alone. This is because sin came through “one man” and hence we are saved by “one Man,”  the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ are all made alive (cf Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 15:22).  So parallelism makes it fitting that since one Man saved us, hence we were steeped in sin through one man. Now this argument is ultimately unsatisfying since is amounts to a kind of post hoc, propter hoc sort of argument. We’re really back-loading the whole thing here by starting with a conclusion (we are saved by one Man) and then developing the premise (one man, sinned). But, it is a true fact that the New Testament guides and influences our understanding of the Old Testament, and it should. Hence there are two Adams, a “man-for Man” parallelism. And in this sense the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

2. The headship of Adam – Scripture teaches of the headship of the husband in marriage (cf Eph 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1; Titus 5:2; Col 3:18). When God ordained marriage he stated that “A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall be one” (Gen 2:24). Hence it is the man who leads the marriage and is its head. But this makes him finally responsible for  takes place in that marriage.

Now our modern age tends to think of headship in terms of privilege but Scripture speaks of it more in terms of responsibility and service (cf Mark 10:41-45; Lk 12:48). Thus the headship of the husband brings to him a final responsibility for what happens under his roof. This does not mean his wife is without guilt, any more than Eve was without guilt. But headship does mean that the head has to answer for what happens.

I am the head of my parish. Now if some members of my parish or a staff member do something wrong, the Bishop does not call them, he calls me and expects me to handle the matter. I am ultimately responsible for what happens in my parish and must account for it, correct it and accept that I share responsibility for what has happened. This may be because I failed to teach properly, or perhaps I failed to exercise oversight or due diligence. It may not be all my fault, but as head, I have to answer for it.

Hence Original Sin is called the “Sin of Adam” since he was the head of that early household and was finally responsible for what took place. In this regard, notice that when God was looking for them in the Garden after they had sinned he did not say “Adam and Eve where are you?” He said, Adam, where are you? (Gen 3:9) It is Adam who must render an account. Eve is not without blame but God calls out Adam. Adam had headship and in this sense the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

3. The “Complexity” of Original Sin – When we think of the first sin we tend to think of it as simply the eating of a forbidden fruit. But I want to suggest to you that the first sin was a little more complicated than that and thus involves Adam a little more we commonly think.

Adam had been placed in the Garden and, even prior to Eve’s creation, been told to work the garden and keep it (Gen 2:15). Some translations say he is to work in and guard it. After the creation of Eve and at the moment of temptation we see that Eve has something of a long conversation with the devil wherein he spars with her to cause her to be tempted and ultimately to fall.

Now during this time where is Adam? He would seem to be far off since nothing is said by him. But the text quite remarkably discloses that he was standing right next to her the whole time she converses with Satan! (Gen 3:6). Why this silence from Adam? One would expect Adam to say to Satan, “Why are you speaking with my wife?….What are you saying to her?……Why are you trying to mislead her….?” One would further expect Adam to retort what Satan was saying and defend his wife from this temptation and error. Surely Eve should not have had to answer the Devil all on her own. She does well to begin but then grows weak under the onslaught. Why does Adam not step in to protect and augment his wife’s strength? Why does he not assist her in this struggle and help defend against this threat? Is his silence not part of the first sin? Is his omission not integral to the fall of them both?

Adam had an obligation to rebuff Satan and guard his wife and the garden. But he is passive. As head of the house he has the first responsibility to defend his household from all error, sin and threat. Eve should not have had to face the devil and answer him alone. He was worse than useless, his silence gave strength to Satan’s arguments. Eve is not without sin but Adam has failed miserably to assist Eve and provide the support she needs and deserves.

Now, dear reader, permit my flourishes here. After all I am a preacher at heart and preachers love hyperbole. I admit some excess in my cross-examination but also stand by its basic point which is that the first sin involved more than eating the fruit. That was its culmination. But complicit silence from Adam was integral to the fall as well. It set the stage for the first sin. In this sense too,  the first sin is fittingly called the “Sin of Adam.”

Well, enough said by me. Have at it. Add other points. Distinguish what I have already set forth or wholly reject it if you wish. But ponder with me why, when original sin is called by name, it is called, “the Sin of Adam?”

Posted on

Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child: A Meditation on the Humanity of the Poor and Oppressed

I’ve been reading a Book on the Spirituals (Wade in the Water: the Wisdom of the Spirituals by Arthur C Jones). Now the thing about the Spirituals is that they move your spirit for they come from the depths of souls deeply moved by God, by suffering and the joys and sorrows of life. Most of them came from the years of slavery and the Jim Crow oppression that emerged after slavery. Most of them are also sung in the Pentatonic Scale (a scale using five basic notes that equate to the black keys on the piano). Both these facts gave them a mournful quality at times that led some to call them “sorrow songs.” But to be fair, the spirituals embraced every human emotion and always summoned to hope. One of the most beautiful qualities of these spirituals is that, despite the oppression that gave rise to them there is no bitterness in them, no calls for retribution, only the reminder that judgment day was coming when God would set things right.

I want to take one of the Spirituals, give a little background and ask you to allow the spiritual to do its work by raising a question that can stir the soul. The basic text of this spiritual is very straight forward

  • Sometimes I feel like a motherless child, a long way from home.
  • Sometimes I feel like I’m almost gone. A long way from home.
  • True Believers. A long way from home.

A painful history gave rise to this plaintive spiritual. On the one hand it could apply to the slave who had been torn from his motherland of Africa and was now far from home. On the other hand it also referred to the devastation of a child torn from his parents at sold away in the salve auctions. Consider this testimony from an escaped slave, Harriet Jacobs:

One of these sale days, I saw a mother and seven children on the auction block. She knew that some of them would be taken from her; but they took all. The children were sold to a slave trader, and their mother was bought by [another] man in her own town. …She begged the slave trader to tell here where he intended to take them; this he refused to do….[for] he would sell them one by one whenever he could command the highest price. I met that mother on the street and her wild haggard face lives today in my mind. She wrung her hands in anguish and exclaimed, “Gone! All Gone! Why don’t God kill me?” I had no words wherewith to comfort her. Instances of this kind are of daily, yea, of hourly occurrence. (quoted in Wade in the Water, p. 18).

The mournful and plaintive cry of this spiritual which you can hear below is not just a song, not just a tune meant to entertain or pass the time. It is a sigh from the heart, an exhaling of the soul giving expression to the deepest grief a mother or child can know. And the grief is not just over the separation, but also over the fact that it was inflicted by someone who knew no pity, who disregarded the pain they heard as of no account.

And so here is the spiritual question we are left to ponder: What has happened in the heart of a human being who could inflict such pain and take no note of it, lose no sleep, not be dissuaded? And this question is not just of an historical brutality. Throughout this world to this day there are unspeakable cruelties inflicted on others by fellow human beings. There are tortures, murders, terrorism, intentional policies of starvation, the inflicting of devastating blows on others and those loved by them, most often without pity, with little thought as to the grief or pain that is caused. What has happened in the heart of a person who would do such things? How has it become so insensitive and hardened? I realize our minds may go to war here and understand that war is a complicated issue (Is the State killing people and breaking things or is it restoring justice and protecting the innocent). I am speaking here more of the heart of the individual who does such things to another human being. What has happened to them on the inside?

Here we are confronted with the mystery of evil. But it is a true fact that the human heart can be progressively hardened so that ordinary human kindness and pity melt away. God surely warns us of this: “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God….[may] none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness…..As has just been said: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion.” (Heb 3:12-15).

And there it is, somewhere in hardening process many stop listening to the voice of God, the conscience. They ignore the message of faith and disregard the humanity of others and fail to consider them as a  brother or sister, sons and daughters of the same Father as they. They no longer identify with their suffering, are no longer moved by it, they have become hardened. Of them Jesus lamented: For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them (Matt 13:14-16)

Here too former slave Harriet Jacob also spoke of the effects of slavery on the oppressors:

I can testify, from my own experience and observation, that slavery is a cures to the whites as well as to the blacks. It makes the white fathers cruel and sensual, the sons violent and licentious, it contaminates the daughters and makes the wives wretched….Yet few slave holders seem to be aware of the widespread moral ruin occasioned by this wicked system. Their talk is of blighted crops, not of the blight of their children’s souls. (quoted in Wade in the Water, p 20).

So the oppressed are not the only ones stripped of humanity and a “long way from home.” The oppressor too has to a great extent sinfully lost his humanity and become hardened by insensitivity and cruelty. And he is a long way from home, the home where God’s mercy and love reign supreme. Spirituals have a way of moving the spirit and asking questions that probe the depths.

What of us? Perhaps we have not murdered, broken families or sold people into slavery. But we are capable of very inconsiderate words, hurtful actions and sinful omissions. We are capable of no longer hearing the cry of the poor, no longer being moved by the troubled and burdened who feel like a motherless child, a long way from home. What of us? Spirituals have a way of asking spiritual questions.