Posts

Posted on

A Distinction without a Difference, Or a Distinction to Die For? Wrestling with the Subtleties of John 21:16 – Peter Do you Love Me

One of the great indoor sports of New Testament Biblical Scholarship is how to interpret the subtleties in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in today’s Gospel. It is the classic interaction wherein Jesus asks, “Peter do you love me?” And Peter responds “Yes, Lord you know that I love you.” This exchange occurs three times. But to us who read the passage in English some of the subtle distinctions in vocabulary are lost. There is an interplay between two Greek words for love, Agapas and Philo. Jesus asks of Peter’s love with one word, but Peter responds with another. There is also a subtle shift in the use of another verb meaning “to know.” Peter moves from odias  to ginoskeis. Both can be translated “you know” but again the question is why the shift and how should this be interpreted?

No one disputes these  facts about the Greek text. Allow me to reproduce the well known dialogue with the distinctions stitched in:

Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileis) me?”
Peter: “Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I love (philo) You.”

But there are the facts. But here is where the debate begins. The central questions are these:

  1. Is there any real distinction to be made between agapas and philo? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
  2. Although modern Christians make a sharp distinction between agape love and filial (philo) love, was such a distinction operative in ancient Greek or where these words merely synonyms that were simply interchangeable?
  3. If so, why does John and the Holy Spirit record these different words for love? Is there really no purpose at all?
  4. And why does John shift from using the verb odias (you know) to ginoskeis? the same questions would prevail.

The answers to these questions admit of many possible answers. Now if you put three Greek scholars (or three scripture scholars) in a room together you’re going to have at least 17 opinions. But for the sake of brevity let me set forth two basic opinions or interpretations:

1. The use of different words for love is highly significant. Jesus is asking Peter for agape love. Agape love being  the highest and most spiritual love wherein Peter is called to Love Jesus above all things and all people, including himself. But Peter, finally being honest says to Jesus in effect, Lord you know that I love you (only) with brotherly love (philo se).  Jesus is not disappointed for entrusts the role of chief Shepherd to Peter anyway. But again he asks for agape love and Peter answers the same. A third time Jesus asks, but this time he comes to Peter’s level and says, in effect, “OK Peter then do you love me with brotherly love (phileis me)?”

And this all makes Peter sad who now becomes more emphatic and says  Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I (only) love with brotherly love (philo). Note here that Peter’s exasperation includes a shift in the verb “know.” He shifts from the verb oidas (meaning more literally “you have seen”) to the verb ginoskeis (meaning a deeper sort or perception that includes understanding).

So perhaps the final sentence translated with these distinctions in mind would read: “Lord! You have seen everything; and you understand that I (only) love you with brotherly love.”  The Lord then goes on to tell Peter that one day he will die a martyr’s death. Almost as if to say, “Peter I DO understand that you only love me now with brotherly love. But there will come a day when you will finally be willing to die for me and you will give over your life. Then you will truly be able to say that you love me with Agape love.”

This first opinion obviously takes the distinctions in the Greek text as very significant and interprets them to the max. It results in a beautifully pastoral scene wherein Jesus and Peter have a very poignant and honest conversation.

2. The second opinion or interpretation is there is no significance in the use of different Greek verbs for love or know. The main reason for this opinion is rooted in the view that among Greek speakers of the First Century there is no evidence that they used these verbs to mean significantly different things. It is claimed that Agape was not understood in the early Centuries of the Church as God-like, unconditional love. That meaning came only later and then only among Christians, not among pagans.

There seems to be a scriptural basis for the fact that the early Christians had not reserved apape and philo for the exclusive meanings they had later. For example “agapao” is sometimes used in the New Testament  for less God-like loves. Two examples are the Pharisees loving the front seats in the synagogues (Luke 11:43) and Paul’s indication that Demas had deserted him, because he loved this world (2 Tim 4:10). Further, God’s love is sometimes described using “phileo“, as when he is said to love humanity (John 16:27) or even once when the Father is said to love Jesus (John 5:20).

More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.

 Hence, rooting itself in historical data this second opinion and interpretation sees little significance if any in the fact that Jesus and Peter are using different words for love.

So there it is. The great indoor sport of Scripture Scholarship: understanding and interpreting the subtleties of John 21:15ff. For myself I will say that while number 2 seems a compelling argument against opinion 1, I will also say that I cannot wholly reject that,  if opinion 1 isn’t true,  it OUGHT to be. I find it strange that these different verbs are being used and that we are to conclude absolutely nothing from it. The subtle details of John’s Gospel are almost never without purpose. SOMETHING is going on here that we ought not ignore. Peter and Jesus are subtly interacting here. There is a movement in their conversation that involves a give and take that is instructive for us.

It also remains a fact that not all Greek Scholars accept that Agape and Philo were simply synonyms in the First Century.

The silence of the Greek speaking Fathers is surely significant. But it also remains true that Scriptural interpretation did not end with the death of the last Father. Further, I have found that I, who speak a little German am sometimes better able to appreciate the clever subtleties of German vocabulary than the those for whom  it is the mother tongue. At a certain point we can become rather unreflective about the subtle distinctions of the words we use and it takes an outsider to call them to our attention. I never really appreciated the more subtle meanings of English words until I studied Latin.

Hence, for me it is still helpful to see the distinctions in this text even if some historical purists find no room for them. I simply cannot avoid that a key message is available to us in the subtle shifts in vocabulary here. As always, I value your comments and additions to this post. Do we have here a distinction without a difference, a distinction to die for or something in between? Let me know what you think!

Posted on

On Prudential Judgment and the Question of Corporal Punishment

There was an interesting debate segment today on Fox News on the topic of Corporal Punishment, or “paddling.”  You can see the debate, hosted by Megyn Kelly at the bottom of this post. (cf also Washington Post article).

Not having been born yesterday I realize that the concept of spanking children is controversial to say the least. Paddling children in school is almost unheard of today though I was surprised that it is still legal in over twenty states.

Prudential Judgment – The question of paddling and the use of corporal punishment in certain cases exists in an area of decision making known as “prudential judgments (or decisions).” Prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues and I recall from Thomistic Philosophy that it was defined as recta ratio agibilium (right reason applied to practice). Essentially Prudence is the virtue whereby we are able to properly judge, using sound reason and moral principles, the best way to come to a desired end. That it is called an act of judgment means that we have a decision to make as to best means to an end using the virtue of prudence.

Now “prudential judgments” are not mathematical in the sense that they may vary from person to person. Reasonable men and women may differ within limits as to what is the best means to attain a given end.  This is because circumstances may vary from case to case and from culture to culture. Prudential judgments consider many factors such as the individuals involved, the various means available, the circumstances that both precede and follow from an action, age and or gender factors, cultural norms, moral norms and the like. Hence, as already stated, reasonable people may often differ in prudential judgments.

I point this out because I have noticed that many people treat the question of paddling or similar forms of corporal punishment as something that should be an absolute moral norm. Either they think it should be absolutely and in all circumstances banned or they think it is something that should be prescribed in accord with biblical or other traditional norms. I think the moral absolutism is more common on the anti corporal punishment side but it does exist on both sides.

Corporal Punishment is a Prudential Judgment – In discussing a topic like this it seems important that we should remember that we ARE  talking about a prudential judgment. Parents will often make different judgments about whether this form of punishment is helpful unto achieving the end (e.g. discipline or maturity) which they seek. Since there are many variables in each situation there will be different approaches. If we see the debate in this light it may be more possible for us to allow variability without all the harshness. (It should  be clear that severe beatings causing serious or permanent harm are to be excluded from any notion of prudential judgment).

There are many other issues in our culture which involve prudential judgment. But we seem to live in a culture where we want to make lots of rules for each other. There ARE rules that are essential to make but there are also many areas that admit of variability within limits. (Even our recent discussion on modesty admits of certain prudential judgments within limits).

Other things in the Church admit of prudential judgment such as what kind of music to allow in the liturgy, how and when to apply the Church’s social justice tradition to specific issues, how and when bishops should discipline lay people or clerics who stray from Church teaching, what is the best catechetical method, etc. We are surely free to try and influence each other’s thinking and priorities but we also do well to keep charity in mind since, in prudential judgments, reasonable men and women may differ.

As for corporal punishment I will say it worked for me. I was paddled in school and occasionally spanked at home. My parents did not often spank us but when we were young there was what I would call a judicious use of it. In school I was taken to the Principal’s office and paddled on several occasions in my errant youth. I once recall that Mr. Bulware the principal turned the school PA system on once while I was paddled. This is because I and another boy started a school yard brawl and I and the other instigator were publicly paddled to dissuade others from such actions. For me these paddlings had a salutary effect and my behavior improved. The Principal was skilled in that he did not seriously harm me but my back side stung enough that I was encouraged to avoid the paddle in the future. As I say it several such paddlings to bring the lesson home but I learned that misbehavior had embarrassing and unpleasant consequences.

Now this is MY story I do not say that every one’s experience was mine. Comments are open and you will surely have your own thoughts. But remember, this is a matter of prudential judgment and reasonable people can and do differ.

In the video debate you will see all the women are respectful of each other though one wants to impose, through federal legislation, a ban on paddling. She is free to attempt that of course but here is where I wonder why our culture insists on legislating in prudential matters. What do you think?

Posted on

Thank God It’s Friday!

I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling a little down about what I’m hearing from the media about our Church, the Body of Christ. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go on another rant about the sc…in fact, I’m not even going to mention the word.

Instead, what I’d like to do today is give everyone an opportunity to share some good news! Post what you are thankful for today! Do you have a story about your church you’d like to share? Has someone inspired you in the last week? Is there something you’d like to share about your family?

Let’s Thank God It’s Friday!

Posted on

When God gives”the Gift”

Back in college I became interested in learning to play the Pipe Organ. I had heard the thunderous resonance of that instrument and knew I wanted to play it and make the whole building shake. I had not studied piano as a child and so was starting from scratch. But I hammered away at it day after day, learning not only the hands but to play with both feet as well. In a few years I was good enough that I went on to become the daily organist at the seminary where I attended. But the truth is I never had “the gift.” I am able to play hymns accurately but learning them is hard and I am never really at ease when I play. The more elaborate organ works of Bach I will likely never play or master. It’s OK, because I am glad for what I can do.

But I must say I have always been amazed when I encounter those who have the gift, those who can play almost without effort, those for who the music seems to come from within. When they play they are not merely playing notes accurately but the music comes from deep inside. It is almost innate. I have met and worked with many who have the gift. Some are able just to hear something once and play it back almost without flaw. Others sight read music with ease. Still others play not only one instrument but many.  God just seems to put music and art inside of some people and no amount of explanation regarding how they’ve studied etc.  can fully explain the gift they have received. Studies can help refine the gift but they cannot explain it.

I remember a young woman at my last parish, Charnetta. I could put music of almost any complexity in front of her and she’d play almost without flaw. She could also play by ear and shift from gospel to classical, to modern and back again. She played with such ease and though I knew  she’d trained classically there was something on the inside, she just had the gift.

At my current parish is Kenneth who is also able to play almost anything. He reads music but can also play by ear. He tells me that when he was about five he heard his mother humming a hymn in the kitchen and then went to the piano and played it. At that moment they knew he had “the gift.”  For him too, his playing seems effortless. I rarely hear him practice he just knows the music innately it seems. From classical to gospel, to soulful spirituals and back again. I admire many things about his playing but perhaps what I find most fascinating is the ease with which he transposes. He will play the opening hymn at the organ and gradually take us up the scale, never missing a note. Kenneth too spent many years studying  music and has his Masters degree but in the end what he most has is the gift.

I remember attending piano recitals as a kid. Most of the kids who played were somewhere between dreadful and mediocre. But there were always one or two who sat down at the keyboard and you knew they were different. They had it inside, they had the gift.

It was the same with art. There were just some kids when I was growing up who knew how to draw. It was not that they had gone to art school, they just had the gift. I would marvel as they took a simple piece of paper and pencil and just went to work. And they did it with such ease, never erasing, never struggling, just drawing. And whether it was a simple cartoon, or something more detailed it was clear to me that they had something on the inside. I once asked a friend of mine named Ingo who had the gift to draw me a picture. “Of what?” he asked. “Oh I don’t know, maybe a farmer at his farm.” In less then five minutes he handed me a picture and it was good too! Ingo had the gift.

I guess the closest I can say that I come to having a gift is in the area of preaching and teaching. I love to do both and do them almost without effort. I never struggle with what to say, if anything it is what NOT to say since I go on too long. I often experience the gift most powerfully at 7:00 am weekday morning masses. I may be struggling to wake up, even dosing during the reading but when it comes time to preach I am suddenly awake and firing on all cylinders. And I know it isn’t me, its the Lord, it’s the gift. Sure enough when the homily is over I’m back to being sleepy and fumbling through the sacramentary as I drowsily look for the right page. (I’m not a morning person).

Don’t miss God’s gifts, in yourself or in others. And most often they can’t be explained in any other way. They are simply gifts. They are inside, deep in the soul. Years of study can help perfect them but the basic gift and ability seem to be right there from the start in those who have “the gift.” It is a uniquely human gift as well. Animals do not compose music or perform it, they do not sing, they do not paint or sculpt. Such gifts are uniquely human and part of our glory which God has bestowed. The gift and the glory are God’s but he has chosen to share them with some of us.

This video features a little girl named Emily who has the gift to play the piano. It was first noticed at age two. Emily, when asked how she can play so well says, “I don’t know, it just comes out of me.” — the Gift.

This video illustrates a young woman who received the gift to paint quite clearly from God. Even more beautifully she received the gift of faith as you will see.

Posted on

There is a Freedom in Holiness

One of the misunderstandings of the Christian moral life is that it is basically a long list of dos and don’ts, or that it is a set of rules imposed on us. As such it is largely seen in negative terms wherein out behavior is said to be limited and our freedom circumscribed by authoritative norms. All in all, not a very positive understanding of the moral life.

A more helpful and true understanding of the Christian moral life and of Christian moral norms is that they are descriptions of what a transformed human being is like. What begins to happen to a person who is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ? What do they look like, act like? What are their priorities and attitudes? In other words what begins to happen to a person in whom Jesus Christ really beings to live and whom he is transforming? In the great moral treatise of the Lord known as the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is not merely giving negative prescriptions (not to be angry, not to look lustfully, not to divorce or swear oaths, etc). Rather he is describing the transformed human person. Such a person has authority over their anger (Mt 5:22); has the courage to be reconciled to others around him (5:24); has authority over his thought life (5:28) and sexuality (5:28); loves his or her spouse (5:31); Is a man of his word (5:34); is not revengeful, feels no need to retaliate (5:39ff); and loves everyone, even his enemies (5:43ff). This is but a partial description of a human being not only being transformed but also set free from deep drives of sin like anger, greed, lust, pride, envy, gluttony, sloth, resentments, hatred, fears, bitterness, self-centeredness, egotism, bad priorities, worldliness and the like.

As the saving power of the blood of Christ begins to have its effects, the human person is transformed and the negative drives are replaced by positive ones such as joy, peace, patience, serenity, kindness, chastity, confidence, courage, trust and love. This is what happens to the human person in whom Jesus Christ lives through grace and the Holy Spirit. They are not only transformed, they are set free. Being holy is ultimately about being free and the Christian moral life is the description of that freedom and transformation.

Is this how you see it? Or is the Christian moral life just a list of dos and don’ts? What if we saw it more as a description than merely a prescription, as freedom more than limits?

How free are you? Take a good look at this video. It is the  Litany of Humility by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val. As you look at it your flesh may well object to some of the statements. But consider them carefully and behold the freedom each statement offers. Holiness is about freedom in the end, being free from so many of the deep egotistical drives that keep us in bondage to fear, jealousy, envy, retaliation and the like. It is only a two minute video. As you watch it, consider the freedom it describes and ask, “Am I this free?”

Posted on

We don’t teach them because THEY are Catholic; we teach them because WE are!

“We don’t teach them because THEY are Catholic; we teach them because WE are!” I have heard this quote attributed to the former Archbishop of Washington, James Cardinal Hickey. Apparently, this was the Cardinal’s response to a question of why Catholics should support a Catholic school that doesn’t have many Catholics among its student body.

Building up the Body of Christ

I think of the wisdom of Cardinal Hickey often in my ministry and his quote came to mind last week during a school Mass. Specifically, during communion, a guest in attendance noticed that several students did not approach the altar to receive the Eucharist. In fact, during communion, it is easy to observe that less than 30% of my students are Catholic. After the Mass, this person commented sarcastically saying, “I thought this was a Catholic School? Frankly, it doesn’t look too Catholic to me!”

Real Catholic Identity

I find myself often defending the Catholic identity of my school based on the percentage of Catholics enrolled.  In my particular case, how does a 182 year old school, owned by a rather traditional community of habited sisters, run by a permanent deacon and that has well-attended school Masses (even when they are optional), not seem Catholic? My verbal response to this comment was more measured than my actual emotions but, I said, “I just preached to hundreds of non-Catholics about the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in our salvation. Where else does another Catholic priest, deacon or even a bishop get that opportunity?”

Go forth and teach the nations!

In the great commission, Jesus instructs us to “Go forth and teach the nations!” (Matthew 28;19-20). Non-Catholics are always invited to share our faith and can prayerfully participate in Mass without receiving communion. However, I suspect that this happens most often in an inner-city Catholic school. Now, does that mean all of my students convert to Catholicism prior to graduation? Certainly not. But, I do believe that anyone exposed to the truth will eventually be attracted to it. And, as Catholics, exposing the world to the truth of our faith is our  job!

Check out this wonderful article about 19 Baptisms in a Washington, DC Catholic Parish School.  St. Augustine’s  Catholic School – Way to go!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/03/AR2010040303051.html

Posted on

Smart, Sophisticated, Faithful and Definitely not Oppressed!

Did you see Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday  She wrote about having had tea with a group of intelligent and sophisticated Muslim women.  Walking away from the conversation she found herself wondering “how could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?”  She came to this stunning conclusion.  “As a Catholic woman, I was doing the same thing.” “I remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.”

Women who have changed the church and world

There are so many ways in which I could respond to such a startling statement.  I did a double take because anyone familiar with Maureen Dowd’s writing should be really surprised that she described herself as subordinating herself to the church.  There are not many of the Church’s fundamental teachings that she has not held in contempt. If she has subordinated herself to anything, it would be a false feminism that celebrates abortion, artificial birth control and no-fault divorce which ultimately contribute to the objectification of women.

It made me wonder if Catherine of Siena who, when faced with the reality of a scandal within the church in her day, would call her letter-writing and meetings with the Pope to call him to task acquiescing to her own subordination? I wonder if Teresa of Avila who petitioned priests and bishops to work with her in deepening the formation and prayer life of her sisters acquiescing to her own subordination. I wonder if the American religious sisters who are being celebrated in an exhibit at the Smithsonian that looks at the 300 years of outstanding contributions of religious sisters to church and society would describe themselves as acquiescing to their own subordination?

Celebrating the Feminine Genius

In 1987 Pope John Paul II wrote a letter to women in which he rightly acknowledged that the Church has not always recognized celebrated and taken advantage of the gifts of women to church and society but unlike so many secular institutions, it had some history of which it can be quite proud. For centuries the church was the only place that many women were educated, could live an independent life and make enormous contributions to society. The music that Hildegard of Bingen wrote for her sisters is still sung today. The herbal remedies she and her sisters developed in their care for the sick at the convent infirmary are still used today.  From the time of  Saint Scholastica in the 5th century, women’s religious orders were founded, developed and administered by women long before secular society offered any leadership roles for women. From those communities of religious sisters grew many outstanding Catholic women’s college’s grade schools, secondary schools, hospitals and social service agencies.

In 1995 as preparations were being made for the United Nation’s Fourth Conference on Women, a group petitioned that the Vatican not be allowed to send participants because of its pattern of oppression and sexism. The petition failed to gain ground when a group of leaders (from organizations other than the Catholic Church) pointed out that the largest single provider of education and healthcare to girls and women in developing countries is the Roman Catholic Church.

Ignoring the New Narrative 

In 2008 during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Washington I and a number of other women were asked to be available to speak to the media on the role of women in the Church. Before the Mass at National’s Park when many of the media outlets were doing live programming the spokespersons were to be available to be called upon if requested. I saw a radio journalist who I have heard do a number of stories on sexism in the church, on the refusal of the church to ordain women, etc., etc., and so in my mind I thought this will be a great opportunity for her to take advantage of  hearing the voice of women. When she was presented with the choice of two women with PhD’s in positions of leadership, she responded, “I think I will wait for a priest.”  So, presented with the opportunity to highlight the role of women in the church, she opted not to change the narrative that works so well for the media– that of the church as the last bastion of sexism, an “old boys club” – – well, the church and Augusta National Golf Club, but you get the idea.

Sophisticated, Smart and Faithful

I think Maureen’s real issue is that she doesn’t know what to make of smart sophisticated women of faith! I think it scares her and people like her to see women for whom faith and love of the church is the starting point for how they look at the rest of their lives. Most of the positive stories that have been done on women and the church by the mainstream media speak of women’s success in spite of the church and its leadership. While that is sometimes one way that God’s grace works (for men as well as women) it has certainly not been the norm.

Part of the Solution

The smart, educated, spirited women with whom I did doctoral studies at the Pontifical Universities in Rome and with whom I work at Archdiocese of Washington and in our parishes would say it is because of the church that we are who we are. We have found in the church and her sacramental life a place to become the women God calls us to be. We have found in the church a place where our gifts are welcomed and nurtured. We have found in the church a seat at the table where some of the most critical decisions affecting our parishes and parishioners are made. We have found in the church an organization that when faced with the evil of sin, has at its disposal the only tools that can ever bring real healing; God’s healing grace and reconciliation. We have found in the church not just a few outstanding women on whom to model our lives, but rather outstanding women in every age whose lives and legacy still have something to teach us.

Posted on

When Jesus Said,”No”

One of the struggles that many Christians experience is that the needs around us are so great and yet we are limited both in personal strength and in resources. And, lurking in the back of our mind, is a notion that what ever the problem, Jesus would help and so should we.

It is a true fact, Jesus was quite generous with his time, attention, and resources. We too are counseled to be rich in mercy and kindness, expansive in our charity and to be willing to forsake everything to follow Christ. But for limited human beings, often with many obligations are there no limits? Of course there have to be. But, “What would Jesus Do?” Did he ever say, “No?”

Many think the answer to this question is no! But in fact there are instances where Jesus said, “No.” I’d like to look at three of them. I choose these three because to some extent they deal with the needy. Other examples of Jesus saying no pertain more to specialized or inappropriate requests (e.g. James and John want seats of honor, Peter wants to use a sword to defend Jesus). But lets take a look at three occurrences of Jesus saying no and see what we can learn.

  1. No to the Sick? The scene is Capernaum. Jesus and his apostles have made quite an impression. Jesus has cured a demon-possessed man in the synagogue and word has spread. Jesus is lodging at the house of Simon Peter and has just cured Peter’s mother-in-law of a great fever. The Gospel of  Mark picks up the story: When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons. The whole town was gathered at the door. He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him. (Mark 1:34-35)  So, clearly the Lord is helping a lot of people here, as was his custom. The crowd seems to have grown quite large and goes on curing till sundown. But then comes a twist: Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed. Simon and those who were with him pursued him  and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you!” He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come.”  (Mark 1:35-38)  Here we have what seems an unusual occurrence, Jesus is informed by Peter and the others that “Everyone is looking for you!” The exasperated statement implies that a line has once again formed in Capernaum of those seeking healing from various ailments. Many of the sick are waiting for his ministrations. But Jesus says, “No” to the request to return and indicates an intention to go to other villages so that he might preach, for THAT is what he has come to do. Why does Jesus say no? For two reasons it would seem. First, in terms of his humanity, he is limited. He has not come to save Capernaum only and must devote attention to other places as well. In effect he must allocate his (humanly speaking)  “limited” resources justly and effectively. This is also the case with us. We must help the poor but we must also feed our children and meet other just obligations. Saying “No” is not necessarily un-Christlike, but is rather a humble admission of our limitedness. A second reason Jesus likely says no is that he will not allow himself to be defined merely as a medical miracle worker. He has come to preach and ultimately to take up his cross. Part of what he preaches is the role of the cross in life. It is not always appropriate to alleviate every burden. To be labeled as “Mr Fix-it” is to be diminished. For the Lord did not come merely to heal the body, but also and even more so, the soul. Jesus’ “No” is therefore also a teaching moment. We too who would imitate Christ should not think that alleviating burdens is our only mission. Sometimes it is more loving to let others carry the crosses God intends. We are not necessarily callous or un-Christlike in this if our intent is allow people to experience necessary growth or to experience the necessary consequences of their choices. We must be careful not to easily excuse ourselves from our duties to help others but neither should we become enablers or those who cause others to become too dependent. We should not usually do for others what they can do for themselves. The Lord could not allow himself to be drawn into a situation where what was good about him (healings) eclipsed what was best (salvation and the preaching of the Kingdom). Hence, he said, “No.”
  2. No on a matter of Social Justice?? On another occasion in the context of Jesus’  Sermon on the Plain a man called out from the crowd: “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” [But]  Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. (Luke 12:13-15)  Here too we have a bit of an unexpected twist. We might almost expect Jesus to side with this man. After all isn’t sharing the family inheritance with potentially needy siblings a just and charitable thing to encourage and do?  But Jesus says, “No” and then warns the man of greed. Here too the no of Jesus seems to point to two issues. First that Jesus is not going to be roped into  being a legal arbiter of worldly matters. He has come to preach the Kingdom and save us and will not be defined down into probating wills and settling inheritance law. Another issue is that Jesus, who is able to see into the man’s heart, says no to rebuke the man’s greed. And thus we are taught two things by Jesus’ “No.” First, that we are not always obliged to solve every one’s problems. Sometimes people try inappropriately to draw us into what does not involve us. They may ask us to take sides in a family dispute or some community issue where it is not right for us to take sides. On other occasions we may be asked to resolve matters involving two adults who should reasonably be expected to work out their own differences. Supervisors, pastors, and other leaders often experience such inappropriate attempts to draw them into disputes or take sides. There are surely times when leaders have to help arbitrate matters, especially if they pertain to the specific matters over which they have authority. But there are also many occasions when requested help in such matters deserves a “no” and it is not un-Christlike to do so. A second thing that we are taught here by Jesus’ “no” is that we are not always required to give people what they want. Although we are not gifted with Jesus’ ability to see into people’s heart and understand their motives fully, it remains true that we CAN sometimes see that “no” is the best answer in given circumstances. Perhaps we can see that what a person asks for is inappropriate or will cause harm to others. Perhaps it will offend against the common good or show favoritism. Perhaps the request involves an unwise use of resources or goes contrary to agreed upon goals and priorities. There may be any number of reasons we can and should say “no” and doing so is not necessarily un-Christlike. This may be so even if the one requesting insists that it is about what is just and fair. It may cause disappointment or even anger in others but that does not mean that we are necessarily doing anything wrong. Jesus did sometimes say, “No.”
  3. No to the Hungry?? The final example brings us to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had just multiplied the loaves and fishes and fed somewhere between 5000 and 20,000 people. News of this has spread and the word of free food is starting to draw a crowd. Further, some of the crowd was not dispersing. So Jesus draws apart to pray and sends the apostles to the other side of the lake where he promises to join them later. After walking on the water (!) to meet them in the boat they come to other shore. News that Jesus had headed in that direction reached some in the crowd who ran around the lake and as Jesus disembarks they greet him with false surprise: “Rabbi! When did you get here?!”  Jesus was not born yesterday and he knows that they are seeking more free food so he says to them: I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. (John 6:26-27).  In effect Jesus refuses to produce again the food of this world and summons them to faith. He goes on to teach extensively in the remainder of John 6 on the Holy Eucharist and insists that this was the food that was more necessary for them. They are unimpressed and reject his teaching as a “hard saying” (Jn 6:60). But in effect here to we have a “no” from Jesus. Feeding the hungry is usually something commended, even commanded. But Jesus, in the end will not allow them to seek only that which is good (bread) and refuse what is best (the Bread of Life). As a priest I have frequently had this problem with some of the poor who come to me. When they first come asking for financail assistance I give it whole heartedly and inquire as to their story. They almost always admit that they have no real church home (otherwise why would they be coming to me). I indicate to them that it is absolutely essential for their salvation that they come to Church and receive Holy Communion. If they are not a Catholic they should at least come and see if they are ready to accept the faith. But most of them do not follow up on  this invitation and yet still come back seeking for money and resources. I begin then to place conditions upon the continued assistance that if they do not start coming or I cannot be sure they are attending somewhere. I will not continue to give worldly food to those who refuse heavenly food. Some have argued that this is not what Jesus would do, but in fact this is exactly what he did. He said no to those who wanted only their bellies filled but not their heart. Of course in utter emergency and if little children are involved this approach may have to be adapted. Perhaps I can refer them somewhere else but in the end I have to summon people not merely to the good but to the best. This is not un-Christlike.

Well, as usual a post too long! But the essential point I leave with you is that it is not always wrong to say no. Jesus did so even in some classic social justice and charity situations. We should never glibly say no or be unnecessarily hurtful. But  there are just times when no is the best and most Christ-like answer.

How say you? As usual, I do not intend for my post to be the last answer. Your additions, distinctions and rebuttals are encouraged and appreciated.

This song says, “Some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers” Actually they are answered I suppose and the answer is “No”