One of the most common and quickest traps and which most of us fall in the marriage debate about recognizing same-sex couples is that we allow the conversation to center around the couple themselves, that is, to center on the adults. But intrinsically marriage as an institution is not fundamentally about adults, it is about children.
Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other, and any children born from the union. Marriage takes its fundamental structure and moral imperatives based on what is just and right for children. Hence, marriage must be heterosexual, in order that children may be conceived and born. Marriage must also be a stable and lasting union between those parents because this is what is right and just for children, namely that they have a right to be raised, formed, and influenced by their father and a mother.
But the problem with most understandings of marriage today is that they are adult-centric. That is to say, they focus only on the rights and happiness of the adults involved. Most people have little concept of marriage today as anything other than two adults being happy for as long as they please. And if they do have any children it isn’t because that is what marriage is about, it’s only because that makes the adults happy. Or so the thinking goes. And thus, because adults have a right to be happy, they have a right to get married, and if they are unhappy, they have a right to divorce. Basically, the modern concept of marriage is that it’s all about the adults.
Now, to be clear, this “all about the adults” mentality has been a problem in the heterosexual community long before the homosexual community stepped forward to demand recognition of their unions, as a “marriage.” And that is why it is so hard for heterosexuals to answer the demands of the homosexual community, and why so many heterosexuals are themselves confused. After all, what, really, is one to say to the homosexual community if all that marriage is, is two adults being happy for as long as they please?
And that is why we have to get the marriage conversation right.
The central point must remain this, that marriage, its structure, and how we understand it, must be seen from the standpoint of was is fundamentally just and and right for children. Any divergence from this central insight, leads us down dead ends and endless arguments about the rights and feelings of adults, and their need for recognition.
Actions which served to deprive children of their right to live in a married, stable, two parent family, with their own father and mother, are acts of injustice. Fornication which places children in danger of being killed by abortion, or of being raised in single-parent settings is a potential act of injustice toward children, and actual injustice if they are conceived. Adultery which violates and endangers the sacred bond of marriage and weakens it, is also an injustice toward children as well as adults. Divorce which intentionally destroys the marriage bond, also deprives children of what they justly deserve, a father and a mother who have made commitments, stick to those commitments, and work out their differences.
Other philosophies and lifestyles which weaken the institution of marriage are also injustices toward children, philosophies such as cohabitation, no-fault divorce, and giving legal recognition to same-sex unions. These philosophies and practices, because they weaken the institution of marriage, or to lose its meaning, are harmful to children, and an injustice toward them.
Children are not served by being born into a society where marriage is anything adults say it should be. A fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them.
We must do everything in our culture to regain this starting point when we consider marriage. To fail to do this at any level remains an ongoing social injustice, as well as personal injustice to children.
How is it unjust, you may ask? Because not being raised in a traditional marriage dramatically increases a child’s likelihood of suffering many social ills.
The chief cause of poverty in this country, is the single motherhood, absent fatherhood.
71% of poor families are not married.
Children of single parent homes are 2 times more likely to be arrested for juvenile crime,
2 times more likely be treated for emotional and behavioral problems,
Twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school,
33% more likely to drop out of school,
3 times more likely to end up in jail by age 30.
50% more likely to live in poverty as adults,
And twice as likely to have a child outside of marriage themselves. [*]
The subject a child to these odds is a social injustice, whether intentionally as some proudly do by having children outside of marriage on purpose, or unintentionally through unchaste behavior committed in weakness.
Further it is clear that heterosexual complementarity is what nature provides and what we should justly provide our children for their psychological and sociological development. A father and mother have unique and essential things to supply to the rearing of their children that a single parent or same sex parents cannot give. To intentionally deprive children of this is unjust. To weaken traditional marriage by the “anything is marriage or family” mentality is also an injustice since it makes our future children more likely to be raised in irregular situation.
In the marriage conversation, stay on message! Do not be drawn into long discussions about the rights of adults, or long discussions about homosexual activity. When it comes to marriage, marriage is about children. It takes a structure and its obligations based on what is just and proper for children.
Staying focused on this aspect of marriage, which gives it its fundamental structure and purpose, is intrinsic meaning, also makes it plain that this understanding binds heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
We all have a lot to answer for with the kind of terrible situations the majority of our children are being raised in today. And even if someone wants to argue that a certain situation isn’t so bad, it still remains an injustice to deprive a child of his or her right to live in a stable married family with father and mother. Anything short of this or anything which weakens the institution of marriage must be seen for the social and personal injustice that it is.
Get the marriage conversation right, stay focused on children, and what is just and right for them.
I remember being at a Yolanda Adams concert, and before she sang this song she warned the audience to shun illicit sexual union and to remember how it hurts children, along with many other bad things we adults do.
Among the unsurprising but very disappointing results from yesterday’s elections was the approval of Same Sex “Marriage” by Maryland residents 52 to 48%. Maryland is one of the most liberal states in the union, and it is been known for at least several weeks now, through polling, that the bill was likely to pass.
Here again it is a time for a kind of post mortem analysis of how the Church could have more effectively taught the faithful, and have opposed the referendum more successfully. A reader from yesterday’s blog reflecting on this very matter wrote the following:
I was very disappointed at the lame, almost non-existent reaction of the Catholic Church to the same-sex marriage vote in Maryland. Where were the commercials? Where were the road signs? Where were the interviews and lectures and public forums? Where were the homilies?
While I’m not sure that all these reflections are fair, it does remain true that the work we did in opposing the bill was unevenly experienced and, given that we lost quite soundly, our work could well have been more effective.
Perhaps a brief review of what we did do is in order.
Beginning, almost four years ago, when gay “marriage” was being forced on the residents of the District of Columbia by a mere City Council vote, the Church joined with many other Christian denominations in seeking at that time to have the matter brought to a vote for the citizens of the District of Columbia. This attempt was denied by the DC Board of Elections who claimed that “human rights” could not be a matter for referendum.
In the midst of that battle we began a campaign to teach on marriage entitled Marriage Matters. The goal here was, through sermons, published materials, and Internet sites, that we could lead to the people of God to back to a better understanding of the roots of traditional marriage in Natural Law, as well as Scripture and Church teaching. In the context of this wider teaching, we also sought to demonstrate why Gay “marriage” was not an acceptable understanding of marriage that Americans ought to adopt.
More recently, these materials were re-presented in a more focused way to the citizens of Maryland. Pastors were instructed to read several letters from the Archbishop, were asked to preach one Sunday on the topic of Marriage and why Catholics should vote against the recognition of Same-sex “Marriage.” We were also to provide written materials and other references to parishioners. This was to have been done on one of the Sundays back in September.
It is unclear to me whether the reader who commented on the blog yesterday attends a parish where, for some reason, this was not done. But the fact is, it was something that was expected of every pastor by the Archdiocese. Although I, have a parish in the District, not Maryland, since many of my parishioners live and vote in Maryland, I took part in this campaign. I read the letters, preached the sermon and presented written material to the congregation.
There was also an advertising campaign, in which the Archdiocese joined with others to purchase radio spots, and some TV spots as well. Initial funding for this advertising was good, but there was donor fatigue which set in when it became increasingly clear that the polls showed that gay “marriage” was likely to pass in Maryland. I received an urgent call from the Archdiocese three weeks before the election seeking to help identify donors who might make last-minute donations. I am also aware that some of the bishops personally sought donors as well. So, there were strong efforts made to raise the money and increase the advertising, but the money was generally not forthcoming in large enough numbers to afford major P.R. and advertising especially into October as the polls indicated we were unlikely to prevail.
Could we have done more? Certainly. Without simply excusing our less than adequate efforts, I would like to make a few observations however, about some things which make our efforts difficult.
In the first place, the Archdiocese of Washington is not a professional or full-time PR firm. Nor do we have endless monies to hire such firms. It is clear that, as we move forward, more monies, and fundraising are going to have to be done. We just have to get better at doing what is frankly, costly, complex, and requires great sophistication.
Secondly, there is also the problem of there being numerous fronts in which the Church must currently fight. There is Gay “marriage,” but there is also the HHS mandate, abortion and other life issues. Every year, the Archdiocese spends an enormous amount of money on the pro-life march. The Verizon Center is rented at great expense, as are other sites. There is also extensive time and money spent by the staff of the Archdiocese to coordinate with police and get marching permits etc. All the sophistication, fundraising, and coordination has taken decades to emerge. As we go forward other topics will require similar sorts of attention.
This brings a third point which is the pace of change. Many of the cultural issues have come upon us quite rapidly. Gay “marriage” has emerged as a credible threat, really only in the last five or six years. The HHS mandate, and the question of religious liberty, emerged only last year, though we have been fighting legal battles for many years over the attempts to exclude religious voices in the public square.
Fourthly we struggled to maintain a coalition with other denominations when it came to the gay marriage bill. While we are deeply appreciative of and respectful of the hard work done by many of the Protestant denominations, there remain some differences between us in the way in which we articulate and understand the problem of homosexual activity. The Catholic approach is to make careful distinctions between orientation and behavior. Many Protestant denominations do not speak with these distinctions, and sometimes consider the orientation itself to be sinful, not just the behavior. These differences have made it somewhat difficult, and or awkward for us at times to speak with a common voice and to stand together easily. The Catholic position on homosexual activity, and so-called homosexual “marriage” is clear but our pastoral practice is to maintain important distinctions, as a matter of pastoral practice and out reach to those who struggle with a homosexual orientation. All of this makes building coalitions, while not impossible, more delicate and difficult.
Fifth – teaching on this matter at the homily moment, as pastors were instructed to do can be effective, but also depends upon the capacity of preachers whose skills are often very uneven. It is a sad truth, that over the last decades, most Catholic priest instinctively avoid speaking about controversial issues, and as a body, have a poor skill set in addressing matters of controversy forthrightly and with charity. This is beginning to change with younger clergy, but the fact remains that when too much depends on the individual priest, the overall effect is very uneven.
Six – Another problem in using the homily moment, is a matter of time. Most Catholics have an expectation that the homily should be 7 to 12 minutes, no more. Setting forth the Catholic teaching on marriage, and why we oppose so-called gay “marriage” does not easily fit into such a brief format.
Of course then, if it is not the Homily moment, when can such information be given the people of God? Would they attend special seminars, would they come to a parish meeting? Not likely in large numbers.
Surely then we should use the Internet, and we have. But it remains a fact that most religious people, especially Catholics, do not get most of their religious information from the Internet. There are also email outreaches, flyers, bulletin inserts, etc., but frankly, most people no longer read much.
Yard signs etc. could have been more ubiquitous, as could have bus ads etc.
In the end however the greatest challenge, it would seem, is simply to get our own house in order.
Most Priests are well aware that increasing numbers of Catholics, especially younger ones, have no idea why we oppose so call gay marriage. Further, marriage has been in such disrepair in the Church for over fifty years now that almost no one even knows what marriages is at all. Contraception, has shredded the meaning of sex and marriage and severed their intrinsic relationship to bearing children. Divorce has also shredded the meaning of marriage. Pornography has destroyed innocence and, after over fifty years of heterosexual misbehavior, most people think of marriage as little less than two adults being happy with or without kids, whatever they choose, for only as long as they please.
Yes, we have sown in the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. If most people merely think of marriage as two adults being happy for as long as they please, of course it is difficult for them to understand why to Gay people can’t get married. If marriage is not intrinsically about children in its fundamental meaning, why should it either be stable or heterosexual, necessarily?
Increasing numbers of Catholics, especially younger ones just don’t get it. Marriage of course is fundamentally about children, and takes it structure as heterosexual and stable because they are Integral to the meaning of marriage.
That is why marriages should be stable, lasting unions, and why divorce is wrong and why a child should have a father and a mother, because this is what is best for children. This is why contraception is wrong, why marriage must be heterosexual. But a lot of this doesn’t make sense to modern people who reject many if not all of these premises.
We have a lot of work to do to restore a biblical understanding of marriage.
Yes, even more than publicity issues, here is where the Church needs to do some very deep soul-searching. Too many of us clergy have said little over fifty years of heterosexual miss behavior, and deep misunderstanding about marriage has gone largely unaddressed.
When no-fault divorce railroaded through this country in 1969, it is hard to note that the Church said much of anything We were inwardly focused at the time, turning around altars, tuning up guitars, debating liturgy and authority etc. Yes, for over 40 years we have been inwardly focused and we lost the culture.
More than yard signs, or PR in this latest go-round, we have some serious repenting to do. We have not done in maintain the family or preserving marriage in the Church. We have been sleepy and distracted. It will be a long hard journey back to sanity in our culture, and to a good degree we must accept our responsibility for the mess we’re in.
There is perhaps a tendency for some of us today to feel discouraged over the state of the world, and the Church. It may surprise us, that there have been times in the Church and in Western culture when things were possibly worse. The exact mix of troubles may have been different, but troubles, deep troubles they still were.
I have spent some of today, Sunday, November 4, meditating on the life of my patron saint, St. Charles Borromeo. Today is his feast day, and thus mine as well. And the times in which he lived were not so different from today. And the leadership he exemplified is also what is needed today. I pray that in some small way, I may be like him.
He was born in 1538. These were turbulent times for the Church which was in the midst of perhaps her greatest crisis. Martin Luther had begun his revolt some 15 years earlier when, in 1522, he published his “95 Theses.” In the aftermath of the Protestant revolt, some 12 million Europeans, a large number for those days, left the Church. More would follow in successive waves.
The medieval Church was breaking up and suffering schism. Indeed, the whole medieval synthesis of Christendom was in turmoil, hopelessly intertwined with politics and intrigue, both within the Church and outside.
Indeed, the clergy especially, were in great crisis and in tremendous need of reform. It was an era of absentee bishops and clergy. Wealthy European families collected parishes, monasteries, and other “benefices” more as a kind of “stock portfolio” rather than out of any spiritual love or interest. It was common that these benefices were given to the sons of these families, who all although ordained a priests, seldom served as such, and farmed out the pastoral duties of their many parishes and even dioceses, to often poorly trained, priests. Knowledge of Latin, Scripture, indeed of the Lord himself, was notably absent in many of them of these clergy for hire. Preaching was poor, the moral life of the clergy was degraded and the faithful had little leadership.
It is no wonder that Luther and other so-called reformers were so easily able, in this climate, to attract large numbers of the laity, who were not only poorly served, but also poorly catechized.
Trent – Recognizing how critical the problem of the revolts among Luther and others was, and recognizing her own need for internal reform, the Church had summoned the Council of Trent, which met sporadically between 1545 and 1563.
Into this period of crisis for both Europe and the Church, St. Charles Borromeo was born and raised. He was born of a noble family in Milan, the third of six children. His parents were notably pious and well-known for their care for the poor. Their sober and religious demeanor goes a long way to explain the piety and appetite for reform that St. Charles would later develop.
Reform Starts at home – All that said, the Borromeo family, being wealthy and prominent were well woven in to the difficulties and problems of the late medieval Church, themselves owning large numbers of ecclesiastical benefices. At a very young age Charles Borromeo was given, outright by his uncle, Givlio Borromeo, a large and wealthy Benedictine Abbey. At the tender age of 12 years of age, Charles Borromeo found himself to be the “abbot” of a large monastery. Of course, he was not even an ordained priest, and this fact, coupled with his age, shows the serious abuses that were common in time.
Despite this, St. Charles showed already some inclination for reform by indicating that his income from the Abbey should be only enough to support his education, and that the large and ample remainder should be given to the poor. Further, despite his young age, he promoted reform at the monastery by insisting on a return to a purer monastic environment.
At age 16 he was sent to Pavia to study Canon Law. And though he found his studies difficult, he was noted again for his piety, his refusal to give way to the frivolities of university life, his devotion to the rosary, and to private prayer. Of some significance, is the fact that he dismissed two of his tutors, both of them priests, since he considered them to secular, lax in saying their office, and he objected to the fact that they did not wear clerical attire, but dressed as laymen.
Papal Secretary of State at age 22! Just after completing his studies, Pope Pius IV was elected. The new Pope was Charles uncle, and bestowing benefits upon his family, summoned Charles to Rome to be his Secretary of State. It is perhaps ironic then, that Charles Borromeo was made a Secretary of State, and named a cardinal, all technically under the auspices of the abuse of nepotism, but he would emerge to be one of the leading figures of Church reform.
At age 22 and not even a priest (only a sub-deacon), Charles Borromeo became the Secretary of State at the Vatican, personal assistant to the Pope and was named a cardinal deacon
Perhaps his chief work was, under the direction of Pope Pius IV, to reconvene the Council of Trent which had been suspended due to war. After many months of difficult negotiations and the overcoming of political intrigue, the Council reconvened in 1561. Charles Borromeo serve not only to coordinate the activities of the Council sessions but also engaged in many delicate negotiations as the Pope’s personal representative. He had to work carefully to overcome the differences among certain Council delegates. Things finally wrapped up in December of 1563, just prior to the death of Pope Pius IV.
The importance of the Council of Trent cannot be stressed enough. Its decrees rejuvenated the huge and complex medieval Church, and would serve as a guiding light for the next four centuries. But then, as now, the decrees of a Council are not always welcome, understood or well applied. Thus the work of Borromeo was just beginning.
Setting to work in applying the decrees of the Council, St. Charles lost no time in applying the decrees of the Council, wherever his authority extended. The decrees of the Council having been promulgated, he communicated them to the world’s dioceses.
The next step was for Cardinal Borromeo to have a catechism written and published. He appointed three Dominican theologians to work under his supervision, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent was completed within a year. He then ordered it faithfully translated into the vernacular in order that it be taught by all pastors to the faithful. He also set to work founding seminaries and colleges for the study of the clergy, who were woefully trained at the time.
He was also involved in implementing liturgical norms, and even took a hand at the reform of church music, encouraging the development of sacred polyphony which was emerging at that time. It needed a guiding hand to ensure that did not become too florid and that the sacred text did not become buried in musical flourish and performance. In this matter, he worked closely with Palestrina.
Time to get personal – Having used his Roman position of influence to help implement the Council, he now petitioned Pope Pius V that he might implement the Council in his own life. For, truth be told, that although Pius IV had named him Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, he had been an absentee bishop, remaining in Rome as papal Secretary of State.
This was a common abuse at the time, as already noted. In fact it was rare in the larger cosmopolitan dioceses that the actual Bishop would be present at all. These larger dioceses were usually benefices for rich families whose sons merely collected the monies did not actually serve in any pastoral capacity, as the actual Bishop. Dioceses were thus administered by underlings.
It does not take much to understand that abuses flourished under this system. With no actual resident Bishop, no true shepherd in place, errors went unaddressed, and corruption abounded.
After some months of negotiations and resistance from the new Pope Pius V, St. Charles was finally permitted to go and take up residence in his diocese of Milan. He went with great eagerness to implement the reforms of the Council of Trent. He called several local councils of the church there, set up seminaries for the training of clergy, insisted on clerical reform, and that priests be present in, and ministering to their own parishes. He also established the Confraternity for Christian Doctrine (CCD) for the training of children in the faith, enrolling some 40,000 children in the first few years. He set about visiting every parish in his archdiocese, even the small ones up in the remote Alpine regions.
As is not hard to imagine, not everyone appreciated the reforms he sought to institute. Some of his greatest resistance came from his own clergy and monks, one of whom pulled out a gun, and shot him at Vespers! Luckily, the bullet only grazed him. Yet despite some resistance, St. Charles began many successful reforms in the Church at Milan, reforms centered on the liturgy, the life, training and discipline of the clergy, and the training of the faithful in the ways of faith.
As can be seen, St. Charles lived in difficult times for the Church. Millions had left, and corruption abounded. Many would have despaired in the face of so many deep problems. Indeed, many would wonder if and how the Church could ever recover such losses in numbers and recover her capacity to preach the gospel, and reach the faithful.
And yet, as the example of St. Charles shows, reformers can and do make a lasting difference. Changes for the better may come slowly, but they do come.
Pray for zealous pastors, and reformers like St. Charles Borromeo. For today, it goes without saying, that the Church is in a great crisis. Many millions have left, confusion among the faithful and the clergy abound, many of the faithful are poorly catechized, and there are often grave moral, spiritual and leadership issues among the clergy. It may at times seem bad, very bad.
Yet, things are already better now, inside the Church, than they were in the late 70s and 80s. The reform minded Pope John Paul II, and his successor Pope Benedict XVI, along with many zealous clergy and faithful, have begun a reform that may take many years to fully see. But God has not forsaken his Church and he will both purify her and ensure her ultimate indefectability.
God still has his saints, his reformers, his St. Charles Borromeo’s. Many of them are already known to us, and many more are yet to come. But come they will, for God will reform, establish, and cause to flourish the Church which he loves.
St. Charles Borromeo died in the early hours of November 4th 1584. He had been on his way to visit a parish in the Alps and was stricken with a high fever. He was 46 years old. I have written more of him here: St Charles Borromeo
Idyllic – I did not live through the 1950s (born 1961), but it would seem that many of the TV shows presented a kind of idyllic picture of marriage and family life. To be sure there were shows like “The Honeymooners” that showed another side. But shows like “Father Knows Best,” “Ozzie and Harriet,” and “Leave it to Beaver” showed the American Family on its best behavior.
Cynic – Some who lived in that time, like my parents (now deceased) said the shows were very popular, but also bred a kind of cynicism, because unrealistic expectations often cause resentments when they are not met. “Why is my family not like that?….”Why are there all these nuts falling out of my family tree?…..Why can’t my Father be like Ward Cleaver?” And lets not forget the lovely June, doing her housework in high heels, a lovely modest dress and pearls gracing her snowy neck.
I don’t know somehow I think I did get a little of that idealism growing up in the 1960s. We lived in a decent neighborhood in a house not unlike the Cleavers. Mom did often wear a dress and Dad came home round 5pm. I had a flat top crew cut and rode my bike with friends.
But them came the War and dad was off to Vietnam. He came back, a year later and the war had changed him somehow. The military moved us away from Chicago, and things went south by my estimation. By 1969 the cultural revolution and the nihilism of Haight Ashbury was reaching the suburbs, no-fault divorce was sweeping the land and shredding families, and the sexual revolution was devastating innocence.
By High School in the mid 70s the revolution was in high gear and the idealism of the 1950s was replaced by an increasing cynicism of and toward traditional values, including marriage and family, a cynicism that has reached a kind of peak today when more women 25-40 are unmarried than married, and more then 40% of children are raised in single parent families.
There were many songs that singled the shift in the 1970s toward cynicism. One of them was a rather melodic, even gentle song by Carly Simon called “That’s the Way I’ve Always Heard it Should Be.” I don’t suppose I ever paid much attention to the lyrics back in the 1970s (few of us really did). But frankly the words are a bitter dismissal of marriage, dripping with disenchantment and resentment. They speak of darkened homes, distant and out of touch parents, and married friends living phony lives that hid desperation and a loss of self-identity.
Consider the words:
My father sits at night with no lights on
His cigarette glows in the dark.
The living room is still;
I walk by, no remark.
I tiptoe past the master bedroom where
My mother reads her magazines.
I hear her call sweet dreams,
But I forgot how to dream.
But you say it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be:
You want to marry me, we’ll marry.
My friends from college they’re all married now;
They have their houses and their lawns.
They have their silent noons,
Tearful nights, angry dawns.
Their children hate them for the things they’re not;
They hate themselves for what they are-
And yet they drink, they laugh,
Close the wound, hide the scar.
But you say it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be:
You want to marry me, we’ll marry.
You say we can keep our love alive
Babe – all I know is what I see –
The couples cling and claw
And drown in love’s debris.
You say we’ll soar like two birds through the clouds,
But soon you’ll cage me on your shelf –
I’ll never learn to be just me first
By myself.
Well O.K., it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be,
You want to marry me, we’ll marry,
We’ll marry.
Hmm…. Welcome to the modern world. If perhaps the 1950s presented an extremely idealistic picture (at least it called us to come up higher), the reaction of the 1970s and later was the other extreme, an extreme that confirms the worst and says that everything is just phony. It neither inspires nor dreams, it just depresses and calls forth cynicism.
And yet, how many have one extreme or the other about marriage today. Either people have highly idealistic (and unrealistic) notions of what marriage can and should be. Or they are utterly cynical about it.
The idealists often struggle to find the “right” (ideal) person of their dreams. And even if they do, in wanting their marriage to be ideal, when there is any ordeal, they quickly want a new deal. Illusion gives way to disillusionment.
As for the cynics, they just dismiss marriage and live in serial polygamy.
But what if marriage was just like the rest of life…a mixed bag? What if it had some good things about it and some challenges too? What if imperfect marriages and families could still be good families and that imperfection was an acceptable outcome? What if, instead of having the perfect family I was willing to have the family I actually have, realizing that good and bad are often mixed together, and that all are sinners in need of mercy? What if I could accept that my family is imperfect first of all because I am in it? What if, instead of waiting for the perfect or the better I worked with what was reasonably good and tried to make it better?
Well you get the point. I’m not crazy about reality but it’s still the only place you can get a decent meal. And there’s just something about reality that’s a good starting point when it comes to living life. Idealism may have its place, but be careful, for too often it ushers in resentment and cynicism when its promises are not fulfilled.
I’m not sure its fair to say that 1950s TV was completely unrealistic, (I did experience some of what it portrayed), but there were aspects that were perhaps too idealized. The reaction it set in is still visible on the hideous, crass, boorish, broken-down “family” sitcoms of today, that hold up only garbage and dysfunction and tell us that the family in nothing but laughably stupid. It’s Carly Simon’s song on steroids.
Pray for families, pray for marriage. Work also at and for both.
On this Feast of All Souls I want to reflect on Purgatory as the necessary result of a promise. Many people think of purgatory primarily in terms of punishment, but it is also important to think of it in terms of promise, purity and perfection. Some of our deceased brethren are having the promises to them perfected in purgatory. In the month of November we are especially committed to praying for them and know by faith that our prayers are of benefit to them.
What is the Promise which points to Purgatory? Simply stated, Jesus Made the promise in Matt 5:48: You, Therefore, must be perfect as you Heavenly Father is perfect. Now in this promise is an astonishing declaration of our dignity. We are to share in the very nature and perfection of God. This is our dignity: that we are called to reflect and possess the very glory and perfection of God.
St. Catherine of Siena was gifted by the Lord to see a heavenly soul in the state of grace and her account of it is related in her Dialogue. It is here summarized In the Sunday School Teacher’s Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism:
The Soul in the State of Grace– Catherine of Siena was permitted by God to see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace. It was so beautiful that she could not look on it; the brightness of that soul dazzled her. Blessed Raymond, her confessor, asked her to describe to him, as far as she was able, the beauty of the soul she had seen. St. Catherine thought of the sweet light of that morning, and of the beautiful colors of the rainbow, but that soul was far more beautiful. She remembered the dazzling beams of the noonday sun, but the light which beamed from that soul was far brighter. She thought of the pure whiteness of the lily and of the fresh snow, but that is only an earthly whiteness. The soul she had seen was bright with the whiteness of Heaven, such as there is not to be found on earth. ” My father,” she answered. “I cannot find anything in this world that can give you the smallest idea of what I have seen. Oh, if you could but see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace, you would sacrifice your life a thousand times for its salvation. I asked the angel who was with me what had made that soul so beautiful, and he answered me, “It is the image and likeness of God in that soul, and the Divine Grace which made it so beautiful.” [1].
Yes, this is our dignity and final destiny if we are faithful to God.
So, I ask you, “Are you there yet?” God has made you a promise. But what if it is not yet fulfilled and you were to die today without the divine perfection you are promised yet completed? I can only say for myself that, if I were to die today, as far as I know I am not aware of mortal sin. But I am also aware of not being perfect. I am not even close to being humanly perfect, let alone having the perfection of the heavenly Father!
But Jesus made me a promise: You must be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect. And the last time I checked, Jesus is a promise keeper!. St. Paul says, May God who has begun a good work in you bring it to completion. (Phil 1:6). Hence, If I were to die today, Jesus would need to complete a work that he has begun in me. By God’s grace, I have come a mighty long way. But I have a long way to go. God is very holy and his perfection is beyond imagining.
Yes, there are many things in us that need purging. Sins, and attachments to sin. Worldly clingings, and those rough edges to our personality. Likewise most of us carry with us hurts, regrets, sorrows and disappointments. We cannot take any of this to heaven with us. It wouldn’t be heaven. So the Lord, who is faithful to his promise, will purge all of this from us. The Book of Revelation speaks of Jesus ministering to the dead in that he will wipe every tear from their eyes (Rev 21:4). 1 Corithians 3:13-15 speaks of us as passing through fire in order that our works be tested and that what is good may be purified and what is worldly may be burned away. Job said, But he knows the way that I take; and when he has tested me, I will come forth as pure gold (Job 23:10).
Purgatory has to be – Yes, gold, pure gold, refined, perfect and pure gold. Purgatory has to be if God’s promises are to hold.
Catholic Theology has always taken God seriously on his promise that we would actually beperfect as the Father is perfect. The righteousness is Jesus’ righteousness, but it actually transforms us and changes us completely in the way that St. Catherine describes above. It is a real righteousness, not merely imputed, not merely declared of us by inference. It is not an alien justice, but a personal justice, by the grace of God.
Esse quam videri – Purgatory makes sense because perfection promised us is real: Esse quam videri (To be rather than to seem). We must actually be purged of the last vestiges of imperfection, worldliness, sin and sorrows. And, having been made perfect by the grace of God, we are able to enter heaven of which Scripture says, Nothing impure will ever enter it (Rev 21:27). And again, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the souls of the just made perfect (Heb 12:22-23).
How could it be anything less? – Indeed, the souls of the just made perfect. How could it be anything less if Jesus died to accomplish it for us? Purgatory makes sense based on the promise of Jesus and the power of his blood to accomplished complete and total perfection for us. This is our dignity, this is our destiny. Purgatory is about promises not mere punishments. There’s an old Gospel hymn that says, “O Lord I’m running, trying to make a hundred. Ninety-nine and half won’t do!”
That’s right, 99 1/2 won’t do. Nothing less than 100 is possible since we have the promise of Jesus and the wonder working power of the precious blood of the Lamb. For most, if not all of us, purgatory has to be.
Today on the Feast of All Saints and in the month of November we remember, first the Saints in heaven, and then the souls of the faithful departed in purgatory.
Indeed, November and into the early part of Advent is also a part of the Church Calendar when we begin to ponder the last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell. In the Northern hemisphere the days grow shorter and in regions further north, the once green trees and fields shed their lively green, and after the brief golden gown of autumn, a kind of death overtakes the landscape. Life changes, we grow older and one day we will die.
It is fitting at this time that we ponder the passing glory of things and set our gaze on heaven where joys will never end. There is a beautiful prayer in the Roman Missal that captures this disposition:
Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da populis tuis id amare quod praecipis, id disiderare quod promittis, ut, inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.
O God, who makes the minds of the faithful to be of one accord, grant to your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise, that, among the changes of this world, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are. (21st Sunday of the year)
So welcome to November. Summer is past and Winter beckons. Ponder with me that this world is passing. And I have a question to ask you. How do you see death? Do you long to one day depart this life and go home to God? St. Paul wrote to the Philippians of his longing to leave this world and go to God. He was not suicidal, he just wanted to be with God:
Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me life is Christ, and death is gain. If I go on living in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. And I do not know which I shall choose. I am caught between the two. I long to depart this life and be with Christ, for that is far better. Yet that I remain in the flesh is more necessary for your benefit. (Phil 1:20-23)
I am struck that, these days, almost no one publically speaks of their longing to depart this life and be with God. I suspect it is because we live very comfortably, at least in the affluent West. Many of the daily hardships with which even our most recent ancestors struggled have been minimized and even eliminated. I suppose that when the struggles of this life are minimized, fewer people consciously long to leave this world and go to heaven. They set their sights and their hopes and prayers on having things HERE be better. “O God, please give me better health, a better marriage, a financial blessing, a promotion at work….” In other words, “Make this world an even better place for me and I’m content to stay here, rather than to long to go there to heaven.”
Longing to be with God was more evident in the older prayers, many of them written just a few generations ago. Consider for example the well known Salve Regina and note (especially in the words I have bolded) the longing to leave this world and be with God:
Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope. To Thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To Thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, Thine Eyes of Mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show us the Blessed Fruit of thy Womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
The prayer acknowledges in a very realistic and sober way that life here can be very difficult. Rather than ask for deliverance from all of it, for this world is an exile after all, the prayer simply expresses a longing to come to heaven and be worthy to see Jesus. It is this longing that I sense is somewhat absent in our modern world, even among regular Church goers.
When was the last time you meditated on heaven? When was the last time you heard a sermon on heaven. I understand that we all have a natural fear and aversion to dying. But for a Christian there should be a deepening thirst for God that begins to erode the fear and aversion to death. St. Francis praised God for Sister bodily death which no one can escape(Canticum Fratris Solis). And why not praise God for it? It is what brings us ultimately home.
As for me, I will say it: I long to leave this world and go home and be with God. I am not suicidal and I love what I do here. But I can’t wait to be with God. I don’t mind getting older, because it means I’m closer to home. Another day’s journey and I’m so glad, one day closer to home! In our youth centered culture people (especially women) are encouraged to be anxious about getting older. As for me, when I hit forty, I said, “Hallelujah, I’m halfway home (err…as far as I know)!” Now as I get ready for fifty I rejoice even more. I’m glad to be getting older. God has made me wiser and he is preparing me to meet him. I can’t wait.
A couple of years ago a woman here in the parish walked into a meeting a few minutes late. It was obvious she had been rushing to get there and entered, quite out of breath. No sooner had she entered than she fell headlong on the ground. She had died instantly of a heart attack, was dead before she hit the ground. We rushed to revive her, but to no avail. God had called Wynette unto himself. I remember saying at her funeral, “For us it was one of the worst days of our life, but for Wynette it was the greatest day of her life.” God for whom she longed had drawn her to himself. She had died hurrying to God’s house and you know I had to quote the old spiritual that says, O Lord, I done what you told me to do….unto that morning when the Lord said, “Hurry!”
Even a necessary stopover in Purgatory cannot eclipse the joy of the day we die. There will surely be the suffering that precedes our death. But deep in our heart, if we are a believer, must ring forth the word: “Soon!” An old spiritual says, “Soon I will be done with the troubles of this world; going home to live with God.”
So I ask you again, do you long for heaven? Do you long to depart this world and be with God? You say, “Yes, but first let me raise my kids!” I know, but do you rejoice as the years tick by and goal becomes closer? Do you long to be with God?
I close with the words of Psalm 27:
One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD….My heart says of you, “Seek his face!” Your face, LORD, I will seek. Do not hide your face from me.
As you listen to this Spiritual, consider the harsh conditions that the slaves who wrote it endured:
Here in Washington DC, the storm known as “Sandy” has passed. About 8 inches of rain, and winds near 70 mph. But damage, though local and severe for the victims, was not widespread. Further north and east into Jersey and New York City, damage was significant, especially along the shore. I was moved at Governor Christie’s personal sense of loss as he saw some childhood memories swept away.
Life in this world is both precious and passing, fantastic and fragile, resilient and yet easily ravaged. We may have many questions for God, all summarized in one word, “Why?!” God knows, but often is not telling, and if we hear at all, it is only thunder. Meanwhile we discover new life, even in what ends, blessings even in what burdens.
An old hymn says,
When peace like a river attendeth my soul
Or sorrows, like sea billows roll.
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well with my soul, it is well.
Somehow a word from an old Rabbi of the mid 18th Century comes to mind. The Jewish people have well known suffering and this wisdom was spoken one day by the Rabbi to his students:
Everyone must have two pockets, so that he can reach into one or the other, according to his needs. In his right pocket are to be the words, ‘For my sake the world was made.’ And in his left pocket these words: ‘I am earth and ashes.’ (Rabbi Simcha Bunim Bonhart of Peshischa (Przysucha), in Poland. Quoted in Newman’s Hasidic Anthology, p. 167)
Yes, we are precious, but passing, and so is everything in this world. Somehow storms remind of us of this. Every life that was lost, precious. Yet none of us linger here long, and the world as we know it is passing away.
As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower of the field; the wind blows and he is gone, and his place sees him no more. But from everlasting to everlasting is the Lord’s love is with those who fear him (Psalm 103:15-17)
Hard lessons, the lessons of a storm. Yet blessed and freeing lessons too. As the old Rabbi said, we are precious and all is for us. Yet our truest blessings are not here, and only when this world and we ourselves are tuned to ashes, do we discover our truest and lasting blessings. To gain true life we must first lose this one (cf Luke 9:24).
Yes, hard wisdom, but true and ancient wisdom, the wisdom of a storm.
This song comes from an African American people who have also known collective suffering and speaks of a day when storms will end and says:
Take courage my soul and let us journey on,
though the night is dark and I’m still far from home;
praise be to God, the morning light appears….
The storm is passing over, hallelujah
Yesterday on this blog we discussed what was meant by the term Kerygma (by the way, pronounced “kay-ROOG-ma” where the first “a” is long and the last “a” is short. Some also pronounce it Kah-REEG-mah). If you missed that discussion you might do well to look at it here: What do we mean by the Kerygma?.
Briefly reviewed however, the term κήρυγμα, (Kerugma) is a Greek word meaning “proclamation”. The Greek word κηρύσσω, (kerusso) means “to be a herald (kerux),” or to be one who proclaims. And thus the Kerygma is what is proclaimed. As the Apostles began the work of preaching and proclaiming Christ, they proclaimed a message that was rather basic and simple.
The basic content of the kerygma emphasizes that Jesus is the chosen Messiah of God, the one who was promised. And though he was crucified, He rose gloriously from the dead, appearing to his disciples, and having been exulted at the right hand of the Father through his ascension, now summons all to him, through the ministry of the Church. This proclamation (kerygma) requires a response from us, that we should repent of our sins, accept baptism, and live in the new life which Christ is offering. This alone will prepare us for the coming judgment that is to come upon all humanity. There is an urgent need to conform ourselves to Christ and be prepared by him for the coming judgment.
There are eight kerygmatic sermons listed by St. Luke’s in the Acts of the Apostles. Five are by St. Peter, and three by St. Paul. The texts are too lengthy to reproduce here but I have put them in a PDF file that you can view here: Eight Sermons of the Kerygma in Acts
The Sermons all contained three fundamental elements. And, while the sermons may not follow this exact order, sometimes interweaving the three themes together, these three basic elements are most consistent:
I. Effect–there is some event, usually a healing which in effect generates the audience. This is a critical element that we will return to later.
II. Explanation–there is an explanation for the events presented that is rooted in Jesus Christ and setting forth how he fulfills prophecy, is the longed-for Messiah. The Paschal mystery, that Christ was killed through our sinfulness, but rose gloriously triumphant, is at the heart of this explanation. And this Paschal mystery is the power through which all healing takes place. This same Jesus, now exulted at the Father’s right hand is Judge and Lord of the world.
III. Exhortation – there is an appeal to repentance and the call to receive Jesus Christ in faith.
Not all eight of the sermons develop each of these points as fully as others. But these are the essential elements. As we shall see, the final sermon on the list, the one St. Paul preached at the meeting of the Areopagus (Acts 17:22–31), barely qualifies as a kerygmatic sermon, though it is commonly listed as one of the eight. More on this in a moment.
As an example of the kerygmatic sermons, let’s look at Peter’s second sermon in Acts 3:12-26:
Acts 3:12-26 – When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. “Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.’ “Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
So Lets look at the Three basic elements of this sermon:
I. Effect– The first verse says When Peter saw this [i.e. their astonishment], he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?”
Note then, we are looking at a fact, that is to say, an event that has taken place, something that is observable. In this case, a man who had been crippled from birth, was healed, and he not only walked, but he danced!
This visible effect of God’s grace had the additional effect of drawing a crowd who were now ready to listen to St. Peter. Indeed, six of the eight kerygmatic sermons but one has some triggering event that gathered at the crowd, eager to listen. In the first kerygmatic sermon it had been the rushing wind of Pentecost, the noise that gathered the crowd and then also the gift of tongues, wherein each are heard the apostles speaking in their own native language. In other cases it was an indeterminate list of “signs and wonders” (Acts 5:12) that sets the stage. In another case, it was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his family with visible effects, that occasioned the sermon (Acts 10:34 ff). On yet another occasion, it was the cure of another cripple, in this case by St. Paul and Barnabas, in the town of Lystra (Acts 14:8–13).
Thus, some event, some observable effect, sets up of the sermon in six of the eight Kerygmatic sermons.
Now we may ask, “Does this mean that we have to show forth works and miracles in order to preach the Gospel?” And the answer is, “Yes!” It may not necessarily be miraculous physical cures. But surely this effect is required, the miracle of a transformed life on the part of the one who announces Jesus Christ. At some very obvious level we have got to be able to demonstrate to those to whom we preach, and announce Jesus Christ, that we are not merely announcing some facts about an historical figure, or the doctrines of the Church, but also, that we are announcing a Man we have personally met, the Lord who has transformed our life.
We, our very selves, are to be the effect, to be the event which draws the crowd, or even one listener, who will hear of Jesus Christ. Kerygmatic preaching is not merely about doctrines, it is not merely about information, it is about announcing, and witnessing to, transformation, personal transformation in Christ Jesus.
Those who preach the kerygma, must preach it as first-hand witnesses, as witnesses who have met Jesus Christ, and who know what he is doing in their life. Kerygmatic preaching is not a technique that can simply be learned by articulate spokesmen, it is a relationship that must be received, experienced, and thereby announced.
The early Christians, indeed, the Apostles, did not simply announce formulas, creeds, and doctrines; important those these things are. Rather, they announced a person, Jesus Christ, whom they had met. As St. John says in his first letter: “What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon, and touch with our own hands… What we have seen and heard we proclaim now to you!” (1 John 1:ff)
And here explains one reason why the Kerygma, is so rarely make use of today. For it presupposes a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. There will be little effective evangelization apart from a personal proclamation of Jesus Christ. Don’t miss step one of the Kerygma!
II. – Explanation–in explaining how a crippled man has been healed, Peter takes no credit of his own. He attributes it all to the risen Lord Jesus Christ. In this setting forth of Christ he intertwines a typically kerygmatic approach of announcing that this same Jesus Christ is now glorified in heaven, as can be plainly seen through the effect of the miracle worked in his name.
Peter goes on to declare the Paschal mystery, saying, that though this world killed him, God the Father raised him from the dead. Peter says that he is of witness of this very fact.
Then, St. Peter diverts briefly to a call to conversion in verse 17 and 18 and reverts to the fact that everything that happened to Jesus Christ, was prophesied in the Scriptures, by the prophets.
Of course, in an exhortation directed to a secular world, which does not accept the veracity or authority of Scripture, one cannot rely entirely on demonstrating prophetic fulfillment. One should however be able to demonstrate the reasonableness of Jesus Christ, by showing that he does not emerge out of nowhere. Rather, he emerges after centuries of being prefigured, longed for, and announced.
Remember too, the starting point of kerygmatic preaching is not fine points of Scripture, but the wonderful reality of miracles worked and/or transformed lives. The evidence, for a secularist, while it cannot begin with Scripture, can nevertheless find additional reassurance in the ancient prophecies of Scripture, but this assurance is rooted in an effect which is evidently before them, namely the proof of a transformed life, or of a miracle. In this context of credibility, Scripture, as an historical reference can also be advanced to show that the Christ event builds on ancient wisdom and prophecy. When we announce Jesus Christ to a secular world, we should not wholly set aside Scripture, even though we must also use other things, such as natural law, and human reason.
But note this key point, kerygmatic preaching, does not start with the Scripture, but with the effect, the effect of transformed human being. We simply have to accept, that to the secular world, someone like Mother Teresa is going to have greater credibility than some holier than thou dude trying to win an argument by out-quoting their opponent.
Kerygmatic preaching opens the book of Scripture, but only after demonstrating the power and the wisdom of Jesus Christ through healing and transformation. One of the great dangers of today is that too many Christians who would witness to Christ, seem little better little more reformed than an average pagan. Too many Christians who say they know Christ do not live lives that really show that. Many come across as self-righteous, arrogant, persnickety with details, yet missing the larger points of love, generosity, charity, holiness and joy. There can be little kerygmatic preaching in the absence of an effect. And while two of the kerygmatic sermons in the Scriptures do not contain a previous event, that very fact is probably why one of those sermons failed to bear fruit, as we shall see.
III. Exhortation–St. Peter concludes his sermon with a warning, quoting Moses, The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people. In the last line of the sermon, Peter exhorts the people to experience the same blessings of the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, that they had just witnessed in the healing of this crippled man, by turning from their wicked ways. Thus he exhorts repentance, but, once again, in the light of true evidence of the power, majesty and lordship of Jesus Christ.
And thus we see that kerygmatic preaching is rooted not merely in reason or in discourse, but is rooted in experience, the experience of the miracle of healing and/or the experience of a transformed human person, preferably the preacher himself.
Ultimately, the call for a return to the kerygma then must be seen as a call for preachers, prophets, disciples, and members of the Church to return to a preaching of the fundamentals of Jesus Christ as a starting point. But this preaching must be rooted in a first-hand witness, in the credibility of someone who can show forth signs and wonders. And the chief sign, the most convincing miracle, is not usually the sort of miracle that many suspect are staged anyway, as TV evangelists of the past have sometimes done.
Rather the chief miracle to behold is the witness of a transformed human being who shows forth the glory of love, serenity, of the obvious fact of sins having been put to death, and replaced by graceful and godly living. The greatest miracle to seek is a transformed human being, absent of pride and gluttony, lust and anger, but possessed rather of love, charity, generosity, kindness, self-discipline and authority over their passions.
St. Peter counseled the early Christians, and us that we should always be ready to render an account for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). And in this, he establishes the basis for kerygmatic preaching. Namely, that someone notices a hope that is within us, and then, when they ask about it, we are ready to render an account, to announce Jesus Christ. Here is the doorway to kerygmatic preaching, the miracle, the event, of a transformed human person.
A final reflection on the kerygmatic sermons of the Scriptures in Acts is that one of them may have run afoul of the basic principles of what is needed for a kerygmatic sermon. It is the sermon which is traditionally referred to as the 8th kerygmatic sermon. It is the address of St. Paul to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22–31).
It is too lengthy a sermon to reproduce in the main text here but you can look it up, or see it on the PDF file attached above. Most of the elements of the kerygmatic sermon are remarkably absent in the Athens speech. There is no miraculous event which precedes the sermon. Paul never mentions Jesus Christ by name but simply refers to him as “the man God has appointed.” In speaking of the Paschal Mystery, St Paul mentions only the resurrection, but not the cross. And though he does mention repentance, he never quotes Scripture other than to allude to it.
In Paul’s defense, he was speaking to a strictly pagan crowd with high intellectual prowess. But he does in fact set aside most of the kerygmatic principles of preaching Christ. The effects of his sermon are meager at best, gathering only a few converts and not resulting in the establishment of any church at Athens.
It would seem, that Paul himself considered his efforts at Athens poorly. At his next destination, namely Corinth, he made a reflection that, while not mentioning Athens, likely has a lot to do with his experience there. He seems to have resolved to commit to a back to basics approach on his journey from Athens to Corinth: and thus he writes to the Corinthians:
When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, in much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of Spirit and power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1–5)
Biblical scholars, and you dear reader, may well differ from the rather sober assessment of Paul’s speech at Athens that is offered here. But if it is a kerygmatic sermon, it is surely not like any of the others. It bore little fruit and would seem to have provoked some soul-searching on the part of Paul.
All this said, the point of this blog post is not to win the debates over the quality of Paul’s speech before the Areopagus. Rather, it is to set forth the essentials of charismatic preaching. A type of preaching, and witness that some in the Church today argue should be a principal tool in the New Evangelization.
I like many of you in yesterday’s comments have some mixed feelings about this. It is 2012, not A.D. 10. Much has transpired in both the Church and the world in these 2000 years that cannot simply be set aside. And yet for some, the kerygmatic approach may be the only way to reach them. Indeed this may be so for increasing numbers.
Perhaps the best we can say is that the approach we use will have to vary based on the individuals or groups we are addressing. For some, the higher theology, the didache is probably necessary and essential. But for others, the more straightforward and personal approach of the original kerygma may be called for.
But whatever the case, we can never afford to neglect that the only true preacher of Jesus Christ is not someone who is merely read of Him in a book, but someone who has met Him, and knows His power in their life. Nothing can replace personal testimony. Of this the kerygma is insistent, and indeed all preaching and teaching can never miss the essential element of personal testimony, the testimony of a transformed human person.
