Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

There are four aspects of powerful preaching displayed by Jesus in this passage. Jesus is not just a powerful preacher Himself, but also models what it means to be a powerful and effective preacher.

In using the word “preacher” here we ought to be careful not to reduce preaching merely to what takes place in a church. For surely the clergy have churches in which to preach. But all Catholic parents ought also to learn from Jesus here, for they have the church of their home in which to preach, and the pulpit of the dining room table, the living room couch, or even the family car. Therefore we must all learn from Jesus’ model of powerful preaching and teaching. Note, then, four basic qualities of Jesus as a preacher and teacher:

I. PERSONAL – The text says, Then they came to Capernaum, and on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

(The picture at the upper right is one of me and fellow parishioners standing in the ruins of the synagogue mentioned in this passage. It is a very moving thing to stand atop the foundational ruins of the synagogue where Jesus preached both this sermon and the Bread of Life discourse. Some of the ruins are later than Jesus’ era, but the foundations are clearly from that time. It’s amazing.)

Note that the text says that Jesus spoke “with authority.” The Greek word translated here as “authority” is ἐξουσίαν (exousian), meaning, at its root, “to (speak) out of one’s being or substance.” In other words, one speaks of what he knows by experience. He is not simply quoting what others say, nor is he merely quoting slogans and common sayings.

Jesus is distinguished from the scribes, who were famous for quoting each other and reputable, safe sources only. Of itself, this is good. But if it merely stops there, what makes preaching different from staying home and reading a book?

Too many Christians, including Catholic preachers, are content to live and preach by inference rather than experience. Too many are content to repeat what others have said rather than to speak out of what they personally know, have seen, and have experienced.

To preach with authority (exousia) means to be able to proclaim the Word of God with personal knowledge and experience. It means to be able to say, “What the Lord and the Church have always proclaimed, I know personally. For I have tested and experienced the Word of God in the laboratory of my own life, and found it to be true. And now I speak to you, not merely of what others have said, but what I know and experience to be true. Out of the substance of my own being (exousia) I announce this truth to you.”

This is what it means to preach personally and with authority (exousia).  Jesus did not simply quote what others said. He said what He personally knew.

What of you and me? Are you able to speak with authority? Well, do you know what the Lord is doing in your life? Have you personally experienced the truth of what the Scriptures and the Church have always announced? Or are you just quoting slogans, passages, and what others have said? Of course the Scriptures and the authoritative teachings of the Church are the essential beginning and foundation of what we know. But do you personally know it is true? How? Do you speak to your children of what you know or do you merely say, “the Church says … “?  Clearly you are to say what the Church says, but to teach with authority means that you know and have experienced that what the Church says is true, and that you can personally attest to it. This is the basis of preaching and teaching with authority.

II. PROVOCATIVE – To say that something is “provocative” is to say that it elicits a response. When Jesus preached, His words did not leave His listeners unmoved. It called forth a response, whether mad, sad, or glad.

The text has already pointed out that many were glad. But there is one man who is mad. The text describes his reaction: In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!”

Every experienced and authentic preacher knows that if he preaches effectively, a response will be forthcoming. And while it is natural to want a positive response, every preacher must also be willing to accept that his word may also bring forth anger or ridicule. The Church announces good news but she is also a sign of contradiction to a sinful world. Thus every preacher faithful to the Gospel must expect some degree of negativity, and even persecution, ridicule, and anger.

Jesus’ Word angers a demon-possessed man in the congregation and he confronts Jesus, blaming Him with being hateful and causing hurt, and saying that Jesus wants to destroy him. (So, too, many today react with anger and call the Church hateful, bigoted, intolerant, and hurtful even unto destroying lives.) But, as we shall see, Jesus does not back down.

The problem in the synagogue is not the Word that Jesus proclaims; it is the man’s inner condition. And thus, when the authentic Gospel is proclaimed, the wrath that sometimes follows does not bespeak a problem with God’s Word but with the listener’s inner condition. Note that the man is demon-possessed. That is, his heart and mind are under the influence of Satan and the sin he inspires. The greatest obstacle to our being able to appreciate and understand the Word of God is our sin. And the greatest help in appreciating and understanding God’s Word is a docile and humble spirit, granted by the grace of God.

A powerful preacher, whether a priest or a parent, preaches in order to provoke a response, whether of joy and consolation or of repentance and godly sorrow. And to be sure, while no authentic preacher intends or desires a fight or a hostile response, he must be willing to accept such a reaction. For when someone is accustomed to the darkness, he finds the light harsh, and calls it such. Anyone who preaches the Gospel authentically will both comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; he will both console and confront (where necessary); he will reassure but also awaken the need for healing. He will speak the truth in love.

Good preaching provokes a response, and one who hears the Gospel preached with authority cannot come away unchanged.

III.  PRODUCING – Powerful and effective preaching brings results. As Jesus preaches, a man is set free. The text says, Jesus rebuked him and said, “Quiet! Come out of him!” The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.” His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.

The aim or point of the Word of God is not merely to inform but to transform. It’s not enough for the Word of God to be attractive, informative, or entertaining. It’s full purpose is to, in power, drive out demons and bring God’s grace. Good preaching works to drive out demons of ignorance, sorrow, rebellion, and sin. It works to give godly sorrow, joy, hope, confidence, knowledge, courage, and conviction. Good preaching changes people’s lives.

IV. PERSEVERING – Note that Jesus did not immediately back down in the face of opposition. He persevered with the opposing man and, by his Word, drove out the demons that were afflicting him. We see the man go through three stages.

1. He is mad, for he confronts Jesus.
2. He is sad, for he struggles and convulses as Jesus works to free him by His Word.
3. He is glad, for he is set free and able to rejoice with the others.

And thus every preacher, every parent, and every prophet must not give up easily. For it is often the case that people must go through these stages.

In my own life, I can say that there was a time when, afflicted by the demons of ignorance and youthful rebellion, I would cross my arms and listen angrily to the priest. I was mad. I would often scoff at the “silly priest” who was “trying to tell me what to do.” But after some years of hearing the preaching of the Church, I gradually understood that I had to change. But change does not come easily, and thus came the stage of sad and a time of struggle, learning new virtues, and forsaking old vices. And now I can say I am glad, for the Lord has brought me a mighty long way. His preached Word is powerful. When effectively preached, it has the power to transform. And I have experienced transformation.

I am glad that the Church persevered, that my parents persevered, and that good priests and religious persevered in preaching to me and teaching me. I am glad that my parishioners continue to persevere in witnessing to me and preaching by their lives.

A preached and lived Word is powerful indeed. Jesus shows the way and it is for us to follow His example.

Here is a video that shows how a preached and sung Word  reaches sinners and draws them to conversion. “Shug” is a preacher’s daughter who in anger (mad) left the Church. Now she weeps for her sins (as her father weeps for his) (sad),  and then she gets glad. She looks like the woman at the well leading the Samaritans to Christ. There are five conversion stories going on in this scene from The Color Purple all at once, if you are familiar with the movie. This song says, “God is Trying to Tell You Something!”

Here is Jesus preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum on another occasion.

We have more than ever. Not just more things, but more options, more capacity, and more ability. Several hundred years ago a young peasant living in Europe seldom ventured more than a few miles from where he was born; longer journeys were rare and for serious reasons only. Much of a person’s life was “decided” by the place he was born. Even the person whom he married was decided by others, or at least limited to a very few candidates in his little village or section of town. The life of the average peasant was very circumscribed and he had limited knowledge of what was even a hundred miles away, let alone across the ocean.

Today, most people, even those of moderate means, can get on a plane and by the end of the day be thousands of miles from where they woke up that morning. Most do not live where they were born and most have virtual access to the entire world via the Internet. It is quite reasonable to know people from all over the world, or at least to know those who have been all over the world. Most people travel frequently to distant cities and sometimes to other countries and continents. Our options, though not limitless, are practically so, since most of us could never exhaust all the possibilities that modernity offers.

Are we happier? Probably not. I would argue that we are less happy. One thing is certain: wealth and modernity have brought comfort and variety but also stress and disappointment. Disappointment is increased because expectations are higher. Indeed, expectations are often premeditated resentments.

Our faster pace also makes us prone to boredom. Slowing down to the actual pace of human life and not having noise freaks us out. So if it is not stress that gets us, it is boredom, depression, and resentment. Welcome to the world of psychotropic medications in order to stay sane, or self-medication that leads to addiction.

Well, you get the point. Modern life is more diverse, comfortable, and affluent, but also stressful and ultimately discouraging because it promises what it cannot deliver: happiness. Happiness is ultimately an inside job and those who find it often do not have a lot or even need a lot. Most who discover happiness find that less is more, that simpler and slower win the day over glitzy and mesmerizing.

Something in this video sparked these thoughts of mine. I dunno, see what you think. But for all the biggie-wow ways this guy has available to him, in the end it is the simpler, slower, low-tech mode that wins the day. Modernity has its place, but also its price. Have a plan B for when all the techie stuff fails.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a cautionary article aimed at my traditionally-minded brethren saying, among other things, that we ought to be careful in identifying the Ordinary Form of the Mass (1970 Missal and beyond) as the “Mass of Vatican II.”  I will not reproduce that whole article here. I will only recall three points:

1. The Mass was already undergoing significant changes, beginning in the 1940s and picking up speed through the 1950s. More changes were planned by the Vatican before the Second Vatican Council was called.

2. The Second Vatican Council considered many issues, of which the liturgy was only one. The liturgical norms issued by the council were of a general nature and contained proposals that were far more modest than the substantial changes that happened in 1970 and beyond.

3. The Missal published in 1965 (of which I have a copy) incorporated many, if not most, of the insights from the council. The changes included in the 1965 Missal are more truly to be seen as those envisioned by the council than the far more sweeping changes incorporated in the Missal of 1970, a Missal that was designed by a smaller consilium of liturgists and actually surprised many of the bishops who attended the council.

Hence we do well to distinguish our concerns about the current form of the Mass. It is a poor stance to oppose an entire Ecumenical Council. Our concerns with the liturgy should stay in that arena, and we should work to correct abuses and encourage a reconsideration of the more modest reforms, even as we enjoy the privilege of celebrating the Mass using the Missal of 1962.

So let’s look at the 1965 Missal, the one that was actually published in the wake of the council and had its reforms in mind. Three introductory points will help:

1. There ARE changes in the Liturgy. The most significant is a wider (but not exclusive) use of the vernacular. Also significant is that the “Liturgy of the Word” was to be conducted facing the people and could be a task shared with qualified ministers. There was also some shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the omission of the Last Gospel.

2. Otherwise, the general Mass remains unchanged. I don’t think a person from the year 1900, or even 1700, walking into Mass in 1966 would have been all that shocked. He would notice differences and hear less Latin, but the Mass would still be recognizable.

3. As for the Mass being celebrated “facing the people,” that seems to have proceeded on a track of its own. There is nothing in the rubrics or Ritus Servandus (Order of Celebration) of the 1965 Mass requiring the Eucharistic Prayer to be said facing the people. Even today, the rubrics presume that the priest is facing the altar and therefore must turn to face the people at certain points. My own memory is that Mass facing the people was introduced widely beginning in about 1967. It seems to have happened quickly throughout the country, but not in every parish or diocese all at once. I do not recall a big rebellion over it, and frankly a lot of people thought it was “neat” at first. As most of you know, I am not a fan of the Eucharistic Prayer being said facing the people. But the point here is to emphasize that the question of orientation proceeded on a track of its own and should not simply be associated with the Second Vatican Council (which merely permitted a practice that was already spreading) or with the Missal of a particular year. The current Missal still permits ad orientem, even though it is not widely practiced.

So, back to the 1965 Missal. Permit me now to give a more detailed description. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to look mainly at the “low” Mass rather than trying to include all the norms for a solemn or pontifical Mass. I will note the differences, but also what is unchanged.

Prayers at the Foot of the Altar 

The Mass began with the prayers at the foot of the altar. Neither the 1965 nor the 1962 or prior Missals ever called this part of the Mass “the prayers at the foot of the altar,” but that was their traditional description. Technically, they occurred before Mass had formally begun. Mass formally began when the celebrant ascended the altar, made the sign of the cross, and recited the Introit (Entrance Antiphon). Nevertheless, these prayers at the foot of the altar continued to be conducted in the 1965 Missal. There were a few changes, but overall they were minor. Here is a brief description:

1. The celebrant would bow or genuflect, as required, make the sign of the cross, and recite (in the vernacular or in Latin), “I will go to the altar of God.” The server or others responded “to God who gives joy to my youth.” Here, however, the full Psalm 42 was not recited, only the antiphon, much as had been the practice in the Requiem Mass.

2. The celebrant then bowed deeply and recited the Confiteor (in the vernacular or in Latin). The text used was still the traditional one, which mentioned Saints Michael, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul.

3. The servers recited the Misereatur (in the vernacular or in Latin) and then recited their own Confiteor. This was followed by the celebrant’s recitation of the Misereatur and then the Indulgentium (omitted today) along with the sign of the cross.

4. Going up to the altar and reverencing it, the celebrant said the Aufer a nobis and the Oramus te in a low voice (and only in Latin).

Thus we see that the main difference in the “prayers at the foot of the Altar” was the omission of the fuller verses of Psalm 42 and the provision that the texts could be conducted in the vernacular (with the exception of the private prayers of the priest which remained only in Latin).

The Mass continues (actually, formally begins)

1. The celebrant made the sign of the cross, read the Introit (Entrance Antiphon), and then recited the nine-fold Kyrie with the servers. However, if a schola (choir) sang the Introit and Kyrie, the celebrant would sing it along with them rather than reciting it privately. Latin or vernacular could be used.

This is significant because in the Missals of 1962 and before, the singing of the schola did not really “count.” The celebrant still had to say any texts that were sung. The 1962 Missal made provision for the celebrant not to recite the epistle and Gospel, but only if they were chanted by a cleric. But since the other texts were not ordinarily sung by clerics, the celebrant usually had to recite them quietly. This made the singing by choirs a kind of “window dressing” that had lost the ancient concept of different ministerial functions assisting the celebrant in the proclamation of the sacred texts. The 1965 Missal restored this ministerial function and did not require texts that were sung by choirs or readings that were recited by appropriate ministers, to be said again privately and officially by the celebrant.

The rubrics did not speak of going to the epistle (right) side of the altar, but neither did the 1962 Missal. Nevertheless, traditionally, these prayers were said to the right side of the altar.

Though silent on this point, the rubrics presumed the celebrant was at the altar. However, through the late sixties it would seem that these rites after the prayers at the foot of the altar and after the reverencing of the altar moved to the sedilia (chair). The 1965 missal, however, made no mention of this as an option.

2. If the Gloria was to be recited the celebrant was directed to go to the middle of the altar and begin the prayer there. Again, if it was sung, he was not to recite it privately but was encouraged to sing it with others. Latin or vernacular could be used.

3. The Collect – Turning toward the people, the celebrant said, “The Lord be with you,” and they responded, “And with your spirit.” Here, too, this could be said either in Latin or the vernacular (using the proper translation). He then said, “Let us pray” and said or sang the Collect (opening prayer). The 1965 Missal provided approved English translations of the Collects of the 1962 Missal that were quite accurate. And the prayer could be recited either in Latin or the vernacular.

The Liturgy of the Word – The new lectionary did not exist, and thus the 1965 Missal made use of the readings contained in the 1962 and prior Missals. The main difference was that approved vernacular versions of the readings were now available and could be used. The readings were conducted as follows:

1. Epistle – The Ritus Servandus states regarding the epistle (I translate here from the Latin), “In Masses that are sung or recited with the people participating, it is desirable that the readings be sung or said by a lector or suitable minister, in the ambo or in the chancel, with the celebrant seated and listening.”

2. The Chants (Gradual and Alleluia) that followed were sung either by a schola, or by the people, or they were read by the lector or minister in the same place (however, at the end, he did not come to the celebrant for a blessing).

3. The Gospel could be sung or said by a deacon or by another priest. “If however the celebrant reads, sings, or says the Gospel, he … ascends to the footspace of the altar and, profoundly bowing, says the Munda cor and the Dominus sit. He then proceeds to the ambo or chancel and sings or says the Gospel … in the end kissing the book and saying the per evangelica dicta … “

4. The Homily was given and the Creed could be said by the celebrant either at the altar (in the traditional way) or at the chair. He recited the Creed with the people.

5. The Prayers of the Faithful were restored as an option. They could be led in the ambo, at the chair, or at the altar. The celebrant said, “The Lord be with you,” and the people responded, “And with your spirit.” The celebrant said, “Let us pray.” And then, if there were prayers of the faithful, they were read, otherwise the celebrant moved on to read the offertory antiphon.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist – From this point on, the Mass was largely unchanged. Briefly, here are some highlights, with special reference to the few changes that were made:

1. The traditional offertory prayers were still said, and only in Latin (Suscipe Sancte Pater, Offerimus tibi). So, too, were the other prayers unaltered, again only in Latin (Deus qui humanae at the mixing of water and wine). Just prior to the washing of the hands, the In spiritu humilitatis was said. The Veni sanctificator was not yet dropped.

2. For the washing of the hands, the traditional prayer Lavabo inter innocentes was still said in its entirety (Psalm 25) and the Suscipe sancta Trintitas had not yet been dropped. All these prayers were said in Latin.

3. Pray brethren – Kissing the altar and turning to the people, the priest said the orate fratres but could do so in the vernacular.

4. Prayer over the Gifts – Turning back, the celebrant said the prayer over the gifts, which could be either said or sung in the vernacular or in Latin.

5. The preface (and there were some new ones in the 1965 Missal) could also be said or sung either in the vernacular or in Latin.

6. The Sanctus could also be said or sung in the vernacular or in Latin.

7. The Canon of the Mass was still at this time only the Roman Canon, and it was prayed entirely in Latin.  Most of the gestures and postures remained unchanged with the exception of the multiple signs of the cross at the Per Ipsum (Through Him and with Him and in Him … ).

8. The Our Father could be said using Latin or the vernacular. So, too, the “embolism” (Deliver us O Lord), Pax Domini (but the people did not exchange the peace). The Agnus Dei could be said or sung in English, but the private prayers of the priest remained in Latin and were unchanged.

9. Lord I am not Worthy – After receiving his own communion, the priest led the people in their own “Lord I am not worthy” and it was still said three times.

10. Communion – The longer formula once said by the priest for each communicant (Corpus Domini Nostri … ) was shortened to “The Body of Christ.”

11. The Prayer after Communion could be read in the vernacular.

12 The Ite Missa est could also be said in the vernacular.

13. The Final Blessing was given in Latin or the vernacular.

14. The Last Gospel was omitted.

Briefly then, here is the 1965 Missal. To lovers of the 1962 Missal, it probably still represents too much change (for example, read HERE). But it was far from the more radical changes that came later, changes that removed so much more and added so many new elements such as multiple Eucharistic Prayers, etc.

While it is hard to argue that the new lectionary  is problematic, I remain open to the criticism that the 1970 Missal introduced a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and that it also flowed from that sort of rupture that the 1960s brought. We do well to see the 1965 Missal as a bridge back to the more modest changes envisioned by the council and as a template for the kind of cross-pollination that Pope Benedict wished for when he spoke of the two forms influencing each other.

This video provides a look back at 1967 in a crazy Elvis movie. But it depicts a kind of estuary where there were still signs of Tradition but also of the radical changes under way in that era. The 1965 Missal barely saw the light of day before the liturgists were at it again, ending with all sorts of additional changes. They were wild and crazy times and I remember them well. Sadly, at the time, with radical changes everywhere, very few of us woke up to the damage that was being done until it was largely done.

A bill has been introduced in the Washington D.C. City Council to legalize assisted suicide. And thus yet another battle is before us in the cultural meltdown of our land. Unpleasant though it is, dear reader, consider with me the proposed legislation and why we, as both Christians and those dedicated to Natural Law and the common good, must vigorously oppose it.

As a tool for reflection, I am using an article published recently on the website DCist.com. I present here some excerpts from the article. The full article is here: Cheh Introduces ‘Death With Dignity’ Assisted Suicide Bill. As usual, excerpts from the original article appear in bold, black italics, and my comments are in plain, red text.

Currently, assisted suicide is legal in only four states, but D.C. could soon join that list. (Why am I not surprised? This same city has been among the jurisdictions “leading” the way to legalizing same-sex unions, pot smoking, and now assisted suicide.) Earlier this week, Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) introduced a bill that would allow terminally ill patients with only months left to live the choice to end their life on their own terms.

One thing must be said to fellow Christians: Don’t you ever end life “on your own terms.” That is not for you to say. Your life is not your own. God gave you that life and you are a steward of it, not its owner. Scripture says, You are not your own. For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20).

Saying that you can take life “on your own terms” is another way of saying, “Jesus is NOT Lord.” That is a terrible renunciation of our faith. Jesus teaches us clearly of the Cross in our life and its value to us who believe. Any Christian who says that people should be able to end life on their own terms is denying the Cross, denying our faith, and denying that Jesus is Lord and has sovereignty over life. Don’t do it.

And do not be deceived by sugar-coated arguments that seek to represent the philosophy of assisted suicide as anything less than a denial of these central truths of our faith.

Don’t even think of going to the judgment seat of Christ and saying, “I did it my way.” Ponder the callousness of standing before our Lord, who was tortured to death for us, and saying to Him, “I deserved to die with dignity.”

Please consider the thinking behind this euthanasia movement and how unfit it is for any Christian to think this way or even to be supportive of others who do.

Suicide for those who are despondent is tragic. But what is being proposed here is a prideful philosophy by those who are well and of sound mind to coldly and with calculation end their life, or be “supportive” of others who do so.

The preceding appeal is to those who say they have faith. Another approach is given below to appeal to non-believers or “lip service” believers. 

Under the proposed “Death with Dignity Act of 2015,” a mentally competent patient suffering from a terminal illness that’s “likely to result in death within six months” can request medication that would allow them to choose the time, place, and circumstances of his/her death.” … [He or she] can coordinate with his or her attending doctor and a consulting physician about the possibility of assisted suicide. Once both doctors verify the patient’s terminal diagnosis and determine his or her mental competency, the patient can request a lethal dose of medication they can use when they’re ready. …

Asking a doctor to help you kill yourself is like asking a priest to help you sin. It is wrong and an abuse of the purpose of the medical profession. I hope large numbers of doctors will note this and speak up against it. Doctors and nurses are supposed to bring healing and comfort. Causing death is not in not their job description.

Thankfully, increasing numbers of doctors and nurses are speaking out against this abuse of their profession and I hope none of them will allow themselves to be used in this way. Sadly (as with abortion), there will always be those willing to do it, either for money or  because they have wrongfully accepted the premise that helping people commit suicide is “good medicine.”

Rigorous provisions have been included in this bill to protect patients from undue influence or coercion and to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected. 

Sorry, but “rigorous” protections aren’t going to help. Sanctioning the suicide of the sick and dying is going to put pressure on all the sick and dying to “check out” and stop consuming “valuable resources.”

All your rigorous protections are not going to stop a souring of the understanding that those who are suffering and dying are worthy of our care. It doesn’t take a trained sociologist to see how these things will play out. It’s simple: 1. Erode the sacredness of human life as wholly belonging to God, 2. Put such decisions in human hands, 3. Add a little economic pressure and pepper it with insurance limits and long-term care clocks that run out, and  4. Voila! Now that Grandma can decide to kill herself, perhaps she ought to decide to do so. “Really, it’s for the best, given the shortage of resources.”

Sorry Ms. Cheh and all proponents of “death with dignity,” but in the end all we end up with is death, and dignity itself is put to death.

And by the way, don’t you dare suggest that my father, who died after a long illness, did not “die with dignity.” Your little slogan is disrespectful to all who suffer but refuse to take your poison pill or ingest your philosophy.

Some will say that “dignity” is merely a reference to our freedom to choose. But where will this dignity go when the pressure to “end it all” grows and the “choice” becomes an expectation?

Asked if she’s discussed the bill with any other Councilmembers yet and has support on it, Cheh says that she “[hasn’t] really tried to take their temperature” on it, and would rather “let it percolate around the building” than trying to rush it through to Bowser’s desk.

Regardless of what may happen with the bill, Cheh said she’s relieved to have finally introduced it. “I felt a great sense of happiness about it,” she said. “I really think it’s something people should be entitled to have … if somebody is capable of making this decision and wants to do it, they should have that choice.”

Notice that in her reasoning there seems to be no sense whatsoever of the common good. It’s all about personal rights and entitlements. She says that people should be able to take their own lives (if they meet all her rigorous “criteria”), but there is not a word about what impact this might have on others.

Why does any government need to sanction this form of suicide at all?  For those who really want to kill themselves, there is little that can be done to stop them. We’re certainly not going to prosecute them after they’re dead. It’s also unlikely that we’re going to be able to track down the people who slipped them the means to do it.

Why should the government facilitate such behavior by granting it legal status? Why do so many people demand that government sanction their behavior?

The likely answer to this is that we are dealing with something more than concern for the dying here. We are dealing with advocacy for a movement with its own agenda. This is a movement that has existed for a long time in this country. It wants legal standing so as to grow, gain status, become more well-funded,  and draw others to its strange view that suicide is in fact a good thing rather than the awful thing we have always thought it to be. It is a branch of another movement generally called secularism and is another result of moving God to the periphery and man to the center.

Rooted in secularism and, I would argue, pride, the demand to legalize suicide is but another facet of a stone hurled by those who reject the “limits” that faith proposes. They seek to further the notion that man is the master of all things and that there should be no limits placed on our actions by God, organized religion, or religious tradition. Whether this is conscious or not on the part of everyone who advocates this view, I cannot say. But the premises of secularism and anthropocentrism are essential to such an argument winning the day.

To advocates of this sort of secular pride that rejects the authority of God or faith, we can only advance an argument that appeals to the common good:

I cannot prevent you from killing yourself, but please do not ask me to approve of it, or ask our government to fund, regulate, or sanction your death-directed drives. You do not have my support to take what does not belong to you.

In terms of natural law, you ought to consider how your selfish desires will endanger everyone. Cease and desist from your demand that we sanction your view and carefully consider the harm you will bring to the dying, the chronically ill, and the handicapped, whether you intend it or not.

What you claim to offer as optional will soon enough become expected. I don’t know if that is your intention, but it is sure to be the result. Stand down from this misguided notion. Even if you don’t believe in God and even if you think that you actually own your life, please consider that you endanger my life and the lives of others by sanctioning an ultimately self-indulgent notion of suicide.

Think about it! Consider that your insistence on some newly crafted individual right harms the common good in a way that is both unnecessary and unjustified. 

 Here’s a song that once had an innocent ring to it. Now it is more frighteningly real. The song asks, “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?” … or 84, or dying, or chronically ill …

There is a marvelous chapter in the Book of Proverbs that ought to be studied by every young person who must live in this lustful world. It sets forth plainly the stance that any son or daughter of God should have regarding the lust so often celebrated by this age.

Many preachers and teachers wince at the Book of Proverbs on this topic since it tends to portray seduction and lust as coming from women.

However it must be recalled that Proverbs features a father speaking to his son. So the context is that of a young man experiencing seduction from a certain class of women (not all women).

The silence of this chapter of Proverbs on the problem of men seducing women should not be taken as a denial of this problem; it is simply not the context of the discussion. Any woman ought to be able to take the advice given here and translate it for her own sake as well.

With that in mind let’s look at this masterful advice from the Wisdom of God. The alliterations (on the letter “D”) are based on a talk by Rev. Adrian Rogers that I heard many years ago. While the alliterations are his, the content of this article is wholly mine.

I. The Discretion we should follow – 1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding; 2 that you may keep discretion, and your lips may guard knowledge.

As we have seen, the Book of Proverbs takes up the form of a father advising his son. One of the most critical roles a father or parent has is to teach and hand on the preserved and tested wisdom that comes to us from God and from experience. Hence a father should teach his children at length regarding all matters of life, including sexuality. He should also insist that his children both listen (incline their ears) and apply (attend to) the wisdom that comes from God.

With the modern breakdown of the family on a wide scale, this basic function of fathers, specifically, and parents and elders, in general, is poorly executed in many cases. Children today are often without critical moral instruction, at least of a healthy sort.

Add to this problem the concept of the “generation gap” that emerged in the cultural revolution of the 1960s. During that time, young people widely believed that “old people” were out-of-touch, repressed, and without any real wisdom to offer. While this is a somewhat typical tendency in adolescence, it was powerfully affirmed in the popular music of the time, which reveled in rebellion against authority, the use of drugs, and the celebration of “free love.” Young people were encouraged to break away from the repression and outdated notions of their elders. Rebellion (almost for its own sake) was the key to ushering in a new reality.

But without respect there can be no teaching. Thus many foolish and destructive tendencies (such as the abandonment of self-control and personal responsibly) were ushered in, ones that more functioning cultures learned long ago were dead ends.

The opening verse encourages the son to hearken to the wisdom of the elders so that he may keep discretion. In this case discretion refers to the ability to exercise good judgment and to having cautious reserve. Discretion is the ability to make responsible decisions. Sound teaching is meant to assist sound decisions.

The son is also encouraged to hearken to wisdom so that his own lips may preserve knowledge. In other words, one day he will need to teach others. What comes from his mouth ought to be the tested wisdom of God, not the passing and often foolish slogans of the world.

Sadly, when one generation largely fails to teach wisdom, the next generation is not only poorly instructed, it is ill-equipped to teach, and this allows the problems multiply quickly.  What was once common sense isn’t very common anymore. It does not take long for the whole culture to start crumbling if good sense cannot be restored.

Hence there is a discretion, a received wisdom that ensures sound judgment that we must receive, keep, preserve, and pass on.

II. The Deception we should avoid – 3 For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not take heed to the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.

Here then is the description of “Lady Lust” by way of personification. Surely she is the antithesis of Lady Wisdom! Again let us recall that the personification, though feminine, does not mean that lust and seduction are unique to women (any more than wisdom is unique to women). Men, too, can seduce and surely can be lustful and draw others to lust. However, as a general rule, men are more immediately susceptible to lust, and even if you wish to debate that, recall that this book is a collection of teachings of a father to his son.

Note the description of sweet lips and smooth talking. Lust always plies her wares by emphasizing her sweet delights, never mentioning the cost. The bill comes later! And her smooth talk assures that this will all be OK, that those who object are sexually repressed, judgmental, and just don’t “understand.” She assures that “experts” have found “healthy” societies where free love is practiced. She cites statistics that almost everyone fornicates and thinks it is OK. And, after all, can the majority of people be so wrong? Yes, she’s a smooth talker all right.

But then comes the bill and the results are bitter as wormwood. Lust cuts like a sharp but jagged knife and in her deathly ways she drags souls to hell.

And yet as the text says, Lady Lust has lost sight of her own lies. She has even convinced herself of her lies and deceptions. This occurs because of the way that sins, especially sins of the flesh, cloud the intellect. St. Thomas notes that the sins of the flesh (lust and gluttony) are not usually the most serious (sins of the Spirit such as pride are more serious), but they are the most disgraceful because of the way that they darken our mind. St. Paul says the same in Romans when he says that those who suppress the truth claim to be wise, but are fools and their senseless minds are darkened (cf Rom 1:17ff).

Thus, Lady Lust cannot even see for herself how foolish her own notions are. She believes her own lies and so do those who fall into her trap. Even middle school students can see how unhealthy promiscuity is. They can observe that homosexual acts violate the very design of the body and that the “parts don’t fit.” But this is because their hearts have not yet been blinded by lust, nor their minds darkened by it.

But Lady Lust and her followers soon become blind and fail to see even the most obvious facts before them; their minds are darkened. Jesus says, Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? (Lk 6:39) And so it is for Lady Lust: she is blinded by her lust.

III. The Distance we should keep – 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house;

Yes, stay away. How many have been snared by her for merely coming too close! Today addiction to Internet porn has reached shocking levels. Many young men think it impossible to break free. Worse still, the addiction descends into ever darker and even unnatural places. What begins as sinfully looking at “ordinary” nudity soon descends to viewing depictions of some of the vilest sexual practices. Children today can find displayed before them practices that normal adults would not have even imagined just 50 years ago. Deeper and darker, many today descend into lust’s worst effects. Even animals do not do the things routinely pined for by those addicted to lust. There is a great debasement described in the literature and by experts who try to help those lost in lust. Even if they can break free, their minds may be sullied for years, even for life.

Hence, scripture says here to stay far away, to venture not even near the door of “Lady Lust.” Elsewhere, St. Paul writes, Flee Fornication! (1  Cor 6:18) There is to be no dabbling with her, no risk-taking, no testing of the limits, no teasing, no occasional looks at risky websites to satisfy curiosity. One must soberly, carefully, and prudently avoid any and all commerce with Lady Lust. Otherwise, she too easily gets her hooks in. And once that happens, for too many it is goodbye to innocence and healthy notions of human sexuality.

Keep a safe distance. Install web filters. Engage in prudent dating practices. There is a distance that we must maintain. If we do not, the damage that will come is powerfully described in the verses to follow.

IV. The Damage we will suffer – Many damages are described! 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien; 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed, 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors. 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.” 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you … 21 For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he watches all his paths. 22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin. 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The following damages can be listed:

A. Dissipation – 9 lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless; 10 lest strangers take their fill of your strength, and your labors go to the house of an alien … 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you …

Practically speaking, many fornicators and adulterers find their income reduced by alimony, child support, etc. Those who flee these responsibilities are often pursued by the government and have their wages garnished. They must pay numerous fees and penalties for their lack of compliance. They assume the financial costs but without the benefits of a loving wife and children, a common home, and the shared joys that God intended to go with the challenges of marriage and family.

Hence the text speaks of the honors, strengths, and fruits of labor of the fornicator and adulterer going to strangers, to homes where he does not live or enjoy the warmth and love thereof.

Why should this be, O lover of lust, that your wealth and resources be scattered?  Resist lust now or you will find your resources scattered to alien homes.

And this is the first damage that Lady Lust exacts: dissipation.

B. Disease 11 and at the end of your life you groan, when your flesh and body are consumed,

Practically speaking, the text points to sexually transmitted diseases (from herpes to AIDS).

More spiritually and emotionally, the text can also refer to the emotional and spiritual damage that comes from giving your body over to strangers and to lust. There is the anger and depression of being used and discarded. Intimacy cannot be exchanged in a merely physical way; humans are just not made that way. Our soul and psyche are deeply connected to our body, especially in matters of profound physical intimacy. And to be joined in this way can never be as casual as the lustful say it is. There is a connection that sets up and is hard to break. There is a whole subset of deliverance ministry that is devoted to helping people break their “soul ties” to past sexual “partners.”

Add to this list of ailments the awful sorrow and gnawing guilt associated with post-abortion syndrome.

Many groan under the physical, spiritual, psychological, and emotional weight of their sins. And even for believers who know somehow that God has forgiven them, it is often harder for them to forgive themselves. It is a weight of guilt, embarrassment, and shame that for many is hard to shake. Lady Lust does not like those who have discovered her lies, and she taunts them with guilt and shame.

The verse also points to the end of life. And though at the end of our life we are meant to be surrounded by loving children and grandchildren, many who served Lady Lust will die far more alone than they should.

C. Disappointment – 12 and you say, “How I hated discipline, and my heart despised reproof! 13 I did not listen to the voice of my teachers or incline my ear to my instructors … ”

At some point, if the sinner ever wakes up, his disappointment with himself is often colossal. He feels foolish and regrets that he pridefully rejected instruction and regarded it as stupid or old-fashioned. I meet people like this all the time who “wish they had it all to do over again.”

It is so easy to scoff at instruction when we are young, and even when we are not so young. And in a culture fixated on adolescent rebellion, a culture that thinks it knows better than Mother Church, there are still some who finally grow up and realize what a mess they have made of their own life and that of others.

The promises that sexual and other sinful pleasures make are cast on the rocky shore of disappointment and betrayal.

D. Disgrace – 14 I was at the point of utter ruin in the assembled congregation.

Our private sins have a way of going public. The Internet porn addict discovers that his browsing habits are known by search engines, the FBI, and  even prospective employers who do background checks. Security clearances are threatened. The adulterer is found out. The boyfriend running from his duties to the pregnant girlfriend is summoned to answer for himself. The sinful priest is turned in, arrested, and loses his parish and ministry. The sexually abusive stepfather is arrested. The public school teacher has her escapades with the teen boy displayed on the nightly news.

At some point it would seem that even Lady Lust and Satan himself tire of the sinner and like to see him suffer before Hell comes. Though Satan risks having the person repent and ultimately be saved, it would seem he can’t quite resist making an early “snack” of some of his followers.

And thus what is done in the darkness will be brought to the light.

Even a world that says sexual sin is “no big deal” turns on its own at some point. The sinner cannot escape the special shame and scorn that goes with sins of the flesh like sex, drinking, and gluttony.

On account of envy, many fellow sinners delight in pointing to someone in worse shape than they are. Somehow they think that this will make them feel better. Maybe, but only for a moment; envy is the sin that keeps on taking.

E. Domination – 22 The iniquities of the wicked enslave him, and he is caught in the toils of his sin.

There is an addictive quality to lust and especially to Internet pornography. Many reach a point where they feel enslaved. They want to stop, but feel incapable. And though their habit is costing them dearly in all the ways already described, even this cannot motivate them to stop. They are enslaved and dominated by Lady Lust.

F. Death – 23 He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is lost.

The death described here is surely a spiritual death. However there are those, not few in number, who have physically died from syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS.

St. Paul says, For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23). We were made to be alive in the Lord and free, but sin (in this case indulged lust) drags us to death and Hell.

Jesus also warns, but He advances a solution as well: Therefore I say to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Only the grace of God, working through our faith and God’s mercy, can cancel the death that will ultimately come upon the unrepentant slave of lust (or of any of her nasty sisters, cousins, and aunts). Scripture says, The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God … Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life … (Gal 5: 19-21; 6:7-8).

The text says that this death comes upon one who lacks discipline. The word discipline is rooted in the Latin word discere (to learn). In English, the word discipline also speaks to applying what one has learned as a way forward. And thus one can be said to engage in the discipline of learning or the discipline of science. To lack discipline is to reject sound teaching or to refuse to apply it.

The text adds that it is a great “folly” to do so. Folly is related to the word “fool.” Who is the fool? The one who refuses received and taught wisdom.

Make no mistake then, to refuse or reject God’s wisdom, handed on through the Church, is foolish, shows a lack of discipline, and brings death.

V. The Design that we should follow – 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 A loving doe, a graceful fawn–let her breasts always satisfy you; be lost in her love forever. 20 Why should you be infatuated, my son, with a loose woman and embrace the bosom of an adventuress?

Yes, here is God’s design: that a man should leave his father and mother, seek for a wife, and having found her, cling wholly to her in an embrace of growing and fruitful love. This plan has its difficulties and requires sacrifice, mercy, and mutual forgiveness. But, unlike lust, God’s plan gives life. Fruitful, faithful, and lasting matrimony is God’s answer to a lustful world.

Lady Lust is no lady. And as another proverb says, Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised … An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain (Prov 31:30, 10-11).

The readings of “Ordinary Time” (Tempus per annum, in Latin) focus a lot on the call to discipleship and the living of the Christian Faith. The readings for today’s Mass are no exception, as they present us with a number of disciplines for disciples. These disciplines free us to serve Christ and His Kingdom joyfully, energetically, and wholeheartedly. We can group these disciplines into three broad areas, such that discipleship is undefiant, unfettered, and untiring. Within these three categories are some other reflections as well. Let’s consider each area of discipline as reflected in the readings.

I.  Undefiant – The first reading today covers the ministry of the reluctant prophet, Jonah. In today’s reading we get only the end of the story. But as most of us know, Jonah was not merely reluctant in accepting his mission as a prophet, he was downright defiant. Recall his story:

1. His Refusal – The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai, “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it … ” But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish (1:1-3). Thus, Jonah defiantly runs from God; he refuses the mission.
2. His Running – Now Nineveh was 550 miles east of Israel. Tarshish was 2,500 miles west of Israel. Do you get the picture? Jonah was doing some serious running! Rather than go 550 miles to do God’s will, he was ready to travel 2,500 miles to get away from God’s will. It’s always a longer trip when you defy God. God wants to spare us the extra mileage!
3. His Resistance – As Jonah runs away from God, great storms arise at sea. The storms of defiance rage, but Jonah sleeps. And the storms affect not only him, but those who sail with him as well. Yes, our moral decisions DO affect others around us, despite our individualistic notion that what we do is no one else’s business. And thus, for some of us, great storms can come into our lives. Has it ever occurred to you that some of the storms in our lives may be related to a situation in which God said, “This way,” but we defied him and said, “No, that way”? Maybe we need to wake up and say, “What does this storm mean?”
4. His Return – Swallowed by the great fish, Jonah is brought back to the very place where he sailed away from God (Joppa). And, in effect, God says, “Let’s try this all over again.” So Jonah makes ready and goes to Nineveh, according to the LORD’s bidding. Yes, Jonah was smart this time.

So the point is that disciples (we) must learn to be undefiant. In effect, God wants to save us some mileage. Obedience to His will is always easier than disobedience.

Consider, too, how undefiant the Ninevites are as they hear and heed Jonah’s message. And notice how this lack of defiance saves them from destruction and a world of hurt.

It’s always easier to follow God. I did not say it’s easy, just that it’s easier. Someone may think sin is more pleasurable and easier in the moment. And, frankly, it may be. But sin unleashes a world of difficulties and complications in its wake. If you do not think this is so, just read a newspaper and consider how many of our difficulties are directly tied to our sinful attitudes and choices. Frankly, the vast majority of this world’s suffering is directly attributable to the rebellious sinfulness of humanity.

The first discipline of discipleship is undefiance. By this discipline, we are spared many difficulties and remain teachable and open to God’s wisdom.

II. Unfettered – To be unfettered means to be unchained, unshackled, and free to move about. The second reading today presents a vivid and sober portrait of what being unfettered and detached looks like:

I tell you, brothers and sisters, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world, as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away (1 Cor 7:29ff).

Now this text does not mean that we have no recourse at all to these things and people, but rather that we live “as” not having them. In other words, we must seek the gift to realize that nothing in this passing world remains. Nothing here, not even marriage, is the sole reason for our existence or the sole source of meaning for us. God, and God alone, is the source of meaning and the lasting goal of our life. All else will pass.

For most of us, detachment form this world is THE battle, the central struggle we face. On account of our attachment to this world, we are strongly hindered from freely following Christ. A couple of passages come to mind:

1. Mark 10:22ff Jesus, said [to the rich young man], “If you would be perfect, go and sell all that you have, (and you will have treasure in heaven) and then come and follow me.” At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
2. Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money … So do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?” For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

But the world so easily has a thousand hooks in us. We are chained and fettered; our freedom to follow Christ is severely compromised.

The fact is, the battle to be free and unfettered is a process. God can give us this freedom, but it takes time and obedience from us. Little by little, God breaks the shackles of this world, and all its treasures come to seem as of little value. Slowly we come to what St. Paul came to say,

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ (Phil 3:7-8).

III. Untiring – Consider that among Jesus’ first followers were several fishermen. The text of the Gospel today says, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

But, we may ask, is there some meaning in the fact that fishermen were among His first and most prominent disciples? Perhaps so.

Consider that fishermen have some important qualities that are helpful for discipleship:

1. Patient – Fishermen often need to wait for many hours, even days, for a catch. Disciples need great patience as do evangelizers.
2. Professional – Fishermen need to spend time learning about the types and behaviors of fish, learning to observe the water and navigate, learning the right time of day and the right season to fish. They need to know the right bait, the proper use of the net. All of these traits are good for disciples and are especially helpful in evangelization, which is “job one” for the disciple. Through growing in practical knowledge, we come to know our faith and learn effective ways to be fishers of men.
3. Purposeful – When fishermen are out fishing, they are entirely focused on their endeavor. That’s all they do; everything is centered on the main task. They are single-minded. Disciples surely need more of this attitude. The Book of James says, The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). St. Paul says, But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:13-14). Every disciple needs to be more single-minded.
4. Pursuing – Note that they simply go to the fish. Too many Catholic parishes merely open the doors and hope that people will come to them; that is not evangelization. The key word for disciples and evangelizers is “Go.”
5. Partnered – Fishermen work in teams. Thus Jesus sends disciples out, two by two.
6. Persistent – If fishermen don’t make a catch today, they’re back out tomorrow. Disciples surely need to persist, both in their own journey and in making disciples of others.

Thus, in today’s readings are a number of disciplines of discipleship. The green vestments of Ordinary Time remind us of growth, both our own personal growth and that of the Church. Ultimately, a free heart is a joyful heart. It is a heart that is not easily tired, because it is not divided by serving two masters. It is a heart that ungrudgingly serves the Kingdom.

Here’s a song that speaks of the patient, purposeful, and persistent action on behalf of God’s kingdom. It is a song that can only come from a heart that is undefiant, unfettered, and untiring; from a heart that says, “I keep so busy workin’ for the Kingdom, I ain’t got time to die!”