Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Can We Talk? A brief list of annoying expressions and verbal fumbles common today.

100213We all have certain phrases that annoy us. There are also oddities that creep into the language that can use comment or correction. To that end, I propose a short list of ten annoying words and expressions. Sometimes words are misused, sometimes expressions exist that come to irritate.

Please accept this list in the humorous vein it is intended. I am playing the role of an irritated curmudgeon, but its just the shtick. Have some fun with me as I complain and add to my list.

So, can we talk? He’s my list of annoyances.

1. “With all due respect….” What this phrase usually means, is that the recipient isn’t going to get any respect. When you open an e-mail and it begins, “With all due respect Mr Jones..…’ Don’t you just wince and know that this message is going to be really bad? In a way, the expression is a form of lip service, as if to say,  “I want to dispense with the silly tradition of having to accord some modicum of respect to you, given your title or position, and get on to what was really on my mind, namely, that you’re all wrong, and probably clueless as well. And of course, be assured  I say this with all due respect…” 🙂

2. Decimate – Most people use this word today as meaning, “to utterly destroy.”  So one might say, “Our culture has really been decimated by no-fault divorce.” But decimate does not mean “to utterly destroy.” Decimate means to reduce something by a tenth (Deci = ten). The word comes from the Roman practice wherein, after conquering a town that was guilty of some sort of uprising or rebellion, the Romans would line up all the men of that town in the public square, and kill every tenth man. In effect, the message was, “You mess with the Romans and this is what you get. It’ll be worse next time… Alas, trying to recover the original meaning of this word may be a lost cause at this point. The word may be destined to go the way of other Latin-based words such as “manufacture” which means literally in Latin “hand-made” (manu = hand, facere = to make). But now it means just the opposite. Other English based words have also reversed meanings, so that we drive in parkways and park on driveways. But, for the record, “decimate” does NOT mean totally destroy, it means to reduce something by a tenth.

3. Service –  There is a tendency, especially from government officials, to take the noun “service,” and turn it into a verb. And so it is common to hear someone say, “We service our clients.”  or,  “We serviced 50 people last month.” No! People are served, not serviced. Perhaps you may speak of  a car as being serviced, but people are served. It’s hard to know where this manner speaking came from, but I sadly suspect it crept in from the world of prostitution, where prostitutes often speak of “servicing” their “Johns” (i.e. clients). But for the record, we do not “service” people, we serve them, people are not “serviced” they are served.

4. Not unlike –  This strange expression, in a way, cancels itself out as a double negative. For example, someone may say, “This car is not unlike that car.”  Trying to figure out exactly what the sentence means may very well make your head explode. In fact, it strains the meaning of the word “sentence”  which refers to a string of words which makes sense.  Perhaps, in the sentence above, the person means to say this car is not like that car? Or maybe they mean just the opposite, since not + un means “is” doesn’t it?  (negative + negative = positive).  Then perhaps the sentence means this car is like that car? Like I say, it can make your head explode. To try to avoid making heads explode by not using the expression,  “not unlike.”

5. Proactive –  Another strange word that has crept into our vocabulary. How is “proactive” so different than active? One might argue that there’s a temporal dimension here. Hence one who is “proactive” is one who is actually ahead of his time. But usually we use the prefix “pre” in temporal references, as in “preemptive” or “prediction.” To be honest, in the sentence, “He is a proactive person” I’m not exactly sure what is really meant here. I think the speaker intends to indicate something positive, such that the person is sort of “ahead of the curve” or something. But honestly is just not all that clear what the word “proactive” means,  at least to me. But, maybe I’m just being reactive.

6. Utilize – Why not just say “use”? This oddity is  beginning to diminish, and none too soon. I live for the day when we no longer use “utilize.”

7. Intellectually dishonest  – how is being “intellectually dishonest,” different from being just plain dishonest? Is not honesty or dishonesty always rooted in the intellect and manifest in speech? If there are some other types of dishonesty,  such as say emotional dishonesty, or physical dishonesty, or verbal dishonesty,  I have never heard such qualifiers attached. So if someone says,  “You are being intellectually dishonest”, it seems to me that is just a highfalutin way of saying you’re being dishonest.

8. Dialog – Why not just say “discuss” or “discussion?” Thus when someone says, “I’m having a dialogue with someone”, why not just say,  I’m having a discussion with someone” ?? An even more egregious form of abusing this word is to turn dialogue into a verb; so someone might say, “We are dialoguing about this problem.” But why not just say, “We are discussing this problem?”  Turning nouns into verbs or verbal forms generally produces strange results. To quote a classic line from Calvin and Hobbes, “Your verbing is weirding  me out. So, let’s talk, let’s have a discussion,  but let’s limit the use of the word dialogue, and certainly avoid the strange construction dialoguing.

9. Using “so” as an interjection –  This tendency is especially manifest in academic settings. It tends to be placed at the beginning of the answer to a question. And thus a question may be asked at an academic seminar such as, “What does the data show in relation to this problem?”  And the scientist responds, “So… The data seems to say that things are going to get worse.” Interjections are sometimes used as delaying tactics as a person formulates an answer. But in this case, I’m suspicious that it tends to come more from the more from the relativistic climate of academic settings. And thus the interjection “So…” expressed gently and slowly, makes the person seem thoughtful and somehow not arrogantly certain of what they are about to say.   So… I don’t want to come off is too nasty, but would you please stop saying “so” all the time?

10. “Are you suggesting…? ” This is a common expression that prefaces a question usually by members of the main-stream media. Thus a member of the media may ask someone such as me, “Are you suggesting that people who don’t follow the teachings of the Church are in error?  There’s a part of me that wants to answer,  “I am not suggesting anything,  I’m saying it outright!” But here too the phrase seems to serve a relativist climate where people “suggest” rather than say, or claim. But let me be clear, as one NOT influenced by relativism to a large decree, when I am asked a question, I state an answer. I do not suggest an answer, and neither should you, at least when it comes to faith or morals.  Do not suggest the faith, Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.

OK, can we talk?? Here’s my short list of annoying lexicon. What do you want to add?

Posted on

Five Remedies for Sorrow From Saint Thomas Aquinas

100113One doesn’t usually think to go first to the Summa Theologica for advice on emotional matters. Yet in this post we shall indeed go to St Thomas here, seek advice on sorrow and consider some of his remedies for it. His advice is contained primarily in the Prima Secundae questions 35 – 37.

St. Thomas follows some of the eastern fathers in naming four kinds of sorrow (cf I IIae 35:8): Anxiety, Torpor, Pity, and Envy. Let’s look at each before examining some of the remedies he suggests:

1. Anxiety  – is a kind of sorrow that emerges when the mind is weighed down with something so as to make escape seem impossible. Thomas’ definition is likely rooted in the Latin word angustia which means a narrow pass or straight. And thus anxiety tends to arise when we experience stress about a situation and find no room to maneuver, no way out. Anxiety also tends to regard the future, whereas pain regards to present. In pain, one can suffer in the moment about the situation, but knows that it will pass. But anxiety arises when we sense no determined end to the painful situation, no room to maneuver, and no way out.

Thomas calls anxiety a form of sadness. And so also in modern culture we often link anxiety and depression. This is because anxiety, as a sorrow, weighs us down. And just as joy and hope tend to expand and lighten, the sorrow of anxiety tends to crush and turn us inward. It makes us feel limited, hemmed in, confined, and heavily weighed down.

Someone once said that depression is anger turned inward. This makes sense, because anger results from fear and anxiety, and anger that cannot be expressed or managed becomes like a heavy weight or depression.

2. Torpor – is an uncommon word today, but literally, it refers to slowness of movement. When one is sorrowful or depressed, they are less motivated to move. St. Thomas says If, however, the mind be weighed down so much, even the limbs become motionless, which belongs to “torpor” (I IIae 35.8). Even ordinary talking with others, which is a kind of movement, seems difficult and arduous. The sorrow we call torpor, slows us down, and makes us feel rundown, sluggish.

Inactivity tends to build, and the less motivated we feel, the less we move, and the less we move, the less motivated we feel; a kind of downward spiral.

This is why those who are experiencing depression are often encouraged to find a friend that will make them move about, make them go places, even if they don’t feel like it. This helps to stave off the downward spiral the torpor brings.

The second two types of sorrow that relate more to our experience of other people’s circumstances these are pity and envy.

3. Pity – is the sorrow that we feel for the evil or misfortune endured by another person. But it is deeper than mere regret or perturbance. Pity is to experience the misfortune of another, as though it were our own.

Pity therefore implies a felt relationship. Perhaps it involves a close friend or family member, but it can also be the felt relationship of common humanity with the one who suffers.

Of itself, pity is a proper and good sorrow born in love. And yet, like any common human emotions or passions, it can be tainted by sinfulness. For example, sometimes pity results more from ego needs wherein one develops a sort of condescending attitude, needing to see others as beneath them or worse off.

And thus, what masquerades as pity is too easily and merely the drive to be in a superior position vis-à-vis another person. Patronizing attitudes are a misguided pity where we do for people what they should rightfully do for themselves, and too easily rob others of their dignity and their call to live responsible lives.

Hence, pity, like any sorrow has to be moderated and helped by reason, and also the understanding that it is not always possible or helpful to assist everyone, in every circumstance, simply because we feel sorrow for their condition. Sometimes the best we can do is listen to them, and pray for them.

Properly understood pity is a very beautiful emotion or passion rooted in love for others.

4. Envy – on the other hand, is a very dark sorrow rooted in sin. I have written more extensively on envy here: ENVY. For this reflection let it suffice to say that envy is a form of sorrow, or anger at the excellence, or good fortune of another person, because I take it somehow to lessen my own glory perceived excellence.

Envy is a particularly dark sin, because it seeks to destroy the goodness in others rather than to celebrate it. If I am jealous of you, you have something I want. But when I am envious, I seek to destroy that which is good in you. That is why St. Augustine called envy THE diabolical sin.

While discussing these four types of sorrow, St. Thomas also discusses some solutions to overcome them. We will look at them. But first, since envy sort of stands apart from the other forms of sorrow, due to its always sinful quality, the remedy for it is also unique. The remedy for envy are the gifts of joy and Zeal. When someone else has excellence or  good fortune, the proper response to seek is to rejoice with them and for them,  as members of one body. When one member is praised, all the members are praised, when one member is blessed, all the members are blessed. This is rational and reasonable we should seek from God the gift of joy at the excellence or good fortune of another person. We should also seek from God the virtue of  zeal, wherein we seek to imitate, where possible, the excellence we observe in others.

Remedies – As for the other forms of sorrow, anxiety, torpor, and pity, Saint Thomas advises some of the following remedies:

1. Weeping –  St. Thomas makes a very interesting observation and where there is laughter and smiling there is increased joy. But weeping, rather than increasing sorrow, diminishes it. How is this? He says, First, because a hurtful thing hurts yet more if we keep it shut up, because the soul is more intent on it: whereas if it be allowed to escape, the soul’s intention is dispersed as it were on outward things, so that the inward sorrow is lessened. (I IIae 38.2) Thus tears are the soul’s way to exhale sorrow. For when we weep, we release sorrow. Tears have a way of flushing it from our system.

It is a rather beautiful and freeing insight, especially for some of us who were raised with more Stoic notions. Many of us, especially men, were often told not to cry, not to show emotions. But of course such an approach seldom works, for the more we shut up our sorrow, the more the mind ruminates on it. Better to weep and let it run out like water through our tears.

2. Sharing our sorrows with friends – Scripture says, Woe to the solitary man, for if he should fall, he has no one to lift him up (Eccl 4:10-11) Aristotle also says “Sorrow shared is a sorrow halved.”

The danger to avoid in sorrow is  turning in on ourselves. We often need the perspective of others. And even if they don’t have many answers to give, or solutions to offer, simply speaking with them of our sorrow is itself a form of release, when it comes to sorrow. St. Thomas also adds: when a man’s friends condole with him, he sees that he is loved by them, and this affords him pleasure….[and] every pleasure assuages sorrow [Ibid].

3. Contemplating the truth –  The word philosophy, means “the love of wisdom,” and for those schooled by it, it provides a great consolation. St Thomas says the greatest of all pleasures consists in the contemplation of truth. Now every pleasure assuages pain…hence the contemplation of truth assuages pain or sorrow, and the more so, the more perfectly one is a lover of wisdom. (I IIae 38.4)

This is even more so, with the contemplation of sacred truth, wherein we are reminded of our final glory and happiness if we persevere. Hence, we are given perspective and reminded of the passing qualities of sorrow in this life, that “trouble don’t last always”, and that the sufferings of this world cannot compare with the glory to be revealed.

4. Pleasure – We have already seen that St. Thomas says “pleasure assuages pain.” If one is physically tired, then sleep is a solution. And if one is in pain or sorrow, pleasure is also helpful remedy.

In sudden and heavy loss or sorrow, some period of quiet convalescence maybe called for. But, there comes a time when one must  go forth and savor the better things in life once again.

One of the Psalms says When sorrow was great within me, your consolation brought joy to my soul (Ps 94:19). And hence, into pain, God will often send consoling pleasures which should be appreciated and savored, with proper moderation of course.

Every now and again as a priest, ministering to those where there has been a tragic or sudden loss of a spouse or other beloved family member, some of those who mourn almost feel guilty when going forth into the world again to enjoy the better things, laughter, good company, and entertainment. But it does little honor to those who died that we should also cease living. There comes a time after suitable in brief mourning one must go forth reclaim the joy of life again.

5. A Warm bath and naps – here is a rather charming remedy that St. Thomas recommends. Charming though it may seem, it  is very good advice, but we are not simply soul, we are also body. And our bodies and souls interact and influence each other.  Sometimes if the soul is vexed, caring for the body will bring soothing help,  even to the soul. St Thomas says, Sorrow, by reason of its specific nature, is repugnant to the vital movement of the body; and consequently whatever restores the bodily nature to its due state of vital movement, is opposed to sorrow and assuages it. (I IIae 38.5)

On the one hand, we live in a culture that tends to overindulge the body. And yet, to overindulge the bodies not really to care for the body. Frankly some of our overindulgence stresses the body, and also thereby vexes the soul.

Surely what St. Thomas has in mind here is the proper care of the body. Whether that means a warm bath, or a gentle walk, or naps, the soothing care of the body can help alleviate sorrow.

Sorrow! It does find us. But in the midst of it, there are some gifts in strange packages. Simply to learn these simple truths can be a gift:  that tears are the soul’s way to exhale, that we ought to reach out and stay in communion with others who can help us, that meditating on eternal truth is important, and that proper soothing care of ourselves has his place.

Sorrow also reminds us that this is not home, that we ought to set our gaze on the place where joy shall never end, even as we must journey through what is often a valley of tears. And yet, does not the Book of Revelation remind us to regard what the Lord will do for those who die in him:

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning,  crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. (Rev 21:4)

Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

Posted on

Our Distinctions are not our Dignity – A Meditation on an Often Forgotten Teaching of Jesus

093013There is an important lesson the Lord teaches us in the Gospel that was read at Mass this morning. For we often get anxious about rather petty notions related to our ranking and dignity, relative to one another. And thus the Gospel passage unfolds as such:

An argument arose among the disciples
about which of them was the greatest.
Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child
and placed him by his side and said to them,
“Whoever receives this child in my name receives me,
and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.
For the one who is least among all of you
is the one who is the greatest.” (Luke 9:46-48)

It is a simple lesson really. So simple that we usually miss it altogether. And the lesson is this: For all our exalted titles, honors and distinctions, at the end of the day our greatest title is “Beloved Son (Daughter) of God.”

Jesus stands this little child in their midst, and to them who would boast of their exalted status, and who was the greatest, Jesus teaches, in effect this is how he sees them all,  and that what makes them great is simply their status as his little and beloved children.

This child is the true picture of greatness, not being a big cheese with a big hat. To be humble, and to see the dignity of humility is to see and experience Jesus.

So much for their debate about who was greatest.

We Catholics, and especially we Catholic Clergy, love our distinctions and honorific titles: Excellency, Eminence, Your Grace, Your Holiness,  Pontifex Maximus, Reverend, Very Reverend, Right Reverend, Reverend Father…. you name it, we got it.

My own full title, given my status as Dean, is:

The Very Reverend Monsignor Charles Evans Pope, M.Div, MA

And you might want to add “Big Mouth Blogger” too.

You want to know what God calls me? “Carlito” (Little Charlie). For whatever “exalted” status I attain, to God, I am just a little kid that he dare not let out of his sight, lest I run into trouble. Whatever my titles (and I am grateful for every bit of graciousness extended to me), I am no more baptized than any other Christian, and my greatest title is “Child of God.”

The Pope has authority, is deserving of our respect, and rightly has titles accorded him. But he is no more baptized that you or I. Before God we are accorded this highest and equal dignity: God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved (cf Col 3:19).  We are just his little children. This is our greatest dignity, our greatest title.

Why, you may ask, do I say “little children?” Because Jesus did. And not only in this Gospel, but elsewhere. There is a tender moment when, after his resurrection, the Lord Jesus stood on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and called out to grown men: “Little Children, have you caught anything?” The Greek is Παιδία (padia) meaning little children or infants. And while this diminutive is surely used affectionately, there is little doubt that this is how God likely sees us.

We easily forget our beloved status before God and thus divert into debates about our relative and lesser status here. We get into our own debates about who is the greatest, about who gets to do what, who gets the honors etc. We debate roles, such as why women can’t be priests, who is the head of the household, what leadership positions are open to who, etc.

Setting aside our greatest dignity, we focus on lesser distinctions.

To be sure there are distinctions and offices, some of them (not all) from God. Scripture says,

And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. (1 Cor 12:28-31)

But note, what ever our distinctions, even those from God himself, our distinctions do not affect our dignity, for our dignity is something we all have by baptism. Before any other title, role, or honor, our greatest title and dignity is “Child of God and member of the Body of Christ.”

Again Scripture says regarding our dignity:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Here there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-29)

St Paul is not denying distinctions. Of course there is male and female. But distinctions do not overrule our common and fundamental dignity: Child of God.

Do we get this? Too often, no. And thus in an instance we’re back off to debates about who is greatest and who gets to do what, who is the big cheese etc.

St. Augustine beautifully underscored how distinctions do not affect dignity when he said, For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian. To my own parishioners I have sometimes glossed on this and said, “For you I am a pastor, with you I am your brother.”

Distinctions should not be confused with dignity. Our greatest dignity and title is something we share, is something given by God, not by man: “Child of God.” Your greatest title.  A simple and often overlooked teaching by Jesus.

Perhaps to conclude with a humorous story:

One day a powerful and influential Cardinal Archbishop of a large city was in Jerusalem, in the market, strolling with his priest secretary. Coming upon a vendor, the vendor cried out: “You sir! Come here, I will give you a fair deal!” The secretary, annoyed at the deployment of the lesser title “sir” by the vendor said to the vendor, “Do you know who this is?” “No!” said the vendor. The priest said, “This is His Eminence Cardinal so and so…” “Really?!” said the vendor. “Well,….I will STILL give you a fair deal!“

For our distinctions, do not affect our fundamental dignity.

I have used this video before. But here is how God Sees us:

Posted on

The Gospels are Reliable – A Refutation of a Recent Errors About Jesus Published in the Washington Post

092913The Washington Post recently published and article by Reza Aslan entitled Five Myths about Jesus.

At one level the article is the “usual fare” from those who wish to discredit the Biblical text and make a little money in the process. Indeed our deconstructionist times love to heap scorn on our Sacred text. Almost no other ancient text receives the scrutiny and cynicism that our Scriptures, especially the New Testament does. I’ll take it as a compliment. Jesus is “public enemy number 1” to the West. Neither Buddhist, Hindu, nor even (strangely) Muslim texts receive such scorn or scrutiny. But Jesus has to go, and one way to accomplish this is to seek to discredit our Sacred Text and subject it to a scrutiny that is extreme, unreasonable, and a standard to which almost no other ancient text is subject. But again, take it as a compliment.

As for Mr Aslan’s article, while there are many specific flaws in his article, the one overarching flaw is a flaw that is common to most 20th and 21st century historical scholars. And the flaw is the hubris that we, some 20 to 21 centuries removed from the events described, somehow know better than the ancients what really happened in biblical times. Never mind that!  Yet, Luke, for example, claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses and claims to carefully mapped out the historical events surrounding Jesus:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Never mind all that, our intrepid author, Mr. Aslan, 21 centuries later somehow knows better than Luke who lived then and walked with the eyewitnesses. He also knows better than Matthew and John, James, Peter, and Jude who all walked with the Lord. He dismisses what they have all written as “shrouded in legend and myth” and couches what he says as reputable “biblical scholarship.”

In effect we are left to choose between someone who lived in the time coterminous with the events described, versus someone who lived more than 2000 years later. I for one, choose those who actually knew Jesus, and witnessed what he did. I further choose others like Luke and Mark who knew and interviewed the eyewitnesses and who wrote in the lifetime of those witnesses, such that had they lied or erred, correction and rejection would have been forthcoming. Yes, I choose the accounts of the actual witnesses whose accounts have been subject to 2000 years of scrutiny and have withstood those fierce winds.

Yet there are those who proudly suggest they now know better, that modernity has been able to somehow assemble a greater command of the fact. This is hubris.

This hubris was common among the so-called “Jesus Seminar,” a gathering of questionable scholars somehow claiming to know what Jesus actually said and did not say. A remarkable pride actually, but a pride not uncommon for us moderns who tend to look askance at ancient times as infantile and far less sophisticated than our own glorious times.

Articles like Mr. Aslan’s, say a lot more about us, than the events they claim to demythologize, or the ancients they disrespectfully dismiss as either mistaken or liars.

As to the particular charges that Mr. Aslan raises, we can answer them rather quickly:

1. He first says, – It is a myth that Jesus was born in Bethlehem: The first Christians seem to have had little interest in Jesus’s early years. Stories about His birth and childhood are conspicuously absent in the earliest written documents…..but prophecies require[d] the messiah, as a descendant of King David, to be born in David’s city: Bethlehem. But Jesus was so identified with Nazareth, Not being born in Bethlehem….Simply put, Luke places Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem not because it took place there but because that story fulfills the words of the prophet Micah: “But you Bethlehem . . . from you shall come for me a ruler in Israel.”

In the world of normal people, the fulfillment of a prophecy is evidence for the veracity of something. But in the twisted world of many Bible “scholars” the fulfillment of prophecy is contraindicative and produces suspicion. Mr. Aslan goes on to cite very questionable and murky histories about the first Century census that dislocated Mary and Joseph. Really what he does is to cite a lack of evidence for such a census. (But of course Luke IS evidence). And Aslan’s argument from silence really proves little or nothing except silence. Census taking was a common thing at the time and there is no reason to doubt Luke’s attesting to it.

He also uses a tired old tactic of saying that if something was not said in the earliest documents, it therefore isn’t true. But this does not follow. I may meet you and tell you nothing of the circumstances of my birth for months or years into our friendship. But it does not follow that I was not in fact born in St. Francis Hospital, Evanston Ill in 1961. Everything is not disclosed at once, it cannot be.

Once again we are simply told to trust our author over the actual source documents in which eyewitnesses were interviewed, eyewitnesses describe the events of Jesus birth. The Gospel states quite plainly that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Why doubt this? At the end of the day, I would rather trust someone who lived at the actual time of the events than someone 21 centuries removed. Jesus was born in Bethlehem no reason to doubt it.

2. He says Jesus had brothers, Despite the Catholic doctrine of His mother Mary’s perpetual virginity, we can be certain that the historical Jesus came from a large family with at least four brothers who are named in the Gospels….Even the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus refers to Jesus’s brother James….Some Catholic theologians have argued that the Greek word the Gospels use to describe Jesus’s brothers — “adelphos” — could also mean “cousins” or “step-brothers,” and that these could be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. While that may be true, nowhere in the New Testament is “adelphos” used to mean anything other than “brother.” So there is no rational argument for viewing Jesus as an only child.

Note that he says “it may be true” that adelphos can mean cousin. But then he simply rejects it with a circular logic that the New Testament never uses the term this way. But how can he know this without the full genealogy of each adelphos of Jesus? Again we are simply asked to believe something because he and scholars he agrees with say so.

And, while this issue has been much debated among Christians for some 500 years, it was not widely debated prior to that. Early Christians, less remote from the events of the New Testament, had no trouble accepting that Mary had no other children or that adelphos could mean cousin.

Further, if Jesus was a member of a large family as Mr. Aslan asserts, we have some puzzling things that take place in the Gospels. For example, Jesus seems to find it necessary to entrust his mother to the care of John, a non-blood brother. Strange thing if they were other brothers on the scene. Further, Mary’s question to the angel “How shall this be since I know not man?” while mysterious, does seem to imply that Mary did not anticipate having children at all let alone Jesus. However one wants to interpret her question, it does remain a puzzling inclusion in the text if, in fact, she had many children.

But the bottom line is, the Church received from antiquity the teaching that Mary remained a virgin before during and after the birth of Christ. Why should you or I believe our intrepid author, 21 centuries later, simply because he overrules with those in the scene, and what subsequent early centuries attested to?

3. His third “myth” that Jesus did not rally have twelve disciples is trifling, and I won’t even spend time on it. You can click through to the article using the link above to read his point.

4. He denies that Jesus was tried before Pilate: In his 10 years as governor of Jerusalem, Pilate eagerly, and without trial, sent thousands to the cross, and the Jews lodged a complaint against him with the Roman emperor. Jews generally did not receive Roman trials, let alone Jews accused of rebellion. So the notion that Pilate would spend a moment of his time pondering the fate of yet another Jewish rabble-rouser, let alone grant him a personal audience, beggars the imagination.

So once again we are being asked to deny the evidence of four Gospels, several more references in the Acts and Epistles, and the evidence of most early Creeds. Why? Because Reza Aslan says so. Again I choose the massive evidence of the First Century documents over Mr. Aslan’s mere assertion that it seems unlikely.
Further his argument does not address the facts. Pilate attended with concern to the “Jesus matter” because he feared a riot. It was Passover and about a million Jews where in the and around the city. The concern for the riot got his attention. This does not “beggar the imagination” that Pilate might have sought to quell a riot and a “rabble” led by the High Priest himself.

5. Finally he denies that Jesus was buried in a tomb saying The primary purpose of crucifixion was to deter rebellion… the criminal was always left hanging long after he died; the crucified were almost never buried. Because the point of crucifixion was to humiliate the victim and frighten witnesses, the corpse would be left to be eaten by dogs and picked clean by birds of prey. The bones would then be thrown onto a trash heap….[not] in an extravagant rock-hewn tomb fit for the wealthiest men in Judea.

But Mr. Aslan omits two important facts. First it was Passover, and for this reason, the Romans deferred to requests that the bodies not be left out. Secondly, the burial in the tomb was favor to a wealthy and likely powerful man, Joseph of Arimathea.

Thus, however unlikely Mr. Aslan thinks the facts, they are reasonably explained to any reasonable listener.

We end where we began: the need for seculars and other non-Christians (I think Mr Aslan is Muslim) to debunk and try to disarm Christ and his Church. Why this need? Why do they seem to fear the untamed Jesus of Scripture? Were they as secular or as unconvinced as they say, they would not exhibit such need and passion to undermine him, they would just ignore us. But why the need to destroy, to undermine, why the passionate intensity? Does anyone passionately attack other religious traditions, to include Protestantism?

The answer seems clear enough to me, and I am complimented by it. Namely this, that Christ and His Church are public enemy # 1. Any read of history shows that we are not going away and that we have endured, even thrived in every upheaval. Civilizations and empires have come and gone in the age of the Church, nations have risen and fallen, heresies and silly theories have come and gone. And here we are, obnoxiously still standing foursquare against secularism, unbelief, Islamic Terrorism, and every error, every doctrine of demons. Strike us and we just get stronger, the blood of martyrs soaks into the ground and becomes seed.

The “Five Myths” column is a collection of either tired old theories, or simply claims that lack any basis other than Mr. Aslan pridefully says so. The Washington Post is just showing its true colors in publishing such stuff. But long after the Post is gone, (and it seems to be fading fast) the Church will still be here, perhaps suffering, perhaps thriving, but here, always here, by Christ’s promise. It isn’t human power, its God-power.

Attacks like these are ultimately a compliment and my mind drifts back to an old gloss: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” ….Why is that?

And to my brethren in the ranks of the faithful: Keep Calm and Viva Christo Rey!

Posted on

The Hell There Is – A Homily for the 26th Sunday of the Year

092813In the Gospel for today about the rich man and Lazarus the Lord gives us some important teachings on judgment and on hell. Now it is a fact that we live in times where many consider the teaching on Hell to be untenable. Many struggle to understand how a God described as loving, merciful and forgiving can assign certain souls to Hell forever. No matter that the Doctrine of Hell is taught extensively in Scripture and quite a lot by Jesus himself, the doctrine does not comport well with many modern notions and emphases of God, and, hence many think it has to go.

But this reading goes a long way to address some of the modern concerns about Hell and so we ought to look at it. Prior to doing that however it might be important to state why Hell has to exist. I have done that more extensively on this blog here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/07/hell-has-to-be/ However I summarize that lengthier article in the next paragraph

Hell has to exist essentially for one reason: “Respect.” God has made us free and respects our freedom to chose his Kingdom or not. Now the Kingdom of God is not a mere abstraction. It has some very specific values and these values are realized and experienced perfectly in heaven.

The values of the Kingdom of God include: Love, kindness, forgiveness, justice to the poor, generosity, humility, mercy, chastity, love of Scripture, love of the truth, worship of God, God at the center and so forth.

Now the fact is that there are many people in our world who do not want a thing to do with chastity, or forgiveness, or being generous and so forth. And God will not force them to adopt and live these values. While it is true that everyone may want to go to heaven, heaven is not merely what we want, it is what it is, as God has set it forth. Heaven is the Kingdom of God and the values thereof in all their fullness.

Hence there are some (many, according to Jesus) who live in such a way that they consistently demonstrate that they are not interested in heaven, since they are not interested in one or many of the Kingdom values. Hell “has to be” since God respects their freedom to live in this way. Since they demonstrate they do not want heaven, God respects their freedom to choose “other arrangements.”

In a way this is what Jesus says in John’s Gospel when he states clearly that judgment is about what we prefer: And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil (John 3:19). So in the end you get what you want, light or darkness. Sadly many prefer the darkness. The day of judgment discloses our final preference and God respects even the preferences he would not want for us.

Now this leads to today’s Gospel which we can see in three stages.

I. The Ruin of the Rich Man – As the Gospel opens we see described a rich man (some call him Dives, which simply means “rich”). There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.

Now it is clear he lives very well as has the capacity to help the poor man, Lazarus, outside his gate. But he simply does not.

His sin is not so much one of hate, but of indifference. He is living in open rejection of one of the most significant Kingdom values, that of the love of the poor. His insensitivity is a “damnable sin” in the literal sense since it lands him in Hell. So the ruin of this rich man is his insensitivity to the poor.

Now the care of the poor may be a complicated matter and there may be different ways of accomplishing it, but in no way can we ever consider ourselves exempt from caring for the poor if it is in our means to help them. We simply cannot avoid judgement for our greed and insensitivity. As God said in last week’s reading from Amos regarding those who are insensitive to the poor: The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Never will I forget a thing they have done! (Amos 8:7) God may well “forget” many of our sins (cf Is 43:23; Heb 8:12) but apparently, trampling the poor and disregarding their needs isn’t one of them.

Hence this rich man has willfully and repeatedly rejected the Kingdom and is ruined by his greed and insensitivity. He lands in Hell since he doesn’t want heaven where in the poor are exulted (cf Luke 1:52)

Abraham explains the great reversal to him: ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

II. The Rigidity of the Rich Man– Now you might expect the rich man to be finally repentant and to have a change a heart but he does not. Looking up into heaven he sees Lazarus next to Abraham. But rather than finally seeing Lazarus’ dignity and seeking his forgiveness, the rich tells Abraham to send Lazarus to Hell with a pail of water in order that the rich man might be refreshed. He still sees Lazarus as beneath him (even though he has to look up to see him). He sees Lazarus as a “step and fetch errand boy” and wants him to come to Hell.

Notice too, the rich man does NOT ask to be admitted to heaven! He is unhappy with where he is, but still does not seem to desire heaven and the Kingdom of God with all its values. So he has not really changed. He is regretful of his currently tormented condition but does not see or desire heaven as a solution to that. Neither does he want to appreciate Lazarus’ exalted state. He wants to draw him back to the lower place he once occupied.

Now this helps explain why Hell is eternal. It would seem that there is a mystery of the human person which we must come to accept. Namely, that we come to a point in our life where our character is forever fixed, where we no longer change. When exactly this occurs is not clear. Perhaps it is death that effects this fixed quality.

The Fathers of the Church often thought of the human person as clay on a potter’s wheel. As long as it is on the wheel and moist it can be molded, changed and fashioned. But there comes a moment when the clay is taken off the wheel and placed in the fiery kiln (and fire is an judgment day (cf 1 Cor 3:15)) and in that fire it’s shape is forever fixed and cannot be changed.

The rich man now manifests this fixed quality. He has not changed one bit. He is unhappy with his torments and even wants to warn his brothers. But he apparently does not intend to change, or somehow experiences his incapacity to change.

Hence, the teaching that Hell is eternal since, having once encountered our fiery judgment, we will no longer be subject change. Our decision against the Kingdom of God and its values (a decision which God in sadness respects) is forever fixed.

III. The Reproof for the Rest of Us – As already noted, the rich man, though he cannot or will not change, would like to warn his brothers. Perhaps if Lazarus would rise from the dead and warn his brothers they would repent!

Now let’s be clear, we are the rich man’s brethren. And we are hereby warned. The rich man wants exotic measures but Abraham says no, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’ The rich man replied, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'”

Of course, this reply is dripping with irony given Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

That aside, the fact is we should not need exotic signs to bring us conversion. The phrase “they have Moses and the Prophets” is a Jewish way of saying, they have Scripture.

And the scriptures are clear to lay out the way before us. They give us the road map to heaven and we have but to follow it. We ought not need an angel or a ghost, or some extraordinary sign. The Scriptures and the teachings of the Church are sufficient.

Their instructions are clear enough: Daily prayer, daily scripture, weekly Eucharist, frequent confession and repentance all lead to a change of heart wherein we begin to love the Kingdom of God and its values. We are more merciful, kind, generous, loving toward the poor and needy, patient, chaste, devout, self controlled and so forth.

In the end we have to be clear: Hell exists. It has to exist for we have a free choice to make, and God will respect that choice even if he does not prefer our choice.

You and I are free to choose the Kingdom of God, or not. This Gospel also makes it clear that our choices lead ultimately to final and permanent choice wherein our decision is forever fixed.

The modern world needs to sober up. There is a Hell and its existence is both reasonable and in conformity with a God who both loves us and respects our freedom.

Herein we ought to consider ourselves reproved, if we have any non-biblical notions in this regard. Popular or not Hell is taught, as is the sobering notion that many (sadly) prefer the darkness of it to the light of God’s Kingdom.

Posted on

Seventy years in a minute and a half – As seen on T.V.

The video below shows the span of one woman’s life, some seventy years in less than a minute. How swiftly she moves through the stages of her life, from infancy to her golden years.

My mind drifted back to a photo album my father once assembled not long before his death. In the frontispiece he etched a quote, from Psalm 103:

But as for man, his days are like the grass,
or as the flower of the field.
The Wind blows and he is gone,
And his place never sees him, anymore.

Indeed, our lives do pass swiftly. I often wonder of the many men who once lived in my old rectory, this place that never sees them anymore. One day I will be swept from here, a distant memory in some old pictures in the archive.

There are some other painfully beautiful lines in Psalm 90 which say,

O Lord, you have been our refuge
from one generation to the next.
Before the mountains were born
or the earth or the world brought forth,
you are God, without beginning or end.

You turn men back to dust
and say: “Go back, sons of men.”
To your eyes a thousand years
are like yesterday, come and gone,
no more than a watch in the night.

You sweep men away like a dream,
like the grass which springs up in the morning.
In the morning it springs up and flowers:
by evening it withers and fades….

Our life is over like a sigh.
Our span is seventy years,
or eighty for those who are strong.

Make us know the shortness of our life
that we may gain wisdom of heart.
Lord, relent! Is your anger for ever?
Show pity to your servants.

In the morning, fill us with your love;
we shall exult and rejoice all our days.
Give us joy to balance our affliction
for the years when we knew misfortune.

Show forth your work to your servants;
let your glory shine on their children.
Let the favor of the Lord be upon us.

Yes, lines like these swept across my mind as I viewed this beautiful video, a commercial really. From Infancy to 70 in just under a minute and a half.

As the commercial ends and she moves off, a golden sunset is casting its orange and gold rays. Here too I recalled the moving lines of an old hymn:

The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;
Sweet is the calm of paradise the blessed.
Alleluia.

Our years are seventy, or eighty for those who are strong. Or as the old Douay beautifully put it: The days of our years are threescore and ten. But if in the strong they be fourscore.

Posted on

Malpractice?? A meditation on confusing kindness with charity

092613There is an unfortunate tendency in our times to confuse or equate kindness with charity. There is the tendency to prioritize never offending or upsetting others, over proclaiming the truth. And while it is true that kindness and not intentionally hurting other’s feelings or causing offense is a  good thing, it is not so good that the truth should be suppressed in order to accomplish it.

But, it is a sadly common today. Consider a priest, who, in order not to give offense or cause others to be upset, does not preach important aspects of the Gospel or the moral law. Consider the strange modern phenomenon of parents who want to be their children’s a friend and almost seem to feel fear of their children’s anger,  so they do not discipline, they do not correct. Consider a family gathering when one or  more of the members around the table are involved in serious and unrepentant sin, yet in order to “keep the peace,” instructions are given not to mention such unpleasant things, or to do or say something about it since it might upset someone.

Yes, many people mistakenly equate charity with kindness and refuse to insist on accountability, to warn of sin, or to distinguish error from truth. Yet these things are a necessary part of true charity. In so doing, some feelings maybe hurt.  And while upsetting people is not directly intended, it is sometimes a necessary component of fraternal correction.

Without such necessary correction, one’s feelings may be spared, but ones soul may in fact be lost!

Consider a medical analogy. What if a patient went to the doctor, who, observing the test results could see that the patient had a very serious cancer that needed immediate attention. But what if that Doctor were to say to himself, “I don’t want to upset the patient. I don’t want to cause him grief.”  And so the doctor either says nothing, or even lies and says “You’re fine go home, rest assured.”  We would say that this doctor is guilty of malpractice.  The charitable thing to do is speak the truth to this person, along with reassurance and proposed solutions,  or at least ways to ameliorate the problem.

And yet when it comes to spiritual or moral truth, it is precisely malpractice that many Christians exhibit.  We would not call the lying doctor charitable, or even kind.   He is simply guilty of malpractice.

So it is with God’s prophets who are called to speak the truth. We are guilty of malpractice if we don’t speak it in love. Priests who do not teach their congregations on critical moral issues or warn sinners are guilty of malpractice, they are not charitable, they are not even kind, though they may get credit for it. Neither are parents who do not discipline their children or insist upon the truth. Likewise for any Christian who walks through this hell-bound sin-soaked world and says little.

We may all get credit for being nice, and popular, but to suppress the truth is neither charitable nor is it kind.  Frankly, it is a form of cruelty.

It is true, that we ought to look for the best opportunities to speak to others, simply blurting out the truth without charity, might be ineffective.   And truth without charity really isn’t truth. We may also look for and ponder ways of speaking that will not cause undue grief or anger, we may understand that some issues are more important deal with first, before others etc.

But we cannot endlessly delay what must be done. To fail to speak the truth is not love, it is not charity, it is not kindness. It is really just self-serving and its ugliness is compounded by the fact that we so easily congratulate ourselves for being tolerant, kind and nice. But none of these notions should be confused with holiness or Charity. They are more about “me” and protecting and advancing “me” and steering clear of unpleasantries. Never mind that some people I am being “nice” and “kind” to may go to Hell for my silence.

Jesus, who is Love, who is charity, often said things that shocked and provoked. Indeed, he incited enough anger to get killed.

We need to be careful about expressing our anger (unlike Jesus). Two days ago there was a lot of unholy and unnecessary nastiness in the combo. This post reminds us to speak the truth, and not equate mere kindness with Charity. However, it is not a license to be nasty, harsh, personal and mean. Truth spoken without love really isn’t truth. For, instead of serving truth, it harms it and makes it seem odious.

But that said, we have diverged from the virtues and mistakenly equated kindness with true charity. Jesus was not “kind” by any modern standard. He was, like any prophet, plain spoken and did not hesitate to pierce to the root of every human heart

Evil triumphs when the good remain silent. Too easily are the words fulfilled which say, The best lack all conviction, while the worst  Are full of passionate intensity. (Yeats). Love and charity do not exempt us from speaking the truth.

Posted on

On the Problem of Arrested Spiritual Development

“Tiptoes” by John Markos O'Neill from San Francisco, California Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
“Tiptoes” by John Markos O’Neill from San Francisco, California Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Consider a five year old child who, though physically the size of a five year old, had not yet learned to talk or walk, who could only lay in his crib and who ate no solid food, only mother’s milk. Most of us would consider this a great tragedy. It would be a case of arrested development. And surely, as he failed to pass expected milestones and make the usual progress in maturity, his parents would consult doctors and experts in an anxious search for the cause of the problem and a cure. No one would fail to see the problem or shrug it off.

Now, compare the response above to the usual response to arrested development in the spiritual order.

Consider a young adult, say 25, who had gone on to physical maturity, and even earned a college degree. Perhaps he has just landed a job in a cutting edge field and is both technically smart and talented. But, despite being a highly trained expert in his secular field, his spiritual development is arrested and he has progressed little since second grade. In some ways he has even gone backward since, in second grade, he still knew his Act of Contrition and the Hail Mary.

Now, though thank God, he still goes to Mass, he is incapable of expressing much of anything about his faith. He knows there is a God and has heard about Jesus but does not know for sure if Jesus is God, he thinks so but he’s not sure. He is aware of the Bible’s existence but cannot name all four Gospels and would not even be sure exactly where to find them in the book. He’d eventually find them but it would take a lot of time. Names like Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, David, Peter, Judas, et al., sound familiar to him, but he cannot tell you much about them, except that they are in the Bible. He has heard the word sacrament but cannot give an example of one and is not sure he’s received them or if that is just something priests and nuns get. Every now and then he thinks to pray but he really does not know what to say or how to do it. Sometimes he remembers a prayer from Mass, but when he tries to say it, he gets stuck since there aren’t other people around him saying it and helping him along. He DOES know the Our Father though! We have to give him that.

Now, mind you, this is a smart guy, he has a lot of knowledge in his field which is highly technical. A lot of people seek him for technical advice and he is a real problem solver in the corporation, keeping the computers and other critical peripherals updated and in good functioning order. But spiritually he is an infant.

The interesting question is, why did his parents and parishioners not experience alarm as they noted arrested spiritual development in him? As he began to go from second grade to third and forth, not only did NOT progress, but he actually got worse. Why did his parents not sound an alarm? Why did the pastor and catechists not experience shock that he seemed to show no progress in the Spiritual life? As his age drew him into high school, not only did his knowledge of the faith not increase but his moral life now began to slide. Soon his language grew bad, he resented authority, was looking at porn on the Internet. His parents were irritated by this, but not really alarmed enough to intensify his recourse to the sacraments or augment his spiritual training. Spiritually he was frozen in time. But no one seemed to notice or care.

But, by God, when almost failed a math course his parents went into action and hired a tutor! After all, this might threaten his getting into a good college! But his failure to grow spiritually never much fazed them. When he went to college they drove up with him, looked at the dorms, met a few of his teachers and attended orientation sessions for new students. But they never thought to meet the College Chaplain or ever to ask who would be spiritually teaching or pastoring their son. You know, that sort of stuff doesn’t really occur to you to ask about.

Well, you get the picture:

  1. It starts, really, with low expectations. Most people don’t really expect that they should grow much in their faith. Advanced knowledge and deep prayer are for priests and nuns. Too many lay people just don’t expect much, and thus are not alarmed when they and their kids know next to nothing about the faith.
  2. Further, the faith is sort of a side issue to many. What really matters is that you study hard to get a career that will unlike the American Dream. Never mind that worldly things don’t last, or that it’s pointless and harmful to climb the ladder of success when it is leaning up against the wrong wall. We’ll think about all that tomorrow. For now just keep pursuing your dreams.
  3. Finally the sense that faith really matters at all is muted today when many have an unbiblical view that almost everyone goes to heaven. This removes any motivation to grow in the faith or be serious about living it in a counter-cultural way. To put it in a worldly way: why work hard or seek to develop yourself when the paycheck has already been deposited, and you’ll get paid no matter what, and can never lose your job?

Scripture – So here we are with a lot Christians who have a very bad case of arrested development. Scripture says:

  1. We have much to say….but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5:11-14)
  2. Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. (1 Cor 3:1-2)
  3. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. (1 Cor 14:20)
  4. My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good.” (Jer 4:22)
  5. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. (1 Cor 13:11)
  6. It was [the Lord] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. (Eph 4:11-15)

So then, Scripture is clear that the normal Christian life is

  • To be constantly growing in our faith.
  • To go from mother’s milk (of elementary doctrines) to the solid food of more advanced understanding.
  • To go from being young students to mature teachers.
  • To exhibit mature knowledge of the faith and also a behavior that bespeaks mature Christianity.
  • To go from being worldly in our priorities to being spiritual.
  • To be able to aptly distinguish false doctrine from true doctrine.
  • To show forth a stability of life and not be easily carried away by all the latest trends and ephemeral fads.

Yes, this is the normal Christian life. Maturity pertains to the human person in general and it certainly ought to pertain to men and women of faith. I pray you who read this blog are well along this path and are seeking to grow. I presume it, in fact.

But many are not Maturing. And I wonder if enough of us in the Church today see this as the horrifically strange and tragic phenomenon that it is. It is really far stranger and far more tragic than a five year old still lying in a crib, speechless and on mother’s milk. It is vastly more serious than the high schooler who is failing math and needs a tutor. To fail math may impact college and a career, but these are passing consequences. To fail in faith impacts eternity, not just for me but others.

Why are we so serious about passing worldly threats and not so about threats that have eternal consequences? In the end arrested spiritual development is by far the most serious of all developmental issues. A parent may give their child every good thing, but if they do not ensure the gift of strong and mature faith, they have given their children nothing but sand slipping thorough their fingers.

Only what you do for Christ will last. Pray God we get our priorities straight and make sure we ourselves and everyone grows up in the Lord. It is true that we must accept the Kingdom of God like a little child in order to enter it. But this text refers to our dependance not our ignorance. God made us to know him and to fail in this way is to miss the whole point and dignity of our life.