Is Jesus a genie in a bottle? We might think so, given his words in today’s gospel: “If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.” Given this, instead of asking, “Show us the Father,” like Phillip did, we might be tempted to demand: “Show me the money!”
But consider what else Jesus said. He insisted that he didn’t speak on his own, but that he said what the Father wanted him to say, because he is in the Father, and the Father is in him.
We aren’t one with the Father in the way Jesus is. However, we are united with Jesus by the Holy Spirit at baptism. The Father works in Jesus, and Jesus works in us, through the Spirit. This allows us to pray in his name. When we do this, we’re not speaking on our own. Instead, we’re inspired to say what Jesus wants us to say.
This is the key to understanding, not only Jesus’ promise to fulfill our requests, but also his insistence that we’d do the same works he did- even greater ones! Not through our power, of course, but through his. Jesus will do what we ask him to do- when we ask what he wants us to ask.
After all, he’s not a genie in a bottle. He’s God’s Son, dwelling in our hearts.
Years ago, in High School, I dated Paula, who liked square dancing. So, most Saturday nights we were down at the community center, she in her petticoats and dress, I in my jeans, button down western shirt with a scarf tie and hand towel.
Square dancing has some basic moves that beginners learn. And so it was that Paula and I started with the basics. But in square dancing there are different levels, and so eventually we cleared the floor and watched those who knew the more advanced moves. Sometimes there were several levels of dancers. I remember being amazed at the complicated moves the move senior members had learned and wondered how I would ever master it. But, little by little the moves were learned, and we got to stay on the floor just a little longer as the months and years ticked by.
Image of the Church? I was over at YouTube and came upon the video below of a square dance group that’s pretty advanced. I remember many of the moves they do, but some of it was above what I ever learned. And suddenly it occurred to me that I saw an image of the Church.
Please forgive me. I know you think I must be theological geek at this point. Surely as a young man I never gave a thought to the Church, in terms of square dancing. But now with this great love for God and for the Church, I can’t help it, I see the Church in square dancing. Just a few thoughts:
1. Every Square Dance needs a caller and, if the dancers in the square are the body, he is the head. He calls the moves, and the dancers must listen and respond. He has the authority to set direction and maintain order. If a square falls into disorder he reestablishes order by calling them home. Not only that, it is also the role of the Caller to teach new moves and drill the dancers until they master it. So the caller is the source for unity and direction for the square.
This is also the role of the Pope and the Local Bishop in the Church who also have the authority to set direction, maintain unity and restore order when necessary. It is also their role to teach the faith, along with their priests and catechists until the faithful master the Christian walk (dance).
2. As long as everyone listens carefully, and fulfills their particular role in the particular moves, the dance continues. But when, usually through error, one or more of the dancers veers away from the directed move, the square either stumbles or falls apart. As long as the dancers are open to learn, the square will continue to get better, and become a good, and disciplined group who increasingly enjoy advanced square dancing.
So too with the Church. When all listen carefully and do their part, the Church is strong and well ordered. When the faithful do not listen, or persist in error, the Church stumbles and is less effective. Disunity leads to a poor Christian walk (dance), not only for individuals, but also for groups and parishes. But if the faithful are willing to learn to and grow, the dance of faith becomes deeper and richer, more enjoyable, and just plain fun.
3. Everyone has a role, but not the same. When the caller calls a dance move, what you do in response depends on where you are in the square at that time. You might just stand still while others move, or you might be the one who switches positions. And all this varies from move to move.
And so it is with the Church. We have varied and different roles depending on where we are in the Church. Some of our roles are stable but others change depending on the situation. As a pastor, I am a leader and teacher in my parish. But at a meeting with the bishop I am a learner and a man under authority. In the parish I may take the lead when it comes to teaching the faith, but I may need to learn from my parishioners when it comes to understanding some technical legal matter, or car repair, etc. In such cases many of my parishioners can show me the way. We all have different gifts and talents and they all interact in various ways, depending on the situation. At times we lead, at times we follow, at times we stand still, while others move about us. All at the direction of the caller.
4. There is an etiquette to square dancing. There are bows, and curtseys, there’s a way you hold a lady’s hand, and there is a graciousness expected by all. Especially for those in higher levels, proper attire is also expected. Timeliness is also important since it is necessary to have eight people to form a square and get things underway. Thus everyone needs to be committed and timely. If just one of the eight is late, seven others are left standing. In larger groups, where there are numerous squares, people can mix and match a bit, but one missing member always impacts many other people.
In the Church too, basic kindness and generosity are also expected and necessary. Where there is Charity and truth, God himself is there. Further, people must be true to their commitments and be timely or many others suffer.
5. There is a great intricacy to square dancing where many aspect are interacting at once. It is almost mind-boggling to watch as the dance unfolds.
So too with the Church, there are many layers and great intricacy at work. Some are praying, some are studying, some are raising children, some are preaching, some are evangelizing, some are caring for the poor, some are praying in front of abortion clinics. But all are responding to the great call of the Shepherd Jesus speaking through his Pope and Bishops, through the Scriptures and the Tradition. It is a great dance of wonderful intricacy, and everyone interacts at different levels, all at once.
So there you have it: the Church as a square dance. Enter the dance, learn the moves and have a great time.
This video shows Square Dancing at a more advanced level. I got close to this, but never this good. Paula’s parents could have danced like this in their sleep.
When asked what heaven will be like, an American bishop wrote of his first visit to his parents’ native village in Italy. Because he had seen pictures of it for years, everything looked familiar to him when he arrived in person. “I know this place,” he thought. “I am finally at home.” He hoped that he would feel the same way- that he was finally at home- upon entering heaven.
Heaven is indeed our true home, as Jesus explained in today’s gospel. He was speaking during the Last Supper with his disciples, who were troubled that he was soon to leave them. Jesus soothed their fears by explaining that his departure was a good thing, because he was going to prepare a place for them in heaven. Yet he would return one day to take them to their heavenly home- the Father’s house
There is room for us in the Father’s house, too. This is hope for us when life gets hard. It reminds us that we’ve not yet arrived at our final destination, as this life is but a way station to a “better place.” As he did with his disciples, Jesus tells us not to worry, because regardless of where this life takes us, we are always “homeward bound.”
For whatever reason, my garage’s light switch is in the kitchen. One night, while I was in the garage, running on our treadmill, someone accidentally flipped off the lights. For a few scary moments, I found myself in complete darkness, running fast, but going absolutely nowhere.
My experience is a metaphor, I think, for how many people live their lives today: they run around like crazy, but their lives have no real purpose or direction. Kind of like running on a treadmill, in the dark.
Jesus, in today’s gospel, said that he didn’t want people to “remain in darkness.” That’s why “he came into the world as light.” By believing in Jesus, we know what life is about, and we know the direction in which our lives should go, because Jesus lights the way. With Jesus, our lives have purpose, peace, and hope.
Living in darkness can be frightening. My children sometimes admit that they’re a little afraid of the dark, and I completely understand. They prefer to sleep with a light on. Jesus invites us to do the same thing: to keep the light on- his light- to scatter the fear that darkness brings.
As Pope Benedict assures us: “(Christ’s) light will dispel all darkness from your lives, and fill you with love and peace.”[1]
Sheep, to many Americans, are weak, subservient, and dim-witted creatures. We say “to follow like sheep” when describing unthinking, spineless loyalty. To look “sheepish,” is to look guilty. That’s why when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep, we’re not always sure how to respond.
Jesus and his contemporaries, however, held sheep in high esteem. Sheep were considered honorable and noble animals, because they suffer in silence and are obedient to their shepherds. Some were kept as household pets, and were fed by hand. Ownership of sheep was a sign of wealth. They were offered in sacrifice, not because they were worthless, but because they were so valuable. Jesus himself was called the “lamb of God.”
By calling us sheep, then, Jesus isn’t putting us down. Instead, he’s speaking of how precious we are to him; it’s a reflection of his love. In today’s gospel, he insists that we, his sheep, are the Father’s gift to him. We’re so valuable, that no one can snatch us out of his hand; we’re so treasured, that he gives us eternal life, to be with him forever.
CBS News seems to have confused Stephen Hawking with a Theologian or spiritual guide. For recently they focused on an interview published in the Guardian wherein Hawking calls heaven a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark.
Well, first of all Mr. Hawking, I am not afraid of the dark. Secondly, you should stick to science and stop trying to psychoanalyze believers. And as for CBS News and the Guardian, please note that Mr. Hawking is a scientist. He is no more qualified to opine on life after death or make psychoanalytic pronouncements than some random person on the street. Smarts in one area doesn’t make him an expert in all areas. Perhaps CBS News would like to interview me on string theory? Of course Mr Hawking and many others might object that I wasn’t exactly the best “go-to guy” on this topic. And that would be true. Asking Mr. Hawking to opine on heavenly matters and the psychological makeup of believers is in the same vein as trotting out Hollywood stars to testify before congress as “experts” on global warming, or some other highly technical matter. Mr Hawking’s opinion on believers or the afterlife is of no more value than anyone else. He is entitled to his opinions on this matter, but it doesn’t deserve to be in headlines and is no more true because he is smart in other areas.
Further, I hope you will note a VERY DARK philosophical assumption he makes at the end of the article. Beware, for he is an influential man.
Let’s look at excerpts from the CBS article. These are excerpts of the longer article which you can read HERE. The original article excerpts are in bold italic typeface. My remarks are in normal red typeface.
Physicist Stephen Hawking believes there is no afterlife (so what?), and that the concept of heaven is a “fairy story” for people who fear death. While he is entitled to his opinion, he has never met me and is not able to know why I believe in life after death. Further he is not a trained sociologist or psychotherapist. He cannot really know the motivations of everyone who believes. Frankly he is also showing himself a poor scientist here. For a good scientist looks for real data and knows that large scale phenomenon (like, say, faith?) are not usually explained by simplistic, single source causes. There are usually a variety of causes and influences at work. For example, when a leaf falls from a tree there is surely gravity, but also wind resistance, and the presence of obstacles that influence its descent.
Mr. Hawking is also condescending and (heaven forfend!), judgmental. For what if I were to say Mr. Hawking does not believe in an afterlife because he fears judgment, or because the existence of God is “inconvenient” to his vision and chosen moral life. You would likely say I should not talk like that, and that I had no real way of knowing that. Exactly. And Mr. Hawking has no business making judgments about my motives either. He doesn’t have a clue as to why I believe in heaven. I don’t fear death any more than he does. I believe in an afterlife because some one I trust, (God and the Church) have revealed it to me and taught me of it.
In an interview published in the Guardian, Hawking – author of the bestselling “A Brief History of Time” – said that when the brain ceases to function, that’s it. This is not a scientific statement, it is philosophical belief on his part. It cannot be verified scientifically, one way or the other, that existence ceases when the brain stops functioning. He is entitled to his belief, but that is what it is. This is not a scientifically verifiable statement. That a renowned scientist is speaking in this way may give the impression that this is science, but it is not. He has moved beyond science and is now in the realm of philosophy.
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” he told the Guardian’s Ian Sample. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Reducing the human person to a brain or computer, or to merely our physical components, is also philosophy, not science. It is true, science can only deal with the material, for that is its realm. But to say that physical matter is all there is, or that there is nothing outside of what science can measure, is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical one.
Consider if a blind person insisted that there was no such thing as light, concluding this merely because he could not measure it with his senses. But of course for him to assert the non-existence of something merely because he cannot measure it, is both arrogant and wrong. Science too would be wrong to conclude in some absolute sense that there is no soul, or nothing beyond the material, merely because science cannot measure it with its own tools. There are just some limits to science, just as there are some limits for a blind person. Science is not bad because it cannot go beyond the material, any more than a blind person is bad because he cannot see. But what IS bad is to insist there is nothing beyond merely what I can sense, or measure. Not only is it bad, it isn’t science, for science cannot prove the non-existence of non material things. It just isn’t set up to do that. To say that nothing exists beyond the material is a philosophy, it is not science.
We have already discussed Mr. Hawking’s incapacity to psychoanalyze believers as afraid of the dark. Indeed his caricature of us is dripping with arrogance and thinly veiled superiority. Would I be psychoanalyzing him if I suggested that his superstar status has gone to his head? I guess I would. I withdraw the remark, your honor!
Hawking, 69, who has survived for nearly five decades with a motor neurone disease that doctors believed would kill him while he was still in his early 20s, said he does not fear death. He also said that having lived with the prospect of death from his incurable illness has ultimately led him to enjoy life more. He has dealt with his disease heroically
…Hawking rejects an afterlife and emphasizes the need for people to realize their full potential on Earth. It is an old and tattered claim that belief in heaven somehow limits our concern for this world. The Christian world is replete with examples of those who have powerfully cared for and impacted the people of this world and the world itself. Indeed, Mr. Hawking might reflect of the debt he owes to belief and to the Church for things like the great universities of Europe, the scientific method, the existence of hospitals and modern medicine. Faith doesn’t just make people “other-worldly” it also gives them hope and insists, in its truest form, for great love for the people of this world and for all God has created.
When asked what is the value of knowing why are we here, Hawking replied, “The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can’t solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.”This is so limiting. It is also philosophy, not science to say this. Mr Hawking is entitled to have a philosophy, but when he says the world is “governed by science” and then goes on to philosophize, that looks pretty silly and contradictory. Further, Mr. Hawking, if you ask me, is edging dangerously close to eugenics in what he says here. What exactly assigning a “higher value” to certain societies looks like as a practical matter is uncertain in what he says, but I sense a growing darkness here, not light. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler may well be smiling as he says this. BEWARE!
Hawking said that our existence is down to pure chance, (Again, philosophy here, not science, Mr Hawking cannot prove this statement scientifically)and that one’s goal should be to “seek the greatest value of our action.”
Well there it is. I will say, not only is Mr. Hawking a poor theologian and psychotherapist, he is also engaging in a very dark and dangerous philosophy in applying once again (as did Sanger and Hitler along with others) a natural selection to societies (races?). Watch out, Mr Hawking is influential, we may be in for some very dark days ahead.
How say you?
Here’s Fr. Barron’s take on Stephen Hawking’s last foray into philosophy and metaphysics some months ago:
I usually think of multiculturalism as a fairly benign concept wherein we are asked to appreciate the enrichment that can come when many cultures have input into the life of this country. The fact is America has always been a rich tapestry of cultures. The English, French, and Spanish colonist interacted with the native populations, they also brought African slaves with them. In the late 1800s through the mid 1900s waves of immigrants from almost every European country also added to the mix. The group we usually call “Whites” today is actually an assimilation of many very different cultures. My father’s generation (b. 1928) made very sharp distinctions between Irish, Italians, Poles, and so forth. Many of these groups lived in distinct neighborhoods, attended different Catholic parishes, and intermarriage was almost unthinkable between them at the early stages. In more recent years, immigrants from the South, from Africa and the Far East have also added to tapestry and the “look” of America. And whatever friction has sometimes existed between various groups, ethnicity and races, I have no doubt that we have been enriched by our interaction and life together in this land.
This is the multiculturalism I know and what I usually mean by the term.
Apparently the experience in Europe has been less satisfactory and we now see some European leaders calling for stricter curbs on multicultural expression. For example, in France the wearing of certain Muslim Garb, especially the Burqa, has been banned.
In the video below, a commentator gives a much more sober assessment of multiculturalism. To some extent I would describe his approach to be in the form of a rant that intentionally overstates the case in a sometimes humorous, even satirical way. It sometimes helps to understand the genre when viewing such viewpoints. So you may wish to read up on the genre of “rant” HERE.
Nevertheless the purpose of “rant,” though overstated and sometimes satirical, is to make a point that the orator considers important. And what I take away from the video is that some distinctions and limits are necessary when it comes to multiculturalism. Without these, we may find multiculturalism fails as a lived reality and may rest on premises that are unacceptable. Here are just a two concerns:
1. Multiculturalism must be rooted in a fundamentally shared vision and in something higher than any individual culture in the mix. When people and groups immigrate, they bring with them their own traditions and culture. Fine, herein lies a richness. But they also come to a new experience, a new culture, shared by those already in the land, which can also enrich them. There must be certain fundamentals to which all in a culture agree to share. Without this there are enclaves which set up, and friction is inevitable. Here in America there have traditionally been two fundamental visions that have united us and helped us to overcome our differences and experience multicultural success: the American Dream, and a fundamental belief in the existence of God.
The American Dream, while difficult to reduce to a sentence or two, is essentially rooted in the economic freedom to work, run and own businesses, own property and participate in the political process without harassment. It includes freedom of speech and assembly, basic equality, and all the rights described in our Constitution. Ultimately most Americans see its fulfillment for them personally when they are economically independent, and able to own a home. It would seem that the American Dream is still largely intact, as a shared vision. I think most people who come to this land are still looking for just these things. They admire our freedoms, our prosperity, and basic form of government. Many take enormous risks to come here and take part in the dream. This existence of this common vision causes a shared unity that makes multiculturalism workable.
As for a shared belief in God, this has become frayed in recent decades. It still remains true that the vast majority of Americans still believe in God, but an increasingly strident form of secularism threatens to undermine the shared “cultus” of our culture. “Cultus” or “cult” here does not mean what modern English has assigned as a narrow, closed and often extreme group, engaged in strange religious practices. Originally in Latin, and even in English, “cult” meant simply a shared faith among the people. That “cult” is at the heart of the word culture is no accident. For every culture needs someone and something above it to which, and to whom, it must answer. That Someone, we in the West, have called the God of the Bible. Without this cult, it is questionable that a culture can survive for there is nothing and no one higher than it to unite it. That Western culture is in serious decline at the same time that secularism is on the rise is, likely, no coincidence.
Here in America, most of our immigrants are Catholics and Christians. Hence they share in the basic Judeo/Christian view or “cultus.” The jury is still out on whether secularization will continue. But for now, the vast majority of Americans still share a common belief in the God of the Bible, even if they do not live this faith perfectly.
In Europe the situation seems quite grave, and the Pope has described that the lights are going out all over Europe. With high secularism and low birthrates among Europeans, the Muslims are largely poised to replace European culture. But it is questionable that the Muslim immigrants value what we call Western culture and their “cultus” is not the same “cultus” that gave rise to Europe. Hence the multicultural tensions are growing fiercer, since there is no shared faith, and no European version of the “American Dream” that unites new immigrants and traditional Europeans.
But here in America, multiculturalism largely still “works,” though threats are on the horizon. This does not mean that there are not certain tensions. But there always have been and there still seems to be a way to work through it.
One of the flash points here is the question of language. And, although I often hear fears expressed by some that “Spanish is taking over,” my own experience is that, in every immigrant family I know, the kids all know English. Hence, I am not personally concerned that Spanish will take over. English remains the language of access in this country. Thankfully, it seems we have gotten over the silly experiment in Education of running bilingual school systems. As far as I can tell, immigrant children are immersed in English and quickly expected to take their seats in an English-speaking classroom. But some of you may correct me on this.
2. While accepting the benefits of multiculturalism, we must avoid the trap that everything is equally valid – The orator in the video below makes the case that multiculturalism is just another form of moral relativism. I am not sure that I accept the word “just” in his argument. But there is a danger that some of the premises do come from moral relativism or tend to be reinforced by unhealthy notions associated with it.
I’ll just be bold (as a Westerner) and say that there is something essentially superior to the what we have come to call “western culture.” We are not perfect, and sadly, western culture does seem to be in significant decay at this time. But historically western culture has produced the highest standard of living, had the most stable economies, produced the most just and equitable forms of democratic government, has a rich deposit of learning, and brought forth a great expression of the dignity of the individual. I, (Christian that I am) attribute a lot of this to faith, for it was the Church that established most of the great universities, the hospitals, the scientific method, and so forth. The Church also, through the tireless work of monks and others helped to preserve the works of classical antiquity which has so blessed us and served as the basis for the high standard of living and the flourishing of the sciences we have today.
As I say, I’ll just be bold and probably “politically incorrect” but western culture is the finest flower in the garden, given our history and what we have contributed to the world. This does not mean that there are no excesses in us, or that other cultures are nothing at all. I do not the deny the World Wars and other sad chapters. But the fact that so many flock to live in the West, especially in America, is silent testimony to the greatness of what we are, and have to offer. They are often fleeing poor economies, corrupt dictatorships and terrible living conditions. To be sure, they bring gifts to us in their cultural heritage and are able to add to rich tapestry of the West, especially in America. But that too is part of the greatness of the West, tolerance, and an open marketplace of ideas.
It is a fact that the West as we have known it is in fairly serious decline. Some centuries ago de Tocqueville noted that for democracy to thrive, morality and self-control of the populace had to be presumed. The fact is, without a general level of moral self-governance, democracy and freedom cannot thrive. For the genius of Western style democracy is that power and control are shifted from the central state more to individual. Freedom is wonderful, but it requires self-control of the populace. If we are not willing to curb our behaviors, proper order and the common good are threatened and freedoms begin to be lost. It is no coincidence that, as bad behaviors begin to proliferate, government grows and freedoms are limited, Today, often due to the breakdown of personal behavior and a sense of personal responsibility, there are increasing demands for laws and for the government intervention. But the tradeoff is that personal freedoms are eroded, taxes increase and fears grow about further intrusions as a litigious attitude grows. Whether the great experience of western culture will continue depends largely on whether we can reclaim some of our lost moral code and live by it without a government insisting on it.
But as it is conceived, I will say again that western culture is the finest flower of the modern world. It is threatened but it is wholly worth saving as the best hope for future generations.
The fact is we ought not become moral relativists in this matter and, as others come to join us, it is not wrong that we insist they observe what is best about us and seek to join, rather than replace what we are. With this premise multiculturalism is enriching and to be celebrated.
OK, please remember this is a discussion. I am not pontificating here, just starting a discussion. Please add your own views, additions, distinctions and so forth!
As for this video remember, it is in the style of a rant. I do not know who Andrew Klavon is, this is the first I have seen of him. Hence, I do not endorse everything he says or may have said elsewhere. I just found his video here to provoke thought and to help me clarify what I think of multiculturalism .
One evening some years ago, Stephanie my wife prayed for guidance as to whether or not she should return to work part time. The very next morning, an absolutely perfect job practically fell into her lap. To us, this was an obvious sign from God. Yet that night, as we adjusted our family budget to reflect Stephanie’s new income, what did we start to do? We started to worry about money. God had just answered our prayer and shown us how much he cares for us. But still we didn’t “get it.” Finally, we looked at each other and said with exasperation, “What are we doing?” What we weren’t doing is trusting in Jesus, which is what he constantly invites us to do. That’s why he calls himself the good shepherd.
The image of Jesus as the “good shepherd” tells us quite a bit about what he wants our relationship with him to be like. I was once reminded of this very early in my ministry, while I served a small Texas church, smack in the middle of cattle country. There were real cowboys in my parish, and one day one of them said to me, “You know, Father there’s a reason Jesus never said: ‘I am the good cowboy.’” Cows, he explained, are very obstinate creatures. To get them going in the right direction, they need to be pushed and poked from behind- sometimes with an electric prodder! Sheep, however, are very different from cows. When they hear their shepherd’s call, they happily follow his lead. Just like Jesus said in today’s gospel: “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.” In other words, Jesus doesn’t want to have to push us like cows. Instead, he wants us to follow him like sheep.
The beautiful 23rd Psalm, which we just prayed together, speaks to us of how Jesus our shepherd cares for us when we trust and follow him. In an often reprinted Reader’s Digest article from over fifty years ago, one old shepherd explained that the psalm’s author obviously knew sheep and shepherds of the Holy Land very well.
Good shepherds, he said, lead their flocks to green pastures where the grazing is best, and where the sheep find contentment. They root out and destroy poisonous plants so their sheep may safely graze. They guide them to still waters, as they know that sheep refuse to drink from noisy, babbling brooks. With their shepherd’s staff they protect them from predators, pull them out of pits should they fall in, and lead them safely through difficult terrain. With oil they anoint and heal the wounds inflicted by thorns and briers, and with jugs of water they cleanse eyes weeping from dust or fever. “Sheep do not worry,” this shepherd concludes, “(Their shepherd’s) guidance has been good in the past, and they have faith in the future because they know he has their well-being in view.”
This psalm refers to God’s care for his chosen people, the Israelites, as he liberated them from slavery in Egypt and led them to the Promised Land. It may very well have been written during the Babylonian exile, that difficult period some six centuries before Christ, after the Jews had been violently evicted from their homeland and forced to resettle in what is now Iraq. Far from their homeland and stripped of their freedoms, the exiled Jews wondered if God still cared for them. God inspired this psalm to be written to assure his people that he did. His message to them was: “I’m in charge, so there’s no need to worry.”
God still uses this psalm today to touch people’s hearts. It beautiful and powerful words continue to fill us with confidence and hope when facing change, difficulties, painful circumstances, or our fear of the unknown. It’s a psalm that calls us to place our trust in God- a call we need to hear time and time and time again.
A member of my parish, Peggy Rooney, has a wonderful story of how she learned to trust in God. In her book Uncommon Conversations with God, Peggy confesses that for years she was apprehensive about life. Peggy dreaded making decisions, was apprehensive of not living up to expectations on the job, and harbored what she describes as unreasonable fears about her children’s safety. She prayed and prayed about her these things, but seemingly to no avail. But then God brought a woman named Irene into her life.
Irene was partially blind and had lost both legs as a result of her diabetes. She had the use of only one hand, because an accident years earlier had left the other one crippled. Nevertheless, instead of being bitter and resentful, Irene was a cheerful, compassionate, genuinely loving, and courageous individual. Irene taught Peggy to let go of hear fears by trusting in God. Irene explained that letting go simply means letting God take control of one’s life. At first, Peggy was hesitant. She wondered who would protect her if she “let go.” Irene’s life, however, provided the answer. She had no choice about being absolutely dependent on others. But she did have a choice about how she related to those she depended upon. She trusted them, and she trusted God- absolutely.
One night Peggy asked Irene how she could be so brave in spite of her dependency. The answer changed Peggy’s life. Irene said, “I figure the worst thing that can happen to me is that I might die and get the chance to actually meet the One who’s been taking care of me for all these years.”
This is the kind of trust we all are called to. Jesus asks us not to worry, not to be filled with fears, and not to place our hopes on ourselves, on others, or on the things of this world. He invites us today to place our trust in him, and in him alone. Because when we trust the Lord who is our shepherd, surely we shall not want.
Is Jesus a genie in a bottle? We might think so, given his words in today’s gospel: “If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.” Given this, instead of asking, “Show us the Father,” like Phillip did, we might be tempted to demand: “Show me the money!”
