Posts

Posted on

Eradicating Poverty Is Not a Gospel Value – A Reflection on a Teaching by Cardinal Sarah

homeless-blog-postThe eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!

The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?

I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.

Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:

How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?

In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.

The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.

Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …

Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.

The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …

But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …

[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …

Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …

The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).

We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).

Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”

The Cardinal replies,

It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).

This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.

So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.

While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.

The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.

We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.

Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).

I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.

Posted on

Back to the Future – A Meditation on the Gospel for the Third Sunday of Easter

blog4.10Today’s Gospel is really quite remarkable. For despite the fact that the apostles have seen the resurrected Jesus several times now, they seem to be retreating into the past. They’re headed backwards and Jesus must summon them, if you’ll pardon the expression, “back to the future.”

They were going back to fishing but the Lord calls them away from fishing and points them to the future, a future that includes going to all the nations and summoning them to saving faith.

This is a critical Gospel that shows us Jesus summoning the apostles back to their crucial call, a call that has its focus not in the past but in the future. Indeed, fellow believers, if this Gospel had not gone right, your faith and mine might well have been in jeopardy. We are the future that Jesus sought to preserve. Our own coming to the faith depended on whether Jesus was able to summon Peter and the other apostles back to the future.

Let’s look at this gospel in four stages.

1. Regrettable Reversal – The text says, At that time, Jesus revealed himself again to his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. He revealed himself in this way. Together were Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee’s sons, and two others of his disciples. Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We also will come with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

Peter had no business going back to fishing. The Lord had clearly called him away from fishing. For example: And he said to them, follow me and I will make you fishers of men. Immediately, they left their nets and followed him (Mat 4:19).

But in today’s Gospel we see Peter going back to commercial fishing. This is not some sort of recreational fishing; the commercial nets are out. It is astonishing to think that after having encountered Jesus risen from the dead on at least two (and possibly more) occasions, he’s going back to fishing!

We often think that if only we were to see a miracle our faith would be strong, but there is very little evidence for this. Many who see signs and wonders, ponder whether what they have seen can be topped. Their fascination is engaged but not their faith. Ultimately, faith produces miracles; miracles do not produce faith.

Peter’s return to fishing is not only regrettable, it is scandalous. For in so doing it leads others say to him, “We will also go with you.” When we backslide we often bring others with us. Looking at it more positively, when we grow in holiness we also bring others with us. Sadly, Peter has regressed and others follow him. But as we shall see, the Lord will not abandon his church.

While we may wonder at St. Peter’s relapse, we should recognize that we, too, easily do the same. We praise Jesus with the same mouth that sometimes spews curses and gossip. We claim that we belong to Christ and are one body with Him, that we are a Temple of the Holy Spirit, and yet with that same body often comes forth fornication and other sexual impurity. We say that God is love, and yet from us too easily comes anger, hatred, and a lack of love for the poor and troubled.

We too easily run back to the things from which we have been called away. The Lord points us forward but we run backward.

Just as He did with the apostles in this Gospel, the Lord must stand on the shore of our baptismal waters, and call us out of the past and back into the future, a future of holiness and perfection. Too easily, we run from this. Yes, the Lord is faithful and stands on the shore calling us back. Would that we could say, in the words of an old gospel song, “Goodbye world, I stay no longer with you, goodbye pleasures of sin, I stayed along with you! I’ve made up my mind to go God’s way the rest of my life!” Another gospel song from the 1940s says, “No more, no more! I’ll never turn back no more! I’m going to keep on crossing till I reach the other shore. Rains may come, floods may roar, storms may race, and winds may blow, but I’ll never turn back, no more!”

Would that this were the case! But the Lord keeps calling us, calling from the shore, out across the waves of our discontent.

2. Redeeming Reminder – The text says, When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, “Children, have you caught anything to eat?” They answered him, “No.” So he said to them, “Cast the net over the right side of the boat and you will find something.” So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in because of the number of fish. So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea. The other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards, dragging the net with the fish.

The Lord stands on the shore and does again for them what he had some three years earlier, when he called them from fishing to evangelizing. He does not excoriate them; He does not call them fools or some other epithet. He calls out to them, “Children, have you caught anything to eat?” And rather than rebuke them, He asks them to assess the situation, to consider whether the course of action they have chosen has yielded anything at all. They admit that they’ve caught nothing.

And yet, strangely, this whole incident seems familiar. The Lord tells him that if they cast the net over the other side of the boat they will find something. Suddenly the nets are full! Oh, how this spoke to their hearts; it was just what happened three years ago! Scripture says,

And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a great shoal of fish; and as their nets were breaking, they beckoned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him (Luke 5:4ff).

In today’s Gospel, John draws the obvious conclusion, “It is the Lord!”  The Lord has given them a redeeming reminder. He does not rebuke them; he only reminds them. In effect, He says “Come out of the past! Remember the future to which I have summoned you, a future of going forth to the nations and announcing the Gospel for all to hear. Your life is not about fish; it is about humanity!”

What reminders has the Lord put into your life? How has He stood on the shore and called to you with some reminder? Perhaps it was a tattered old Bible, or maybe an old hymn that you heard. Perhaps it was your grandmother’s old rosary beads stored away in a dresser drawer. Perhaps you are summoned to a funeral or wedding.

In moments like these, the Lord stands on the shore of life and calls to you. He reminds you of your call, and asks you to consider whether your present course is doing anything for you whatsoever. Usually, it has not. Perhaps there is fleeting wealth or momentary popularity, but otherwise there is little else to show for it.

And thus the Lord calls. He calls us back to the future, a future (and a present) oriented toward Heaven. Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, seek the things that are above, rather than the earth below (Colossians 3:1).

In the words of a popular hymn, “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling for you and for me. See on the portals he’s waiting and watching, watching for you and for me; Come home, come home! Ye who are weary come home! Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling, calling oh sinner come home!”

Here, then, is a redeeming reminder that Jesus is calling, softly and tenderly: “Come out of the past. Come away from commercial fishing. Look to the future, the future of saving souls!”

III. Reorienting Repast – The text says, When they climbed out on shore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you just caught.” So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” And none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they realized it was the Lord. Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner the fish. This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead. When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to Simon Peter a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” Jesus said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Notice three basic elements whereby the Lord uses a meal to reorient them. To reorient (re (again) + oriens (East)) literally means to turn someone back to the East, back toward the rising of the sun (Son), back toward the light and away from the darkness.

FISH – The fish are in, and their number is plentiful. The specific number, 153, has significance more for humanity than for fish. While much ink has been spilled on the significance of this number, the most likely explanation seems to be that this was the number of known nations at the time. And hence, that exactly 153 fish are caught seems to be the Lord’s way of saying, “…not fish, but humanity: all the nations!” We see that God can use even our backsliding, our sins, and use them to call us away from them. Yes, He can use our sins to be a teachable moment.

FIRE – As Peter comes ashore, he sees a fire. And though the text is silent on this, surely it must have unnerved him! For here was a charcoal fire, the same sort of fire that was in the courtyard of Caiaphas the high priest where Peter had denied the Lord (Jn 18:18). Hurt, and unnerved by what he had done—or rather failed to do—Peter felt unworthy. Yes, this fire reminded him of his denial of the Lord.

And yet even Peter’s repentance is somewhat egocentric. It would seem that he wonders, “How could I have done this, I, who promised the Lord to be with Him even if all should rage against Him!” But in moment of cowardice, Peter denied the Lord. Oh yes, this fire, this charcoal fire, is bothersome indeed! The Lord stands next to the fire and looks at Peter much as he had in the courtyard of Caiaphas when, after Peter had denied Him for the third time, Jesus turned and looked at Peter (Lk 22:61). How this fire bothered him!

FRANKNESS – But now comes a tender, poignant, and powerful conversation. To us who read the text in English, the conversation focuses on the fact that three times, the Lord asked Peter, “Do you love me?” But in Greek, there are subtleties that do not come through in the English translation.

In the English translation, the Lord asks Peter simply, “Do you love me?” And Peter answers, “Yes Lord, I love you.” The Greek text, however, is more subtle and more specific. In Greek, the Lord asks, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων? (Simon Joannou agapas me pleon touton? – Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?). Jesus has asked about “agape” love. But Peter replies, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. (Kyrie, su oidas oti philo se. – Lord, you know that I have brotherly (philo) love for you.)

The Lord asked for agape love, the highest love, wherein we love God above all things and above all people, including ourselves. But Peter does not answer with agape love. Rather he replies that he loves the Lord in a brotherly (philo) way. This is far short of what the Lord asked. (I realize that there are debates about the Greek used in this passage, but I am convinced that the use of the two different verbs is significant. You can read more on this topic here: Agape vs Philo in John 21).

But in spite of Peter’s response of imperfect love, the Lord still has something important for St. Peter to do: Feed my lambs.

A second time, the same dialogue sets up wherein the Lord asks Peter, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με (Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me? Peter responds, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε (Lord you know that I have brotherly (philo) love for you. Again, the Lord has asked for unconditional, ultimate love. But Peter can only return a lesser love, a brotherly love, a sort of affection. Yet again, the Lord does not reject Peter. He accepts what Peter says and tells him, Tend my sheep.

On the third occasion, Jesus accepts what Peter is able to offer and asks him, Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; (Simon, son of John, do you have brotherly affection (phileis) for me? The third question, which strikes Peter to the heart, causes him to exclaim that he (only) has brotherly love. Yet again, the Lord does not reject Peter, but rather assigns him a task, saying once again, Feed my lambs.

This is perhaps one of the most poignant, beautiful, and honest moments in Scripture. The Lord looks with love to a disciple and asks him for the highest love; that disciple honestly answers that he has only imperfect love to offer. Perhaps for the first time in his life, Peter is being absolutely honest. There is no more posing, no more bragging—only an honest answer, borne out of sober appreciation of his human lapses. There is nothing more beautiful than honest prayer, for honesty is a prelude to healing. Jesus accepts what Peter is able to offer, and as we shall see, promises him that his heart will expand so that one day he will love the Lord totally, unconditionally, above all things, and above all people.

How about you? Are you honest with the Lord? Have you experienced His love in spite of your sin? Do you know that He can use you even in your weakness if you are willing to be honest with Him?

IV–Required Remedy – The text says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

In this whole conversation, the Lord’s purpose is not to stalk Peter or to badger him. Rather, it is to lead him toward a necessary remedy, to point him back toward the future, a future filled with evangelical fervor and sacrificial love. Peter is weak now, but the Lord will give him strength. Within ten days after His Ascension, the Holy Spirit will come and Peter will be quickened, strengthened in the faith.

But even then, the work the Lord needs to do is not finished, for the Lord speaks of the day when Peter will finally have the grace to accept martyrdom. It will be a day when someone will tie him fast and lead him off to where he would rather not go. But Peter will go. And he will die for Christ.

In the end, Peter will be able to say, without any simulation or exaggeration, “I love you, Lord, totally, with agape love. I love you above all things, above all people, and above even my own life.”

For now, though, Peter is not ready. But the Lord will lead him by stages and get him ready.

How will Peter get there? How will we get there?  The Lord simply says, Follow me.

So, fellow disciples, the Lord is leading you to a deeper love, an unconditional love, a love above all other loves. Only the Lord can do this. He did it for Peter—a hard case, actually—and He can do it for you!

For now, though, He is standing on the shore and calling us to a richer future:

Posted on

A Powerful and Humorous Look at Vanity in a Commercial

blog-4-8Most people associate the word “vanity” with an excessive concern or pride in one’s appearance or sometimes in one’s qualities. But at its root, vanity refers to emptiness. To say that someone is vain is to say that it he or she is empty or largely lacking in meaning, depth, or substance.

It makes sense that people get worked up about externals when there isn’t much happening on the inside. And thus it makes sense that we connect emptiness (vanity) with excessive show.

There are many expressions that enshrine this connection:

All form and no substance

That Texan is all hat and no cattle

All bark and no bite

All booster, no payload

All foam, no beer

All sizzle and no steak

All talk

Show me the money

The Wisdom Tradition in the Bible, especially the Book of Ecclesiastes, speaks of vanity at great length. In it, the word is usually used to refer to the ultimate futility of what this world offers because the world itself is ultimately empty and vacuous.

  • Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun (Eccl 2:11).
  • He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity (Eccl 5:10).

The world, which so mesmerizes our senses, shows itself ultimately to be empty of power or any lasting substance.

  • We have here, no lasting city (Heb 13:14).
  • As for man, his days are like grass: or as the flower of the field. Behold, he flourishes. But the wind blows and he is gone; and his place never sees him again (Ps 103:15-16).

I thought of these notions of vanity when I saw this admittedly very funny commercial. It shows a man concerned only with his appearance. Actually, he’s even more vain than that: it’s how he smells that concerns him (this is an Old Spice commercial, after all). He is so vapid, so vain, that he thinks that even if he doesn’t look good, well at least he smells like someone who looks good!

As he moves through the scenes of the commercial he becomes increasingly devoid of substance (literally!).

Symbolically, we can see him as the vain person who goes through life carelessly, paying no attention to the way in which the world, the desires of the flesh, and the devil strike at and eat away at him. But he doesn’t worry about that because at least he smells like someone who looks good! His only real substance is to be lighter than air, a whiff. It is form over substance, impression over reality. It is empty show; it is vanity on steroids.

Here is a humorous look at vanity, a vanity so extreme that it goes beyond appearance and extends into the vapid, vacuous, and vaporous vanity of merely wanting to smell like someone who looks good. It is a remarkable portrait of the empty show that vanity ultimately is. Enjoy!

Posted on

The Whole Gospel, Please – A Reflection on a Popular Gospel Verse

john316The Gospel proclaimed on Wednesday of this week included the familiar John 3:16. So familiar is this verse, that many hold up signs or have bumper stickers that simply say, “John 3:16.”

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life (John 3:16).

It is indeed a beautiful verse, but I would argue that many use it inauthentically by pulling it out from its place within a longer passage. The fuller segment is John 3:16-21, which is as much a passage of warning as it is of consolation and assurance.

Here it is again, along with the remainder of that longer passage:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
And this is the verdict,
that the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God (John 3:16-21).

This fuller context has somewhat of a different tone. It sets forth a great drama in which our lives are cast. It amounts to sober assessment of the obtuseness of many human hearts and of the urgent need for us to decide well in life.

Those who merely quote the first verse run the risk of presenting this text as a kind of a freewheeling assurance that all is well and that salvation is largely in the bag, that judgment and condemnation are not a significant factor since “God so loved the world.” And while the concept of faith is included in this first verse, without the larger context the tendency is to soft-pedal the need for repentance and for the obedience of faith. In so doing, the true drama and sober teaching of the fuller text are lost.

The longer passage fleshes the message out and has a balance that the shortened text does not. Here is what Jesus is in effect saying, expressed in more modern language:

As I live, I and my Father do not desire that any should die in their sins or be lost. I have not currently come as your judge but as your savior. I will come one day as the judge of all, but now is a time of grace and mercy extended to you.

But you need to know that you have a decision to make, a decision that will determine where you will spend eternity.

So please listen to me! Open the door to me and let me draw you to the obedience of faith and the beauty of holiness. If you do this, light will dawn for you, for I am the Light and your life will grow ever brighter.

But if you will not repent and come to a lifesaving obedience of faith, your heart will begin to despise me and the light of my glory. You will become accustomed to the darkness and begin to consider the Light (which I am) to be obnoxious, harsh, judgmental, and even cruel. Yes, you will begin to hate me, for I am the Light. You will prefer the darkness because you love your sins more.

Come to your senses and don’t let this happen. You have a decision to make: for the light or for the darkness, for me or for the prince of this world, Satan. Be sober and understand the dramatic choice before you. Your salvation depends on your choice to come to obedient faith in me or to reject me.

And know this: on the day of your judgment, the verdict will not be rendered by me so much as by you. For by then, you will either love the Light or hate it. And I will not force you to live in a light you detest. You will be free to go your own way. It will not be I who reject you. It will be you who reject me.

Be sober. Don’t let this happen. Don’t marginalize or ignore me. Don’t prefer the world and its twisted values and passing pleasures. Your sins will make you hate the light and prefer the darkness. You have a decision to make.

This message is much more complex than that contained in the popular, abbreviated text known as John 3:16. God’s mercy is offered, but the final verdict will center on whether or not we accept it. This message may be less consoling but it is true nonetheless, and only the truth can set us free.

There is a tendency by many to pull out certain verses and isolate them from their context and from the fuller message of the Gospel. The full and authentic Gospel echoes the opening call of the Lord Jesus: “Repent and believe the Good News.”

So yes, John 3:16! But please continue reading. The whole Gospel, please!

 

Posted on

Of Mice and Men – Pondering the Strange Loss of Faith in an Age of Science

faith and scienceOne of the more perplexing claims of the growing number of agnostics and atheists among us is that there is no evidence of an intelligent creator of the universe. But clearly the created universe manifests intelligibility and order from the farthest reaches of outer space down to our tiny planet and further down into the “inner space” of cells, atoms, and molecules. Science affirms the existence of a creator by uncovering the inner order and intelligibility of created things. But strangely, the age of science seems to be fostering a denial of that evidence.

Indeed, creation is a veritable symphony of billions of notes working together in an extraordinary harmony that seems to shout, “I was composed and carefully thought out; my master composer is also the great conductor of my symphony, so carefully laid out!”

That the created world is intelligible is the very basis of the sciences. The world manifests meaning that we can discover and it moves along in predictable ways; it does not randomly change from one thing to the next from one moment to the next. Because there is order and intelligibility, a scientist can predict, propose, and test theories, and replicate results. Without order and intelligibility there could be no scientific method.

And yet many of the scientists who use this scientific method deny the very intelligence who provides the intelligibility that their science presumes. For if the created world is intelligible, then clearly an intelligence imposed this intelligibility upon it. That the created world manifests order demonstrates that someone so ordered it.

If all of this intricate order happened just by accident at one moment in time, it would then require something to maintain that order and keep it from breaking down the very next instant into something completely different. And yet this does not happen. Reality does not suddenly and randomly mutate into something else. It follows predictable laws; changes are orderly and exhibit continuity with what went before. Order is present not just at one point in time, but is sustained over time and becomes demonstrably more organized as complex life forms develop. Clearly, creation tends toward a certain end in an orderly and progressive way.

That there is order and intelligibility to the created world is demonstrably true and to deny this fact would seem to be the reaction of a madman. The universe shouts out, “I was planned and carefully executed; I have been intricately designed by an intelligent cause moving me in an intelligible direction!”

I would understand if physical scientists were to say that they are not equipped to opine on who or what this intelligence is. Indeed, the physical sciences are not equipped to measure the metaphysical. For so many scientists to claim the ability to deny that there is an intelligence (whom we believers call God) is for them to act outside of their field, unreasonably so.

The claim that there is no God is not a scientific claim; it is a philosophical one. Those who maintain that there is only the physical and not the metaphysical are actually making a metaphysical claim. They refute their own assertion in the very act of declaring it! The claim that physical science wholly explains all of reality is not one that can be demonstrated scientifically. The claim is proven false the very moment it is declared.

Many will say that there is no evidence of God’s existence because they cannot see it under a microscope or through a telescope. But of course God is not a physical being; He does not tip our scales. He cannot be physically measured any more than can justice, mercy, beauty, or any other metaphysical concept. None of these can be seen with the tools of physical science—but they are no less real.

Yes, there is a great deal of evidence of a creator. The entire created world is steeped in intelligibility and order. There is a magnificent interplay between material, efficient, formal, and final causality. By its intelligibility, the created world shouts of the intelligence that made it so. By its order, it sings of the one who so ordered it.

Existence itself provides the answer to the questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all?” The only reasonable answer that can come back from the existing cosmos is this: “I was caused!” Something cannot cause itself any more than you and I can cause ourselves. We, and the entire cosmos, were caused by someone other than ourselves and outside of ourselves. The cosmos says, “Someone outside of me caused me. That is why I exist. That is why anything exists at all.”

We moderns have become very obtuse and inwardly focused. If anything, we should be more convinced than ever that God exists, as our sciences have revealed such incredible complexity and intricate order in every layer and level of creation. We should be singing of the incredible wisdom of the creator who has so perfectly ordered every level of his creation. And yet, sadly, just the opposite seems to be happening—agnosticism and atheism are growing.

Far too many scientists, who should know better (for there would not be science at all without the intelligibility built into creation), make unfounded denials of God, a pronouncement that is clearly outside their field of expertise. And because so many of us idolize the sciences, we give great weight to the claims of scientists, even when those claims are nonscientific.

Contemplating this tragic turn of events brings to mind a little parable told by Venerable Fulton Sheen many decades ago:

Those who refuse to unify the cosmos in terms of Pure Intelligence but content themselves with secondary causes may be likened to an all-wise mouse living in a grand piano who … explained the music by the play of hammers on the strings, the action of which could be seen in his own narrow little world. Scientists catch the tune, but miss the player (Old Errors and New Labels, Fulton J. Sheen 1931, p. 17).

Yes, we have become mousy in our thinking. We prefer to live inside the piano and explain the music of the spheres only internally, never thinking of the great artist outside, who gives and causes the magnificent, understandable, beautiful, and intricate melody we hear.

Sadly, the great debate over the existence of God seems only to grow, even as the evidence of intelligibility, order, and design increases. It is a great debate of mice and men.

Are you a mouse or are you a man?

In this video, hear the song of the cosmos!

Posted on

Liturgy is About God! A Soulful Reminder from Cardinal Sarah

God-or-NothingCardinal Sarah, in his book-length interview with Nicolas Diet, God or Nothing, has many good observations on the Sacred Liturgy. His remarks should cause all of us to think as well as to repent.

His fundamental insights are that the Sacred Liturgy is about the adoration and worship of God, and that it is our hearts that God seeks.

I will present a few quotes from the good Cardinal in bold, black italics while my meager commentary is in plain, red text.

Cardinal Sarah has the following to say about the implementation of liturgical reform:

Unfortunately, right after the Council, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was understood, not in terms of the fundamental primacy of adoration, of the Church humbly kneeling before the greatness of God, but rather as a book of formulas …. We have seen all sorts of “creative” liturgical planners who sought to find tricks to make the liturgy attractive, more communicative, by involving more and more people, but all the while forgetting that the liturgy is made for God. If you make God the Great Absent One, then all sorts of downward spirals are possible, from the most trivial to the most contemptible.

… If we make the liturgy for ourselves, it moves away from the divine; it becomes a ridiculous, vulgar, boring, theatrical game. We end up with liturgies that resemble variety shows …. The faithful go back home … without having encountered God personally or having heard him in the innermost depths of their heart (God or nothing, p. 105).

It is amazing to me how hard it is for us to get this simple point across today. The Liturgy is about God and the worship of God. It is listening with docility to His Word proclaimed and worshiping Him in the Word made Flesh, in the Eucharist. But you would almost never know that by walking into a typical Mass. Thomas Day summarized modern worship well when he described it as “the aware, gathered community celebrating itself.”

Cardinal Sarah presents a beautiful image of the Church and of the goal of liturgy: “the Church humbly kneeling before the greatness of God.”

And what a terrible indictment, what a “fail” that Cardinal Sarah describes: “The faithful go back home … without having encountered God personally or having heard Him in the innermost depths of their heart.”

I wonder if any pastor or liturgy committee has ever articulated so clear a goal and so clear a “fail” to be avoided. Burn all the glossy liturgy magazines with their trendy ideas! The good Cardinal has set forth everything we need to consider.

Next, the Cardinal has a call to repentance for some of us who have turned the liturgy, God’s Sacred Liturgy, into a battleground. The Cardinal describes the opposing camps: those favoring the classical liturgy and those favoring the modern. He is plain in saying that these wars are a countersign and must displease God exceedingly. His Eminence has something to say to both sides. Whichever side you are on, prepare to repent.

First, Cardinal Sarah states the problem:

God alone should be our point of reference. However, … we have different concepts of liturgy that go so far as to cause mutual rejection, hostility, or even a cold war…. Too often we are opposed, each one enclosed in his little chapel …. Ideology replaces adoration (Ibid, p. 116).

Do you see what he is saying? God is the point. But instead, we look at each other and make “the other guy” the point. We say, “He isn’t kneeling enough.” “She’s wearing a veil!” “You’re turning back the clock with all your Latin stuff.” “Listen to that hootenanny music, that Protestant hymn. Look at that dumb charismatic emotionalism. It’s so irreverent!”

Note our inward focus, our obsession with the other guy. But where is God in all this? Well, the Cardinal has our number: “ideology has replaced adoration.” I don’t have any time to adore God if I’m too busy watching what the other guy is or isn’t doing.

The Cardinal continues,

The liturgy is God’s time, and it tends to become the heart of an ideological pitched battle between different concepts [classical and modern]. It is sad to enter God’s house with one’s shoulders loaded with weapons of war and one’s heart filled with hatred … (Ibid, p. 116).

Yikes! And don’t tell me his observation isn’t fair.

Now here comes the money quote:

Indeed, beyond the rite, God looks first for human hearts….

The first rubric of any Liturgy is this: Caritas suprema lex (Charity is the highest law). God wants our love! At the end of every liturgy, whether it is your favorite form or not, did you worship God? Did you tell Him that you love Him? Did you love and adore Him? Were you grateful and astonished at His goodness and mercy?

Some years ago, as a large team of us were going into the basilica to celebrate a Solemn High Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form, I was asked to offer a prayer. The liturgy is enormously complex and as I prayed that we would remain focused and remember our roles I also asked God: “Please, Lord, help us to do well. But above all, help us to remember to worship you.” I have no doubt that on that day I missed a few bows or biretta tips, but I pray that I did not forget my primary goal, which was to worship the God who loves me despite my fumbling.

Next, the Cardinal speaks to us who love the “Classical Liturgy”:

If a person respects the ancient rites of the Church but is not in love, that individual is perishing. I think that this is the situation of the most extremist adherents of the various liturgical schools. Strict, almost fundamentalist ritualism or the modernist-type deconstruction of the rite, [these] can cut people off from a true search for the love of God.

Risking the wrath of traditionalists, of which I am one, I must say that I have sometimes suffered at the hands of fellow traditionalist for not being “traditional enough.” For some, it is not enough to like the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM); one must also despise the Ordinary Form and insist on its abolition. While I love the TLM, I do not hate the Ordinary Form. And I also like gospel music. I have been discredited by some for these views. But how could I hate the Ordinary Form or gospel music? It is the form I was largely raised in, the form in which I was ordained, and the form in which I have celebrated the vast majority of the Masses of my priesthood. Gospel music has spoken to my soul every bit as much as have chant and polyphony, and gospel music is always about God, not us.

Whatever the faults of the Ordinary Form (and they are not negligible), it has fed me and has been the way I have encountered the Lord for most of my life!

But yes, I have suffered at the hands of traditionalists. And my suffering is made the more acute because I love them. But I will not hate the new Mass. I also love many others in the Church who worship in the Novus Ordo and have met the Lord there. There are some in the Neocatechumenal Way, in the Charismatic Movement, in Cursillo, and in my own parish with its vibrant gospel liturgy, who have met the Lord in non-traditional ways. The New Mass and its diversity has helped them to find a place where they could meet God.

The Cardinal’s rebuke is a call to repentance to fundamentalists and extreme adherents to tradition who would simply reject the experience of others who have found the Lord in non-traditional ways. The New Liturgy allows a lot more freedom, and if the Church allows a freedom we are wrong to excoriate others for doing what the Church permits. It may not be my favorite type of music; it may make use of liturgical options that are not my preference; but if it is allowed, for the love of God, never get between another person and God.

The Cardinal warns devotees of the modern forms, too:

In Africa, when I attend Masses that last six hours, I see only a celebration that suits personal preferences. I strongly doubt there is a true encounter with God in such moments of continual excitement and dances that are not very conducive to the encounter with the mystery. God is horrified by forms of ritualism in which man satisfies himself. Even though it is necessary to give thanks to God for the real vitality of our African liturgies … when the [paschal] mystery is encumbered with elements that are foreign to the Eucharist, it give the impression that we are celebrating ourselves. We absolutely must strive to do again what Jesus did. Let us remember his Words: “Do this in memory of me.”

[These aberrations can] lead us to the celebration of the great mystery of our faith, but are made without any recollection, without any sense of wonder, without any religious “awe” at being face to face with God. The celebrants chat and discuss all sorts of trifling things while walking [in procession] up to the altar of the Lord!

Yes, here is the major problem with the modern form: it can so easily devolve into a self-satisfying, self-absorbed liturgy in which God is barely referred to, and whose seeming purpose is to praise ourselves and lift up man rather than God. Modern liturgy too easily becomes what pleases us. But where is God? Where is the time to reflect and reverently experience that He is Lord and worthy of my worship? When do we listen during these noisy, busy liturgies? When do we ever stop all the congratulations of one another that so predominate modern liturgy? Is the Liturgy only about us, the music we like, and self-aggrandizement? What would happen if we just stopped all the lengthy Thank-yous that so burden the beginning and end of every Mass?

And thank you, Cardinal Sarah, for calling out the chattering priests who, instead of singing the hymn or worshiping God, engage in banter and delight in acknowledgments as they process up the aisle. Shame on us!

And then a final word from Cardinal Sarah:

The liturgy is a moment when God, out of love, desires to be in profound communion with men. If we truly experience these sacred moments, we can encounter God. We must not fall into the trap that tries to reduce the liturgy to a simple place of fraternal conviviality … (Ibid, p. 124).

Amen!

Here’s a song from the 1970s that I often sang in my youth. Although it is from a “goofy” period, it reminds us to remember God.

And here is a song from the classical liturgy that carries the same message:

Posted on

The Book of Revelation Is a Sure Guide to What Is Really Going On

easter4.4In the Office of Readings this Easter season, we are reading from the Book of Revelation. This choice might seem surprising, but there are good reasons for it.

While many suppose that the Book of Revelation is merely about the end of the world, it is about far more; it is also about what is happening right now. It was not written only for the end of the ages but for all ages. It is a book of glory that discloses the victory that Jesus has already won. Don’t get lost in lots of exotic theories; Revelation is a book of glory that prophetically declares what is really going on.

Its title in Greek is Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Apokalupsis Jesou Christou), which literally means “The Unveiling of Jesus Christ.” It is as if Jesus is pulling back the veil to show us what is really going on. He shows us the great drama of history and tells us that He has already won the victory. He declares that we should not to lose heart while the dust settles, while the wheat is separated from the chaff and the harvest is brought in.

We are too easily mesmerized or terrified by our limited view of history. We think that life depends on which political party wins, or whether a cure is found for some disease, or whether world leaders can reach rapprochement. But the battle is far higher and deeper than our little sliver of the early 21st century. It is far deadlier and is about more dramatic issues than what will happen to the GNP of the U.S. or which of the latest political theories will prevail.

This is a great drama between good and evil. It concerns the far more fundamental issue of where you will spend eternity. Yes, there is a great and cosmic battle in which we are all caught up; it is happening all around us. St. Paul says,

For we do not contend against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the high places. Therefore, take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Eph 6:11-13).

The Book of Revelation is speaking to the same reality. It unveils the true and cosmic battle. In so doing, it declares without ambiguity who the victor is: Jesus Christ our King, who has already won. There are only two kingdoms, two armies, two sides. You must decide whom you will serve: the prince of this world or the King and Lord of all creation.

Revelation opens with a vision of the glory of Jesus the Great Lord and Son of Man:

I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead (Rev 1: 10-17).

Yes, here is our Lord Jesus in His resurrected and conquering glory! At the name of Jesus every knee shall bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth, and every tongue proclaim to the glory of God the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2:10-11).

Yes, Jesus Christ is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen (Rev 1:5-7).

The second part of the Book of Revelation calls the Church and us as individuals to repentance and perseverance. The cosmic battle reaches the Church and individual disciples. The battle is in the Church and in the heart of every person. Thus, the letters to the seven churches. We are not to lose the love we had at first. We must be willing to endure hardship and persecution. We are to reject the fornicators and all those who propose any sort of sexual immorality. We are to resist syncretism and every form of false religion. We must resist all of the deep secrets of Satan; we must not be in any agreement with his ways. We must resist sloth and not fall back. We must resist lukewarmness and every sort of pride and self-satisfaction. The Church, clergy, and laity must fight the good fight, must persevere. We must endure hardship and always keep in mind the reward that awaits the courageous and the eternal disgrace that is coming to cowards and to all embrace the world, the flesh, and the devil.

John is then caught up into Heaven to see the glory of God and the heavenly liturgy. He has revealed to him what must take place soon. Historically, the Book of Revelation pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the end of an era. Down through the ages, empires and nations have crumbled; eras and epochs have come and gone; only God’s Kingdom, as proclaimed and made sacramentally present by the Church, has or will survive.

Today we are arguably at the end of another era and epoch. The West is crumbling and decadence abounds. Confusion about basic reality is so widespread that our current cultural situation can credibly be described as a lunatic asylum. Even within the Church, voices that should speak out prophetically are silenced by fear and infected by worldliness. There is among Church leaders, clergy, and laity a widespread softness and a feeling that the risk of speaking out is too great.

The message of the Book of Revelation is a strong antidote to times like these as well as to times that have gone before and may well come after. The message is clear: be strong, be prepared, and be willing to suffer, realizing that no matter how powerful and glamorous evil may seem, Jesus is the victor. We must persevere and realize that we are swept up into a cosmic battle that is much larger than our current situation, but which reaches us nonetheless. We must choose sides. Don’t think that you can sit on the fence. Satan owns the fence and he is coming for you and will say, “You belong to me.”

The seals, the bowls, and the trumpets of Revelation are but a further description of the cosmic battle and the wretched defeats that ultimately come upon the defiant and disobedient. God will not leave unpunished those who despise His Kingdom and His holy ones. These seven ordeals times three are a call to repentance to those who survive. They are also a manifestation of God’s justice and ultimate authority over history.

A crucial battle comes in Revelation 12, when the red dragon with seven heads and ten horns besets Mother Mary, who is also an image of the Church. But note this: the devil cannot prevail in the war that breaks out in Heaven. He is hurled to the earth, where he unsuccessfully pursues the woman (who is Mary and the Church). He is a big loser, and in a rage he continues to pursue us.

For the time being, the cosmic battle continues. But Satan rages, for he knows his time is short. He is a big loser.

But even losers still have an odd ability to dupe and impress foolish, gullible people. And so Satan still flashes the cash, makes empty promises, and dangles passing pleasures before us. Sadly, many of the worldly and unspiritual foolishly fall prey to his pomp and lies. Mysteriously, God permits this until the full number of the elect are gathered in.

And then comes the end:

And fire came down from heaven and devoured Satan and his armies and followers. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new.” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true” (Rev 20:9-21:5).

Yes, it is good that we read the Book of Revelation. It is a pulling back of the veil, wherein the Lord tells us what is really going on and what the outcome shall be. He is telling us not to lose heart. “In this world you shall have tribulation, but have courage, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Be not dismayed, fellow Christians. Do not be fearful of what is coming upon this world. Even if it is the end of the era or epoch, the Church has endured such sea changes before. Christ has already won the victory and has promised that the Church will remain indefectible. When the current foolishness has runs its course, we will still be here preaching the Gospel, even if we have become a small remnant and are preaching from jail!

Do not be fearful. Do not be a coward. Preach boldly and with love. Continue to shine the light of the Gospel in the darkness. The Gospel will win; it always wins.

Don’t get lost in all the details about the Book of Revelation and miss its message. The message is one of victory in the midst of persecution and trial. It is a call to persevere. It is a pulling back of the veil to show us what the end shall be! Be strong, be courageous, be certain. Jesus has already won the great victory in the cosmic battle. The dust is still settling. But know for certain that Jesus has won and if you choose Him, so will you!

He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Rev 21:7-8).

Regardless of what you think is going on, this is what is really going on. Choose sides. I urge you to choose Christ with courage. Don’t look back. Come what may, Viva Christo Rey!

Posted on

A Reflection on the Surprising, Truer, and Original Meaning of the Word “Relevant”

relevantThe word “relevant” is one seen and heard frequently in modern times. Today it seems that everything said, taught, or presented should be relevant. On one level, this means that it ought to be applicable, reasonable, understandable, easily grasped, etc.

But today there is also a more problematic meaning added to the concept: to be in agreement with or in step with modern times, to be in agreement with the thinking, leanings, customs, and mores of people today.

Thus many today demand that the Church be relevant, meaning by this that the Church reflect the culture around her, that she be more of a thermometer recording the temperature than a thermostat seeking to regulate it. For many, this means that the Church should reflect the views of her members, rather than the views of her founder and head, Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and whose Word endures forever. To many, this also means that the Church should cast aside a large number of her most basic teachings and practices.

Thus there is a lot of tension around the word “relevant” (and the related “relevance”). It is necessary to discern authentic concerns while at the same time screening out inauthentic demands.

An important point can be made to those who demand that the Church be relevant by setting forth the original meaning of the word. For today, many use the word in a way that is directly opposed to its original meaning.

The Latin etymology of relevant is re (again) + levare (to lift). Hence, to be relevant literally means “to lift up something again.” And since “re” can denote a repetitive action, relevant can also mean “to lift up something again and again.”

The implication of the word is that something has been dropped or cast aside, and then someone reaches down and picks it up again. Yes, something that was dropped or had fallen away or into disuse is then picked up and presented anew, presented freshly. Theoretically, you could even apply the word to refer to something that was cast aside as old-fashioned or out-of-date, that is taken up again, that is presented anew.

Thus, in its Latin roots, being relevant actually means nearly the opposite of what many people intend today. Today, many use the word to imply that something ought to be dropped because it is old-fashioned or displeasing. But the original roots of the word speak of something dropped that should be picked up again!

This examination of the Latin derivation suggests a possible way forward in capturing the word “relevant” and using it with proper balance.

On the one hand, the re part of the word demands that while the Church must ever lift up our unchanging truths, we cannot simply rehash ideas in the same old way. Although the idea or truth is still valid, the way in which we express it may need adapting; it may need representing. Obviously as the Church encounters new languages, translations need to be made. As cultures, situations, and circumstances change, some of the analogies or images used to express the undying truth may need adjustment. The Latin etymology captures the notion that although things sometimes do fall away or drop, they need to be picked up again and represented, that is, presented in new and fresh ways.

On the other hand, the levare part of the Latin derivation shows that if something significant has been dropped, it is important to pick it up again. Certain things cannot be allowed to drop or fall away; they must be picked up again and again.

And thus despite demands to be relevant by dropping some of our teachings, the Latin roots of the word say just the opposite. To be relevant, we must re+levare; we must pick them up again and again, presenting them newly and freshly but still lifting them up. Even if the culture is dubious and hostile, we must continue to present, to represent, to lift up again and again the truths that God has given us, truths that can never die.

And in this sense, to a world that demands we be relevant, we can say, “Amen!” We must pick up again and again the perennial truths that God has given us, but we must also accept the challenge to present them freshly and with zeal, in a manner that is understandable—even infectious—to others.

Relevance anyone?