Most people associate the word “vanity” with excessive concern or pride in one’s appearance, or sometimes with some other personal quality. But at its root the word “vanity” refers to emptiness. To say that someone is “vain” is to say that he or she is empty or 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 lots of 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 and no action
Show me the money
The Wisdom Tradition in the Bible, especially the Book of Ecclesiastes, speaks of vanity at great length. And there the word tends to refer to the ultimate futility of whatever this world offers, to the fact that the world 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).
And thus 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 very funny commercial. It shows a man concerned only with his appearance. Actually, he is even more vain than that! It is how he smells that concerns him (this is an Old Spice commercial). He is so vapid, so vain, that even if he doesn’t look good, 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 again, never mind all that, 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 vain that it exists even beyond appearance and extends into the vapid, vacuous, and vaporous vanity of merely “smelling like someone who looks good.” A remarkable portrait of the empty show that vanity ultimately is. Enjoy!
A recent article by Mark Pattison of Catholic News Service summarizes a recent study that shows how too much television is detrimental to the life of the mind. Common sense has known this for years (after all, it is called the “boob tube”). But we moderns love our empirical data, and now the results are coming in from studies conducted over the past several decades.
But it is more than the content of television that is the problem. Being sedentary (typical during television viewing) is also a problem. A sedentary lifestyle is bad for the body in general, and since the brain is part of the body, it is negatively affected as well. I would also argue that the medium of television itself has a deleterious effect on our ability to think and especially on our concentration.
Here are a few excerpts from the CNS article:
[A]study, whose preliminary results were issued in July, suggests that the more TV you watch, the more likely you are to get Alzheimer’s disease. …
The study—which for 25 years has tracked 3,247 people whose ages at the start ranged from 18 to 30—investigated the association between sedentary lifestyles, cognitive performance, and the risk of developing dementia. …
The researchers’ conclusion: “Long-term patterns of low physical activity and high television viewing in early adulthood were associated with worse midlife executive function and processing speed (two cognitive function tests). These risk behaviors may be critical targets for prevention of cognitive aging. … This is something you can do something about,” Yaffe said. Her prescription: change your lifestyle and thus lower your risk. In other words, stop watching so much of the tube.
Notice that the problem isn’t just Alzheimer’s disease, but “worse midlife executive function and processing speed.” In other words, too much TV rots your brain.
Some years ago it was popular to say regarding television, “It’s not the medium, it’s the message.” And the point of this expression was to say that TV could be used for good purposes. Fair enough. But I would argue that to some degree it is also the medium of TV itself that causes harm.
That flickering blue light, combined with almost complete passivity on the part of the viewer, can harm the life of the mind. I would argue that this occurs in the following ways:
Reduced attention span– The constant flickering of the picture is bad enough, but the “seven second rule” seals the deal. The “seven second rule” refers to the idea that the content of the picture must change at least every seven seconds in order to keep the viewer’s attention. Thus, even when you are watching an interview, something about the picture is supposed to change at least every seven seconds. Maybe it’s the angle of the picture that changes, or perhaps the focus of the camera shifts to a different person; maybe there’s a cutaway shot, or the appearance of some sort of pop-up box. But constant change and movement is the norm for TV and cinematography.
This, of course, is not real life. When there is a steady diet of flickering light, and a diversion of some sort every seven seconds, one’s attention span is reduced. Navigating real life, staying focused in real conversations, and performing tasks that require focus all become more challenging. I think a lot of the ADHD that is “diagnosed” today actually goes back to a steady diet of TV and rapid-pace video games.
Passivity of the viewer – At least with reading, one has to use the imagination and engage in some sort of discipline. Reading also helps one learn how to spell and how to write well. Even with radio, the imagination is still engaged and one is not necessarily glued to a stationary box in the room. Television, however, encourages complete passivity. I cannot tell you a thing I am supposed to do after I turn it on except to let my jaw hang open and my eyes grow glassy.
I will grant that TV can do a good job of bringing sight, sound, and learning together. I can learn a lot much more quickly by watching an episode of “How it’s Made” on the Science Channel than if I were to try to read about the procedures. Still, I would argue that too much of this sort of learning can be harmful. Such learning can be a thousand miles wide but only two inches deep. More often, TV is a lousy medium when it comes to provoking further or deeper thought. Learning how it’s made is great, but TV would not have me ponder why it’s made or what it means. There’s no time for that; it’s off to commercials and then on to the next show. And so we know less and less about more and more.
Frequent channel flipping – When we are bored, or when a commercial comes on, there’s no need to worry, just flip the channel. But again, this is poor preparation for life, which does not admit of such simple and selfish decisions. Thus, in a variation on the attention span problem, we grow impatient quickly when life does not please us for even a few moments. But in real life flipping the channel is not possible, so we tune out in other ways or even become resentful at something longer than a sound bite.
A big time-waster– Many people who watch TV in the evening get drawn into watching more and more of it. Before they realize it, they’ve been sitting in front of the tube for nearly two hours. People often fail to get enough sleep because of television. Many others do not stay in touch with family or attend to other duties because television watching consumes so much of their time. People often ask me how I am able to write so much. Well, one reason is that I don’t watch much TV. Having the time to write is obviously essential. I also read a lot. Reading helps you to write because you’re learning from others who write. But TV can kill the clock for better things like reading, writing, conversing, and the like.
The study goes on to state two other problems associated with watching too much television, both of which are pretty much common sense:
Dissociation – Previous research has shown that people who watch a lot of TV tend to grow disassociated from the reality happening outside their front door.
Fear and avoidance – And TV watchers who focus their viewing on the news tend to not want to associate with the world outside their door because they’ve acquired the sense that the world—as shown by the if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality of TV news directors everywhere—is not a safe place.
I stopped watching the 24/7 news channels some time ago for this reason. I got tired of the “Breaking News!” mentality. They were always trying to create an urgency around things that were not that urgent. I also became convinced that I was being “played.” News agencies and the entities that feed them have gotten very sophisticated at “selling” news and generating issues. I realize that being informed is important, but I have grown far more careful about whom I permit to inform me. These days I look to less sensational ways of collecting and discerning the news.
OK, I usually write on matters of the spiritual life, Scripture, Church teaching, and culture as it relates to the life of faith. Perhaps this post is a slight diversion from my usual fare. But it does involve the life of the mind. And the mind is our most precious gift. We do well to attend to the life of the mind, for the grace of faith builds on nature. Treat your mind well: turn off the tube and read a book!
But one of the nicest and briefest descriptions of prayer that I have read comes from Dr. Ralph Martin in his book The Fulfillment of All Desire. Dr. Martin says beautifully, in a way that is succinct and yet comprehensive and inclusive of diverse expression,
Prayer is, at root, simply paying attention to God (p. 121).
Such a wonderful image: paying attention to God. Imagine that, actually paying attention to God! So simple, yet so often overlooked.
More traditionally, I have heard prayer defined as “conversation with God.” True enough, and well attested. But to me, this definition seems to shed less light on its meaning. While most people easily grasp the “talking” part of conversation, fewer are able to appreciate the “listening” part. And thus there can be a lot of emphasis on recited prayers, intercessory prayers, etc. These are all good in themselves—even required—but when and how does one listen?
One could theoretically recite long prayers, but in the end pay little attention to God. This is not usually due to malicious or prideful motives, but rather to the fact that our minds are weak. And thus the “conversation” definition has its pitfalls and limits.
How different it is to go to prayer saying, “I am going to go aside now and spend some time paying attention to God. I am going to sit still and listen while he speaks. I am going to think about His glory, rejoice in His truth, and ponder His presence as deeply as I can.”
Paying attention to God can take many forms. One outstanding way is through the slow, thoughtful, and deliberate reading of Scripture called lectio divina. We are not merely reading a text; we are listening to God speak; we are paying attention to what He says. And as we listen, as we pay attention to Him, our minds begin to change, and the Mind of Christ becomes our gift.
Another preeminent way of paying attention to God is through Eucharistic Adoration: a thoughtful, attentive, and loving look to the Lord as our thoughts gently move to Him, and His loving look returns often wordless but powerful presence.
Further, in authentic and approved spiritual reading we pay attention to God in a way that is mediated through His Saints, mystics, and other reputable sources. Good, wholesome, and approved spiritual reading presents to us the Kingdom of God, His Wisdom, and His vision. And in carefully considering holy teaching, we are paying attention to God.
And of course the highest form of paying attention to God is attending to Him in the Sacred Liturgy, experiencing His presence and power, listening to His Word proclaimed thoughtfully and reflectively, attending to His presence on the sacred altar, and receiving Him with attentiveness and devotion.
Throughout the day there are countless ways that we can take a moment and pay attention to God: momentary aspirations, a quick thought sent heavenward, or a look of love.
I will say no more here. For so much is beautifully and simply conveyed in these words: Prayer is, at root, simply paying attention to God.
The first reading for daily Mass on Monday (18th week of the year) was taken from the Book of Numbers. It features the Israelites grumbling about the manna in the wilderness:
Would that we had meat for food! We remember the fish we used to eat without cost in Egypt, and the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now we are famished; we see nothing before us but this manna (Numbers 11:4-5).
While it is possible for us to marvel at their insolence and ingratitude, the scene presented depicts very common human tendencies. It is not unique to these people once in the desert. Their complaints are too easily our own.
Let’s look at a number of the issues raised and see how it is possible for many of us today to struggle in the same way.
I. They prefer the abundance of food and creature comforts that come along with slavery in Egypt, to the freedom of children of God and the chance to journey to the Promised Land. And this, too easily, is our struggle as well. Jesus points to the Cross, but we prefer the pillow. Heaven is a nice thought, but it is in the future and the journey is a long one.
Too easily we prefer our own version of melons and leeks. Perhaps it is possessions, or power, or popularity. Never mind that the price of them is a kind of bondage to the world and its demands. For when the world grants its blessings, we become enslaved by the fact that we have too much to lose. Hence we will compromise our freedom, which Christ died to purchase for us, and enter into a kind of bondage of sin. We will buy into lies, or commit any number of sins, or perhaps suppress the truth, all in an attempt to stay popular and well-connected. Why? Because we have become so desperate for the world’s blessings that we will make compromises that harm our integrity or hurt other people just to get those things we think we can’t live without.
But we don’t call it bondage. We call it being “relevant,” “modern,” “tolerant,” and “compassionate.” Yes, as we descend into deeper darkness and bondage to sin and our passions, we are pressured to call it “enlightenment,” “choice,” and “freedom.” So, we use other terms, but it is still bondage for the many who fear breaking free from it.
We are in bondage to Egypt, enslaved to Pharaoh. We prefer that to the freedom of the desert, with its difficult journey to a Promised Land (Heaven) we have not yet fully seen. The pleasures of the world, its melons and leeks, are currently displayed and available for immediate enjoyment.
And so the cry still goes up: “Give us melons; give us leeks; give us cucumbers and fleshpots! Away with the desert; away with the Cross; away with the Promised Land, if it exists at all. It is too far off and too hard to get to. Melons and leeks, please. Give us meat; we are tired of manna!”
II. There is boredom with the manna. While its exact composition is mysterious to us, it would seem that manna could be collected, kneaded like dough, and baked like bread. But as such, it was a fairly plain substance. It seems it was meant more to sustain than to be enjoyed.
The people remembered the melons, leeks, and fleshpots of Egypt, and were bored with this plain manna. Never mind that it was miraculously provided every day by God, in just the right quantity. Even miracles can seem boring after a while to our petulantly demanding desires. The Lord may show us miracles today, but too easily do we demand even more tomorrow.
We are also somewhat like little children who prefer Twinkies and cupcakes to vegetables and other more wholesome foods. Indeed, the Israelites’ boredom with and even repulsion to the miracle food from Heaven does not sound so different from the complaint of many Catholics today that “Mass is boring.”
While it is certainly true that we can work to ensure that the Liturgy reflects the glory it offers, it is also true that God has a fairly stable and consistent diet for us. He exhorts us to stay faithful to the manna: the wholesome food of prayer, Scripture, the Sacraments, and stable, faithful fellowship in union with the Church.
In our fickle spirits, many of us run after the latest fads and movements. Many Catholics say, “Why can’t we be more like the mega-churches with all the latest, including a Starbucks Coffee Café, contemporary music, a rock-star-like pastor delivering sensitive, toned-down preaching with many promises and few demands, and all that jazz?”
But as an old spiritual says regarding this type of person, “Some go to church for to sing and shout, before six months they’s all turned out!” And thus some will leave the Catholic Church and other traditional forms that feature the more routine but stable and steady manner, for the hip and the latest, the melons and leeks. But frequently they find that within six months they’re bored again.
And while the Church is always in need of reform, there is a lot to be said for the slow and steady pace as she journeys through the desert, relying on the less glamorous but more stable and sensible food: the manna of the Eucharist, the Word of God, the Sacred Liturgy, prayer, and fellowship.
III. Who Feeds You?Beyond these liturgical preferences of many for melons and leeks over manna, there is also a manifest preference for the food of this world. There is a tragic tendency for many Catholics, even regular church-goers, to get most of their food not from the Lord, not from Scripture, not from the Church, but from the Egypt of this world.
Most eat regularly at the banquet table of popular entertainment, secular news media, secular talk radio, etc. And they eat this food quite uncritically! The manna is complained about, but the melons and leeks are praised without qualification.
And while it is true that Christians cannot wholly avoid all contact with the world or eschew all its food, when do the melons and leeks ever come up for criticism? When do Christians finally look closely and say, “That is not the mind of God!” When do they ever conclude that this food is inferior to what God offers? When do parents finally walk into the living room, turn off the TV, and tell their children that what they have just seen and heard is not the mind of God?
Tragically, this is rare. The food of this world is eaten in amounts far surpassing the consumption of the food of God. The melons and leeks of the world are praised, while the manna of God is put on trial because it’s not like the food of the world.
For a Christian, of course, this is backwards. The world should be on trial based on the Word of God. Instead, even for most Catholics, the Word of God and the teachings of the Church are on trial by the standards of the world.
So the question is, who is it that feeds you? Is it the world or the Lord? What proportion of your food comes from the Lord and what from the world? Answer honestly! Which is more influential in your daily life and your thinking: the world or the Lord? Who is really feeding you, informing you, and influencing you? Is it the melons and leeks of this world? Or is it the faithful, stable, even miraculous manna of the Lord and His Church?
These are some probing questions for all of us, drawn from an ancient wilderness. God’s people, who tired of the manna, harmed themselves and others as well. It is easy to blame others for the mess we’re in today, but there are too many Catholics who prefer the melons and leeks of this world and have failed to summon others to the manna given by the Lord.
Have mercy on us, Lord our God. Give us a deep desire for the manna you offer. And having given it to us in abundance, help us to share it as well!
What are we to make of cruelty in our culture? At one level, there is demonstrably less cruelty on a daily basis. Many hundreds of years ago, before the emergence of a common civil law, settled governments, and national boundaries, villages were often overrun by roving bands of plunderers or the armies of nearby towns. Feudal lords or landed families were either venting grievances or seeking to increase their territory. City-states had high walls, moats, and embattlements for a reason. Brutality, rape, torture, banishment, pillaging, and enslavement were common features of the ancient world and continued well into the 16th Century in Europe and even to this very day in some parts of the world.
With the emergence of civil law and more common standards of justice (thanks in part to the Church), along with more settled nation-states and boundaries, order in daily life, of the kind not experienced since the Pax Romana, began to develop.
Few of us today fear to venture outside our cities, which no longer have protective walls, or far from our homes. A drive out in the country is not something we undertake with trepidation, wondering if we will ever return.
And yet from the perspective of a “body count,” we have never lived in bloodier times. Even as we call ourselves “civilized” we kill in numbers unimaginable to the ancient world or feudal Europe. In the 20th century alone, tens of millions were killed in the two world wars. And the dead were not found only on the battlefields, but in fire-bombed and carpet-bombed cities as well. “Civilized” Germany ran death camps that killed millions more. The “Cold War” that followed World War II and atheistic communism killed millions more. Even by conservative estimates, some 200 million people died in the 20th century for ideological reasons: at the hands of Stalin, Mao, and Pohl Pot, and as a result of wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Korea. The 20th century was surely the bloodiest century this world has ever known.
Add to this the cruelest killing of all, in numbers almost unfathomable: abortion. Whatever euphemism we may wish to use (“reproductive choice,” “women’s healthcare,” etc.), the fact remains that abortion is a brutal thing. Infants are scalded to death by saline or dismembered by suction. And regardless of what women are told or what they think going in, no post-abortive woman I have ever spoken with would describe abortion as anything less than an act of terrible violence. They themselves are also the victims of the lies and euphemisms. Reality hits hard.
The recently released undercover Planned Parenthood videos show the brutality and the callous disregard for human life and dignity in some people. The actions of Planned Parenthood are reprehensible, but not surprising. When a person or an organization unrepentantly engages in any objectively sinful practice, the sin has a way of growing, and the darkness and rationalizations get ever deeper. And if this is the case with lesser sins, how much more so with the extremely grave sin of unrepentantly killing infants in the womb.
Planned Parenthood’s organizational response to the videos, while less glib than the “doctors” in the videos, demonstrates a lack of remorse and no desire to end the practice. But what remorse can we expect from Planned Parenthood when it supports and profits from the killing of over 300,000 infants a year?
Yes, in this country the darkness is growing ever deeper in many hearts. And thus we see the most abominable practices celebrated by those who have lost their moorings, who lack even simple human tenderness toward the most innocent among us: our infants. Many even justify selling aborted infants for the sake of “medical research.”
So here is the great paradox of cruelty in our times. At one level we experience less brutal and random violence. Law and order, national boundaries, etc. have reduced the daily violence that most (not all) of us experience. Indeed, we talk endlessly and to a fault about being kind and “nice” and of the obligation not to hurt anyone’s feelings. We lament the killing of whales, the baby seals, and Cecil the lion. And yet, by the numbers, we are more brutal and cruel than ever. While we call ourselves civilized, the numbers show that the modern world is a killing machine the likes of which the world has never known.
In pondering the enormous violence in a culture that talks “nice” and prizes tolerance and kindness, Dr. Peter Kreeft makes a valuable observation:
How [is our civilization] weak? Not technologically … not intellectually … Nor are we morally weaker. I do not think we are necessarily more wicked than our ancestors overall. True, we are less courageous, less honest with ourselves, less self-disciplined, and obviously less chaste than they were. But they were more cruel, intolerant, snobbish, and inhumane than we are. They were better at the hard virtues; we are better at the soft virtues. …
But though we are not weaker in morality, we are weaker in the knowledge of morality … We know more about what is less than ourselves, but less about what is more than ourselves. When we act morally, we are better than our philosophy … Our ancestors were worse than theirs. Their problem was not living up to their principles. Ours is not having any.
We talk a good game of ethics … but it has the effect of an inoculation. [Professing] a little ethics or pseudo ethics we build up an immunity to the real thing. Those who obviously have no ethics … are ripe for conversion. Those who seem to have ethics but actually do not [because they have merely inoculated themselves from true ethics by a little ethics] are comfortably ensconced in illusion (Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue, Ignatius Press, 1992, pp. 23-32).
Kreeft’s basic explanation for our paradoxical “kind, yet brutal” culture comes down to an analogy of immunization. In immunization we “inoculate” ourselves. That is, we take a little portion of a disease in order to avoid the whole disease. Taking this little portion immunizes us and helps us to resist the big portion.
And thus those who use a little ethics, i.e., selective ethics, take it as something relatively harmless and less demanding than the whole of ethics or morality, which they shun like a disease. So, they take a little ethics (and selective ethics at that) and then congratulate themselves for being tolerant, kind, and nice, ignoring the rest of ethics and morality with its more frightening, consistent, and sweeping demands.
Yes, have a little ethics, get congratulated, and ignore the rest. Tell folks that you love the whales and think the poor should be fed; be polite and kind to most people, and you’re inoculated. Now, never mind that you are unchaste, think abortion should be legal, think that the selling of body parts obtained by killing is OK or even virtuous. No, never mind any of that. You are inoculated and therefore immune from the “disease” of a full moral vision. Indeed, those who do have the full symptoms of the full “disease” of morality and ethics are referred to with the disease-like term, “fanatic.”
Yes, what are we to make of the cruelty in our culture? Why is there such an astonishing death toll in a culture in which kindness and politeness are so prized? What are we to make of a culture that eschews violence and yet finds it even debatably “OK” to crush infants in the womb “carefully” and then harvest their organs? What are we to make of a culture that thinks it’s OK to abort infants at all, while we still talk about justice and fairness out of the other side of our mouth?
I think Dr. Kreeft’s analogy with inoculation helps explain some of the paradox. Our kindness and politeness, our sense of “civil” discourse, and our rejection of localized violence, good in themselves, are taken by many like an inoculation to immunize them from the broader expectations of a fully biblical morality or natural law ethics. Some think and would say, “I’ve done a little. I hold to the minimally correct, publicly approved view. I’m inoculated. So now leave me alone and take your fanatical and diseased extremism out of here.”
Little things may mean a lot, but not if they are used to exclude and excuse one from the greater. In this case, the good is the enemy of the perfect. And hence our politely cruel culture.
In the midst of explaining a parable to the disciples, Jesus stopped and asked them a question: “Do you understand these things?” (Mt. 13:52)
Now, rule number one in reading Scripture is when Jesus asks a question, you answer it. You don’t keep reading to see how the Apostles or disciples answered it. You stop, put down the Bible, and answer it yourself.
I have deliberately not provided any context to the question Jesus asks above (you can look it up later if you’d like). But for now just stay with this question and apply it to any or all of Scripture. Do you understand these things?
What does it mean to understand? The Greek word that is translated as “understand” is οἴδατε (oidate), which refers to seeing that becomes knowing, seeing and laying hold of something that is a gateway to grasping spiritual truth.
So the question remains: Do you understand these things?
One of the problems for those of us who have some familiarity with the Scriptures is that they are familiar. And while it is good that the Scriptures are well known to us, it is also a problem. A passage begins and we just say, “Oh yeah, that story” and we either tune out or fail to reflect deeply.
But Scripture is always more than just a story or the facts of a text. Even ordinary human acts or words are seldom merely what they seem to be on the surface.
Consider an example my Scripture teacher, Fr. Martin, once gave. You and I are at a gathering and we observe Smith enter the room and immediately go across the room and greet Jones warmly. And I say, “Wow, look at that!” And you say, “What’s the big deal? People shake hands all the time.” And then I reply, “Smith and Jones have been enemies for thirty years.” So there is a depth and a mystery to that simple act that mere observation does not supply. The act occurs at a specific moment in time, but it has a past and points to a future. It also has a depth that must be perceived and appreciated.
And this is what Jesus is calling for when he asks, Do you understand these things? Do you grasp these parables, these teachings, these accounts and stories from Scripture? Do you perceive them with a seeing and a hearing that lead to knowledge and are a gateway to grasping spiritual truth? Or are you just seeing the surface of the text, noting the event, and then moving on?
Further, our “understanding” of them is not a static thing, but a dynamic and growing reality. With each year that we hear the familiar stories and teachings of Scripture, our understanding can and should become deeper and richer.
The Latin Fathers of the Church had a saying that the Scriptures were Non nova, sed nove (not new things, but understood newly). In other words, though the stories and teachings do not change (non nova) our appreciation of them, our grasp and understanding of them is ever new; they are seen newly (nove), appreciated more deeply.
So, as you read the Scriptures, Jesus has a question for you, “Do you understand these things?” Are you just hearing and reading ancient words and events, or are you plumbing their depths? Where are your mind and heart as you perceive the Word of God? Do you ponder it in your heart?
It is not enough to know what something meant for the Apostles or the people of Jesus’ time, or some commentator. What does it mean for you, now? How have you experienced the truth that is announced? What are the implications of the text, teaching, or story for you? Do you see something new that you never saw before?
Do you understand these things?
Here are some other questions Jesus asked: 100 Questions Jesus Asked
All of the readings in today’s Mass speak of human desire. The Israelites in the desert are hungry, so are the people by the lakeside with Jesus. And in the Epistle, St. Paul warns of corrupted desires. In all of the readings, God teaches us that our desires are ultimately directed to Him, who alone can truly satisfy us. Why is this? Because our desires are infinite, and no finite world can satisfy them.
Let’s look at what the Lord teaches by focusing especially on the Gospel, but also including insights from the other readings. There are three basic parts to the teaching on desire. The notes that follow are more extensive than I could preach in a Mass. They are really more in the form of an extended Bible Study on this passage.
I. THE HUNGER OF DESIRE –Today’s gospel begins where last week’s left off. To refresh your memory, Jesus had multiplied the loaves and fishes and satisfied the crowd with abundant food, but then slipped away and headed across the lake to Capernaum. Today’s text begins, When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
Thus we begin by simply noting the hunger of the people. Allow hunger here to represent all of our desires. Desires, of themselves, are good and God-given. It is the people’s hunger, their desire, that makes them seek Jesus. Further, their desire is very deep and strong; they are willing to journey a significant distance to find Jesus.
As such, desire has something important to teach us. It is easy to see that our desired motivate us. But we should also recognize that they are infinite, unlimited. For no matter how much we get, we always want more. We may experience some momentary satisfaction with certain things like food, but it doesn’t last long. Taken together, our desires are limitless.
This limitless, infinite quality demonstrates God’s existence, for a finite world cannot give what it doesn’t have, namely, infinite longing. Thus, our infinite longings point to God and must come from Him. Our hearts, with all their infinite longings, teach us that we were made for God and will not find rest apart from Him.
Purification is needed. The journey of the people around the lake to find Jesus is good in itself, but as we shall see, their hunger needs purification and a more proper focus. They do not seek Jesus as God, but rather as the “bread king.” They seek mere bread, mere food for their stomachs. But the Lord wants to teach them that all their desires really point higher. And that leads us to the second movement of today’s gospel.
II. THE HEALING OF DESIRE – As we have already noted, desire is good and God-given. But, in our fallen condition, our desires are often unruly, and our darkened minds often misinterpret what our desire is really telling us.
Desires are unruly because we desire many things out of proportion to what we need, and to what is right and good.
Our minds are darkened in that we consistently turn to the finite world in a futile attempt for satisfaction, and, when it fails, we keep thinking that more and more of the finite world will satisfy our infinite longing. This is futile and is the sign of a confused and darkened mind, because the world cannot possibly satisfy us. More on this in a moment.
For now, Jesus must work with these bread-seekers (us) and help them to realize that their desire for bread is about much more than mere food; it is about God. He is the Lord whom they really seek. Let’s observe how He works to heal their desires.
A. The Doctor is in – The text says, And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Their question is somewhat gratuitous, since they know exactly when He got there; they are simply trying to strike up a conversation in order to get more bread. As we shall see, Jesus calls them on it. But note this much: they are looking for Jesus and they do call him “Rabbi.” Both these facts are good. Their desire, though imperfectly experienced, has brought them to Jesus, who, as Lord, can now teach them (and us) about what their longing is really telling them. The doctor is in.
B. The Diagnosis – The text says, Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.”In other words, “You are not looking for me because you saw signs and want to believe in me, but because you want your bellies filled.”
And this is our essential problem: we focus on our lower desires, our bodily needs, neglecting our higher, spiritual desires. We have a deep, infinite longing for God, for His love, goodness, beauty, and truth. But instead of seeking these things, we think another hamburger will do the trick. Or if not that, a new car, a new house, a new job, more money, more sex, more power, or more popularity. We think that if we just get enough of all this “stuff” we’ll finally be happy. But we will not; it’s a lie. A finite world cannot possibly satisfy our infinite longing.
In the second reading from today’s Mass, St. Paul warns,I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds … that you should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds (Eph. 4:17, 20-23).
Note St. Paul’s use of the word “futility.” The Greek word is ματαιότης (mataiotes), here meaning unreality, purposelessness, ineffectiveness, a kind of aimlessness due to a lack of purpose or any meaningful end, nonsense because it is transitory and not enduring.
In other words, it is exactly what the Lord is getting at in telling them that their desires are messed up. It is the sign of a darkened mind to pile up finite, earthly goods in a futile attempt to satisfy infinite desires.
St. Paul goes on to say that some of our desires are deceitful. They are so because they bewitch us into thinking that our life is about them, and that if we attend to them only, we will be happy. We will not; this is a deception. Simply getting more food, sex, drink, houses, money, power, etc. will not cut it. These are finite things, while our desires are ultimately infinite.
Thus the doctor, along with his assistant, St. Paul, has made the diagnosis: You and I are seeking bread (not evil in itself) when we should also be seeking Him who is the True Bread of Life. They say to us, in effect, “You seek the consolations of God, but not the God of all consolation. You want good things, but do not seek the giver of every good and perfect gift.”
So we have our diagnosis. Our desires are our out of whack and/or our darkened minds misinterpret the message that our lower desires are really giving us. Next come the directives.
C. The Directives– The Lord gives three essential directives:
1. Fix your focus– Jesus says, Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. The point is that we should attend more to things that endure unto life eternal than to the passing things of this world.
Most of us do just the opposite. The passing world and its demands get all our attention and things like prayer, scripture, sacraments, building our relationship with the Lord, learning His will, and obeying His will, all get short shrift. We attend to “the man” and tell God to “take a number.” It’s kind of dumb, really.
The passing world, a sinking ship, gets all our attention. Calling on the one who can rescue us and learning His saving directives and following them gets little attention. Instead we “rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic,” indulge ourselves on the “lido deck,” and get angry that we don’t have a first class cabin.
The Lord says, “Hey! Fix your focus! That ship is going down. What will you do then? Why obsess about that stuff? Turn to me and listen carefully; I alone can save you.” Fix your focus: worry less about things that perish and focus more on the things that last and can save.
2. Firm Up your Faith– Jesus goes on to say, For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
Okay, so the ship is going down; the world is perishing. So how do we get saved from it? The answer is faith.
But faith here must be understood as more than just answering a mere altar call or the recitation of a creed. And surely it is more than “lip service.” Faith here is understood as being in a life-giving, transformative relationship with Jesus Christ.
Real faith puts us into a relationship with the Lord that changes the way we walk, that gives us a new mind and heart, new priorities, indeed, a whole new self. To be in a relationship with Christ, through faith, is to be changed by Him. And it is this change, this obedience of faith, this transformation that saves us and gets us ready to meet God.
So the Lord says, “Come to me and firm up your faith.”
3. Find your Food – But as the discussion with them continues, they show themselves to be a stubborn lot. They say, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
In effect they are still back to demanding bread. It’s as if to say, “Sure, fine, all that higher stuff is fine, but I want bread for my belly. So give me that and then we’ll talk about all that higher stuff and that bread that endures and does not perish. If you want me to have faith, first give me bread for my belly.”
They’re still more interested in the stuff of a sinking ship.
So Jesus says to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” And in saying this, Jesus is saying, in effect, “Don’t you see that the ancient bread in the wilderness was about GOD? It was not merely food to fill their bellies; it was food to draw them to deeper and saving faith. It was food to strengthen them for the journey to the Promised Land. And so it must be for you: that you understand that even your lower desires are ultimately about God. If mere grain is your food, you are doomed, for food perishes and you along with it. But if God himself is your food, now you can be saved, for I, the Lord and the Bread that endures, will draw you with me to eternal life.”
And in these ways the Lord seeks to heal their desires. But now comes the main point.
III. THE HEART OF DESIRE– So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.“
And thus we see that the Lord now makes it plain: I AM your food. I AM the fulfillment of all your desires. I AM the only one who can really fulfill your infinite longings, for I AM the Lord and I AM infinite. Yes, I AM your true bread.
So what does the Lord mean in saying we will never again hunger or thirst? To some extent we must see that Jesus is employing an ancient “Jewish way of speaking,” which looks to the end of things and adopts them as now fully present. There is no time to fully develop this here and describe how it is used elsewhere, but in short, it is the capacity to see things as “already but not yet,” and to begin to live out of the “already” in the here and now.
Thus Jesus is saying, in more modern terms, “To the degree that you enter into a life- changing and transformative life with me, and to the degree that I become your bread, that I become that which satisfies you, your desires will come more and more into line and you will find them being satisfied more and more with each passing day. You will find in your life a satisfaction that a new iWatch could never give, that money, power, sex, possessions, and all other passing goods could never give. And one day, this satisfaction will be full and never pass away when you are with me in heaven.”
Of this I am a witness, for with each passing day in my life of faith with the Lord, I can truly say that I am more and more satisfied. The things of this passing world are of less interest to me and the things of God and Heaven are increasingly the apple of my eye. I have a ways to go, but the Lord has been good to me and His promises are true, for I have tested them in the laboratory of my own life.
The old song is increasingly mine, which says, “I heard my mother say, Give me Jesus. You may have all this world, just give me Jesus.”
In the gospel in the weeks ahead, the Lord Jesus will develop how He is bread for us in more than a metaphorical way. Rather, He is our True Bread in the Eucharist and the Bread He will give is His flesh for the life of the world. Yes, His Body and Blood are our saving food for the journey to the Promised Land.
I am mindful of an old gospel hymn that I’d like to give a Catholic spin. For I have it on the best of authority that when Jesus was speaking to the crowd in today’s gospel, He started to tap his toe and sing this song:
Below is a touching video of a hearing-impaired infant who, after being fitted with a hearing aid, hears the voices of his parents for the very first time. Initially, the child fidgets, afraid of what is happening. But as the voices of his parents reach his soul, a smile of joy and recognition blossoms on his face.
In the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil is a beautiful line regarding an infant’s first recognition of his mother. In this case it refers to seeing, but the same could be said of hearing.
Incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem.
Begin, little boy, to recognize the face of your mother with a smile.
Spiritually, this video speaks to those of us who may have fidgeted as we were introduced to the voice of our Heavenly Father and Holy Mother Church. At first, we objected to the voice of truth and resisted those who sought to help us to hear. But, prayerfully (and I am a witness), many of us adjusted and began to smile at the beautiful voice of truth.
Faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes through the Word of Christ (Romans 10:17).
