Community in Mission

As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.

Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.”  I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.

In the drawing  (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a Domus Dei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.

What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.” I have included an excerpt here and interspersed my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text toward the end.

Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these “house liturgies” were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail were essential.] Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east. [So even in these early house Masses, the sanctuary (the place where the clergy ministered) was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.] In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east. [Prayer was conducted facing east, not facing the people.] For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [Notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.] and  when you stand to pray, the ecclesial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east. [Again, note that Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, both clergy and laypeople. Everyone faced in the same direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the east, the origin of the light.]

Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the Eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter [Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful to allow only baptized and bona fide members to enter the Sacred Mysteries. No one was permitted to enter the Sacred Liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis, or “discipline of the secret.” Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline.] and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church. [Once the door was locked and the Mass began, it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also appears that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary to maintain “good order” among the laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place … also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that seating was according to sex and age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front, younger ones to the back. Also, those caring for young children were to stand in a separate area. See? Even in the old days there was a “cry room!”] And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off. [Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of the early Christians did such things? Say it isn’t so! Today, ushers do this preserving of good order, but the need remains.] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plainly—and the advice is still needed.]

It is critical for us who would preach the Gospel to ponder what sorts of presuppositions our listeners bring to the conversation. Today, sadly, there are many trends that have poisoned the culture and make our task much more difficult.

Yesterday we explored six problem areas. Today four more. It helps to describe modern mindsets not to despair of them, but rather to look at them with some insight rather than being only vaguely aware of them. If we are more clear on the presuppositions that people bring to the table, we can better direct our message to them and ask them to consider if these notions are helpful or right. For indeed, most bring their preconceptions to the conversation subconsciously. Bringing their premises to light can act as a kind of medicine or solvent that will assist us in clearing the thorns so that the seeds of truth can be sown.

So, here are four more problematic presuppositions.

I. Reductionism – This is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of its individual constituents. Most commonly today reductionism is found  in the explanation of complex human phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry.

Reductionism tends, therefore, to reduce the human person to the merely biological. Thus every thought, emotion, passion, desire, memory, or wish is just a bunch of chemicals in the brain, the firing of synapses, etc. Even clearly metaphysical concepts such as justice, mercy, beauty, infinity, and so forth must somehow be explained in terms of brain cells and physical processes. The human person is thus reduced to a sort of brain on a stick or a collection of chemicals and atoms.

Yet from the standpoint of causation (in particular formal and final causality), it is hard to say how something merely physical can generate that which is metaphysical. The term metaphysical means, literally, “that which is beyond the physical.” Hence things such as beauty, goodness, justice, moral uprightness, the infinite, etc. are not “physical” things that can be weighed on a scale or spotted out for a walk together. One does not expect to walk into a restaurant and see justice sitting down to dinner with morality. These things are real, in fact so real that many of them have inspired marriages and launched wars. But they are not physical. But since nothing can give what it does not have, one may reasonably wonder how a merely physical entity such as the brain can “produce” metaphysical concepts. How can we, who (physically) only know closed and limited time, “imagine” infinity?

Some say these are merely emanations of the physical mind, conceptualizations of the bicameral intellect, or abstractions of the brain. But pardon me for pointing out that “conceptualizations” and “abstractions” are metaphysical concepts, and you’re not allowed to use metaphysics to say that there is no such thing as metaphysics.

“Never mind,” say the reductionists, “science will ONE DAY be able to explain it.” But again I object that such an answer is a kind of “God of the gaps” argument and I would like an answer today, please, since you are rejecting metaphysics today.

The traditional answer still makes the most sense: the human capacity to grasp the metaphysical—the spiritual, if you will—points to a metaphysical or spiritual dimension to the human person. Our spiritual capacity points to a spiritual cause that can give what it has: a spiritual sense, an openness to things beyond the physical. Clearly the brain is an essential way in which the soul exercises many of its faculties, but we are not simply to be reduced to a brain.

But reductionism is a common view today and produces a culture that is hostile to those of us who point to the to importance of the soul. While faith surely regards our body, it most surely also summons us to attend to our soul. But in a reductionist world, concerns for the soul are set aside as irrelevant. The local gym is full; the Church is empty. Obsessions about physical health abound, but there is little concern for the soul. Stop smoking; it could kill you. But there is little similar concern for sinning, which could permanently land you in a “smoky” place.

Thus one form of reductionism reduces me to my body. But in a strange twist, many reductionists also play the other side of the fence simultaneously. And thus many also see their body as a mere appendage. My body is merely something I have, a kind of tool if you will. In this reductionism the “I” seems to be some soulful agent who can use his body without reference or effect on himself. And thus absurd statements can be made by some reductionists such as that “I” am really a female, but trapped in a male body. The self in this case is thus reduced to the “soul” and the body is a mere suit of sorts, a machine, or something akin to that.

“Well this is crazy,” you might say. “Which is it going to be? Am I reduced to my body or to my soul?” Well, your first mistake is to seek consistency in these dark days. But, to answer your question more directly, the form of reductionism you choose is whatever form benefits you in the moment to justify whatever you want to do. And don’t worry about maintaining consistency because too many people are just too dazed to do all the math anyway; you’ll likely get away with almost any crazy inconsistency you want to hold.

And while we’re on the reductionist kick, why don’t we reduce marriage—a lifelong loving union of a man and a woman bearing the sweet fruit of love in their children—to just two (or more) adults being happy together for as long as they please? Yes, let’s just take the one thing and lose the rest. And how about sex? Let’s reduce it from being about love, pleasure, and procreation, to just being about pleasure. Yeah, let’s lose that necessary connection to procreation and pretend that the sperm and ovum aren’t ever there, or kill them and thwart their purpose. Who invited them anyway? And let’s also play the other side of the fence and reduce having children to a technology in a petri dish and lose all that messy, unpredictable, marital embrace stuff, which is so unfair to “gay” people and to people who want children but can’t find a spouse or don’t want one.

Yeah, that’s it. Let’s just reduce everything down to its parts, take what we like, and leave the rest.

Well pardon me, dear reader, for my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of the increasingly dark world of reductionism. But as evangelizers we need to know some of the twists and turns of the reductionism that dominates our age. The Catholic and biblical world strives to speak to the rich tapestry and beauty of what God has done and the connections He has intended. Increasingly, we are living in a world that separates what God has joined, and we are going to have to work long and hard to get people beyond the consumerist thinking that wants (some of) the parts without the whole.  We must work hard to show that a reductionist approach is ultimately foolhardy and has many very bad consequences.

I will strive to be briefer with the next three presuppositions.

II. Scientism – This is itself a form of reductionism. Scientism is the position that emphatically states “The physical sciences explain all reality.” The only problem is that the statement itself is not a scientific statement; it is a (flawed) metaphysical statement. There is no way that the claim can be verified scientifically. Thus while  defending (boastfully) the physical sciences as being the only necessary explanation for everything, the boaster must step outside of science—set aside science, in fact—in order to make the claim. It’s usually not a good idea to break the very rule you are announcing in the very act of announcing it.

Clearly the physical sciences are a great boon to our modern age. But the physical sciences can only attend to the physical world. The physical sciences are good at addressing material and efficient causality but are not able to speak to formal and final causality. The physical sciences are good at explaining how things physically come about but are not equipped to answer the deeper questions related to “Why?” Why does anything exist at all? And what is the final purpose to which all things tend? These are not questions science is equipped to answer.

But clearly we live in times in which many practically idolize the physical sciences and are dismissive of anything that cannot be weighed on a scale or seen under a microscope. Evangelization is now much more difficult. We must spend a lot of time showing how many very real things (justice, loyalty, etc.), things that effect very real changes, are not physical but are nevertheless real. We must re-invite many to discover the necessity and the beauty of the metaphysical realities of art, ethics, philosophy, and theology.

III. Heresy and “Designer” Religion – Even within the realm of believers are legions of Catholics and Protestants who feel utterly entitled to design their own religion and their own God. We used to call this heresy and idolatry.

In the past the heretics and idolaters at least had the decency to commit formal schism and go off and found their own religion. But in lazy times like these, many prefer to stay within their religion—one they reject at fundamental levels—and live off the money, off the resources, and in the buildings of the very faith they disrespect so boldly. It’s just so much trouble to have to go and build your own buildings and find your own followers, you know. So the lazy, modern form of this is to say, “I am a faithful Catholic, but … ” And then out comes the list of things picked and chosen from Catholicism or Christianity.

The word heresy comes from a Greek word meaning “choose.” It is true that many of the truths of our faith are held in some tension. Are we free or is God sovereign? Orthodoxy says, “Both,” and holds that the tension is acceptable because there are mysteries and limits to our knowledge that prevent us from simply resolving every tension. But heresy will not abide the tension and thus chooses one and discards the other. Is God loving and merciful? Yes! But then why is there judgment and Hell? Both must be held, says orthodoxy, and while there are mysteries, clearly God will not compel our “Yes.” To this, heresy says, “No way!” and so rids itself of the tension by redesigning God or by discarding the clear revelation of judgment and Hell.

Many today feel utterly free to call themselves Christians, to call themselves Catholics, and then go on to pick and choose what they like. They see this as a kind of God-given right and are supported in this by new-age spirituality and the “God-within” movements of Oprah and company. Yes, “I gotta be me. I gotta be true to myself.” So the real Jesus has to go.

And because most of these moderns cannot abide the Jesus of Scripture, so they rework Him and tame Him. They take some qualities they like—His love and His ministry of healing—and discard His less than pleasant warnings about judgment, or His summons to carry the cross, or His demand for a chastity so thorough that it even prohibits lustful thoughts.

And never mind quoting scripture to them. They are essentially “post-scriptural” and cannot be bothered with the details of the actual revelation. God has spoken to them personally. God is love and would never do or say anything that might upset anyone. One line trumps every other word and line of scripture: God is love.

This is heresy: picking one thing discard the rest. This is a “designer” Jesus, one who coincidentally agrees with everything the dissenters wish to do or think. And don’t even think of quoting St. Paul.

Here, too, we who would evangelize are going to have to keep chipping away at this. But have confidence! There are many who have come out of this fog; we need to keep working.

IV. Arrested Development – A final factor I would like to cover is not so much a presupposition or mindset as it is a simple lack of maturity. We live in a culture here in the West that I would argue is best described as developmentally fixated on teenage issues. Collectively, we behave like the classic teenager: hating authority, demanding all the rights yet rejecting any responsibilities, titillated by and imprudent about sex, obsessed with “fairness” (but only in an egocentric way), constantly pushing boundaries just to assert ourselves, insisting we  know a few things and being  resistant to being taught (“too cool for school”), behaving recklessly (dismissing any consequences), obsessed with trends and fitting in, always asserting our independence but insisting others pay our way. I could go on, but you get the point. I have written more on this problem here: Stuck on Teenage.

But as evangelizers we must be sober and aware of our need to summon many people  to maturity and to get there ourselves. Someone has to be the adult in the room. And we must be very careful not to try to appeal to the world around us by asking “Mother Church” to don jeans and adopt teenage foolishness. The Church must be kind, but clear, in insisting that everyone come to full maturity in Christ.

What is Captain Kirk doing up there at the top of the post? He is engaging a destructive robot name “Nomad.” Nomad has flawed programing and needs to be engaged in his error by Captain Kirk. And while Kirk ultimately  causes Nomad’s destruction, we who love God’s people seek their salvation.

It is critical for us who would preach the Gospel to ponder what sorts of presuppositions our listeners bring to the conversation. Today, sadly, there are many trends that have poisoned the culture and make our task much more difficult.

But difficult does not mean impossible. It helps to describe modern mindsets not to despair of them, but rather to look at them with some insight rather than being only vaguely aware of them. If we are more clear on the presuppositions that people bring to the table, we can better direct our message to them and ask them to consider if these notions are helpful or right. For indeed, most bring their preconceptions to the conversation subconsciously. Bringing their premises to light can act as a kind of medicine or solvent that will assist us in clearing the thorns so that the seeds of truth can be sown.

I list here six presuppositions and try to avoid an overly philosophical analysis, instead attempting to use a more descriptive approach. The first few may seem familiar but the last three are less often discussed. Please add to this list in the comments box. I also hope to discuss other presuppositions tomorrow.

I. Secularism – The word “secular” comes from the Latin saecula, which is translated as “world,” but can also be understood to refer to the age or times in which we live. Secularism is excessive concern about the things of this world and the times in which we live. It does this to the exclusion of the values and virtues of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The preoccupation with the things of this world crowds out any concern for the things of Heaven.

Hostile – And it is not merely a matter of preoccupation with the world, but, often, it is a case of outright hostility to things outside the “saecula” (world or age). Spiritual matters are often dismissed by the worldly as irrelevant, naïve, hostile, and divisive. Secularism is an attitude that demands all our attention be devoted to the world and its priorities.

Misplaced Priorities – The attitude of secularism also causes many who adopt it to tuck their faith under worldly priorities and views. In this climate, many are far more passionate about and dedicated to their politics than to their faith. Their faith is “tucked under” their political views and made to conform to them. It should be the opposite—political views should be subordinate to faith. The Gospel should trump our politics, our worldview, our opinions, and all worldly influences. Faith should be the doorkeeper. Everything should be seen in the light of faith. But secularism reverses all this and demands to trump the truths of faith.

Secularism is the error wherein I insist that the faith should give way when it opposes some worldly way of thinking or some worldly priority. If faith gets in the way of career, guess which gives? If faith forbids me from doing what I please and what the world affirms, guess which gives way? The spirit of the world often sees the truths of faith as unreasonable and unrealistic, and demands that they give way, either by compromise or a complete setting aside of faith.

As people of faith, we should put the world and its values on trial. But secularism in us instead puts the faith on trial and demands it conform to worldly thinking and priorities.

Secularism also increasingly demands that faith be privatized. Faith is to have no place in the public square of ideas or values. If Karl Marx said it, fine. But if Jesus said it, it has to go. Every other interest group can claim a place in the public square, in the public schools, etc. But the Christian faith has no place. Yes, God has to go. Secularism in its “purest” form demands a faith-free, God-free world. Jesus promised that the world would hate us as it hated Him. This remains true, and secularism describes the rising tendency for the world to get its way.

To make this world our priority and let it overrule our faith, is to board a ship doomed to sink with no life boats on board. With secularism, our fascination and loyalty is primarily to the world, and this amounts to “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” If the world is really all that matters then we are the most pitiable of men, for everything we value is doomed and already passing away.

II. Materialism – Most people think of materialism as the tendency to acquire and need lots of material things. It includes this, but true materialism goes far deeper. In effect, materialism is the error that insists that physical matter is the only thing that is real or existent. Materialism holds that only those things that can be weighed on a scale, seen in a microscope, or empirically experienced (through the five senses) are real. The modern error of scientism, which insists that nothing outside the world of the physical sciences exists or is real, flows from materialism. (More on that HERE.)

In effect, materialism says that matter is all that “matters.” The spiritual is either non-existent or irrelevant to the materialist. This of course leads to the tendency to acquire things and neglect the spiritual. If matter is all that really matters then we will tend to want large amounts of it. Bigger houses, more things, and more creature comforts are all amassed in order to give meaning and satisfaction to me.

In the end, however, it is a cruel joke since, All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccles 1:7). And again, Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. [It] is meaningless … The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep (Eccles 5:10-12). But never mind that; the materialist will still insist it is the only thing real or relevant.

The error of materialism is ultimately tied up in thinking that matter is all that exists and that man, a creature of matter and spirit, can be satisfied only with matter. Materialism denies a whole world of moral and spiritual realities that are meant to nourish the human person: goodness, beauty, truth, justice, equity, transcendence, courage, feelings, attitudes, angels, and God. These are ultimately spiritual realities. They may have physical manifestations to some extent, but they are not physical. Justice does not walk through the door and take a seat in the front row. Transcendence does not step out for a stroll, give a speech, or shake hands with beauty. Such things are not merely material.

To deny the spiritual is to already be dying, for the form of this world is passing away. To deny the spiritual is to have little to live for other than today, for tomorrow is uncertain and one step closer to death.

III. Individualism – The error of individualism exalts the individual over and above all notions of the common good, and our need to live responsibly in communion with God and others. Individualism exalts the view of the individual at the expense of the received wisdom of tradition.

Individualism demands autonomy without proper regard to the rights and needs of others. It minimizes duties toward others and maximizes personal prerogatives and privileges. It also tends to deny a balanced notion of dependence on others for human formation, and the need to accept correction and instruction.

Individualism also tends to be defiant and declare, “I will not be told what to do.” Hence there is little notion of being required to conform to the truth or even to reality. The notion that I should live by the “creeds of dead white men” is rejected as absurd, repressed, and even unhealthy.

Most individualists think of themselves as having an intrinsic right to make their own religion, to invent their own deity, and even craft their own reality. In the past these sorts of things were called idolatry, syncretism, heresy, and delusional thinking. But today many in our culture celebrate this notion as a strange form of liberty, not seeing it for the isolation that it is, and not recognizing that they are consigning themselves to the status of spiritual orphans.

Personal freedom and autonomy have their place and should not be usurped by government or other collectives. But freedom today is often misunderstood as the ability to do whatever I please, instead of the ability—the power—to do what is good. Freedom is not absolute and should not be detached from respect for the rights and welfare of others. Individualism ultimately scoffs at this idea.

Never mind that excessive and mistaken notions of freedom have caused great harm in our culture and it is often children who suffer the most. Sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, abortion, substance abuse, etc. are an abuse of freedom and cause harm to both children and to the wider society that must often seek to repair the damage caused by irresponsible behavior. Individualism still scoffs at this, refusing to acknowledge any personal responsibility for societal ills.

Individualism, because it rejects the collective wisdom of the ages, also leads to the iconoclasm of the next problematic area: the hermeneutic of discontinuity.

IV. The Hermeneutic of Discontinuity – The word “hermeneutic” refers to the interpretive key by which one sees and understands the world. Thus, the phrase “hermeneutic of discontinuity” refers to those who interpret previous generations and their wisdom as flawed, erroneous, naïve, and so forth.

It will be granted that no past era was perfect or all wise. Nevertheless, there is an accumulated wisdom that has stood the test of time.

But those possessed of the hermeneutic of discontinuity will have none of it. It is old, and therefore bad, irrelevant, unenlightened, bigoted, naïve, superstitious, backward, medieval, and so forth.

In the Church, we are just emerging from a time when anything “old” was dismissed as “pre-Vatican II.” There was a presumed break and a great chasm with the past that we “ought” to observe, that it was somehow “wrong” to quote St. Thomas or the Council of Trent.

There is a widespread, arrogant, modern notion that we have “come of age.” We confuse our technical knowledge with wisdom. But our arrogance cuts us off from the collected wisdom of our ancestors and we make mistakes that were long ago recognized as harmful and foolish.

Here, too, as the Church “re-proposes” the Gospel, she is proposing the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the ages. Yet a modern world, often locked in the hermeneutic of discontinuity, scoffs merely on the basis that what we propose is ancient rather than modern.

Regardless, we must continue to insist upon and preach the wisdom of God, in season and out of season. We must refuse to be swayed by false notions of and demands for relevance. The true meaning of the word relevant is not “modern” or “hip.” The word comes from the Latin re (again) + levare (to lift). And thus, it means to take up again what was dropped or which fell by the wayside.

Our job is to persevere and by our persistence keep the wisdom of God ever before humanity like a burning torch. We must preach the Gospel in season and out of season and not confuse ephemeral notions with wisdom. But neither should we imagine that there is nothing good today or that something is bad simply because it is modern. Jesus says, Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old (Mt 13:52).

V. Neo-Nominalism – There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be illustrated by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects since they do not exist in space and time. Most nominalists have held that only physical particulars in space and time are real, and that universals exist only subsequent to particular things. The term “nominalism” stems from the Latin word nomen (name).

The modern and more lazy version of nominalism, which I will here call neo-nominalism, holds that words (nomen = word) are simply arbitrary sounds we assign to things that reflect us, more than anything we call reality. In a more sweeping way, whole categories are also dismissed.

Thus, for example, words and categories such as male, female, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc. are just words we assign; they are mere human “constructs” that do not exist in reality. So, many claim the right today to move beyond human words and categories such as male, female, marriage, and so forth. They also claim the right to assign new words to describe these realties. Abortion becomes “choice,” “reproductive freedom,” or “women’s healthcare.”  Unnatural acts of sodomy are called “gay” (a word that used to mean happy) and anal sex is celebrated as an “expression of love.” Same-sex “pseudo-gamy” is called “marriage.” Suicide or killing of the aged or imperfect is called “euthanasia” (a word that mean means “good death” in Greek). Sexual identity is now called “gender” (a grammatical category of nouns in nearly one-fourth of the world’s languages, not a word for human sexual differentiation).

Neo-nominalism claims the right to define new reality and scoffs at the more humble proposition that we ought to discover reality and conform to it. Nominalism casts aside such humility and claims the right to merely define reality by inventing new words and thoughts and then imposing them on what really is. And thus we get endless absurdities such as LGBTQ (and Lord knows what letter will be added next). We have bizarre notions such as being “transgendered,” a concept that denies human distinctions that could not be more obvious and are literally inscribed in our bodies. But the neo-nominalists will not be troubled with reality.

The next and even more absurd “edge universe” for many of them is the so called “transhuman” movement in which even the reality of being human is dismissed as a mere “construct.” People will claim the right to start calling themselves other species and (presumably) the right to engage in all sorts of bizarre consort with animals, the “right” to develop cross-cloning, etc. For after all, who is to say what is “human” to these neo-nominalist iconoclasts?

For them, there is no reality per se, just human constructs that are fungible. So-called “reality” is merely to be toyed with and defined according to the latest whim and need for self-justification through the re-describing of what is actually happening.

Neo-nominalism gets very dark and very absurd very quickly, as we are observing every day in our increasingly indecipherable “anti-culture.”

VI. Hedonism – This is the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life. It comes from the Greek word hēdonē “pleasure” and is akin to the Greek hēdys meaning “sweet.”

Of course pleasure is to be desired and to some degree sought, but it is not the sole good in life. Indeed, some of our greatest goods and accomplishments require sacrifice: years of study and preparation for a career; the blood, sweat, and tears of raising children.

But hedonism seeks to avoid sacrifice and suffering at all costs. Hedonism is directly opposed to the theology of the Cross. St. Paul spoke in his day of the enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Php 3:18–19). He also taught that the Cross was an absurdity to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).

Things have not changed, my friends. And thus the world reacts with great indignation whenever the Cross or suffering is even implied. And so the world will cry out with bewildered exasperation and ask (rhetorically) of the Church: “Are you saying that a poor woman who was raped needs to carry the child to term and cannot abort?” (Yes we are.) Are you saying that a “gay” person can never marry his or her gay lover and must live celibately?” (Yes, we are.) “Are you saying that a handicapped child in the womb must be “condemned” to live in the world as handicapped and cannot be aborted and put out of his (read “our”) misery?” (Yes we are.) “Are you saying that a dying person in pain cannot be euthanized to avoid the pain?” (Yes, we are.)

The shock expressed in these rhetorical questions shows how deeply hedonism has infected the modern mind. The concept of the Cross is not only absurd, it is downright “immoral” to the modern hedonistic mentality, which sees pleasure as the only true human good. To the hedonist, a life without enough pleasure is a life not worth living. And anyone who would seek to set limits on the lawful (and sometime unlawful) pleasures of others is mean, hateful, absurd, obtuse, intolerant, and just plain evil.

When pleasure is life’s only goal or good, how dare you, or the Church, or anyone seek to set limits on pleasure let alone suggest that the way of the Cross is better or is required of us!  You must be banished, silenced, and destroyed.

And indeed many faithful Catholics in the pews are deeply infected with the illusion of hedonism and thus take up the voice of bewilderment, anger, and scoffing whenever the Church points to the Cross and insists on self-denial, sacrifice, and doing the right thing even when the cost is great. The head wagging in congregations is often visible if the priest dares mention that abortion, euthanasia, IVF, contraception, and so forth are wrong and should be set aside regardless of the cost, or if he preaches about the reality of the Cross. The faithful who swim in the waters of a hedonistic culture are often shocked at any notion that might limit the pleasure others want to pursue.

Hedonism makes the central Christian mysteries of the Cross and redemptive suffering seem like a distant planet or a strange, parallel universe. The opening word from Jesus’ mouth, “Repent,” seems strange to the hedonistic world, which has even reworked Jesus and cannot conceive that He would want them to be anything but happy, content, and pleased. The cry goes up, even among the faithful, “Doesn’t God want me to be happy?” And on this basis all sorts of sinful behavior is supposed to be tolerated because insisting on the opposite is “hard” and because it seems “mean” to speak of the Cross or of self-discipline in a hedonistic culture.

Bringing people back to the real Jesus and to the real message of the Gospel, which features the Cross as the way to glory, takes a lot of work and a long conversation. We must be prepared to have that long conversation with people.

There are other modern trends I hope to discuss tomorrow (e.g., reductionism, minimalism, scientism, fixation).

Today’s gospel teaches us to pray always and not lose heart. This is a gospel about having tenacity in prayer and, even when the results seem discouraging, continuing to beseech the Lord. It is also a gospel about the Lord’s will to extend the gospel to all the nations and to make the Church truly catholic.

Let’s look at this gospel in five stages.

STAGE I. TRAVELS – The text says, At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Thus Jesus goes north of Israel into the territory we know today as Lebanon.

Now Matthew is not just giving us a quick travelogue here. We are not interested merely in Jesus’ physical location but, even more, in what this location signifies. Jesus has gone up north to pagan territory. Other things being equal, this is a rather odd destination for a Jewish preacher. But we need to recall that Jesus is preparing the Church for a mission to all the nations. So it makes sense that He pushes the boundaries of the Jewish world. Jesus interacted with Gentiles and Samaritans as if to say, “The racism of a Jewish-only world must now end. The Gospel must break the boundaries of nation and race and be truly universal, truly catholic.”

This vision of the Gentiles being drawn to the Lord was actually well attested to in the Old Testament. But, just like today, there were texts in the Scriptures that were popular and well known and others that were conveniently “forgotten” or had little effect. Consider a few examples of texts that announced the entry of the Gentiles into the Holy People of God:

1. The foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, ministering to him, loving the name of the LORD, and becoming his servants–all who keep the sabbath free from profanation and hold to my covenant, them I will bring to my holy mountain and make joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56:6-9).
2. I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Is 49:6).
3. Babylon and Egypt I will count among those who know me, Philistia, Tyre and Ethiopia, these will be her children and Zion shall be called “mother” for all shall be her children (Psalm 87:4-5).
4. I come to gather nation of every language; they shall come and see my glory. Some of these I will take as priests and Levites says the Lord … All mankind shall come to worship before me says the Lord (Is 66:18; 23).

Hence we can see that the Jewish people’s own Scriptures spoke of a day when Jews and Gentiles together would worship the Lord and be His people.

This introductory note about Jesus’ location is essential to understanding the text that will follow. We must grasp Jesus’ will to reach out to the Gentiles. We do this in order to appreciate that some of the harsh tone He exhibits later can likely be understood as a rhetorical means of questioning racial and national division rather than as an affirmation of such division. In effect He is tweaking His disciples and the Church and giving voice to their fears and hostilities. In so doing He also calls out the Canaanite woman in order to show forth one who is willing to set aside these racist notions for a greater good.

Let’s watch it unfold.

Stage II. TORMENT – The text says, And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.”

It is a sure fact that Canaanites were despised by Jews. And Canaanites returned the favor and despised them right back. What is it that would make a Canaanite woman reach out to a Jewish Messiah? In a word, desperation. In her torment and desperation this woman no longer cares who helps her daughter as long as someone helps her!

She has likely heard of Jesus’ power to save and heal. She looks past her racial hatred and, risking terrible personal rebuke, calls on Jesus. Her sorrow crosses boundaries. The only enemy she cares about is the demon afflicting her daughter.

It is sad but true that a common enemy can often unite factions. It should not take this, but the Lord will take whatever he can get to unite us.

So torment has lowered the barriers.

Stage III. TEST – The text says, But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her. Jesus’ disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”…. “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”

It is a shocking and daring thing that Jesus does here. He takes up the voice of sin, oppression, racism, and nationalism. It is a very strange thing to hear come from the mouth of the Lord, who has already journeyed among the Samaritans and Gentiles, healing them and often praising their faith (e.g. Lk 8:26; Mt 8:10; Lk 7:9; Matt 8:11 inter al).

The usual explanation is that He is calling out this woman’s faith and through her is summoning His disciples to repentance. The disciples want the Lord to order her away. In effect, He takes up their voices and the voice of all oppression and utters the hateful sayings of the world, even going so far as to use the term “dog” to refer to her.

Yes, Jesus is testing her, trying to awaken something in her. He is also giving voice to the ugly thoughts of His disciples and likely others, Gentile and Jew, who were standing by and watching with marvel and disdain the interaction of a Gentile, a Gentile woman, and a Jew.

There is a saying, “Things do, by opposition grow.” And thus, through this test, Jesus increases her faith and possibly that of the bystanders. Just as an athlete grows by facing tougher opponents and a musician improves by playing tougher pieces, so does the testing of this woman’s faith cause it to grow.

Remember, God tested Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Esther, Susannah, Judith, Gideon, and countless others. The Canaanite woman, too, is being tested. And like those of old she, too, will grow by the test.

We, too, are tested. For God seems at times to be strangely silent and we are made to feel like no child of God at all. Indeed we may often conclude that even the dogs live better than we.

So the question for us remains. Will we give way during the test or hold out until our change comes? Will our faith grow or wither? Will our love grow stronger or will it change to resentment?

Stage IV. TENACITY – The text says, But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.”

Note here that the woman is not put off. Whatever anger, grief, or discouragement may move through her, she perseveres.

She is even bold and creative. In a sense, she will not take no for an answer.

1. She is like Mother Mary at Cana, who did not pause for a moment when Jesus seemed dubious of her request (Jn 2:5).
2. She is like the widow before the Judge in Jesus’ parable, who never stopped pestering the judge for a favorable ruling (Lk 18:1-8).
3. She is like the blind man at the side of the road, who still kept calling for Jesus despite the rebuke of the crowds (Lk 18:39).
4. She is like the parents who brought their infants to Jesus for a blessing, who withstood rebuke by the disciples and won through to the blessing (Mk 10:13-16).
5. She is like Zacchaeus, who climbed a tree to see Jesus despite his short stature (Lk 19:1ff).
6. She is like the widow with the hemorrhage, who, though weak and ritually unclean, pressed thorough the crowd and grabbed the hem of Jesus’ garments (Mk 5:28).
7. She is like the lepers, who, though forbidden by law to enter the town, sought the Lord at the Gates and fell down before Him (Luke 17).

Yes, she has tenacity. She will hold out until the change (the healing she desires for her daughter) is accomplished. She will not give up or let go of Jesus no matter how unwilling He seems, no matter how politically incorrect her request appears, no matter how much hostility she encounters from the disciples, the crowds, or even Jesus Himself. She will hold out.

Here is a woman with tenacity! How about you?

Stage V. TRIUMPH – The text says,  Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And the woman’s daughter was healed from that hour.

Here is the victory. She has gone from torment to triumph by a tenacious and tested faith. Jesus now takes away the veil of His role and shows His true self—the merciful, wonder-working Messiah and Lord.

Jesus says to her, “Great is your faith.” But how has it become so? In the crucible of testing, that’s how. We may wonder at God’s delays, at His seeming disinterest or even anger. But in the end it is our faith that is most important to Him.

Our faith is more important to God than our finances, our comfort, or our desired cures. For it is by faith that we are saved. We are not saved by our health, by comforts, by money, or by good fortune. And God is willing to delay; He is willing to test us and try us, if only for the sake of our stronger faith by which He will save us. God saves us, but He does it through our faith.

Why all this delay? Why the suffering? Why the trials? Stronger faith, that’s why! God may not come when you want Him, but He’s always right on time. For His true goal is not to give us what we want, but rather what we need—stronger faith.

Having done this, the Lord gives her the triumph. We, too, must accept that God’s truest blessing for us is not better health or improved finances; it is stronger faith.

Consider well the lesson of this gospel. Though God often seems uninterested, even cruel, He is working His purposes out and seeking to increase our faith. Hard, you say? What parent among you has not had to do the same for your child? For children, untested and untried, who get their every wish, who never have to wait, become spoiled, self-centered, and headed for ultimate ruin. Consider well that God knows exactly what He is doing and consider, too, that most of us are hard cases. God must often work mightily to get our attention and strengthen our faith. Do not give up on God; He is up to something good, very good.

Photo Credit: Goodsalt.com, used with permission.

I have it on the best of authority that as this woman saw Jesus coming up the road she sang this song:

Pass me not O gentle savior
hear my humble cry
while on others thou art calling
do not pass me by

Savior, savior, hear my humble cry
while on others thou art calling
do not pass me by

Let me at a throne of mercy
find a sweet relief
kneeling there in deep contrition
help my unbelief

–

–

I’ve raised concerns in the past about the “men are stupid” variety of commercials that proliferate in our culture. The usual approach is to sell a product by showing some total buffoon of a man trying to use a product about which he doesn’t have a clue. And then some wise woman sets him straight—or even worse, the kids come to his rescue. The whole scenario goes something like this: “Gee, Honey, I’m just a stupid man. How does this product work?” And the wise wife responds, “Oh, Dear, that’s not how it’s done. Here, let me show you.”

Maybe some of the complaints are starting to register on Madison Avenue, because I’ve seen some improvement. The Cheerios commercial at the bottom of this post isn’t without its flaws, but at least it presents a normal man—a father even! And guess what? He actually seems to know what he’s doing and commands a little respect from his wife and kids. And they actually appear to like him! I know this doesn’t seem possible. After all, aren’t all men oversexed buffoons and even worse than children when it comes to having a clue? Isn’t beer and football all they know about?

Well at least this one commercial shows another side. It is a bit over the top in its cinematic technique, but it is drawing on a technique first used in the TV series “St. Elsewhere” and perfected in “West Wing,” which features the main characters moving quickly through a set of many rooms and navigating numerous conversations and situations in a rapid-fire way. The effect is stimulating and provides a vigorous study of the main characters and a vivid portrait of their lives.

The commercial is just quirky enough to escape the critique of the highly “un-PC” notion that most men and dads are decent guys, who are not stupid, and who exert a good influence on their kids through both support and admonishment. Without its cool quirkiness it would not likely have escaped the “PC-enforcers,” who would never brook the notion of supporting Scripture, which says, The Lord sets a father in honor over his children (Sirach 3:2). My favorite line in the commercial is, “Now, dad-ability isn’t always easy. When a rule is broken we’re the enforcement. But when a heart is broken we’re the reinforcement.”

I’m sure you’ve noticed the playful practice in modern times of “verbing,” wherein a noun, or less commonly an adjective, is turned into a verb: “Your verbing weirds me out.” The title of the commercial below is “How to Dad,” in which “Dad,” a noun, is used as a verb. I have mixed feelings about the practice but here it is done in fun.

Enjoy the commercial!

Let’s ponder this feast in three stages.

I. Explained – To be “assumed” means to be taken up by God bodily into Heaven. As far back as the Church can remember we have celebrated the fact that Mary was taken up into Heaven. We do not just acknowledge that her soul was taken to Heaven as is the case with all the rest of the faithful who are taken there (likely after purgation). Rather, Mary was taken up soul AND body into Heaven after her sojourn on this earth was complete. There is no earthly tomb containing her body; neither are there relics of her body to be found among the Christian faithful. This is our ancient memory and what we celebrate today: Mary was taken up body and soul into Heaven.

II. Exemplified – The actual event of Mary’s Assumption is not described in Scripture. However, there are other assumptions recorded in the Scriptures, thus the concept itself is biblical.

1. It happened to Enoch in the Old Testament. The Book of Genesis records: Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away (Gen. 5:24). Hebrews 11:5 elaborates: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
2.  It also happened to Elijah as he walked with Elisha: And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven … And he was seen no more. (2 Kings 2:11 ).
3. Some say that Moses, too, was taken up since his grave is not known: He was buried  in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is (Dt. 34:6). The text of course does not say that his body was taken up, and even if it was, it occurred after death and burial. Jude 1:9 hints at that fact when it says, But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses … (Jude 1:9). Some further credibility is lent to the view of Moses being assumed by the fact that he appears alongside Elijah in the Transfiguration account. Some of the Church Fathers held this view and there is also a Jewish work from the 6th Century AD entitled The Assumption of Moses that represents the tradition of Moses’ assumption. But in the end the assumption of Moses is a view held only by some, and it not officially held by the Church.
4. And while it is true that the historical event of Mary’s Assumption is not recorded in Scripture nor are there historical accounts of the event, there may be one other scriptural account that evidences Mary’s whereabouts, body and soul.  The Church presents for our consideration in today’s second reading a passage from the Book of Revelation wherein John records his sighting of the Ark of God:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads … The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter (Rev 11:19 – 12:5).

The woman is clearly Mary since the child is clearly Jesus. And where is Mary seen? In Heaven. Now some may argue that this passage does not necessarily indicate that her body is in Heaven but rather may only be referring to her soul. However, the physical description of her in the text is rather strong.  Some also argue that Mary is linked to John’s sighting of the Ark of the Convenant, which is seen by John in Heaven. He mentions the Ark and goes on to describe the woman clothed with the sun (Mary) and there is a possibility that he is still describing the Ark. (I have written on this elsewhere: Mary: The Ark of the New Covenant.)  If Mary is the Ark described, then she is in Heaven, since the Ark is clearly described as being in Heaven.

So the biblical record, while not recording the event of the Assumption of Mary, does set forth other assumptions and thus shows that assumption itself is a biblical concept. Further, Mary’s physical presence in Heaven seems to be hinted at by John and some would argue that the passage actually attests to her physical presence there.

But remember, the Church does not rely solely on Scripture. In this case what we celebrate is most fundamentally taught to us by Sacred Tradition in that the memory of Mary’s Assumption goes back as long as we can remember.

III. Extended – The Feast of the Assumption may be of theological interest to some and may provide for interesting biblical reflection, but eventually the question is bound to arise: “So what? How does what happened to Mary affect my life and what does it mean for me?” The answer to this question is bound up in nearly every Marian doctrine. Simply put, what happened to Mary, in a profound and preliminary way, will also happen to us in the end. As Mary bore Christ into the world, we too bear him there in the Holy Communion we receive and in the witness of his indwelling presence in our life. As Mary is (and always was) sinless, so too will we one day be sinless (immaculate) with God in Heaven. As Mary cared for Christ in His need, so do we care for Him in the poor, the suffering, the needy, and the afflicted. And as Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven, so too will we be there one day, both body and soul.

For now, our soul goes to Heaven (once purified) but our body lies in a tomb. But one day when the trumpet shall sound, on that “great gettin’ up morning,” our body will rise and be joined to our soul:

For we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” … Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:51-57).

So our body shall be assumed, shall rise and be joined to our soul.

Improved model!  An older woman once said to me (upon hearing that her body would rise): “Father if this old body has to rise, I’m hoping for an improved model!” Yes indeed! Me too! I want my hair back, my slender figure to return, and I want knees that work! I want to upgrade from a general issue version to a luxury model. And God will in fact do that. Scripture says,

1. He will take these lowly bodies of ours and transform them to be like his own glorified body (Phil 3:21).
2. But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body … So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; … And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven (1 Cor 15:35-49).
3. Yes, we shall also be taken up—assumed—and then shall be fulfilled for us the saying of Job, I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another ‘s (Job 19:25-27).

The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in His own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift, too. For now, though, it waits till that “great gettin’ up morning.” Until that day and on that day, fare you well; fare you well!

This song is an African-American Spiritual and speaks of that “great gettin’ up morning” when our bodies will rise. And if we have been faithful they will rise to glory!

I’m gonna tell you about the coming of the judgment (Fare you well) There’s a better day a coming … In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well! Oh preacher fold your Bible, For the last soul’s converted … Blow your trumpet Gabriel … Lord, how loud shall I blow it? Blow it right calm and easy Do not alarm all my people … Tell them to come to the judgment … In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well. Do you see them coffins bursting? Do you see them folks is rising? Do you see the world on fire? Do you see the stars a falling? Do you see that smoke and lightning? Do you hear the rumbling thunder? Oh Fare you well poor sinner. In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well.

The word family had a wider meaning in both Aramaic and Hebrew than it does in English today. The Hebrew ah and the Aramaic aha could be used to refer to those who were brothers, half-brothers, cousins, and even other near relations. Extended family networks were both insisted upon and essential for survival. To have these ties and be dependent upon them was every Jewish person’s duty, and an absolute necessity for survival.

Marriage – Of course marriage is the heart of family. The very first order that God gave Adam and Eve was that a man should leave his father and mother cling to his wife, that the two of them should become one, and that they should increase and multiply. Ancient rabbis said a man really wasn’t a man at all until he did so. However, especially by the time of Christ, there were some men and women who lived celibate lives so as to be particularly free to serve God, whether by studying the Torah, teaching, or engaging in some great work for God’s people. Jesus and Paul seem to have been in this category. Jesus praised those who did so in Matthew 19 as did Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.

In the earliest years of Israel there seems to have been some tolerance for polygamy even though it was a departure from what God had set forth.  Many overlooked it given the urgent need to grow the family of God, the chosen people. Men were often killed in war and this led to an abundance of women who need husbands. Generally, only wealthier men could afford to have more than one wife. And although the Bible does not explicitly condemn the polygamists, it does show that polygamy led to intractable troubles, not necessarily between the different women involved, but between the sons over inheritance rights, etc. By the time of Jesus, polygamy among the Jews had greatly diminished if not altogether vanished. There is simply no mention of the practice in the New Testament. Jesus also summoned each man to love his wife and He prohibited other Mosaic leniencies in marriage. He re-proposed God’s original plan of one man and one woman till death do them part.

Call to marriage and engagement – Marriage took place at a very young age for the ancient Jews. Most rabbis proposed age 18 as most appropriate for men, though often a bit younger especially when war was less common. Young women married almost as soon as they were physically ready for marriage, approximately age 13 or 14.

In most cases, marriages were arranged by the parents for their children. However, there were exceptions to this and arranged marriages were seldom forced on young people who had absolutely no attraction to, or interest in, each other. Nevertheless, the insight in the ancient world, and even in many places today, was that marriage was not so much about love and romance as it was about survival. Further, it was not merely individuals who married but families that came together in mutual support. Beauty and romance, while considered pleasant things, were also known to be passing, and life and survival had to be based on sturdier foundations—so they were.

When a future bride had been chosen for a young man, either by his parents or more rarely by himself, there followed a period of one year called “betrothal.” During this time the couple still lived apart while delicate, often protracted negotiations went back-and-forth between the families as to questions of dowries, etc. The groom or his family paid the dowry to the father of the bride. The payment was made in recognition of the loss incurred by the bride’s family as a working member of the household went forth. It was also understood that some money should be set aside for the woman in case her husband were to die prematurely.

Marriage ceremonies – After the period of the betrothal was finished and all the agreements were at last reached and signed, the wedding could take place. Weddings typically extended over a period of five to seven days. Autumn was the best time for marriages: the harvest was in, the vintage over, minds were free, and hearts were at rest. It was a season when the evenings were cool and delightful and it was agreeable to sit up late at night. Usually the entire village gathered for a wedding.

At the beginning of the wedding feast, in the evening, the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends, went to fetch his betrothed from her father’s house. He would wear particularly splendid clothing and sometimes even a crown. A procession was formed under the direction of one of the bridegroom’s friends, who acted as the master of ceremonies and remained by his side throughout the rejoicing.

The bride was carried in a litter and in procession. She was beautifully dressed and along the way people sang wedding songs that were traditionally known and largely drawn from the Song of Songs in the Bible: Who is this coming up from the wilderness like a column of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and incense made from all the spices of the merchant? (Song of Songs 3:6) When the procession reached the bridegroom’s house, his parents bestowed a traditional blessing drawn from scripture and other sources. After the prayers, the evening was passed in games and dancing and the bridegroom took part in the festivities. But the bride withdrew with her bridesmaids and friends to another room assigned for her.

The next day was the wedding feast and once again there was general rejoicing and a sort of holiday in the village. There was a meal toward the end of the day at which the men and women were served separately. This was a time for the giving of presents, etc. The bride, all dressed in white, was surrounded by her bridesmaids, usually ten of them. She sat under a canopy while traditional songs and blessings were sung and recited. During this time, in the evening, the groom arrived. And while the exact ritual words are not certain, there seems to have been a dialogue between bride and groom recorded in the Song of Songs. The bride says, Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth— for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the young women love you! Take me away with you—let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers (Song 1:2-4). And the groom responds, Arise, come, my darling; my beautiful one, come with me. My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places on the mountainside, show me your face, let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely (Song 2:13-14).

Now that the couple was together, all the other men and women also came together. It would seem that synagogue or other religious leaders imparted blessings to the couple, now together under the canopy. The words of these blessings and rituals are not definitively known and seem to have varied. After these came the evening feast.

Later on that first evening the couple vanished and the marriage was consummated.  The celebrations often went on for several more days. The couple did not going on a “honeymoon,” but remained for the rest of the celebration, sharing in the merriment, the songs, and the dancing under the star-strewn sky.

Here is Palestrina’s composition of Surge Amica Mea (Arise my beloved, my beautiful one and come). There is a wonderful musical onomatopoeia (a word that sounds like what it describes) in the opening word, “surge” (arise), as the notes run up the scale. Enjoy!