Posts

Posted on

Learning to love Heaven – It’s not as automatic as you think

050713It is generally presumed, at least among those who believe in God and the afterlife, that everyone naturally wants to go to heaven.

But of course, “Heaven” is usually understood in a sort of self-defined way. In other words heaven is a paradise of my own design, the place is perfect as I think perfect should be. Yes, for most people, their conception of heaven is merely what they think it should be, and this usually includes things like: golf courses, seeing my relatives and friends, there are my own self-selected pleasures, and the absence of struggles such as losing a job or saying farewell.

Thus, the heaven that most people have in mind is a designer heaven it and is built on the rather egocentric notion that whatever makes me happy is what heaven will be.

The problem with this thinking is that heaven is not of our own design, or merely what we think it should be. Heaven is the kingdom of God and all of its fullness. In heaven are fulfilled and realized all the values of the kingdom of God, values such as mercy, justice, truth, love, compassion, chastity, forgiveness, and so forth.

Further, heaven is consistently described in the Scriptures in liturgical terms, as a place, and a reality rooted in praise and worship. It is a place of prayer and adoration. In all of this is our true happiness, the heart of heaven is to be with God forever, and to be caught up in the beauty of his presence and of his truth.

And heaven, is thus a place that is not merely happy in human terms, but is truly happy on God’s terms. Regarding the liturgical vision of heaven, and the values realized, experience and fulfilled there, it will be noted that many things on the list do not at all appeal to many people. Frankly, many people are dead set against things like the love of enemies, forgiveness, and chastity. Many to find the Mass, and all Church liturgy to be boring and irrelevant.

Imagine showing up at the gates of heaven only to discover that its heart is essentially the liturgy, and that is daily fair is not only hymns, candles, incense and praise, but also chastity, love, forgiveness, mercy and compassion, etc.

Many are averse to such things and even find them odious. God will not force such souls to inherit what they hate. Thus they are free to make other arrangements for eternity. Surely God must regret this deeply, but he has made us free and summoned us to love, and thus he respects, even reverences, our freedom.

But all this reflection, reminds us that heaven is something we must learn to love. It is like many of the finer things in life. Its appeal may not be immediate and obvious, but, having been trained in its ways we learn to love it very deeply.

It was this way for me and classical music. Its appeal was not immediately obvious to me, I was more enamored of driving rock beats and toe-tapping dance music. But gradually, through stages, classical music’s subtlety, beauty and intricacy began to speak to my soul, and I became more sensitive and aware of its majestic beauty. I learned to love symphonic music, and the magnificent patrimony of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony. And OH how it speaks to my soul now.

And so it is also of my soul with God and the things of God. Early in my life, my rebellious flesh was only averse to God and the parameters of his Kingdom. But now I have grown deeply to love the Lord, and appreciate the beauty and the wisdom of his truth. Yes, I am learning to love heaven. I love God, and the things of God, and the people God loves.

So it must be for us all, that we learn to love heaven. And for this purpose, the Lord left us His Church, like a caring mother, to teach us and lead us to learn to love the things of God, and of heaven. He also left us a sacred liturgy as a great foretaste, and his Word as a kind of blueprint describing what he loves and the architecture of the kingdom of love and truth. The Saints too blaze a trail ahead of us show us the way. In all of this God gives us a kind of pedagogy of the heavenly Kingdom and a healing remedy for our darkened intellects and hardened hearts.

But make no mistake, we must learn to love heaven, to love God and the things of God. And here we speak of the true God and the real heaven not a fake God, not some idol we have constructed for ourselves, but the true God and the true heaven which is his Kingdom and all his fullness. We must avail ourselves of his many helps and learn to love him and his kingdom.

If we think it is only natural to love heaven, we must become more sober. The fact is we have very obtuse spirits. We live in a fallen world, governed by a fallen angel, and we have fallen natures. We tend to love that which is destructive and harmful. And even knowing that it is harmful we still tend to be attracted to it. We tend to esteem that which is foolish and passing, and to glamorize evil. We tend to call good or no big deal what God calls sinful. Yes, we are obtuse and up to 180 degrees out of phase with the Kingdom

GK Chesterton observes  astonishing facts recorded in Scripture and Tradition:

The point of the story of Satan is not that he revolted against being in hell, but that he revolted against being in heaven. The point about Adam is not that he was discontented with the conditions of this earth, but that he was discontented with the conditions of paradise. (New York American, 12-15-1932)

If Satan revolted against heaven even while still in heaven and Adam preferred something to paradise while still in paradise, how much more should we be sober over the fact that we who have not yet seen paradise or heaven can easily despise or hold of little value the glory of God’s Kingdom.

Add to this that we live in a world that is utterly upside down, a world where we are not rich and what matters to God, a world which obsesses over passing and trivial things and pays little mind to eternal and heavenly things. Learning to love heaven can mean some pretty radical things. It means often being willing to be 180° out of phase with the world’s priorities and preoccupations.

To draw free of this and learn to love heaven requires an often painful journey on our part. And many are simply unwilling to make it, or to live out of phase with the world. Perhaps for this reason the Lord recorded with sadness, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Mat 7:13-14). Perhaps too we can understand why we need a savior: we are not only obtuse, but frankly not all that bright, and we like sheep tend to be wayward. Only with difficulty are we even willing to be shepherded.

Yes, we must make a journey and learn to love heaven,

Perhaps, to conclude, we might ponder a couple brief details from Simon Peter’s life. At the lakeside Jesus asked Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Jesus was seeking an agape love (ἀγαπᾷς με). Peter, with uncharacteristic honesty, at that stage, answered the Lord indicating he had only brotherly love (κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε). The triple dialogue seeking agape love ended with the Lord’s respectful acceptance that Peter had but brotherly love.

But the Lord also promised one day Peter would find agape love, one day Peter would finally learn to love heaven and the Lord above all things, above all people, above his very self. How? He had to make the journey and learn to love heaven.

And indeed, the Lord prophesied: When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God (Jn 21:18-19)

But in order for that to happen, the world would have to be turned upside down for Peter. Peter would have to learn to see the world 180° differently than he did that day at the Lakeside. Of this we need to turn our lives over 180° GK Chesterton again writes very beautifully as he meditates that Peter was crucified upside down:

I’ve often fancied that [Peter’s] humility was rewarded was rewarded by seeing in death the beautiful vision of the landscape as it really is: with the stars like flowers, and the clouds like hills and all men hanging on the mercy of God. (The Poet and the Lunatics Sheed and Ward p. 22)

Yes, learning to love heaven means learning to see the world as it really its, and to seem to the world to be upside down. But God’s ways are not our ways, his priorities are not our priorities. We have a lot of learning to do. At the end of the day heaven will not change to suit us (if it did it wouldn’t be heaven any more). So we must be changed for it, we must learn to love it even if that means being crucified upside down.

Help us Lord to desire heaven, to learn its ways, to learn of you and love you above all things.

N.B. The Chesterton insights came to me from a a fine book called The Complete Thinker by Dale Ahlquist.

Posted on

Say What? A Meditation on the Glory of Language and the Respect we must have for its Subtlety

A priest friend of mine moved to this country when he was in high school, and English was not his first language. It took him time to get the slang expressions right. A big expression at the time was “What’s up.” And it took him a while not to look up when people said this to him. And another expression was “Say what?” And when someone said this to him, it took him a while not to respond by saying “what.”

Language is a funny thing. It obviously has a precision that is necessary. Without the basic framework of grammar and vocabulary, communication could not happen.

However, language is also a very creative endeavor which makes it quite a moving target.

I was surprised to learn how different English sounded back in the 13th Century which I discovered when I was required to memorize the prologue of the Canterbury Tales. To this day I can still recite most of it by memory:

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of engelond to caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

But wait a minute, thought I, if English used to look and sound like this, a mere 600 years ago, then spelling and grammar, even vocabulary must have changed by lots of little misspellings and malapropisms down through the years. If that is so, then why did my teacher always return my essays with red ink marking my errors? Wasn’t I just helping to move the language to the next stage? “Not so” said my teacher, “You don’t have that much power. Now make your corrections and turn the paper back in.” Oh well, I tried. 🙂

And yet it would seem that language is a moving target and that there is an on-going battle between the purists (the language police and grammarians) and the creative wordsmiths who push the envelope with language.

But the fact is, our language is rife with inconsistencies, crazy spellings and words that have outright reversed their meaning. Language is more art than science, if you ask me, and even if you don’t ask me. Consider some oddities:

1. We often use words to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning. We park in driveways and drive on parkways. Manufacture used to mean “hand made” (manu (hand) + facere (to make or do). Now it means just the opposite of handmade. Awful used to mean “full of awe,” “wonderful,” now it means bad or terrible. And so forth.

2. Language is riddled with oxymorons (words that combine two opposite notions): Old news, even odds, pretty ugly, small fortune, growing small, industrial park, baby grand, standard deviation, civil war, original copy, student teacher, recorded live, etc.

3. Some words have more than one meaning and can even mean something totally opposite. Thus we clip something to attach it to something, or clip something (like a coupon) to detach it. We also bolt things in place or bolt in the sense of getting away fast. We can hold up things, in the sense of impeding traffic, or hold up things in the sense of advancing them, such as holding up values. Oversight can mean to carefully attend to something by over seeing it, or it can mean to neglect something by not attending to it. Certain can refer to something of a very definite quality, or it can mean just the opposite referring to something vague and difficult to specify, as in, “I have certain concerns about your plans.” And so on…

3. And then there are the heteronymns that must drive non-native English speakers crazy. These are words with the same spelling but different meanings and often different pronunciations. “Refuse,” the noun meaning trash, and “refuse,” the verb meaning to be against. Read the book (present tense) and read the book (past tense). Primer (base coat of paint) and primer (a beginner’s book). I am now resorting to resorting the papers. The entrance leads to a display that will entrance you. I am certainly content with the content of this offer. At present he is not present. As the altitude peaked, he began to look peaked. He lead a procession to the lead mine.

4. And then, so many of our expressions really don’t make any sense:

A hot cup of coffee – when what we really mean is a cup of hot coffee. It’s the coffee we want hot not the cup.

A one night stand – but we don’t stand at night, if you get my drift.

Head over heels in love – But our head is almost always over our heels. Don’t we really mean heels over head, as in upside down?

Preplan, preboard, preheat – but what people are actually doing is simply planning, boarding and heating.

Put on your shoes and socks – the order is wrong. Socks need to come first.

Back and forth – but it does not pertain to physical objects to go back and forth. Rather they must go forth before they can come back. It should be forth and back.

Watch your head – but that is impossible.

Behind my back – but isn’t this redundant? As if someone could do something in front of your back?

5. And then there is a wholly inconsistent matter of how we handle verbs in English: Today we speak, yesterday we spoke, faucets leak but never loke. Today I teach yesterday I taught, Today I preach but never praught. I win and I won, I also sin but never son.

What a mess huh? By the way if you want to read more of these twists and turns of our Language, read Crazy English by Richard Lederer.

Two thoughts occur to me based on this craziness.

First there is the remarkable capacity for us to navigate the complex and inconsistent landscape of language. Our minds are magnificent and able to grasp the subtleties of language and also also to apply experience and context. Frankly our ability to speak and communicate is nothing short of a miracle.

And it is unique to us. None of the animals have such a profound system of communication wherein reality is literally symbolized and even metaphysical concepts are conveyed by a series of sounds, and/or written symbols (letters) in combinations (words and sentences). It is nothing short of astonishing that we can understand one another at all, especially given the rampant inconsistencies of our languages.

I suspect there is and must be something of soul power at work for us in communication. It is not that we simply have the ability to talk, but also that we have something to say. And having something to say we thus make communication happen. I suspect that if two people who had no language in common were put in a room, soon enough they we would be communicating, even if it meant inventing a language whole-cloth.

Our capacity to speak starts in our soul’s desire to understand and be understood. We have something to say and so we must say it, even using the crude and inconsistent too we call language.

Secondly, as a Catholic and lover of Scripture, I DO wish that people would take some of the same sophistication that they have in everyday conversation and apply some of it to scripture. Too many people read scripture in a mechanistic way, missing basic human contexts like history, and language tools and genres such as metaphor, hyperbole, poetry, allusion, word play, paradox, irony, and so forth.

Frankly it is our opponents the atheists who are most guilty of a fundamentalist and reductionist reading Scripture. They love to pull quotes out of thin air and and say, “See your God is a blood-thirsty genocidal despot.” Yet in pulling these quotes they have no respect for context, or later development within the Biblical framework. Neither do they seem to have any respect for the various genres at work or that history can be told in different ways.

That God’s Word conveys absolute and clear truth is certain, but it does this in a variety of ways, sometimes telling epic sagas, other times getting deep into the details of genealogies, and very precise delineations on places and persons. Sometimes the bible portrays grave sin, but not as approval but to set the stage for and the need of grace and mercy. Some earlier provisions and rules gave way as God led us deeper into his will in stages. Yet other rules and commands remain unchanged and are operative at every stage of Biblical revelation.

So, like any use of language those who read the scriptures must bring a significant degree of sophistication and appreciation for the subtleties of the text. Frankly, trying to read the Scriptures outside of the ecclesial context in which they were experienced, written shared and understood is to engage in an interpretation that is dubious at best, and deeply flawed at worse. The Bible is a Church book and must be read with and in the Church. The Catholic Church provides not only a context for the sacred text, but also the authoritative capacity to interpret the limits and meanings of the text.

Ah Language! Such a magnificent gift, and one so fraught with complexity. Handle it with great care and appreciation. And if this be so with human speech how much more so with the Sacred Text.

–

Posted on

"You Killed the Author of Life!" and other unusal sermon content. A reflection on the striking and bold content of the early Kerygma

The scene is Pentecost Sunday and Simon Peter has just received the Holy Spirit along with 120 others. A crowd has gathered, intrigued by the manifestation of the Spirit in the upper room. The door opens and out steps Simon Peter. and he begins to boldly proclaim Christ. After an initial summary of Jesus’ life and actions, and a doxology, Peter strikes home and says to those gathered:

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah. (Acts 2:36)

A few days later Peter preached even more acutely:

You handed Jesus over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this….“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.…Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out... (Acts 3:14-20)

Apparently Peter never got the memo that we preachers are not supposed to mention unpleasant things like sin and certainly not accuse our listeners of having sinned. He apparently didn’t understand that we who preach are supposed to issue the usual bromides of affirmation and speak only in abstractions and generalities. Imagine, he calls them killers, co-conspirators in handing over God to be crucified. Yes, he does: You killed the author of life!

Of course in referring to “the memo,” I speak of the unwritten rule among many priests and deacons today, especially of of the older generation 55 and up, which said, in effect: never offend anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Say nothing of controversy, or anything that might upset anyone, ever. And by all means do not mention, sin, hell, judgment or purgatory. Don’t mention specific moral topics either like abortion, fornication, contraception, divorce, gay anything, and don’t you dare mention that missing Mass is a mortal sin, or even let the phrase “mortal sin” escape your lips.

Well you get the point. And yet here is Peter saying, “You killed the author of life!” And he’s not talking to the person next to you, dear reader, he’s talking to you. That’s right you did that. And so did I. Yes we are sinners. And if we don’t repent and receive his mercy were going to be lost, we’re going to go to Hell. (Oops, did I say “Hell?”)

Now of course the usual logic is that if we talk plainly like this we’ll offend people and that they’ll stop coming. Now, never mind that our churches have largely emptied in the aftermath of the widespread application of the “say nothing of sin” memo. No indeed, it must be honey and no vinegar, ever.

It is interesting that Simon Peter, though clear and bold about sin, did not seem to cause this angry alienation feared by many modern priests. In his Acts 2 sermon we read not of alienation but of mass conversion:

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-41)

Wow, this is not the predicted results of some of the fearful and dovish “do-no-harm-ever” preachers and liturgists of today. Peter’s nets were nearly breaking with 3,000 converts even after telling them they had crucified Jesus, and further warning them and calling them to repentance and baptism in no uncertain terms.

And after Peter’s ever sterner words of Acts 3 telling us “You killed the Author of life” the numbers grew even more: But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand. (Acts 4:4)

Story – Back in the late 60s or early 70s,  a Protestant evangelist named David Wilkerson wrote a book called The Cross and the Switchblade, which described his ministry among the hardened gang members of the inner city. And his ministry was quite abundant in those years, not by a sort of cheesy, sentimental self esteem approach, but by a frank laying out of the issues at hand. In effect he’d appeal to the gang members by telling them that their problem wasn’t that they had enemies, or didn’t have enough weapons. No their problem was that they were sinning, and that their only hope was to turn their lives over to Jesus Christ, or they were going be forever lost. Jail, or an untimely death was the least of their problems.

Now you’d think he’d get killed talking like that to gang members. Be he didn’t. They knew, deep down, that he was right. And even those who weren’t ready to convert had a respect for him that he spoke the truth, and was bold enough to make it plain.

Somewhere along the line modern preachers, (many, but not all) lost their edge. The Gospel, the good news of salvation, really doesn’t make a lot of sense without reference to sin. To say that we are saved, points to the question, “Saved from what?” And without a vigorous understanding of the sin, and ultimate Hell we have been saved from, the Gospel starts to seem peripheral, optional, a nice story, but not really all that crucial or urgent. The good news is highlighted by and makes sense in the light of the bad news. Only if I know that “I got it bad and that aint good” does the news of a cure dawn as wonderful and even fabulous news.

It is true that we live in dainty times, where people are easily offended, and thin-skinned. But I must also say that I have found that speaking clearly about sin, the need for repentance, and the glory of mercy is experienced by most people as refreshing. Good preaching needs an edge to be compelling. Abstractions, generalities, and hallmark greeting sentiments don’t really win the day or seal the deal. Chatty sermons, dumb jokes, beige Catholicism, and soft tones offer little that is compelling. Our empty churches say that loud and clear.

Some will inevitably take offense, but that has always been the case. A good preacher, it seems, who is worth his salt needs to be willing to get killed, or at least to get it with both barrels. Timid preachers are only a little better than useless. They are, as Gregory the Great said, “Dumb dogs that cannot bark.”

So Peter never got the memo, and thank God. As his fruitful example shows, vigorous biblical preaching includes an edgy quality,  dealing with sin, setting it forth plainly, but also in a way that highlights the glory of grace and mercy.

Bottom line, “You killed the author of life!” (I’m talking to you, not the person next to you). And we’ve done it in a thousand ways. But even now, know that Jesus Christ loves you and has mercy on you in abundance, and you can lay hold of this if you will repent and run to him for healing and mercy.

Sinner, don’t let this harvest pass! And die and lose your soul at last.

Posted on

Four Gifts of Grace – A Meditation on the Gospel for the 6th Sunday of Easter

050413The Gospel for today has a number of “sayings” of the Lord Jesus which all amount to a kind of litany of love and setting forth of the gifts that He by his grace is and will accomplish in us. Lets get right to work and consider the wonderful gifts of grace.

I. Power – Jesus said to his disciples: “Whoever loves me will keep my word

Here is a fundamental theology of grace: that the keeping of the commandments and mandates of the Lord’s word is the fruit of his Love. Let us state it plainly: the keeping of the Commandments is the fruit of Love, not the cause of it. “Yes,” says the Lord, “If you love me, the keeping of the commandments is sure to follow.” And note this too, we do not initiate this Love, God does. Scripture says, We love because he first Loved us (1 John 4:19).

Pay attention. No one can give what they do not have, and no one can possess what they have not received. God is the author and initiator of Love. Thus Love ALWAYS starts with him. The Lord is not setting up some sort of loyalty test here as if he were saying “If you love me, prove it by keeping the commandments.” That is not he gospel! The Gospel is that God has loved us, before we were ever born, before we could do anything to merit it. He loved us when we were dead in our sins. And HE took the initiative and loved us, when we hated him and crucified him.

And if we will accept this love, it will enable us to love God  with the same love with which he has loved us. And with his love in us we will begin to love what he loves and who he loves. We will love holiness, forgiveness, mercy, justice, compassion, chastity, generosity and so forth. And we will love our brethren and even our enemies. Why? Because God loves them and when his love is in our heart, so is his love for them, and for all the things he loves besides.

Do you get this? Love enables us to keep his word, to live it and love it. When I was young I dated a girl who liked square dancing. At the time I had no love for square dancing and thought it silly. But my love for her meant I started to love what she loved, and her family too. Do you see it? Love changes our heart  and our desires if we let it have its way.

So let Love have its way, and you will keep the commandments. The keeping of the commandments is the fruit of love, not its cause. Love is the power of grace at work in us to love what and who God loves. Jesus says, If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15).

II. Presence – [Jesus says] and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.

One of the great desires of Jesus was to restore us to unity with the Father. Jesus was crazy about his Father and earnestly desired to have us know Him and love Him more deeply.

If we will but accept the Father’s love and shalom offered through Jesus, we will have a tender and joyful relationship with our Abba, our Father who loves us! Jesus often spoke of his Father almost as a doting Father. He was like a shepherd who left 99 in search of one, He was like someone who lost a coin and swept diligently to find it and, having found it, throws a party more costly that the value of the coin to celebrate. He is like a father whose son told him to drop dead but when His son finally returned, ran to meet him and threw a celebratory party.

Do you grasp this? The Father loves you and Jesus has reconciled you to him (cf 5:10). Now run to him, run to Abba,  God. If you take one step, he’ll take two, and start running to embrace you!

This is the Gospel: Jesus Christ has reconciled us to the Father, by the Father’s own request. He loves you. Now run to him and watch him run to you. He wants not distance, but intimate presence, love and embrace.

III. Perfection – “I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.

We all know that the Christian journey is not accomplished in an instant. But rather, we make this journey with God, the Holy Spirit, who teaches us and makes us mindful of all that Jesus has done for us, and taught us. Little by little we are given a new mind, a new heart, a new walk, and new priority, a new and better life. May God who has begun a good work in bring it to perfection (cf Phil 1:6).

And if we are open, he is faithful and he WILL do it. The process may be slow, but that is because we have foreheads of brass and necks of iron (cf Is 48:4). But God is faithful and patient. I am a witness; and if he can change me, he can change you too. He has promised and will do it.

We will be transformed by the renewal of our minds (cf Rom 12:2), for the Holy Spirit will bring to our mind all that the Lord IS and all that he taught. Let the Lord change your mind and heart. And if he does that, the rest will follow: sow a thought, reap a deed, sow a deed reap a habit, sow a habit reap and character, sow a character reap a destiny. And it all begins with the mind.

One of the gifts of grace is the renewing our minds, leading to total transformation.

IV. Peace – Jesus says, Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.“

What is the gift of peace? Peace is shalom, it is more than an absence of conflict. It is the presence in the relationship of everything that should be there. Peace is the experience that everything is alright.

For us peace is access once again to the Father. It is to be able to walk with him once again in Love, in and through Jesus Christ. And we don’t just walk with him in some earthly garden paradise, as Adam and Eve did (but lost). Rather we walk with him in heaven. In Jesus we are seated with the Father in honor at his right hand.

So, what does it mean when the same Jesus who said, “The Father and I are One” (Jn 10:30), also says, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28)?

Theologically it means that the Father is the source in the Trinity. All the members are co-eternal, co-equal, equally divine, but the Father is the Principium Deitatis (“the Principle of the Deity”).

Jesus proceeds from the Father from all eternity. In effect Jesus is saying, “I delight that the Father is the principle of my being, even though I have no origin.”

Devotionally, Jesus is saying I always do what pleases my Father. Jesus loves his Father, is crazy about him, is always talking about him and pointing to him. In effect, he says, by calling the Father greater, “I look to my Father for everything and I do what I see him doing (Jn 5:19) and what I know pleases him (Jn 5:30). His will and mine are one, and what I will to do proceeds from him and I do what I know accords with his will, Whom I love.”

And here then is the source of our peace, that we, with Jesus love the Father and always do what pleases him. And Jesus “goes to the Father” but he takes us with him, for we are members of his mystical Body. In Jesus, we enter the holy of holies, and sit next to the Father in love and intimacy.

Here then are some important gifts of grace. It is for us to lay hold of them and live out of them. The Lord promises them to us, so they are ours. And if at times they seem distant, reach out and take back what the devil stole from you. These are gifts of the Lord’s resurrected grace.

Here’s a song that speaks of peace and presence, not to mention power.

Posted on

The Protection of the Flock, as seen on TV.

050313There is a line from scripture that says, Woe to the solitary man. If he falls he has no one to lift him up. (Ecclesiastes 4:10)

Scripture also says, And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Heb 10:24-25). The teaching is clear, we must come together each week for Mass and learn to live in deep communion with one another. We are not meant to make this journey alone. We need encouragement and exhortation, food for the journey, company and protection.

In the days of Jesus its was almost unthinkable for a person to make a lengthy journey alone. Once a person left the relative safety of the town the journey got dangerous. There were robbers lying in wait along the roads just looking for vulnerable targets. For this reason people almost always made journeys in groups.

This is a good image for the spiritual journey we must all make. Alone we are easy targets. We are vulnerable and without help when spiritual demons attack.

Yet another insight says,  Feuding brothers reconcile when there is a maniac at the the door.

Somehow I thought of all this when I saw these two videos. They are cleaver and make the point of partnership or perish, teamwork or terror, love or lose, hang together or hang separately. Yes, woe to the solitary man! How necessary the protection of the flock. How necessary for the herd to stay together.

Posted on

One of the Most Vivid Descriptions Of St Athanasius I Have Ever Read

050213A couple of brief thoughts about St. Athanasius whose feast we celebrated today.

First, I have served in African American Parishes most of my priesthood. And in this context, I have often wondered why there are not more African American Parishes named for this North African Saint. So many black parishes are named for  Augustine or Cyprian, both of whom, while denizen’s of North Africa, were likely of Berber stock, and looked more European than African. Athanasius, on the other hand, while certainly not a sub-Saharan African, is described as having dark, even blackish skin. Yet  almost no African American Catholic commentary claims him, and I have never heard a Black Parish named for him.

Just a curiosity on my part. I once wrote a rather prominent historian who has written on African American Catholicism to ask why this was so, but I never heard back.

My favorite description of Athanasius comes from Robert Payne’s The Holy Fire. The Book is out of print now but I just love Payne’s style. He is at his best in describing St. Athanasius. Enjoy this vivid excerpt:

There are times when the dark heavy syllables of his name fill us with dread. In the history of the early Church no one was ever so implacable, so urgent in his demands upon himself or so derisive of his enemies. There was something in him of the temper of the modern dogmatic revolutionary: nothing stopped him. The Emperor Julian called him “hardly a man, only a little manikin.” Gregory Nazianzen said he was “angelic in appearance, and still more angelic in mind.” In a sense both were speaking the truth. The small dauntless man who saved the Church from a profound heresy, staying the disease almost single handed, was as astonishing in his appearance as he was in his courage. He was so small that his enemies called him a dwarf. He had a hook nose, a small mouth, short reddish beard which turned up at the ends in the Egyptian fashion, and his skin was blackish. His eyes were very small and he walked with a slight stoop, though gracefully as befitted a prince of the Church. He was less than thirty when he was made Bishop of Alexandria.  He was a hammer wielded by God against heresy.

There were other Fathers of the Eastern Church who wrote more profoundly or more beautifully, but none wrote with such a sense of authority or were so little plagued with doubts….He wrote Greek as though those flowing syllables were lead pellets….His wit was mordant. He did not often employ the weapon of sarcasm, but when he did, no one ever forgot it. When Arius, his great enemy died, he chuckled with glee and wrote off a letter to Serapion giving all the details of Arius’ death, how the heretic had talked wildly in church and was suddenly “compelled by a necessity of nature to withdraw to a privy where he fell, headlong, dying as he lay there.” As for the Arians, Athanasius hated them them with too great a fury to give them their proper names. He called them dogs, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, eels, cuttlefish, gnats and beetles, and he was always resourceful in making them appear ridiculous….At least twice Athanasius was threatened with death, and he was five times exiled. He was perfectly capable of riding up to the Emperor and holding the emperor’s horse by the bridle while he argued a thesis.

In the end he had the supreme joy of outliving all his enemies and four great emperors who had stood in his path, and must of known, as he lay dying, that he had preserved the Church….It was a long triumph of one man against the world – Athanasius contra mundum! pp. 67-68

Here’s a video that shows a softer side to St. Athanasius.

Posted on

What Did Jesus Look Like? And Why Do We care?

060314I was doing some sidewalk evangelizing with a group of fellow Catholics in my neighborhood last Sunday and a very angry African American Man confronted me with the accusation that we were unjust and lying because the Image of Jesus on our banner looked European. He explained to me that everyone knew Jesus was Black and African and that we were therefore lying and misrepresenting Jesus.

For the record, the image we had on our banner was an icon, generally with Eastern European features, but like most Icons, of darker complexion and ambiguous as to nationality.

But never mind, He saw it as white because it wasn’t clearly black or possessed of African features. I told him that we really don’t know exactly how Jesus looked and that it was fine to see him with African features, or eastern or really anyway. I also asked him to notice that many of us there on the sidewalk were African American and that in our parish, which I pastor, we had an African Christ on our processional cross etc. We made no real claim that our banner was what Jesus looked like exactly.

But at the end of the day he wasn’t really looking for a conversation, he wanted a confrontation. My own training tells me to end such dialogues quickly and look for more fertile ground. I assured him that we meant no offense and was sorry that he experienced offense, asked his prayers and politely disengaged from the conversation.

The very question, “What Did Jesus Look Like?” and our debates as to his features, says a lot about our modern age. And the silence of the Bible as to the physical appearance of most of its principal characters says a lot too.

We live in a very image driven culture. Ever since the invention of photography and especially television, the physical appearance of people has become quite significant. Perhaps the first real discernment of how important this had become was in the Nixon-Kennedy debate. Those who listened on radio generally thought Nixon won the debate. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won. And thus it was that physical appearance seems to have been greatly magnified as an assent or liability. It is surely true that physical appearance had importance before, but now it was magnified. Prior to the invention of photography, films and TV very few people had access to the physical appearance of influential people before they formed an opinion of them.

The fact that the Bible has so little to say about the physical appearance of Jesus or most of the main figures gives an indication that such facts were of less significance to the people of that time. It may also say something of God the Holy Spirit who chose not to inspire the recording of such information as a general rule. It would seem that physical attractiveness (or lack thereof) matters little to God? (I am hopeful in this department for my handsomeness has taken a serious hit in recent decades). Perhaps too the Holy Spirit draws back from such descriptions so that we would be encouraged to see ourselves in the narrative of Holy Scripture.

We get occasional references to physical traits. There are the some references to attractiveness. David is said to have a ruddy appearance, Leah seems to have been less attractive than her sister Rachael. Bathsheba surely drew David’s eye. There is also some mentioning of more specific traits. For example the beloved woman in the Song of Songs describes herself as “black” and “beautiful.” Sampson is said to have long hair. Zacheus is said to be of short stature. Herod was an Edomite, a name which refers to the reddish skin of that race of people. You will perhaps want to add to this list in the comments section. But overall the Scriptures are remarkably silent about any extensive physical description of the main protagonists. Who was tall, who was short, what color their skin or hair, or eyes? How long was the hair? Did the person have a beard?

And thus as we consider Jesus we are left with little from the scriptures themselves. It does seem clear that Jesus must have had a vigorous constitution given the extensive journeys he made throughout the mountainous region of the Holy Land. Lengthy walks of 60 miles or more back and forth from Jerusalem to Galilee and then well north to Tyre and Sidon. Climbs up steep hills and mountains such as Tabor were not for the weak or feeble. I have spoken more of the physical stamina of Christ here: On the Human Stature of Christ. But as for his hair color, relative height, skin tone etc. we have little or nothing.

I would like to speculate however based on a a few criteria of certain possible traits of Jesus’ physical appearance. Again, these are mere speculations. I encourage you to remark on them and to add or subtract as you see fit. These speculations are somewhat random and given here in no particular order.

1. The length of his hair. It is common since the renaissance to see Jesus depicted with long and straight or wavy locks of flowing hair. I have often wondered if ancient Jewish men ever wore their hair this long. I say this because St. Paul says, Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him? (1 Cor 11:14). He goes on to speak of long hair as a “glory” to a woman. I wonder if Paul would have said such a thing if Jesus had the log hair he is often depicted with today? What exactly Paul meant by “long” is a matter for debate. It does not necessarily mean that Jesus went about with hair as short as some men wear it today. The Shroud of Turin, if it is authentic, shows the hair length to be at just about the length of the upper shoulder. I also doubt that Jesus’ hair would be as straight as many post renaissance artists depict it. If Jesus was a Semite, his hair was probably far more coarse and wiry than European hair. It is also interesting that some of the earliest images we have of Jesus on the Catacomb walls depicts him as clean shaven with short hair. But this may simply be a projection of Mediterranean standards upon him. Again, all these ponderings of mine are speculative.

2. What of Jesus’ complexion? If Jesus was of Semitic stock (a point which some debate) it would follow that his skin was not as dark as that of a sub-Saharan African but neither was it as light as a northern European. Many Scholars think that the ancient Semites had something of an olive tone to their skin, generally dark colored hair that was thick and often wiry or curly. The picture at left was developed by scholars recently using forensic techniques on a skull found from the first century AD. While the skin tone and hair are more speculative, the appearance of the face is based on the techniques of forensic reconstruction (cf HERE and HERE ). The image is not without controversy. Indeed there seem to be significant differences among scholars as to both the origin, appearance and general anthropology of the Semites who likely descended from Noah’s son Shem according to the Scriptures. Here again, I present these aspects of appearance to you only as speculative.

3. The Shroud of Turin – You have likely read much on the shroud. There is wide consensus today that the shroud comes from a period far earlier than the Middle Ages as was held in the 1980s when some questionable studies were conducted on it. Even if it dates from the time of Christ, this still does not prove it is his image. However the seemingly miraculous manner of the imprinting of the image is strong evidence not to be lightly set aside that this is in fact Christ’s image. Even if it is we have to be careful to remember that he had been savagely beaten and that this may have marred his appearance left on the shroud. Nevertheless, if this is Jesus’ image then we can see that he was 5-feet-10 to almost 6 feet tall and weighed about 180 pounds, had a fairly strong muscular build and a long nose seemingly typical with the Jews of his day. We have already remarked on the length of the hair and, despite Paul’s remark, his hair as depicted on the Shroud was worn a bit longer than most men of today.

Perhaps we do well to end where we began and question our own modern preoccupation with the physical appearance of Jesus and other biblical figures. It is true we are visual and will always prefer to see the face of those we love. But the Bible’s silence on these matters may be instructive and we do well to consider that the Scriptures invite us to look deeper than appearance, deeper than race or ethnicity. The Word became flesh in Jesus, but the Word must also become flesh in us and we must learn to find Christ in the Sacraments (cf Luke 24:31,35), in the poor, in our neighbor, our enemy, our very selves.

This video is one of the most extraordinary I’ve seen using a fascinating technology to show the many ways Jesus has been depicted down through the centuries. The images melt and morph into one another!


The Real Face of Jesus on HISTORY 3/30 by HistoryChannel

Posted on

Of Vocations and Victory: Some Good Reasons to Take Heart That the Lord is Blessing His Church

043013While some dioceses in the US have been closing and consolidating seminaries, here in Washington DC we recently opened a new one: The Blessed John Paul II Seminary. And things are going so well, we are now adding a new three-floor wing to accommodate more men. (See a wonderful video below on the Seminary)

Currently 30 men are in formation at Blessed John Paul II. Altogether Washington has just over 70 men studying for the priesthood.

This new seminary is unique in that it enrolls men who are still in college, or need to do pre-theology studies, prior to undertaking post-Graduate Theology studies. It was the concern of Cardinal Wuerl that in the years prior to entering Major Seminary and theological studies it was important to form the men and let them live in community in the Washington area where they will serve in future years.

Back in 2005 we also opened a Missionary Seminary for thirty seminarians of this Archdiocese in the Neocatechumenal Way to study. We also send men to the North American College in Rome, Mount St. Marys Seminary in Emmitsburg MD, Theological College in Washington, and Blessed John XXIII in Boston.

The Lord is turning out some very good men. I remain impressed with the caliber, devotion and orthodoxy of the men who are in our seminaries. I recently preached a retreat for 30 of them at Blessed John Paul II here in DC. I also work with them in both summer assignments here in the parish and have at least three at a time working here throughout the academic year. They are prayerful and intelligent men who have a heart for the Church, and a love and reverence for God.

Internationally the number of seminarians has increased an astonishing 86.3% since 1978. in 2010 there 118,990 seminarians worldwide, whereas in 1978 there were just  63,882 major seminarians. All this according to the Annuario Pontificio

U.S. Catholic seminary enrollment in theology this past year year (2012) is the highest in almost a quarter-century, according to the  Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). Last year’s total of 3,723 is the highest enrollment since the 3,788 reported for 1988-89.

The average rate of retention for seminarians entering theology to being ordained has remained  consistent at about 75 percent.

Younger trend –Slightly more than a quarter of today’s major seminarians are 35 or older, and more than half are under 30, representing a possibly significant shift back toward youth after a couple of decades in which newly ordained priests tended to be much older.

So, there is a lot to be grateful for. It is true we must work harder, and there is much about which to be sober. The reported growth in seminarians does not match what we need to fill the gaps. Ordinations are still only about a third of the number that are needed to compensate for those priests who are retiring, or dying.

Yet still we have more than bottomed out and are now heading in the right direction. Continue to pray for many vocations.

Great Laity too – Pray too for continued reform and zeal among the lay faithful. So many good signs exist there too, I meet so many dedicated and zealous laity every day. A growing remnant of clergy and laity are getting clearer and more focused, day by day.

Take this to heart, beloved readers. I think it is easy for us to get discouraged today and we see so much confusion and decay in our culture. But God is raising up a faithful remnant. He is purifying the Church in so may ways, with good vocations, but also many wonderful lay movements and Catholics in fire for the Lord.

Yes, He has been pruning his Church, to be sure, and our overall numbers at Mass may continue to go down for a while. But pruning has a purpose, and the Church that remains may be overall smaller, but she is going to need to be strong to endure and overcome the days that get ever darker. Like Gideon’s army that was too large, God is thinning but purifying his ranks. A smaller but clearer army that is united will win the day.

Like Noah’s Ark! It may take time but it is clear that God is preparing, pruning and purifying the Church for something very great. It may well be that the Church will once again have to be a kind of Noah’s ark which will preserve the vestiges of life from a dying culture, only to replant them when the flood waters subside. And thus, the Lord is strengthening the Ark, the Barque of Peter. In the Words of an old spiritual: Get on board Children, there’s room for many-a-more.

Yes! Take heart and be of good courage. Jesus says, In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. (Jn 16:33)

Here’s a video of our newest Seminary at which we are needing to add a new wing to accommodate “many-a-more.”