Tag: Scripture

Posted on

How Real are Your Ashes?

Sometimes things get so familiar to us that we stop understanding or reflecting on their deeper meaning.  Each year in RCIA (adult conversion) classes I get some puzzled looks as we discuss the ritual. “What’s  that all about?”  some will say.  There is even some revulsion expressed at having dirty ashes smeared on your forehead. I remember as a kid wondering why so many people liked to rush to Church to get ashes smudged on their forehead. I didn’t like it at all and would secretly rub them off when no one was looking. Today I’ll admit I still don’t like it much,  though I behave myself and do not rub them off!

Please forgive me, I don’t want to seem impious yet I still marvel, as a priest at how many people pack into Church to get ashes on their forehead. Even sadder, many of them don’t seem to want communion as much. In fact significant numbers walk out the door after ashes are given and do not stay for communion. I remember a certain pastor of mine responding to that by not giving Ashes until after Communion.

Most people of course who come to Mass are faithful and have their priorities straight but it still interests me how large the numbers are for something that seems to me to unappealing and also challenging, if we really come to terms with what we are saying in receiving them. I wonder if large numbers would flock for ashes if they really knew that they were saying some pretty powerful stuff and making some extensive promises of a sort.

What, really do ashes signify? Perhaps a brief tour of Scripture is in order:

  1. Humility – Job said, You [Oh Lord] asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;  I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself  and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:3-6  Notice that Job does not merely repent in a general sense here. But, having encountered God he realizes that God is God and he is a creature, mere dust and ashes in the presence of God who is Being itself, who is All in All. Yes he is a son in the presence of a Father but he is not God’s equal that he might question God or put him on trial. Hence in this case the ashes represent not only repentance, but humility. The Church’s liturgy echoes this theme of humility when she quotes Gen 3:19 “Remember, you are dust and unto dust you shall return” as she places ashes on the individual.
  2. A Sacramental that points to the Sacrament – A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin….For the unclean person, put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them. Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there. Number 19:9,17) This text sees ashes obtained from a burned sin offering  and mixed with sprinkled water as a cleansing ritual. In the Old Testament this ritual could not actually take away sin (cf Heb 9:9-13) but it did provide for ritual purity. It also symbolized repentance and a desire to be free from sin. In the same way ashes on Ash Wednesday, mixed with holy water cannot take away sin. They are a sacramental, not a sacrament. To get ashes on Ash Wednesday and not go to confession during Lent is really to miss the point. If one’s desire to repent and to be clean, free of sin,  is real then from the sacramental to the sacrament they go. Otherwise the ritual of Ash Wednesday is pretty pointless.
  3. A sign of a true change – When the news[of Ninevah’s possible destruction in forty days] reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. (Jonah 3:6) Here too repentance is symbolized. But the symbol is not enough. Actual repentance is required. Hence the King does not just “do ashes,”  he issues a decree calling for fasting, prayer and true reform: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” (Jonah 3:7-9) Hence another option for the priest to say as he places ashes is “Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel.” It is not enough to get a sooty forehead. True repentance is what is called for, an actual intent to change. Otherwise the ashes are a false sign.
  4. A summons to faith and a new mind – Jesus said, Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes(Matt 11:21). Here Jesus rebukes ancient towns for their lack of faith in what he said. It is good to recall that the Greek word translated here as “repented” is μετενόησαν (metenoesan) which more literally means to come to a new mind or way of thinking.  The fact is that there are many ways that we think about things that are more of the world than of God. Our on-going challenge is to come to a new mind and to think more as God thinks. This is only possible by his grace working through Scripture and Church teaching. It is significant that the ashes are smeared on the forehead or sprinkled on the head. We are called to a faith that transforms our mind. We are called to be “transformed by the renewal of our minds.” (Romans 12:2) Hence another option for the priest is to say, “Repent and believe the Good News” as he places the ashes.

So, how real are your ashes? Do you and I intend these things as we go forth or is it just a ritual, something to do because it’s “sorta neat.”  Pray and reflect on the deeper meaning of ashes.

Posted on

The Sad End of Solomon – A Moral Tale

The reading for Saturday morning’s Mass brought us to a high point in the life of King Solomon. Solomon, when presented the opportunity to ask anything whatsoever from God chose not gold or glory but Wisdom. It is a portrait of a man deeply rooted in God. But later in life Solomon turned from his first love and his infidelity ultimately led to divided kingdom. It is a moral tale that contains a warning for us all. Let’s review the basics of Solomon’s life and ponder the lessons.

Solomon was Israel’s third King. He was also known as Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord). His forty year reign is regarded as Israel’s golden age. It was an age of prosperity and national unity, But in the end his reign ended disastrously he began to oppress the people, multiplied wives and introduced pagan worship.

Solomon was the second son of David and Bathsheba. However, David had other wives and sons by them. Solomon was actually the 17th of 19 sons of David. This hardly made him the most likely son to succeed his father as king. However, through the court intrigues of his mother and the support of Nathan the prophet who both took advantage of David in his old age, Solomon was named king in 961 BC against Adonijah the presumed successor. Solomon swiftly and ruthlessly established his power against Adonijah having him executed on a pretext. This act, along with the execution or banishment of Adonijah’s supporters in the military had repercussions throughout Solomon’s reign. It created military rivals on the northern edge of Israel that were something of a nuisance and may explain why Solomon raised a large army as we will see later.

Despite all this, Solomon experienced a vision form God early in his reign. He was at the altar of Gibeon offering extensive sacrifices to God. And this is where we pick up the reading from Mass this past Saturday Morning:

In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream at night. God said, “Ask something of me and I will give it to you.” Solomon answered: “You have shown great favor to your servant, my father David, because he behaved faithfully toward you, with justice and an upright heart; and you have continued this great favor toward him, even today, seating a son of his on his throne. O LORD, my God, you have made me, your servant, King to succeed my father David; but I am a mere youth, not knowing at all how to act. I serve you in the midst of the people whom you have chosen, a people so vast that it cannot be numbered or counted. Give your servant, therefore, an understanding heart to judge your people and to distinguish right from wrong. For who is able to govern this vast people of yours?”  The LORD was pleased that Solomon made this request. So God said to him: “Because you have asked for this–not for a long life for yourself, nor for riches, nor for the life of your enemies, but for understanding so that you may know what is right– I do as you requested. I give you a heart so wise and  understanding that there has never been anyone like you up to now, and after you there will come no one to equal you. (1 Kings 3:5-12)

And the Lord did indeed grant Solomon great wisdom.  1 Kings 4:30-32 notes that his wisdom surpassed all the people of the east and also Egypt and credits Solomon with 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. Many of these have come down to us in the biblical books authored by Solomon: Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and his possible editing of Ecclesiastes. Leaders from throughout the world sought out Solomon for his wisdom and counsel, most notably the Queen of Sheba.

Solomon was also noted as a superb statesman who had a great capacity to forge trading relationships with foreign leaders. Trade expanded widely during his reign. But these foreign entanglements may well have been the first sign of trouble for they led him to take many wives. This was a common practice of the day for Kings. And yet, the Book of Deuteronomy warns kings and commands them not to do three things:

The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. (Deut 17:16-17)

Solomon ended up breaking all three of these commands.

  1. He multiplied wives. In multiplying wives Solomon took many of them from the pagan territories around him. His wives included Hittites, Maobites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Ammorites. They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. (1 Kings 11:2). The Scripture notes that in the end he had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11:3). This not only demonstrates his lust but also his foreign entanglements. These pagan women brought with them their pagan deities and in the end they negatively influence Solomon’s own faith. At the dedication of the Temple God warned Solomon: But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them,  then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. (1 Kings 9:6-7). Solomon failed to heed this warning and through lust, greed for trade, and fascination with things foreign and pagan he turned away from the Lord and began to allow pagan worship and pagan altars to be built in Israel and even built them himself. (1 Kings 11). Of all his sins this was clearly the most egregious and the author of 1 Kings indicates it is the main reason God turned his favor from Israel: So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen (1 Kings 11:11-13)
  2. He multiplied gold and silver – Solomon solidified a large central government that cut across tribal boundaries. He also engaged in a massive building campaign to include the building of the a large royal complex, palace, fortifications and the  Temple. He built  large and opulent buildings. But the combination of a large central government, an extravagant palace life and extensive building projects weakened the natioanleconomy with high taxes and conscripted labor. The queen of Sheba who was fabulously wealthy herself remarked on visiting Solomon: Your wisdom and prosperity surpasses any report I which I have heard (1 Kings 10:7). Not only did the high taxes cause resentment but the centralized and growing central government offended against the Jewish tribal system which was used to a more local governance. Increasingly Solomon offended against subsidiarity by interfering in local affairs through his officials.
  3. He Multiplied Horses– This is a Jewish expression for amassing a large army. In taking the kingship away from Adonijah, Solomon had aquired inveterate enemies from the military commanders who had supported Adonijah. They camped in the north and often harassed Israel. Perhaps for this reason, but more likely for pride, Solomon amassed a huge army including 12,000 horsemen and 1,400 charioteers. This despite never going to war during his reign. The problem with an extremely large army is not only that it is expensive, but it also required a draft to conscript men into service. This caused resentment among some and the absence of large numbers of men from their families and work at home.

Epilogue – As God told him, the legacy of his turning was a divided kingdom. In the reign of Rehoboam his son the Kingdom of Israel divided from Judah as a result of Solomon’s increasingly oppressive policies. When Rehoboam followed his father’s misguided policies the ten tribes in the north had enough and they divided from Judah. The great unified kingdom had ended and within less than 200 years Israel (721 BC) and later Judah (587 BC) were invaded and destroyed.

The story of Solomon is a sad object lesson, a moral tale. Failing to heed God brings destruction. And Solomon systematically failed to heed God.

What turned Solomon from the right path? Was it greed? Yes. Was it the foreign entanglements ignited by that greed and desire for power? Yes. Was it corruption by the world that greed, foreign entanglements and admiration of foreign ways caused? Surely. Was it lust? Clearly. Was it the inappropriate relationships and marriages that the lust caused? Yes. Did Solomon come to love the world more than God? Surely. Did lust and greed cause him to make steady compromises with the world? Without a doubt. And ever so slowly and perhaps imperceptibly at first, he began to turn from God.

But Solomon’s story could be the story of any of us if we are not careful to persevere in the ways of God. Lust, greed, fascination with the world, these are human problems. I have seen people who are close to the Lord drift away due to worldly preoccupations, bad and ill conceived relationships, career dominance that eclipses vocation, and just through accumulation of bad influences from the TV and Internet. Prayer and Mass attendance slip away. Bad moral behavior gets excused, and ever so subtly we turn less to God more to the gods of this world. It is the road that Solomon trod. The great and wise Solomon, once close to God’s heart and preferring nothing of the world to God’s wisdom. But a man who died smothered in wealth, sex and power. A man whose heart turned from God.

  • Call no man happy before his death, for by how he ends, a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)
  • Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev 2:4-5)
  • But he who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:13)

Posted on

Beware of the Solists! (or) It’s Not Good to Be Alone

There are a lot of “Solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: Sola Fide (saved by faith alone); Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith); sola gratia(grace works alone). (See the Protestant Logo to the right). Generally one ought to be suspicious and careful of claims that things work alone. It is our usual experience that things work together in harmony with other things and are interrelated. Very seldom is anyone or anything alone.

The problem of the “solos” emerges, it seems to me, in our minds where it is possible to separate things out. But the fact is, just because we can separate out something in our mind does not mean that we can separate it in reality. Consider a candle flame for a moment. In my mind I can separate the heat of the flame from the Light of the flame. But in reality I could never take  a knife and put the heat over to one side and the light off to the other. In reality the heat and light are inseparable, so together as to be one.

I would like to respectfully argue that it is the same withthings like faith and works, grace and transformation, Scripture and the Church. We can separate all these things out in our mind but in reality they are one. Attempts to separate them from what they belong to lead to grave distortions and to the thing in question no longer being what it is claimed to be. Rather it turns into an abstraction that exists only on a blackboard or in the mind of a (geeky) theologian.

Let’s look at the three main “solos” of Protestant theology. I am aware that there are non-Catholic readers of this blog so please understand that my objections are made in respect . I am also aware that in a short blog I may oversimplify an thus welcome additions, clarifications etc. in the comments.

Solo 1: Faith alone (sola fide).For 400 years Catholics and Protestants have debated the question of faith and works. In this matter we must avoid a caricature of one another’s positions. Catholics do not and never have taught that we were saved by works. For heaven’s sake we baptize infants! We fought off the Pelagians. But neither do Protestants mean by “faith” a purely intellectual acceptance of the existence of God as many Catholics think they do.

But what concerns us here is the detachmentof faith from works as the phrase “Faith alone” implies. So let me ask, What is faith without works? Can you point to it? Is it visible? Introduce me to someone who has real faithbut no works. I don’t think they can be found. About the only example I can think of is a baptized infant! But oops, that’s a Catholic thing!  🙂  (Pardon me for having some fun). Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. It is something that we can separate from works only in our minds but not in reality. If faith is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ it seems we cannot remain unchanged by our entering into that relationship with him. This change affects our behavior, our works. Even in the case of infants it is possible to argue that they are changed and do have “works” it’s just that we cannot easily observe them. Scripture affirms that faith is never alone, that such a concept is an abstraction.  Faith without works is dead (James 2:26) It is not really faith at all since faith does not exist by itself  but is always present with and causes works through love. Galatians 5:6 says: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone, but through love. Further as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2 if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. Hence faith alone is a null set, it is nothing in that it does not exist. True faith is never alone, it bears the fruit of love and works of holiness. Faith ignites love and works through it. Beware the solo  “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself can be found.

Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia). As for grace alone, this too is a puzzling claim since grace by its very nature changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. That is an abstraction. It cannot be found apart from its effects. In our mind it may exist as an idea but in reality it is never alone. Grace builds on nature and transforms it. It engages the person who responds to its urges and gifts. If grace is real it will have it’s effects and cannot be found alone or apart from works. It cannot be found  apart from a real flesh and blood human who is manifesting its effects.

Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Finally beware the soloists who say Sola Scriptura! Namely the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian. There are several problems with this.

  1. First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th Century and it was Catholic Bishops in union with the Pope who made the decision as to what books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly live by sola scriptura.
  2. Secondly, until recently most people could not read. Kind of strange that God would make a book the sole rule of faith. Even today large numbers of people in the world still cannot read well.
  3. Thirdly, and most importantly, if all you have is a book,  that book still needs to be interpreted accurately. Without a valid and recognized interpreter the book can well serve to divide more than unite. It this not the experience of Protestantism which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners? The problem is if no one is Pope everyone is Pope!  Protestantism claims that everyone alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then why does the Holy Spirit tell some that baptism is necessary for salvation and to others no.  Why the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ body and blood and others only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants “Once saved always saved” and to others, “No” ?? So it seems clear that Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16 our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Hence Scripture warns that it is quite possible to mis-interpret Scripture. Well then, were is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) Hence Scriptures are not to be read alone. They are a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and with the Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this quote says, The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is a Church book and not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God.  Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it. Further, faith is not alone but works through love, grace is not alone but builds on nature.

Thus the problems of singing solo seems to come down to the fact that we end up with an abstraction. Something that exists in the mind but in reality cannot be found alone. Thus to gloss on a famous passage from Genesis:

It is not good (or even possible) for grace or faith to be alone. It is not good for Scripture to be alone. I, (the Lord) will make a suitable partner for the grace of faith: works. I will make a suitable partner for the Scriptures: the Church. That is why the grace of faith leaves it’s Father and clings to its wife and the two of them becme one. That is why Scripture leaves its Father and joins itself to the Church and the two of them become one.

Ok it’s a little corny. But I couldn’t resist. In end, Beware the solos, it is not good to be alone!

Here is a brief video where Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.

Posted on

Did God Command Genocide?

In the readings for Daily Mass this week we are reading from 1 Samuel 15 where Saul comes into disfavor with Samuel and God for refusing to fully obey the “Ban” imposed on the Amalekites by God through Samuel. What was the “Ban?” Most fundamentally it was an command that in taking a city or a nation that the Israelites were to destroy every man, woman and child and animal. No one was to be spared. Further, any wealth was to be given to the sacred treasury.

The Ban is one of  the most disturbing  aspects of the Old Testament, made even more disturbing by the fact that it is freqently God himself who seems to command it.

The practice is first seen in the Book of Deuteronomy where the Ban is commanded in certain places. As Moses and the Israelites journeyed through the Desert and came near the Promised Land they mercilessly destroyed many kingdoms. Sihon King the Amorites and all his cities and subjects were utterly destroyed and no one left alive. Next as Israel went out against Og the King of Bashan God said to Moses: “Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon” (Deut. 3:2) Systematically the troops of Israel destroyed every city in Bashan and killed every man woman and child.

And Moses left this command for Israel as they entered the Promised Land:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy (Deut 7:1-3).

Hence as Joshua led the people into the Promised Land they implemented the Ban beginning with Jericho:

Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.”  When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city.  They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6: 16-20)

In the passage above it is not clear that God commanded the Ban, but later in Joshua 8 the Lord affirms what happened to Jericho and commands the same be inflicted on the city of Ai : Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land.  You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. (Jos 8:1-2). Joshua 10 then goes on to describe a whole series of Canaanite Cities that are also put under the Ban. No one is left alive. Though here there is no explicit command of God to do so that is recorded, they are clearly following the plan that Moses had set forth.

Finally, in the readings for daily Mass we see the command given by God through Samuel that the Amalekites should be put under the Ban:  This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.  Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ “ (1 Sam 15:1-3) But Saul does not fully comply, keeping some of the cattle for himself and his men. God therefore rejects him as King for his failure to keep the Ban wholly. (1 Sam 15:23).

The “Ban” is troubling and many explanations have been advanced to try and place its horrible dimensions in some sort of acceptable framework. Here are a few explanations:

  1. God said no such thing – Some commentators hold that God did not really say any such thing to Israel. Rather they simply misrepresented God or put their evil practices into God’s mouth. The Catholic Study Bible says of God’s “command” to Saul: The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with God’s will. The footnote goes on to suggest that Samuel misrepresents God (Footnote on 1 Sam 15:3). The problem with such an approach is that it opens up a door that many want to walk through. Namely, whenever there is something we are troubled by or don’t like we just say, “God never said that.” The list of things God never said could grow quite long if this door is opened. Further, if God never said this to Saul how do we explain God later rejecting Saul for disobeying God. How can we disobey something God never said? Too many problems seem to issue from this approach IMHO.
  2. They weren’t innocent – Some commentators agree that God would never say to kill the innocent and then argue that among these ancient peoples put under the ban there were no “innocent” people in these sinful city-states. Everyone participated in abominable sexual practices and  strange idolatry to include even sacrificing their children to their gods. Well, OK even if we could argue that these ancient civilizations were thoroughly disreputable, it is hard to argue that little children and infants are not innocent. The position still does not answer why God ordered even infants killed.
  3. God has authority – Some prefer simply to insist that God is the Lord of life and can never be accused of injustice in taking life. He decides who lives, who dies and when. He has every right to command the end of civilizations. It is no different than you or I pulling out hedges to plant roses. God ends eras, brings nations and empires to an end as he wills and we are not free to question why. Pure and simple God has authority to do this and owes us no explanations as to why he chooses one nation or people over another. Like surgeon he amputates when all hope of healing is gone. OK, it’s pretty hard to argue against God’s authority. It’s a kind of a Job-like answer. God answers Job’s questions with a rather long soliloquy on Job’s incapacity to admonish God or understand his ways. In the end, it still seems unsatisfying for it does not address why God seems to act so contrary to other commands he gives Israel to respect the resident alien, and not to murder (eg Ex 23:7; Ex 20:13).
  4. Emphasize the reason – God gave the reason for the Ban in Deuteronomy 7:4: for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. Hence God commands this to keep the people pure. OK, but can the end of purity justify the means of genocide?

In the end, it would all we can say about these passages is that they exist and put a kind of a tall fence around them. I personally think God did in fact order the Ban for the reason stated in the objection to Number 1 above. Of all the approaches above I suppose the argument from authority carries most weight with me. But the command was only for a brief time in a very particular circumstance for a very particular reason. Sometimes the best we can do with Scripture is to accept the history it records. Scripture is a collection of books that ultimately build upon each other and progress toward a better goal. In an early and brutal time God commanded tough solutions. Once his Law established deeper roots in a brutal world God could insist that indiscriminate killing was no longer to be permitted. Later books and surely the New Testament would never support such a “solution” as the Ban.

We must be careful here. because to say that Scripture builds and progresses toward a more enlightened moral understanding does not mean we can indiscriminately reject every moral insight of the Old Testament. Much of the early legislation such as the Ten Commandments carries  forward and is affirmed by later texts. Some OT moral requirements however are explicitly abrogated (such as when Jesus rendered all foods clean). Others simply disappear from sight and are never reaffirmed by later texts or the New Testament. Such is the case with the horrifying Ban and it is well that we leave it in the distant past. Beyond this we cannot say much more. The Ban is a fact recorded in early Scripture and we have to be sophisticated enough in our understanding of Scripture to simply accept that fact. But the same sophistication demands we properly understand the development of Doctrine which God himself directs in the pages of the same Scripture.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts and additions to this article

Posted on

Pat Robertson Gets it Wrong

Enough ink has already been spilled objecting to Pat Robertson’s comments describing Haiti’s disastrous earthquake as the result of a pact they made with the devil 300 years ago. If you’re unfamiliar with the comments you can view the video below. Not only are the remarks insensitive and ill-timed, but they bespeak an flawed mentality common in biblical times that Jesus himself moves away from. I’d like in this post to examine the passages where it seems clear that Jesus himself would have something of a rebuke for Mr. Robertson.

First, just a few facts. Whatever pact Mr. Robertson thinks Haitians made 300 years ago with the Devil, the current population of Haiti is overwhelmingly Catholic and Christian. Approximately 80% of Haitians are Catholic. It is true that there are vestiges of voodoo intermingled with the Catholic Faith of some Haitians. Haitians who observe some voodoo rituals still think of and refer to themselves as Catholic. The Catholic Church to be sure condemns this intermixing of ancient voodoo with Catholicism though it persists in some places, especially in rural areas. But voodoo is not satanism. The Church condemns it as idolatry, not as satanic. False or imperfect  religious practice and intermixing of idolatry are not unique to Haiti. But lets be clear the vast majority of Haitians are Catholic Christians, even if some are imperfectly so, they are NOT worshippers of Satan.

Now, let’s return to Pat Robertson’s remarks. The premise of them seems to be a philosopy not uncommon in biblical wherein those who suffered catastrophic loss must have been guilty of some sort of sin for this misfortune to have happened. Perhaps they were born blind, then their parents must have sinned. Perhaps they were killed in a sudden accident, then they must have sinned. At least this was the thinking.

Now such a thinking carried forward into Jesus’ times  and he both encounters and deals with the attitude. In effect he sets such thinking aside or at least dispenses with the notion that God singles out certain people or groups out for punishment. Let’s look at these texts.

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. (John 9:1-3)

Note how the disciples manifest the typical attitude of the day that it must have been the sin of the man or his parents that he is blind. But Jesus says that he is not blind sue to the fact that he sinned and then goes on to set forth an entirely new understanding that suffering is often an opportunity to manifest the glory of God shining through our human weakness. Suffering and the cross lead to glory. But it is clear that Jesus does not accept the notion advanced by his disciples that link this man’s suffering to his or his parents sin. Hence, even if we were to accept Pat Robertson’s rather questionable historical data that the ancestors of these Haitians made a pact with devil it hardly follows from Jesus’ teaching that they are suffering today due to that. Let’s consider another text:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)

Here again Jesus refers to the attitude that those who suffer calamities are worse sinners than the rest. He refers to it only to reject it. But then Jesus turns the tables on those with such an attitude and warns them that something far worse than the physical loss of life will await them if they do not repent. He warns them that they will perish unto hell. This much is clear  for he goes on to tell a parable (not reproduced here) of a fig tree that comes under judgement. It will be spared for one year more but it still does not bear fruit it will be cut down and thrown into the fire (cf Luke 13:6-9). So here again, Mr. Robertson’s theory that the Haitians have suffered due to some sin that makes them as the parable puts it worse sinners than all the others,  is rejected quite explicitly by Jesus.

Further, consider the over all approach of Jesus toward the crippled, the lepers, the blind, deaf and others with similar physical maladies. Jesus does not say to any of them that they have these problems due to sin that they or their ancestors committed. He heals them without mention of sin being the cause of their distress. There is one exception to this in the paralyzed man let down through the roof (cf  Mark 2:1-12). When healing him Jesus says, have courage son, your sins are forgiven. This causes a stir among the Pharisees who declare that God alone can forgive sins. To prove his power to forgive sins Jesus heals the paralyzed man. And this seems to be the general context of the passage which is more an affirmation of Jesus’ power to forgive sins than a teaching that the man was paralyzed due to his own sin.

Finally, a couple of disclaimers. Jesus teaching does not exclude ANY relationship between sin and suffering. First of all, in a general sense,  ALL suffering is traced back to Original Sin which brought suffering and death into the world. Secondly there are surely some sufferings we experience in relationship to sins committed. Maybe it is a hangover from too much drinking, or a sexually transmitted disease from fornication, and so forth. But it is not as though we can claim that everyone who suffers anything is guilty of some sin or that God singles some people out for special punishment. These are things we cannot know, especially in the case of natural disasters that affect so many people.

Let’s be honest, most of us have never gotten the the punishment we really deserve. If God were “fair” we’d all be in hell. As it is he is merciful, thanks be to God! To point to others in a disaster and say, “Look at them, they must have sinned” is to invite disaster upon ourselves. Because as Jesus in effect says above “If you think they are worse sinners than you, wake up, I’ve got something coming for you that might be far worse if you don’t shape up.”  So careful Pat Robertson, not only are you at odds with the New Testament and Jesus himself, you also risk a stern warning from Jesus that you repent or experience something far worse.

Pray for the people of Haiti right now.

Posted on

Rediscovering God’s Vision For Family Life

Today is the Feast of the Holy Family on the Liturgical Calendar and in an era when the family has such on-going damage, we do well to review God’s plan for marriage and how the modern age has so systematically departed from that plan. It is the departure from God’s plan that has brought about devastating consequences for the Church, the nation and especially for children. On this Feast of the Holy Family we do well to call upon God’s mercy and, frankly, for miracles to restore a proper and Godly realization of family life.

It is not news that the family is in great crisis. The combined effects of divorce and never married single parents mean that nearly one-third of children in the U.S. (32 percent or 22 million children) were living with one parent, usually their mother (KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2009). The share of children in one-parent families has nearly tripled since 1970, when the rate was 11 percent (Amato, 2008). This trend has disproportionately affected impoverished children and also children of color: 65 percent of black children, 49 percent of American Indian children, 37 percent of Hispanic children, (KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2009). With these numbers go a great number of social ills manifest by such children including higher poverty, lower scholastic achievement, behavioral problems,  promiscuity, STDs, teenage pregnancy, higher school dropout rates, early criminal records and the like. It is clear, when the family is in crisis children suffer most. Only a return to God’s plan for marriage and family can reverse these trends.

What then is God’s plan? Actually it is spelled out quite clearly in the Book of Genesis in these verses along with my commentary:

  1. The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen 2:18)  The chapter goes on to describe the creation of woman. Notice that the text says that it is not good to be alone. Partnership is essential. A man should not be alone, a woman should not be alone. God intends woman for man, man for woman. The partnership is obviously complimentary in that a man brings things to the marriage a woman does not. A woman brings things to the relationship that a man does not. The sexes are not merely interchangeable, they each bring essential ingredients to the marriage and to being parents. Parenting is to be a partnership, not a solo act.
  2. For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they  become one flesh (Gen 2:24).  Notice here the pre-eminence of the relationship and its stability. It is preeminent  because a man leaves the most important relationship he has up until that time (his family of origin) in order to establish a relationship of now greater priority, his marriage. It is stable because he is to cling to his wife. “Cling”  is a strong word. It means to stick like glue. A man is to preserve union with his wife in a strong and decisive manner. Marriage is not to be a temporary relationship.
  3. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Gen 1:28) Here is the fundamental mission God gives to marriage: the procreation and raising of children. This verse also helps give reason to the first two teachings that the marriage be heterosexual and stable. Since children are the expected fruit of marriage it is obvious  that heterosexuality is necessary and essential. Further it is necessary and essential that the marriage be stable, for children need the stability and complementary witness of both their parents to best develop and thrive. Hence Adam is to cling to his wife and in the context of that stable union they are to conceive and raise their children.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution.(CCC # 2203). Here then in a brief few verses Scripture details the fundamental vision of God for marriage and the family: One man for one woman in a stable, life long, complimentary relationship oriented to the procreation and formation of children. It is simple yet clear. But in recent decades we have seemed hell-bent (literally) on a systematic dismantling of every component of God’s plan for marriage. Let’s consider some of the modern trends that have dismantled God’s plan.

  1. A subtle but sure moving away from the understanding that children are the essential purpose and fruit of marriage to a rather subjective notion that marriage’s essential purpose is the “happiness” of the spouses.  Many decades ago when I was a child, divorce was uncommon, even shocking. Unhappy marriages surely existed in those days prior to 1969 but there was an accepted understanding that you stuck it out “for the sake of the kids.” Commitments had been made and they should be honored. Children should not be exposed to the shame and sorrow of divorce. Or so the thinking went. Civil law backed these notions and made it difficult to get a divorce. But, through the 1950s and 1960s as the first celebrity divorces began to hit the news the shame of divorce began to erode and a notion that people shouldn’t have to stay in unhappy marriages grew. A happy marriage is surely something to be desired but notice that God did not say anything about that as an essential end of marriage. It is true that spouses ought to provide one another mutual support by sharing duties and thereby work for each-other’s mutual good, but happiness is another matter. Life in general brings with it both happiness and sorrow, joys and hardships. That is the nature of life and marriage is no different. While it is generally hoped that spouses will bring each other happiness that it not always the case even in the best marriages which have an admixture of pleasant and unpleasant qualities as does life in general. How else can we explain the vow “for better or worse?” So what was happening through the 1960s was as subtle but sure “redefining” of marriage, a replacing of the good of children with the preeminent notion of happiness. In recent years the Gay community has insisted that since marriage is just about two people being happy they should be allowed to marry since they deserve this happiness too. While Gay marriage should be opposed, it remains true that opponents are caught a bit flat footed when children are now only a way of “accessorizing” marriage and happiness is the overarching principle in the minds of most Americans. Only if children are an essential end of marriage does limiting marriage to heterosexuals really win the day.
  2. Increasing contraceptive use and a shunning of marriage’s  greatest gift– Contraceptives were all but illegal in this country until the 1950s when they gradually became “respectable.” At the heart of contraceptive use is the notion that somehow children are a burden more than a blessing; that they limit happiness, freedom, and the share of resources in a family. From Biblical times until very recently children were considered a great blessing and large families were sought for. But a modern notion of Children being a burden swept the western world and contraceptive use dramatically reduced family size. Here too, a redefinition of marriage was taking place wherein God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply was being set aside in favor of the wishes and happiness of the couple. And most couples began to see children in larger numbers as a hindrance to their happiness. This was getting very far from God’s plan.
  3. No Fault Divorce – In 1969 California Governor Ronald Regan signed the first “no-fault” divorce law in the country. The fundamental purpose of such a law was to make divorces easier and quicker to get. Why should people be “forced” to stay in unhappy relationships? Why should the government care? These were notions underlying no-fault or streamlined divorce. Of course the government SHOULD care since higher divorce rates have terrible effects on many things, not to mention children. As we have seen high divorce rates are directly tied to issues of poverty, public health, crime rates, the overall performance, productivity  and success of children as they grow older and so forth. But here too, God’s plan that a man should cling to his wife, that marriage should be a stable, lasting union, was set aside. Marriage was being redefined.
  4. General promiscuity – with the wider availability of contraceptives it is not surprising that promiscuity skyrocketed. The notions that sex was tied to the procreation of children and hence to marriage was set aside. Generalized promiscuity weakens marriage for many reasons. First it takes a reward and pleasure that was the privilege of marriage and distributes it to any who want it. Thus an important incentive to marriage is lost. It is not surprising that the average age of marriage is now approaching the 30s for most young people. They see little “need” to get married. It is more of a formality for many of them who routinely fornicate and even have children apart from marriage. Many young men routinely quip: “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” And many young women seem unfazed by such thinking. It seems many of them too prefer the “less complicated” world of casual dating and hooking up (with sex included) to the more “complicated” world of marriage. The unique privilege of the marriage bed has been given away and an important draw that God intended for marriage is lost. Over and over again God forbids fornication (pre-marital sex). The texts are too numerous to reproduce here (I have posted them here: Fornication) but the clear will of God is that he intends sex for the marriage bed alone, not because he wants to limit our fun but because he wants to protect marriage. There is a clear correlation between the rise in promiscuity and higher divorce rates along with the single and never married parent phenomenon. Promiscuity amounts to an attack on marriage. Scripture says, Let the marriage bed be honored in every way for God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Heb 13:4). All this has led to the final facet of dismantling that I would like to mention.
  5. Casual tolerance of single and never married parenting – Here too is a major trend in our modern society. Single never married parents used to be a rare and rather stunning thing.  Today it is commonly held that such situations are not only acceptable but that they should even be considered on par with other “arrangements” like the traditional family. And once again we are redefining the family as God has set it forth. God clearly had a stable, heterosexual union in mind for the rearing of children. The sexes are not just interchangeable. A male father has important things to teach and model for his children. Likewise a female mother. These cannot simply be set aside without detriment, even harm to the children. Children need both the male and female, the mother and father, this is what is best for them and what God intends. Further that the influence of both parents be consistent, not just an on-again off-again influence based on visitation rights.  Once again the Gay community in insisting that they be on equal footing for adopting children runs afoul of God’s plan. But their demands have become harder to resist after years of heterosexual misbehavior.

In the end it is the children who suffer most. God’s plan for the family is best and we know it.

Married couples with children, on average, have a higher standard of living and greater economic security than one-parent families (Thomas & Sawhill, 2005). Parents raising children together tend to have more money, more flexibility and more time to supervise their children, offer emotional support, take an active part in their  education, and arrange other activities for them. In contrast, one-parent families are more likely to experience economic hardship and stressful living conditions—including fewer resources, more frequent moves, and less stability—that take a toll on adults and children alike. When economic hardship and stressful living conditions are present, children are at greater risk of poor achievement as well as behavioral, psychological, and health problems.  (Amato & Maynard, 2006).  Quote from the Document Kids Count by the Annie Casey Foundation, July 2009)

While it is true that many very good people have struggled to fully realize God’s plan for marriage and family it also remains true that we cannot fail to announce it and insist upon it as the norm, the model and goal for everyone on this planet. Too many priests and other teachers have grown silent on this and worry too much about “offending” people who are in irregular situations and so we fail to point clearly to what God teaches. No one will follow an uncertain trumpet. On this Feast of the Holy Family it is time to trumpet God’s plan. We will ALL admit we have fallen short but this is no time to abandon the vision. God has a plan, we have only to follow it.

Posted on

Which Was the Son Of

The_Adoration_of_the_Magi_by_Fra_Angelico_and_Filippo_Lippi-763314

On Christmas Eve, in the Office of the Liturgy of the Hours, the genealogy of Jesus is read from Luke 5. This passage which is difficult enough to read aloud was set to music by the contemporary Estonian composer Arvo Part, whose inspiration for many of his classical pieces comes from Gregorian chant.

It is a beautiful song that for me brings alive the unfolding of the story of salvation as seen in the mind of God. The song is called “Which was the son of.” It is a perfect reflection for the eve of Christmas.

Open Luke 5 to verse 23 and read along as the choir sings

May you have a happy and holy Christmas.

****

 

****

Posted on

Jesus Wasn’t Found in a Perfect Christmas

We tend to romanticize what the birth of Jesus was like. It all seems so picturesque to us now: Bethlehem, the manger, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, cute animals, shepherds, the star, and so forth. But the fact is that the birth of Jesus was burdened with many hardships and if we look, it is not hard to see the Passion already prefigured in the birth of Jesus.

I do not write this post to burst any bubbles or simply to be contrary. But I am aware that we set up great expectations for Christmas, that it will be a wonderful, magical time. In some years those dreams come true, but in other years Christmas is difficult. Maybe it is our first Christmas without a loved one, maybe finances trouble us, perhaps we are rushed and hurried and cannot find the gift(s) we want to get for others. Christmas is seldom an “easy” time for any of us. But at some level we have to stop trying to have the perfect Christmas and come to accept the actual Christmas we have.

Christ was not found in a “perfect” Christmas by any means. The first Christmas was difficult at best. Consider the following:

  1. What Kind of Woman is That! There were many questions likely swirling about due to the circumstances of Jesus’ conception. For Joseph they had been resolved through the message of an angel. But it is unlikely that other family members and townsfolk at Nazareth were as accepting of what had happened. Scripture is silent on these matters but the culture of that time did not easily accept that a young woman was pregnant apart from the marriage bed. There was surely tension, perhaps even some shunning of Mary, and Joseph too for he had agree to take a “woman like that” into his home. Perhaps some of them thought that Joseph too was less than innocent in the whole matter. Some of this is speculative I know but the culture of the time was quite exacting about such matters.
  2. Terrible Travels! Just prior to Jesus’ birth Joseph and Mary receive word that they must travel to Bethlehem due to hastily called census. Mary is almost 9 months pregnant and the trip to Bethlehem is almost 80 miles. The only way to get there was on foot. The terrain in the Holy Land is mountainous. The hills around Nazareth are not little rolling hills, they are like the Appalachian Mountains in size and the terrain only gets steeper and rockier as one gets to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Now these were hardy people and such journeys were not unknown to them. Pious Jews went as often as once a year to Jerusalem (70 Miles from Nazareth) to worship at the Temple. Nevertheless the hardships of such a journey on a woman near to giving birth cannot be underestimated. We often see pictures of Mary riding a donkey. It is unlikely that she actually did. Joseph and Mary were not destitute but they were among the working poor. It is unlikely they could have afforded a donkey for such a journey. It is possible that Joseph was able to pull a small cart upon which Mary could ride along with some of their belongings. But remember the steep hills to which we have referred. Such carts were often more trouble than they were worth. Probably they both walked.
  3. Bethlehem was No Blessing! After a long and difficult journey of several days Joseph and Mary reached the town of Bethlehem. Now I don’t want to be unkind but let me just make it plain. Bethlehem is no cute “little town of Bethlehem.” It is a run down city set on steep hills. The terrain is rocky. And the Shepherds field was not a grassy rolling pasture. It is a very rocky, hard scrabble land. Even today after all the glory that happened there, the town is still a very poor and run down place. Due to Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the town is largely cut off economically and the poor line the streets begging you to buy olive wood trinkets from them. It is rather a sad place actually. At the time of Jesus’ birth the town was vastly over crowded due to the Census. Huge numbers who had long since left (like Joseph and Mary) had now returned for the count. On my recent trip I took pictures in Bethlehem which you can see here: Bethlehem
  4. Born like That?!? As they enter town Mary may be experiencing her first labor pains. Joseph with great anxiety seeks a place quickly for her. Surely room could be found for a woman in labor! But no. Surely someone would understand and give their spot over to the couple! But no. Scripture gives us very little detail actually as to the place of Jesus’ birth. We are only told by Luke that Mary laid Jesus in a manger (a feed box for animals) because there was no room for them in an inn. Most moderns think of a wooden stable or barn-like structure. But it was more likely a cave beneath and behind a house where people routinely sheltered their animals. This is the likely place where Jesus was born for this is where mangers are found. Ancient tradition confirms this for the place of Jesus Birth in in the subbasement of the Church of the Nativity and, sure enough, it is a cave.  But consider the awful discomfort that this must have caused. We romanticize it but let us be honest, it was damp or dusty (depending on the time of year)  and it was smelly. Joseph must have been devastated that he could find nothing better for his wife and newborn Son. Luke hints at the Passion when he tells us that Mary wrapped him in swaddling clothes, using the same verb that would later be used to describe how Jesus body was wrapped in linen cloths at his burial. This was no pleasant Hallmark moment for any of the them. It was a difficult time, away from family and the comforts of home, in an unfriendly, unwelcoming and run down city, giving birth in a smelly animal pen. An old Latin song says, O magnum mysterium et admirabile sacramentum ut animalia viderunt Dominum natum, jacentem in praesepio!  (O great mystery and wondrous sign that animals would see the newborn Lord lying in a feed box).
  5. Strange Visitors! We think of numerous visitors that night  but it was probably only  the shepherds that first night. Now shepherds were the cowboys of their day. They tended to be a rough sort of crowd. Once again we tend to clean things up a bit. But it is sort of a strange fit that these rough and tumble cowboys of their day should be the ones summoned by the angels to be the first visitors of the Lord of Glory. The magi from the East surely came but not likely that first night for Matthew describes them as finding Jesus and Mary in a “house.” Perhaps the next day or some days later Joseph was able to find lodging and that is where the Magi found them in Bethlehem.
  6. Flee for your Life!  Not long after the birth word comes to Joseph that he must flee to Egypt at once for Herod is seeking to kill the Child. They flee into the night to make the Journey of 150 miles into Egypt.

Well I hope you can see that the first Christmas was anything but idyllic, anything but perfect, anything but comfortable. I do not deny that there is a place for sentimentality but, truth be told, our sentimentality often sets us up for disappointment. We want Christmas to be Hallmark perfect. And then Uncle Joe shows up at Christmas dinner drunk, and son Ben is away in Iraq, Mom died last June, and instead of snow, it is warm. But guess what. Jesus wasn’t found in a perfect Christmas either. If you’re looking for a perfect Christmas, Jesus is not there. He is in the imperfect one. He’s in your actual Christmas not your imagined Christmas. Find him there.