Monday, September 30, 2013

Don't Be Jealous, Serve Instead!

Jealousy is a terrible thing. In this essay it will be used synonymously with envy. Jealousy concerns covetousness with regard to people, whereas envy concerns covetousness with regard to property. The ninth commandment is specifically concerned with jealousy, and the tenth is specifically concerned with envy. Jealousy or envy – let me use jealousy for both – is very bad. It destroys people and families and whole communities. As a matter of fact, the reason I am an orphan today is because of jealousy. I abhor jealousy with all my heart. I never allow myself to be jealous. Rather, I admire. I am committed to understanding and doing away with jealousy wherever I find it, to the extent I can.

Let’s use James’ and John’s asking to sit at the right and the left of Jesus as a pericope with which to deal with the issue of jealousy. “James and John came to Jesus. They were the sons of Zebedee. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we would like to ask a favor of you.’ ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right hand in your glorious kingdom. Let the other one sit at your left hand.’ ‘You don't know what you're asking for,’ Jesus said. ‘Can you drink the cup of suffering I drink? Or can you go through the baptism of suffering I must go through?’ ‘We can,’ they answered. Jesus said to them, ‘You will drink the cup I drink. And you will go through the baptism I go through. But it is not for me to say who will sit at my right or left hand. These places belong to those they are prepared for.’

“The other ten disciples heard about it. They became angry at James and John. Jesus called them together. He said, ‘You know about those who are rulers of the nations. They hold power over their people. Their high officials order them around. Don't be like that. Instead, anyone who wants to be important among you must be your servant. And anyone who wants to be first must be the slave of everyone. Even the Son of Man did not come to be served. Instead, he came to serve others. He came to give his life as the price for setting many people free’” (Mark 10:35-45).

Let’s take the passage apart, unpacking its themes. Jealousy is tied with pride and ambition. James and John were jealous of Jesus. They saw him as a King, and they wanted to share his royal honor. And so they came to ask for this. Similarly, we often agitate to be like others. We see those who are progressing and are doing well and we want to be like that. But we sometimes do not know the great effort they have put into becoming who or what they are. Jesus asks James and John in this regard, as we see above, “Can you drink the cup of suffering I drink? Or can you go through the baptism of suffering I must go through?”

Many times, we do not realize that rich people for example work so hard that they sacrifice everything else. Some rich people – you know, the ones we are tempted to envy – practically live in their offices. They often have no family life. Yet we envy them. We say, “Oh, we too would like to have no family life if that will make us rich.” We imagine that we can make all the sacrifices that the people we envy have made, if only we are given the chance. But that is not all. Jesus tells James and John that, even if they can make the same sacrifices he does, they still might not sit at the right and left. Why? Because those seats have been preordained as belonging to such and such. This is why some people for example might put in exactly the same amount of effort into something and still not end up with the same results others do.

God’s selective spirit from all time has made it that such and such a person will end up rich and such and such a person will not. This is why for example some people are born into wealthy families and enjoy material blessings from the get-go without even working a day in their lives. Others may work long days each day and still not achieve wealth. This is why as well some people may not study hard for an exam but pass very well, and others may put in a whole day’s effort studying and still do poorly. Some people may be very smart and still not lead their peers, and so on and so forth. Psalm 127:2 puts it beautifully thus: “It is vain for you to rise up early, to retire late, to eat the bread of painful labors; for God gives to his beloved even while they sleep.” But why?

Is it just for God to favor some people this way? Why does he do this? He does this so that they can serve others with their gifts. The more God has given to a person, the more he wants them to use their gifts at the service of others. This is why for example wealthy people – the responsible ones among them – are very philanthropic; you name them: Bill Gates and his Foundation; Warren Buffet and his contributions to the Gates and Melinda Foundation; Bill Clinton and his Global Initiative. The list goes on. These people know that God has blessed them, and they want to use their blessings for others.

Recall in this regard the parable of the talents – we will take an entire post to discuss this parable. Recall how the master asked the talented ones to account for the gifts he had given them. To those that he gave more, more was expected: 5 for 5; 2 for 2, and so on. And so, those that are endowed with more gifts are supposed to do greater good, and will be judged far more harshly if they do not. This goes for material wealth, but even more so for spiritual wealth, the kind we can take with us after we die. Recall in this regard the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). With specific regard to the gift of wisdom for example, James says this: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). Also, it is written: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12:48b). Also, with regard to material wealth specifically, “Be not afraid when a man becomes rich, when the glory of his house increases. For when he dies he will carry nothing away; his glory will not go down after him” (Psalm 49:16-17). And so, everything we are blessed with we are supposed to use in this world to help others and to further God’s plan.

Jesus says as much in the pericope we are concerned with. He says to his disciples that are indignant with James and John for the request they make of Jesus concerning sitting at his right and left: “Instead, anyone who wants to be important among you must be your servant. And anyone who wants to be first must be the slave of everyone. Even the Son of Man did not come to be served. Instead, he came to serve others. He came to give his life as the price for setting many people free.” And so, instead of envying others for what they have, realize that the competition is not for who has the most, but who serves the most. If you begin now serving with what you have, regardless of how little it is, you will be rewarded by far in the afterlife, and there would be no need to be jealous again, because you will have the most, and what is more you would have discovered how to have even more when you feel you’re not satisfied – serve more! So go out there and serve, serve, serve! Instead of being jealous, serve others!

Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Devil Has No Son

The devil has no son. This is because, like pure matter, it has no form, no actuality, no perfection or permanence. It is always in potency, never in act. God on the other hand has a son, Jesus. Jesus is the perfection of the Father, and his expression. When people bear children, they want every good thing for these children. The good we desire for our offspring is the same we desire for ourselves. And we desire good for our offspring because of the light of grace that exists in our soul. It is through this light of grace that we are able to reach into the mind of God and emulate his own fatherly example.

Because the devil has no son, the perfection of individual nature and the perfection of good and beauty, we can easily see that there is no real good in the devil. There is not an iota of perfection in the devil, but only a privation thereof. The devil, removed as he is from participation in the First Cause, in the Prime Mover, is unable to conceive of anything perfect, anything actual. And so the devil is in a sense a master of privation. His personhood is based on privation, and anything that is deprived of being or truth is akin to the devil, and exists at one with him.

The light of truth on the other hand enables as many as are far from associating with the devil to become more and more like God, become more and more perfect, in keeping with Christ’s injunction: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). The light of truth sourcing from the inner teacher makes us adequated to reality and being. It makes us seek after perfection, especially since we know that it is only in such light that we can become more like God. “For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light” (Psalm 36:9). This light is from light itself, Jesus from God the Father, consubstantial with him and the Holy Spirit, who is that inner teacher of whom Augustine speaks.

Jesus is the Son of God, and in searching for the light that makes us more perfect each and every day, we turn to him. We emulate him. If he is the perfection of God – and he is – then doing what he does means that we become more perfect, and ever more true to the divine nature within us. With God we can do all things (Phil 4:13), and so without him we cannot do anything that is good. Without God, we are like the devil and deprived of all perfection. Jesus said in this regard: “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Our actions must consequently show that we are in step with the master Jesus.

What does it mean to be in step with Jesus? It means that we do the will of God. Have you noticed that all those who refuse to do the will of God seem to have no purpose? There seems to be no objective direction to their efforts. If you ask them for example: “Why do you hate your neighbor?” They have no true and objective answer. “What are you going to gain from smoking pot and having mindless sex?” They cannot say. It’s all rubbish living. The bible says in this regard: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). And this is the way of the devil. It leads not to the perfection of God, but to death and the ultimate privation; the privation of being itself.

We should be ethical in our conduct. This is the way to emulate God in Jesus. It is in this way that we can tap into the principle of generation and perfection, and not privation and corruption. It is the way by which we can be like God and attain eternal life, and share in the divine creative process. If on the other hand we do not act ethically, but spend ourselves in dissipation and debauchery, we achieve nothing substantial, but draw closer and closer to death and the devil, the master of death, who has no son. In doing bad things, we progressively distance ourselves from the divine teleology. We rob ourselves of any purpose, since we rob ourselves of God’s love and design. We therefore live lives that do not “work together unto good” (Rom. 8:28), but rather drift along aimlessly in limbo, ending painfully in eternal damnation in the horrific fires of hell.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

The Spirit of God

I love talking about the Holy Spirit. Let’s talk more about the Holy Spirit. I know we already talked about him before, but let’s do more of that. Now, the etymology of the word spirit is the Latin spiro, spirare, spiravi, spiratus, which is a first conjugation verb meaning “to breathe into.” What this means is that the spirit is the breath of life that is within us; that which makes us live. Spirit is the first cause of life, of being; of what is. Genesis 2:7 states: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” In other words, when God created the body of man from the dust of the earth, man could not live. Man did not possess within himself the first principle of life, the kick-start of existence and being. That life force, the first principle of man’s existence, came from God.

The Spirit, dwelling in our mortal bodies makes us God’s agents. His breath in us is his life in us, and we participate in that life by striving to do his will. In that breath is contained a code, quite like a software, that stipulates what the will of God for our life is. And when we live according to that code, we are positioned for happiness and success. If however we do not live according to the code, we are very likely to end up sad and frustrated. That is why “the spirit lives to set us free.” It is by the spirit that we escape the mortal prison of this life, where “we shall always have trouble” (John 16:33), and instead set our sights on the afterlife, where we will unite once again with the God that gave us life. We shall present to him what we did with the life and the gifts contained in the life that he gave to us. Recall in this regard the parable of the talents as contained in Matthew 25:14-30, and Luke 19:12-28.

In the New Testament, there are 345 references to the Greek word, pneuma, which is an equivalent of the Latin spiro. And all the uses of the word are in reference to “spirit.” In John’s Gospel alone there are 18 references to the Holy Spirit as designated by the word pneuma. In John 1:32-33, John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit (pneuma) descending as a dove out of heaven, and he remained upon him (Jesus). I did not recognize him, but he (God) who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'he upon whom you see the Spirit (pneuma) descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'” In John 3:5-6, Jesus says: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit (pneuma) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit (pneuma) is spirit.” Again, in John 3:8, Jesus says: "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit (pneuma)." John 4:23-24 states: "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth," and all the words here designated as “spirit,” are the translation of the Greek pneuma.

My favorite of all the references to pneuma in John’s Gospel is in chapter 20, verse 22, where it states: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” And of course the word “spirit” is the translation of the Greek pneuma. In Luke’s Gospel, there are 36 references to the Holy Spirit, as designated by the Greek pneuma. A classic example of the use of pneuma in Luke occurs in chapter 1, verse 41. It refers to what happened during the visit of Mary to her cousin, Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (pneuma). Many uses of the word, pneuma, in Luke attest to individuals being “filled” with it, or operating under its influence. Subtle parallels are drawn in this regard between the spirit (pneuma) and wine or strong drink. In other words, the spirit, pneuma, is seen as something which energizes and invigorates. My favorite reference to the Spirit (pneuma) in Luke’s Gospel is contained in chapter 4, verse 18: “The Spirit (pneuma) of the Lord is upon me for he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor; a message of liberty to prisoners; of sight to the blind, and a proclamation of good tidings from the Lord.” The other gospels (Mark and Matthew) also contain many references to the Holy Spirit (pneuma). In fact, there are 19 such references in Matthew, and 22 in Mark.

In philosophy, we may equate pneuma, or spiro, or spirit, with “substance.” By way of etymology, substance is from the Latin “substare,” which is transliterated as “that which stands under.” Under the construct of flesh, bone, blood and sinew in humans for example, there lies the first principle in which we participate; in other words, there lies the spirit that inebriates us and fills us with the capacity to live beyond the confines of our mortal body. In metaphysics, substance is “what is,” and is devoid of matter, which is the principle of becoming, or of “what is not,” containing all the accidents predicable of composite reality.

For Spinoza, substance is one, and it is God alone. He is possessed of infinite attributes; attributes that cannot be shared. And if this be the case, then there can be no other substance because, for Spinoza, no two substances can have common attributes. For Plato, substances are properly speaking Forms, which are transcendent of material reality, and which give the capacity to material reality to participate in being. For the medieval neo-Platonists, such as Plotinus and Augustine, and even Aquinas, Plato’s Forms reside ultimately in the mind of God. Aquinas sees the mind of God as perfectly adequated to all there is. And humans can grasp reality by sharing in this adequation. Augustine propounds the concept of the inner teacher, who knows all and illumines all. For Descartes, Leibniz and other rationalists, God endows us with innate ideas (substantial being) which lead us to perfect reality.

Evidently then, the Holy Spirit, pneuma, spiro, substance, lives within us, underlies materiality and gives it teleology – look at me use that big word again, teleology; recall I’ve explained it in a previous post as meaning purpose. The life or breath of God, the Spirit given to us to dwell within us, gives us a cause, a purpose for life. And when we live according to its principles and exhortations, we definitely end up happy, even if we endure trials along the way. Our God, the Holy Spirit, positions us to look beyond the mortality and vicissitudes of life and onto the permanence and tranquility of heaven, where he himself dwells in eternal happiness, with the Son, and the Father.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 6

Between indebtedness and charity is exchange. It is an exchange of that which is material for that which is spiritual. It is a realization that we need to place our material gifts in perspective; a reminder that there is a teleological underpinning to charity, especially the charity that is displayed in corporal works of mercy. We are not to be so involved in engaging in corporal works of mercy that we forget spiritual ones. Christian ministers are not government workers or social workers. A priest is not primarily a social worker or a community organizer. The primary duty of the priest is to pray. In the evangelistic call to serve the needy, which in any case is part of prayer and is efficacious in bringing people closer to Christ, the priest should recall that his charity is corollary to his first call to prayer. He cannot delve ever so deeply into the mission of charity and corporal works of mercy that he forgets Jesus. To put it in the words of a theologian, the priest is not supposed to be so wrapped up in the work of the Lord that he forgets the Lord of the work. 

Between indebtedness and charity is also sacrifice. Christian ministers as “other Christs” participate in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, a sacrifice that God designed for the salvation of souls; a sacrifice initiated by an exchange of our humanity for the divinity of Christ, who in his great humility deigned to come and participate in humanity, even though he was God. This sacrifice is of the innocent savior assuming responsibility for the sins of the whole world and suffering the punishment meant for the world. It is a sacrifice that shows the mercy and fullness of God’s love for us. “Greater love has no one than this; that one lay down his life for his friends.” It is a sacrifice that removes all the guilt and sorrow that sin plunges humanity into; it is a sacrifice that we remain indebted for, whenever we realize how much it has done for us, and the fact that we are underserving of it and can never repay Jesus for making it. It is a sacrifice that is expressed in Catholic liturgy and celebration, one that we hold dear as Christians who share the rhetoric vision of salvation.

In conclusion, this paper has dealt with the event of the anointing of Jesus by a (sinful) woman, or Mary, in Bethany. This woman felt that she owed Jesus a debt of gratitude because she claimed in faith as reality that he had forgiven her many sins, even before he actually spoke the words of absolution. (Recall in this regard that faith has been described as “the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not yet experienced.”) She poured costly ointment on Jesus and drew criticism from those around who claimed she was being wasteful; but Jesus claimed she was doing good, and preparing him for burial; and that she would be well known because of her action. In the course of this paper, we have shown the literary similarities and differences in the different gospel accounts of the event; how for example Matthew and Mark tell the story in pretty much the same way, but Luke and John tell it a tad differently.

We have in this regard shown how Matthew and Mark state that the woman poured the costly ointment on the head of Jesus, whereas Luke and John state that she poured it on his feet. Luke in particular talks about the woman kissing and weeping over his feet, and with John mentions her drying Jesus’ feet with her hair. We have shown as well how John edited the story to include the names of Jesus’ friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha. John it was that specifically named the woman as Mary, unlike in the three other gospels, where she is simply called woman, or sinful woman, as is the case in Luke’s Gospel. 

We have shown as well that the fact that this event is recorded in all four gospels may be because it was considered important in the early church; was probably a feminist rhetoric powerful for the times and its qualitative message, or simply because of the prophecy of notoriety Jesus made concerning the (sinful) woman, or Mary. We further mentioned that Mark may have written his account of the event first, and Matthew may have copied him in all essential points pertaining thereto, and then Luke and John copied from either or both Mark and Matthew, and edited details in different ways. But the fact that all accounts are similar indicates a common source for all accounts thereof. 

We also mentioned that a central motif in the event as recorded in all the gospels is one of money. Mark, Matthew and John treat this issue from the point of view of waste when viewed against the backdrop of need. In Mark and Matthew, individuals in the house of Simon the Leper complain bitterly that the costly ointment could have been sold and its proceeds given to the poor and the needy. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is concerned that the woman shows greater love to him than Simon the Pharisee does, very likely because the sinful woman is more convicted of her sin and her indebtedness to God than Simon is. She as the greater sinner, the one with the greater debt to God, is drawn more to Jesus in her realization of his forgiveness of her great amount of sin than Simon is, because his indebtedness (sinfulness) is apparently less. It is in this regard that Luke mentions the Parable of the Two Debtors.

We used the Greek word, ὤφειλεν, as a signpost in this paper, and it hints at our universal indebtedness to God, especially because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Unlike the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, our realization that we have sinned and so owe God a significant debt should make us feel a sense of gratitude to him when through faith we realize that he has forgiven us, in other words has let go of the debt that we otherwise could not pay by ourselves. Unlike the nine healed lepers similarly, but like the one that returned, we should be moved to return an attitude of gratitude to God.

This attitude of gratitude in any case should not be limited to material gifts to the poor, but also to devotional acts, as expressed in spiritual works of mercy. These spiritual works of mercy may even be seen to be higher in value than the corporal works of mercy we show to the less fortunate. In other words, we have shown that between indebtedness and charity is exchange of our material possessions for spiritual capital. We similarly see that between indebtedness and charity is the concept of Christian sacrifice done in imitation of the savior, Jesus Christ.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 5

It is clear from the stark similarities in the rendering of this event in Mark, Matthew and John, and even to an extent in Luke, that all gospel writers obtained this story from a common source. A theory that gives Mark the priority would very likely say that Matthew and John copied from Mark; or that Matthew copied from Mark, toned down the details, and John copied from Matthew, and worked into the account the names of Lazarus, Martha and Mary in preference to Simon, Leper or Pharisee albeit, in addition to the presence of many people who had visited to see Lazarus. Luke probably copied from John, or from a separate source, or a combination of sources, and then edited his narrative, working in the Parable of the Two Debtors, and changing the name of Simon the Leper to Simon the Pharisee.

By way of similarity and differences of ideas in all four accounts, it is worthy of note that Matthew and Mark use this story as segue way into the betrayal and passion of Jesus. Luke and John do not. In this following account, Judas plays a central role, as John would have him do in the account proper; all three paint him consequently as a lover of money, one for whom loyalty to his master was of less value than thirty pieces of silver. Luke and John in any case do not immediately go into the betrayal and passion of Jesus. Luke continues to explore Jesus’ life and ministry through narrative and parable forms. John in turn continues to place Jesus in dialog with interlocutors, as well as follow him through the high points of his sacrificial ministry.

We have in any case seen that all four gospel writers touch on the issue of money. Matthew, Mark and John approach this motif from the point of view of waste or extravagance as observable in the woman’s, or Mary’s, lavishly pouring otherwise expensive ointment on the head, or feet as the case might be, of Jesus; especially when this situation of waste is juxtaposed with the existence of poor people in society who could very well benefit from the material cost of the ointment. We related this to present day socioeconomic issues. Money is a major issue in all the books of the bible. In several passages, the love of money is seen to be in marked opposition to the Christian faith and conduct. Statements like: “you cannot serve both God and money,” (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13) or “the love of money is the root of all evil,” (1 Tim. 6:10) seem to point to the need for Christians to be vigilant in their dealings with money.

In the Parable of the Dishonest Steward, we see Jesus encouraging Christians to use material wealth to gain spiritual capital. This sort of exchange seems to be similarly recommended in this pericope. The woman, or Mary, or sinful woman as the case might be, is not interested in how expensive or not the ointment is. All she is interested in is pleasing Jesus, and ensuring that her sins are forgiven. Convicted of her sinfulness and cognizant of her great need for salvation, the type that Jesus affords, the woman is ready to throw away all the expensive oil in her possession to obtain in return a shot at heaven, through her sins being forgiven. This is unlike the case with Simon the Pharisee, and the Pharisee in the Parable named after him and the Publican.

Our cognizance of the immense debt we owe God should rather make us love him more, and want to exchange material possessions for the spiritual currency with which to attempt a settling of accounts with the divine. Our realization that we owe God an immense debt should always be in the corner of our mind, and the fact that Jesus forgave our debt by his sacrifice on the cross means that we need to show our gratitude in our thoughts, words and deeds. Unlike the nine lepers who did not return to say thank you to Jesus out of pride, we all must endeavor to seize every opportunity there is to remind God of how grateful we are to him.

In the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, as contained in Matthew 18:21-35, we see the example of the wicked slave who, even though he had been forgiven of a debt he could not pay by his master, went ahead and tortured his fellow servant for the latter’s temporary inability to repay a relatively small amount. I have said elsewhere that we owe not just God a huge debt, but also our fellow human beings albeit a relatively lesser debt. These two debts are actually related. Jesus said in this regard: “truly I say to you, to the extent that you did (good) to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.”

What the forgoing means is that we need to be charitable to one another in view of our debt to God. This should not in any case be understood in a narrow sense to mean offering money to the poor, whom we shall always have with us, but in the much broader sense of seizing every opportunity to serve God and people. In Matthew 18, this includes for example visiting the sick and those in prison, who might not be materially poor. Spiritual works of mercy are just as valuable as, if not even more valuable than, corporal works of mercy. When for example we visit people in prison, we can talk with them and so bring them consolation.

For example, I used to have a weekly prison ministry that involved visiting the inmates of a prison each Sunday. I would stay with them and preach the good news. I would also pray with them and offer counseling. I never gave them any material gift, but I discovered that they hungered for the spiritual gifts I afforded them far more than any material gift I could have given them instead. Also recall in this regard what Peter said to the paralytic in Acts 3:6: “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!" And the subsequent words of the text in question show how, walking, jumping and praising God, the man who was hitherto crippled went on his way healed (v8).

Material things do not compare with spiritual reality. If we examine the account of the healing of the man at the beautiful gate, which the previous paragraph concerns, we notice that, when Peter initially confronted the man and asked him to look up at him, the man looked at Peter expecting financial gift (Acts 3:3-5), as indeed had been his practice. He had apparently become so accustomed to the lesser gift of money that he had ignored the higher gift of health. In the Parable of the Rich Fool, we are reminded that we need life first, before wealth, for it is while alive and hopefully healthy that we can enjoy wealth. Indeed, we are reminded of the following truism in Mark 8:36-37: “What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life?” An ancient Ibo proverb states in this regard: Life is greater than money.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 4

We see in any case that Luke broaches the motif of money, but in a different way than Matthew or Mark. Matthew and Mark looked at the idea of money from the angle of waste and the potential of helping the poor. Luke drives the real message home by seeing it in terms of gratitude for our own immense debt to God for all our sins; a debt we cannot repay ourselves. Hence, Luke is asserting that the message of the parable is not so much concern or lack thereof for the poor as it is our need to come to terms in our actions with the immense debt we owe to God for our sins. The Greek word in this regard that serves to center the paper is ὤφειλεν, which as used in Luke 7:41 means “owed,” from the infinitive “to owe.” It refers to the circumstance of the two debtors in the Parable of the Two Debtors. They both owed (ὤφειλεν) the creditor amounts they could not repay, like every human person owes God an incredible amount because of our sins. “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Luke tries to stress that those who feel more convicted of sin tend to depend on God more, and are capable of greater love for God, whereas those, like the Pharisee, who feel they are already righteous and have no need for God consequently love him less. A similar teaching is contained in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. It is interesting to note in any case that both parables are contained in Luke. And so he confirms that the woman’s sins are forgiven. This gesture makes the people there wonder who Jesus is to forgive sins. Jesus in any case insists that the woman’s faith has saved her, and recommends that she go in peace.

John’s account of the event is contained in the twelfth chapter of the Gospel. It begins by saying that Jesus went visiting with Lazarus, Martha and Mary. This was the same Lazarus that Jesus had raised from the dead. Martha and Mary had also entertained Jesus in chapter 10 of John’s Gospel, where Martha had complained about her sister Mary’s not helping out with the chores, and in response to her request of Jesus to ask Mary to help her, Jesus had told Martha that the better part which Mary had chosen was not to be taken away from her.

The second verse of John 12 states like Mark does that Jesus reclined at table. It also states that Martha served, which is no surprise. She served in chapter 10 as well. The latter part of verse 2, and verse 3 states that Mary “took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.” Hence we see that the nameless woman in the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the one Luke specifically calls sinful, is named as Mary, the sister of Lazarus, in John’s Gospel. Notice as well that John describes the ointment as being genuine aromatic nard; this hints at the fact that it was costly, and so we see that all four gospel writers agree that the oil or perfume or ointment – whatever it was called – was expensive.

John states that it was Judas who was indignant at Mary. It was not the disciples, as in Matthew, or the people at the house as in Mark, or Simon the Pharisee as in Luke, that complained, but Judas. And Judas complained not because he loved the poor, but because he was a thief. This assertion by John probably prefigures Judas’ acceptance of money in order to betray Jesus. Jesus, as in Mark and Matthew, defends Mary, by saying that the poor would be around for much longer than he would. He also states that Mary’s anointing was to prepare him for his burial, just like Mark and Matthew state (John 12:7-8).

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 3

Both gospels said the indignation was owing to their assertion that the ointment could have been sold, even though as has been previously stated there is discrepancy as to the exact cost of it. Both gospels assert that the proceeds of such a sale could be given to the poor. Mark in particular adds that the indignant people murmured at the woman. Both accounts state that Jesus came to the woman’s defense, insisting that her actions were good, and that she was preparing him for his burial. He also reminds her critics that the poor are around all the time, but he was not going to live long among them. And he prophesied that the woman’s deed would make her memory endure (Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9).

The statement by Jesus that the woman was preparing him for burial is typical. The gift of myrrh by one of the wise men at Jesus’ birth is of similar strain. Mary Magdalene also came to the tomb with ointments, which certain commentaries say was left over from what she poured over his feet earlier in Bethany, and which is justification that she was the woman that Mark, Matthew and Luke omitted to name, but which John did. And perhaps Jesus’ prophecy of ensuing notoriety for the woman underpins the presence of the story in all four gospels, in addition to the theories earlier floated in this paper.

A central strain of both Matthew and Luke’s account of the Bethany anointing makes reference to money and the poor. Both gospel accounts insist that the ointment could have been sold, and for a great price. This price was equivalent to the wages of laborers for an entire year. Think for example of the minimum wage for an entire year here in our land. This amount could come to about twenty thousand dollars, and this is a low estimate. Other estimates place the amount at twenty-five thousand dollars. Now, imagine that someone went ahead and bought a bottle of ointment for twenty-five thousand dollars and simply poured it on someone else. It would certainly be a scandalous affair.

But it was not just that the perfume was very costly. It was also the fact that there were poor people that might have benefitted from the money it could have been sold for. In our world today as well, it remains a classic sociological problem that side by side affluence and waste exist populations of indigent and deprived people. In a wealthy country like ours for example, there are still bread lines at charity homes; there are still homeless people roaming the streets, and there are still millions of people destitute and unemployed, or at least underemployed. A huge percentage of these people are dependent on welfare programs without which they could barely survive. According to the latest statistics from the Department of Commerce, nearly thirteen million of us are on welfare; about forty-eight million are on food stamps; and nearly six million are unemployed. These numbers are alarming, especially considering that ours is the wealthiest nation in the world. It forces one to imagine what the case would be in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. 
 
Before we explore this concern in further detail, let us examine Luke’s account of it, as contained in Luke 7:36-50. The Gospel of Luke’s account of the event records that a Pharisee invited Jesus to dinner, and the savior went and reclined at table in the Pharisee’s house. The account further details that a woman with a sinful reputation came with an alabaster jar of perfume, and poured its contents on Jesus’ feet – not head. This time around it was neither the disciples nor the guests at the house that complained, but only the Pharisee himself, Simon – not Simon the Leper neither, but only Simon. And the Pharisee’s concern in this case was not so much that the perfume was wasted, as it was that Jesus allowed an otherwise awful woman – a woman with a bad reputation – to touch him, a prophet.

So we observe that the concern shifts a bit from finance to propriety. This point is similarly noted in the fact that Luke’s account makes the woman’s behavior appear more sexually explicit than in Mark and Matthew, for here she weeps over, kisses, and caresses Jesus’ feet with her hair. Jesus notices that Simon is offended, and so proceeds to tell the Parable of the Two Debtors. It is a story wherein two people owe money to a creditor. One owes more than the other, and when the creditor forgives them both, the one who owed more to begin with is forced to love the creditor more. Having so told the parable, Jesus proceeds to show how Simon, the apparently better person – the one with fewer sins or debts – loved less in comparison to the woman, the apparently worse person, the one with greater sins or debts. For, Simon did not tend to Jesus as hospitably as the woman did: he did not kiss, or wash or anoint Jesus.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 2

This parable buttresses my earlier observation: because Simon did not feel as convicted of sin as the woman did, and consequently did not feel as much gratitude for forgiveness received, he did not return to the savior as much love as the woman did. And this is quite understandable. Luke describes Simon as a Pharisee, and Pharisees were self-righteous. Recall in this regard the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18: 9-14). The occasion for this self-righteousness was underpinned by the event of an otherwise sinful woman’s touching of the feet of a prophet in the house of a consequently indignant Pharisee.

Hence, one point it appears Jesus is trying to make here is humility. God the father who forgives our sins wants us to acknowledge what he has done for us. Recall in this regard the case of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Having healed them all, only one returned to thank Jesus, and Jesus was disappointed and so asked: “Were not all ten healed? How is it that only this one has returned to show gratitude?” (v17-18). Interestingly, the one who returned was a foreigner. There is a humorous but insightful Ibo proverb that bears telling here: “The people who live closest to the church often arrive late for mass.” The motif of the foreigner was also played into in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Again, God tells Peter to prepare and eat from an array of unclean meat choices (Acts 10:13). We therefore see that Luke’s Gospel is interested in speaking to an audience that is wider than the Jewish population.

Setting a background to the foregoing is here apt. John’s Gospel states that Jesus was visiting with Lazarus and his sisters. The Gospel also states that a large crowd was there and they had come to see not only Jesus, but also Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, and the Pharisees were intent on killing Lazarus because he represented to the people the resurrection power of the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 12:9-11). We are told in all other three gospels other than Luke in any case that the event in question took place in Bethany, the town where Lazarus, Martha and Mary lived; and, even though Luke does not expressly mention Bethany, we can assume that it was because he was more interested in the message than in the location of the important event of Jesus’ being anointed by the woman.

Luke calls the woman sinful, but the other gospels are silent as to her moral repertoire. They simply call her a woman (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). And so, where it seems as if Mark and Matthew are interested in the location and the tradition, Luke is interested in the message, and John draws our attention to the relationship between Jesus and Lazarus, as well as the symbol of the salvific power that Lazarus portrays. One may theorize in this regard, borrowing from the theory that places Mark’s Gospel first, that Matthew borrowed the account from Mark and left it in much the same way with regard to detail. Luke in turn edited the story to highlight points he considered to be important. John took a further step in the editorial process. The subsequent portion of the paper proceeds with providing a background to the didactic events of the pericope, and gradually builds up to its themes and motifs, and the review of a pertinent Greek usage.

To begin with, Matthew and Mark render the story in essentially the same way, with Mark being a tad more detailed. They both start off by indicating that Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper. Mark in any case further details that Jesus was “reclining” (Mark 14:3). Both accounts then state that a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. But whereas Matthew simply said it was costly, Mark detailed that it was “costly, genuine, spikenard” (Ibid.) They both state that the woman poured the oil on his head – not his feet, as in Luke and John – but Mark adds that she broke the jar first (Ibid.) Mark then testifies that some people, very likely those who were similarly in Simon the Leper’s house, were indignant. Matthew specifically uses the word “disciples” in this regard (Matt. 26:8).

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Jesus is Anointed at Bethany Part 1

It is interesting to note that this event of the anointing of Jesus with oil by a woman occurs in all four Gospels, even if not in exact same detail. Matthew and Mark say the event took place in the house of a certain Simon the Leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Luke says the event took place in the house of “one of the Pharisees,” who apparently had invited Jesus to have dinner with him (Luke 7:36). John in turn says the event occurs in the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary (John 12:1-3). In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the identity of the woman is not revealed. In John however, she is revealed to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Luke in any case describes her as a sinful woman who should not have been permitted to touch the body of a prophet such as Jesus (Luke 7:39). 

Another discrepancy to note in the rendering of the passage in the different gospels is that Matthew and Mark say that the woman poured the ointment on the head of Jesus (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3), while Luke and John both say she poured the ointment on his feet (Luke 7:38; John 12:3). The actual words used, and the characters that used them also differ from one gospel account to another. John’s Gospel in particular mentions Judas (John 12:4-6). All four gospels in any case hint at the concept of money or wages or debt, and so it is clear that finance is a central concern in this passage. This paper will treat this theme in due course.

Prior to so doing, however, it bears questioning why this particular passage should be contained in all four gospels. Perhaps it is a story that was very common in the Christian communities at the time. Perhaps women, who were a major part of the early church, felt it important to tell such a story with a central feminine character; one that shows courage and grace in her lavish anointing of the Lord; one who could serve as a model to the otherwise hesitant female penitent who, though thirsty for the draught of salvation, is too hamstrung by scrupulosity and a fear of the crowd to step forward and seek the face of the savior, Jesus Christ. Recall in this regard in any case the example of the woman with an issue of blood, who summoned up the courage to answer the question of Jesus, “Who touched me?” (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5: 25-34; Luke 8: 43-48). Recall as well the example of the Syrophoenecian woman, who insisted on receiving a blessing from the Lord even if she felt undeserving of it and had to defend her insistence (Mark 7:25-30; Matt. 15:21-28).

Perhaps as well, it could be that all the gospel writers considered the tale important and worth preserving. They must have discovered in it a lasting communication of the mercy of God through Christ for whomever it is that seeks it, regardless of the moral state of the person. The gesture of the woman pouring oil at the feet of Jesus was one that transcended economic concern. The woman was not thinking of herself or of her own gratification. Rather, she was interested in pleasing Jesus. She was expressing the feelings of gratitude in her heart, gratitude for her salvation. Her act was one of faith, of belief in the reality of Jesus having forgiven her sins. And in view of such great forgiveness, her showing of love in the lavish anointing was justified. This sort of love was not shown by Simon the Leper (Luke 7: 40-47). Because Simon did not feel as convicted of sin and indebtedness to God as the sinful woman did, he did not care to minster to Jesus in hospitable ways (Ibid.v44-47). 

Unique to Luke’s version of the event is the Parable of the Two Debtors, which is contained in Luke 7:41-43. The parable tells of two debtors. One owed five hundred days’ wages, and the other owed fifty, to a certain creditor who ultimately forgave both debts, seeing that the debtors were unable to repay. Jesus asked his host, Simon, which of the two debtors would love the creditor more for the favor of forgiving the debt, and Simon correctly replied that it was bound to be the one who owed more to begin with.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

A Summary of the Movie, The Reluctant Saint

St Joseph of Cupertino is the protagonist of The Reluctant Saint. He is portrayed at the start of the flick as a village buffoon. Indeed the first few scenes of the movie show him leaving school for the day with his much-younger classmates, only to get himself tricked by a couple of them into picking up a scalding piece of metal. Upon being asked to graduate early by exasperated school authorities, Joseph presents his mother with a diploma and a proposal to be a carpenter like his father. His mother does not express any optimism at this proposal. She says: "Joseph, Joseph, if you could be a carpenter or a shoemaker, or a blacksmith, I would be the happiest mother; but you can't, Joseph; you can't." She recommends instead that he set his sights lower throughout life, expecting little for himself, to refrain from being disappointed. She then instructs him to mind the donkey.
 
Joseph's mother in any case has a plan. She intends to foist Joseph off on her brother, who has recently been made Father Guardian of the neighboring monastery, Martina. She invites Father Guardian and another priest to dine with her. She summons Joseph to meet with them, hoping that they can admit him to the monastery. Joseph, a bumbling idiot, spills wine on the other priest's hand in his attempt to cut up some cheese for him. He also doubts his capacity to be a good friar. Exasperated, Joseph's mother pretends to faint. Joseph is alarmed and promises to do whatever his mother asks, if that would make her recover. She makes him promise to join the monastery, and so Joseph begins his vocation as a religious man.
 
Life in the monastery is not as easy for Joseph as one would hope. He is sent to beg with the other friars, only for him to get waylaid on his return, as he stops to help a destitute woman. He is robbed of the donkey assigned to him, all the goods he successfully obtained while begging, and his own clothes are ruined. He also gets on the wrong side of a jealous inmate, who sets him up to break a 200-year-old statue. And so, on the day he receives news of his father's death, a disillusioned Father Guardian sends Joseph away from the monastery. In a letter written to his sister and borne by Joseph, Father Guardian expresses regret that he cannot continue to have Joseph in the monastery, since the lad is in short a bumbling fool. Joseph's mother reads the letter and is angry. She grabs her son and marches all the way to the monastery chapel, where the monks are at prayer. She makes quite a scene, and embarrasses her brother, the Father Guardian, by revealing some of the mistakes he made when he was younger, in an attempt to show that he is no better than his nephew, who deserves another shot at being a friar. She wins the day, and Joseph regains his position in the monastery. But he is remanded in the stables looking after the animals.
 
Subsequently, the Vicar of the Franciscan Order, an illustrious bishop, visits the monastery. He goes on his rounds of inspection and, upon reaching the stables, finds Joseph asleep on duty. He is irritated at first but, when he realizes that Joseph is asleep because he was tending two baby lambs whose mother was ill, he immediately takes a liking to Joseph. Joseph apparently reminds him of his own life as a poor peasant boy. Later that night, he sees Joseph again seated at a fire and eating chestnuts. He joins the humble friar, and they spend the entire night together, laughing and talking and eating chestnuts together. And as the bishop prepares to leave Martina, he asks that Joseph, albeit a stupid young man, be trained for the priesthood. An intelligent friar is asked to teach Joseph, but all the silly Joseph can learn is a chapter in Luke concerning the Parable of the Lost Sheep. This parable was recited earlier by the visiting bishop, while in a state of admiration for Joseph's tending the baby lambs. The friar charged with the responsibility of tutoring Joseph is consequently tired, and quits.
 
On the day of the examination for sub-diaconate, the stage of orders before priesthood, Joseph and the intelligent friar that had been instructing him go to be interviewed by a team of examiners. Everyone at the monastery expects that Joseph will fail. They expect instead that the intelligent friar will pass. Joseph is however lucky. The examiner asks him at the interview to recite the chapter from Luke concerning the Parable of the Lost Sheep, the only thing Joseph knew. He recites the chapter perfectly, and passes. The intelligent friar fails. And so, Joseph begins to train for the next stage of orders, the priesthood, which everyone is sure - except a miracle happens to change things - Joseph must fail. Again, Joseph passes by a stroke of luck. The examiner turns out to be the bishop that had visited Martina earlier and taken an especial liking to Joseph. This bishop passes the stupid friar without even asking him any question in theology. So, Joseph becomes a priest. He takes a copy of his orders to show his mother. He knocks on the door when he arrives at the house. His mother opens the door, recognizes it to be Joseph there, and slaps him across the face, thinking he has been kicked out of the monastery again. He protests and shows her the document that confirms he is actually a priest. His mother exclaims, "My son, a priest!"
 
Promptly, the next day all the villagers congregate to be blessed by the new priest. His mother calls them all together and boasts about her son, saying she saw something special in Joseph all along, even if this cannot be believed. She presents her son to the congregating villagers, so that he can bless and pray for them. Afterwards, Joseph returns to the monastery. When he arrives, he notices the face of the statue he broke a while ago stuck in a window. He kneels in front of it to pray and, as he prays, he begins to rise up in the air. A friar sees him, and runs to the refectory where the other friars are at supper and reports the issue. No one believes him. This friar subsequently reports the issue to the villagers, who congregate at the monastery to see Joseph, but they are driven away by the Father Guardian and another priest, and the friar from whom they obtained the information that Joseph could "fly" is made out to be a liar. At Fr. Joseph's first mass taking place at that moment nonetheless, all the friars, except for Father Guardian and the other priest, who are busy sending the villagers outside away, see the holy priest levitate. They rush out of the chapel to report the case to Father Guardian and this other priest.
 
So, a panel of investigation into the issue is summoned. The panel members ask Joseph many questions concerning his health and history, and ultimately decide his is a case of divine intervention. But the priest who had been with Father Guardian when the other friars saw Joseph levitate refuses to accept the panel's ruling. He claims instead that Joseph is possessed by a demon and must be exorcised. The panel agrees, and so later that night this priest conducts an exorcism on Joseph in a cove outside the monastery. He then binds the poor friar in chains, intending to leave him there till the following morning. But, as he and the other friars are making their way to the monastery, leaving Joseph bound in the cove, they hear the snap of chains and return to see Joseph levitating again, and a bright light from heaven surrounding him. The doubting priest falls on his knees in surrender to the power of truth. He admits there and then that it is in fact divine intervention causing Joseph to levitate so. He does not trouble the holy friar again. And Joseph is canonized some years after his death.
 
For many, Joseph is patron saint of students. The Movie, The Reluctant Saint, is a true story. Barring some minor historical discrepancies, the move is largely real-life. The movie was well played. The characters were very believable. The actress who played Joseph's mother for example was so believably hilarious that she easily drew a laugh or two from me. The character that played Joseph as well was so authentic that you could easily sympathize with his awkwardness and stupidity, as well as his holiness and humility. The friars, the bishop, the members of the panel, the interviewers - every character was believable. And so with regard to characterization, the movie was spot on. But not just characterization. With regard to costumes, lighting and filming, the movie was similarly superb. The director did a splendid job, indeed. I personally have seen the movie many times and, each time I see it yet again, I am impressed and intrigued.

Friday, September 20, 2013

A Teleology of Humanity

What is the most important thing in life? Clearly, it is happiness. Aristotle, whom we all agree is a wise man – I mean, who does not think Aristotle is wise? – has said that happiness is the teleological end of all humanity. Wait. Let me explain that big word, “teleology.” Teleology refers to purpose. In other words, to say that happiness is the teleological end of humanity is to mean that the purpose for which God created humanity is for all people to end up happy. And so, happiness is the most important thing. After all said and done, after the "hurly burly” of life is over, the question to ask is: Am I now happy? There is a saying in Ibo culture: “Agaracha, a guo miles.” What this means is that, after life has been lived, we are supposed to reflect on what has transpired and evaluate this against the teleological rubric of happiness. If we feel happy when we mull over our life experiences so far, then perhaps everything we did was worth it. It is probably in this sense alone that we can ethically say that “the end justifies the means.”

Are you happy? And by this I don’t mean whether you feel excited at this moment. Happiness is not a snazzy feeling that you get when something superb happens – like you win the lottery, or you get promoted at work, or your wife gives birth to a long-expected child. No. Being happy is a state of living that underlies all the transient feelings we experience or are tempted with in the course of everyday living. To borrow metaphysical language: happiness is the substance underlying the emotional accidents ranging from excitement to despondency and everything in between. We have in any case, in a previous post, defined happiness as practical epistemology plus practical ethics. So, when I ask if you’re happy, I am asking you to reflect on your life so far. Have you been living faithfully with regard to your epistemological repertoire? Have you discovered truth, and are you living according to that truth regardless of the challenges that inhere in the circumstance of so doing?

I am happy. I’ve said this in a previous post. And the reason I am happy is that I am filling up my epistemological sack each and every day, and I am taking from that sack the lessons I apply in everyday living. And so, I am in fact engaged in practical epistemology and practical ethics and, in spite of the challenges I do face each and every day, I move on with hope, faith and courage. I do not allow the negative emotions that life tempts me with to have a field day with me. I do not allow the devil to come into my spiritual house and beat me up. I surrender myself instead through endless sacrifices to the power of reason, and to faith in Christ Jesus, and in this way ward off the attacks of the devil. Indeed, I believe God when he says: “For I know the plans I have for you; plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” (Jer. 29:11).

If you don’t feel happy, you need to re-examine your life. In any case, Plato and Socrates have said that an unreflected-upon life is not worth living. So you might as well. Ask yourself what your epistemological repertoire is. What sourced the truths you know? Are the sources of such truths valid? How did you come about the truths: authority, tenacity, research? Then, with regard to practical ethics, ask yourself if you are living faithfully according to those truths. Are you allowing the negative emotions life tempts you with to have a field day with you? Is the devil entering your emotional house and beating you up? Or are you, through sacrifices, allowing the power of reason to take effective control of your life and move you forward toward the goal of triumph, peace and happiness? With these questions, take stock of your spiritual life, and see if you cannot through this critical method consolidate your chances at happiness.

Happy people are good people. They are individuals who are living out the ideal situation of heaven on earth. I encourage you to be among their number. I encourage you to be happy. Realize that happiness is the teleological end of all humanity. Understand that it is not synonymous with accidental emotions characteristic of daily existence, but instead is the situation brought about by practical epistemology and practical ethics. Then, critically examine your life and discover if you have been living one consistent with practical epistemology and practical ethics. If you have, I congratulate you. If you have not, I exhort you to refuse to allow negative emotions deter you from following truth. Through sacrifices and a reliance on reason and faith as well, strive to be and stay happy. For your own good.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Mary

I will approach the topic of Mary from a personal point of view. There is something I call the concept of the three women, or the concept of the three mothers. I borrowed it from the story of Macbeth. You recall the three women that shared an eye. In my unique slant of the concept of the three women, I see the first woman or mother as the earth. Mother Earth is the “spouse” of God the Father (this is not Church teaching, but just a personal analogy). Mother Earth gives us our material person (Aristotle’s hylomorphism), through the agency of our parents, and provides us with all the material blessings we need to sustain our physical self. This mother inspires all the physical or carnal expressions of the human person as living in the world.

The second woman or mother is Mother Church. This is the spouse of God the Son, and this is actually Church teaching. Jesus is married to the Church, and has left her his body and blood, soul and divinity, for all time in the Eucharist. Mother Church gives us the sacraments that sustain our souls as they make their way to God. This mother inspires all the soulful or religious expressions of the human person as living in the community of saints. The third woman or mother is Mary. This is the spouse of God the Spirit. This too is Church teaching. Mary is spouse to the Holy Spirit, by whose power she conceived and bore Jesus Christ. Mother Mary gives us Jesus Christ as model and guide in our spiritual endeavor. She inspires all the spiritual or intellectual expressions of the human mind as it seeks to copy the ideal of rational propriety, including practical epistemology and ethics, of human persons living in informed society.

Thus the male principle of God the Father copulating with the female principle of Mother Earth (pure matter; pure potency) creates all there is in the universe, out of Love. Similarly, the male principle of God the Son copulating with the female principle of Mother Church imparts grace to our souls so that we can live up to the command to be “perfect as God the father is” (Matt. 5:48), and to do the will of God the Father. And the male principle of God the Holy Spirit copulating with Mother Mary, gives us the perfect model of human perfection, Jesus Christ whom, if we contemplate and emulate, we can base our thoughts, words and deeds on and so be able to live perfectly rational and fulfilled lives. 

At an ideal state, the human being operating on the level of God the Father acting in Mother Earth is of equal value as the person operating on the principle of God the Son acting in Mother Church, and that operating on the principle of God the Spirit acting in Mother Mary. If Adam and Eve had not fallen into original sin in the first place; had not allowed themselves to be deceived by the Serpent in the Garden (Gen. 3:1-20), then perhaps there would have been no need to send Jesus in the first place, because when God made Adam and Eve, he saw that they were already “good” (Gen. 1:31). But because Adam and Eve fell, and God who sees the end before the beginning, as if the end happened at the same time as the beginning, knew that at some point Jesus would have to redeem the “good” people he had made, the principle of the Son acting in Mother Church, and its concomitant principle of the Holy Spirit acting in Mother Mary has eternal significance. Again, this does not undermine the teaching of Mother Church. 

So, Mother Mary, the “third woman” – and by the way, Jesus calls Mary “woman” many times in the bible, such as during the Wedding at Cana; at the foot of the cross, and so on – is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of Jesus, and by that logic (since Jesus is God) the Mother of God. Mary exhorts us with regard to her son, “Do what he tells you” (John 2:5). Mary has also appeared in many apparitions, such as The Miraculous Medal, Our Lady of Victories, La Salette, Lourdes, Pontmain, Pellevoisin, and Fatima. In each of these apparitions and in many other ways she encourages us to be good, to pray for priests and to love and emulate her son. The Blessed Virgin Mary also gave us the Rosary and the Scapular, and shares with us numerous other religious habits by which we can become more fully Christian and disciples of Christ. Mary in short is a good mother to us.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, as the Catechism teaches us. He is the spouse of the Virgin Mary, and it is by his power that Jesus Christ was conceived without an earthly father. 1 Cor. 12:3 says that no one can call Jesus Lord except the person is under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Some theologians have said that the Holy Spirit is the symbol of Love existing between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit also gives us many charismatic gifts so that we can help to build up the Church, which is the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit “lives to set us free.”

The Holy Spirit was spoken of by Jesus when the Lord told his disciples that he would send them an advocate to enlighten and embolden them. This was when he was leaving them and returning to the Father. He said that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things (John 14:26) and bear lasting witness to Christ in such a fashion that the disciples would not be afraid to bear witness in turn to Christ, before all the world. In other words, the disciples were going to form a two-step evangelism paradigm with the Holy Spirit, on behalf of all the people of God. The Holy Spirit would create the capacity in them to bring this situation about. 

The Holy Spirit comes to us in the sacraments. In Baptism, the Holy Spirit marks us with a sign of faith and places us firmly in the family of the Lord. The Holy Spirit whets our appetite for the food from Heaven, the one that nourishes and strengthens us on our road to God. The Holy Spirit always comes to us in confession to console us in our grief and guilt. Recall in this regard that we have said that guilt is to be eschewed in the concept of genuine sacrifice. God does not want us to bear the negative emotions that his son has already done away with. We are supposed to be vigilant, and to pray repeatedly for the Holy Spirit, so that he can strengthen us all the time. He comes to us as well in Holy Orders.

Holy Orders refer to the making of priests and bishops and deacons. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced in the laying on of hands that ministers of word and sacrament are made and positioned in service of God’s people, in such a fashion as to allow for the continued spread of the Gospel. God the Holy Spirit also comes to people that are married, so as to strengthen them in their marital vows and give them the strength to live lives of fidelity to their spouses and devotion to their children. The Holy Spirit also descends on the sick and lifts them up, when the minister lays hands on the sick in the sacrament of Anointing. It was for example by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus rose Lazarus, the son of the Widow of Nain, and Jairus’ daughter from the dead in the Bible stories concerning these events. The Holy Spirit in short comes to us in power in all the sacraments instituted by Christ.

The Holy Spirit participates in the work of creation. In the Book of Genesis, theologians believe that God the Father was speaking to his Son and his Spirit when he said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26). This same God, Elohim, is the Unity of Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit it was that came upon the Apostles in the upper room during Pentecost and gave them the capacity to speak in many tongues. They were able to speak in the language of all the people that were gathered there, who had come from far and wide, and who testified to hearing the apostles speak in diverse languages (Acts Chapter 2). The Holy Spirit descended on them, by the way, in the form of fire.

Finally, the Holy Spirit appears in the forms of dove, water, fire and wind. He also shows up in the forms of cloud, light, finger, hand, and seal. The Holy Spirit is always with us. He lives inside a heart that is committed to God. In this regard our bodies have been called “temples of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). We all are children of God and under the divine protection. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are ratified in our trust and in our faith. And our hope in the resurrection promise makes us love, by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Jesus


Article 516 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerns the reality of Christ as revelation of the Father. Jesus in other words is God, even though he is also true man. In him is the fullness of our human nature, as well as the fullness of God. The perfection of God in essence and deed is Jesus, who properly speaking is the second person of the Trinity. He does the will of God in all things, especially as he is in God and God is in him (John 14:11). The fullness of God’s being is consubstantially participated in by Christ in such a fashion that whoever has seen Christ has similarly seen God the father (John 14:9).

And so it is right to assert that God in Christ entered human history out of Love, in order that he might restore all of Creation back to himself by the blood of his cross. All the things that Christ did while on earth, such as: healing the sick; turning water into wine; casting out demons, and so on, he did in communion with the Father, and by the Father’s own will. He said in this regard to his interlocutors: "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working" (John 5:17). He never admitted to a real separation existing between himself and his father. Indeed, he ultimately said in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Jesus as true self-revelation of the Father is a teaching that the Church holds very dear, and it is at the center of the Creed. When the Church uses the words “consubstantial with the father,” to describe the one “through whom all things were made,” it tries to say that the essential “stuff” of which God consists – pardon the analogical language, the situation of speaking of God as composed of “stuff” – similarly constitutes Christ. This analogical depiction is akin to a father and his son sharing the same DNA, even though this analogy also fails to do the conceptualization any justice. Jesus is God, and not merely a creature of God. He was in other words “begotten, not made,” as the Creed asserts. And so, to witness God, we witness Christ, because the witness of the latter is the witness of the former.

This teaching, of Jesus as true revelation of the Father, suffered attacks in the history of the Church. Heresies such as Arianism, Ebionism, Adoptionism, Docetism and so forth over the ages sought to distort the nature of Christ as true God and true man. And in response to these heresies, the Church had to progressively define what this nature was. Through Councils and Inquisitions and other means, the Church sought to root out these errors and preserve the Tradition obtained via revelation, the revelation in Christ of a God that seeks to be known as accomplished in his only begotten son, “in whom he is well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). The Son of God was to remain known as true man, and true God.

In our day, this mystery of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God the Father is efficacious in bringing consolation to people who are in need of a message of assurance that there is a presence of the divine operating in their difficult situations. There are many people who do not seem to feel the presence of God operating in their lives. They wonder why they suffer so many hardships and setbacks, and they grope about for some way of understanding the otherwise incomprehensible reality of human existence. If we as Christian ministers can reach out to them with the message that the God who created life itself loves us so much that he participated historically in it, we can be sure to point them toward consolation, in such a way as to secure them a shot at salvation. Jesus himself said: “In this world you will have trouble, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). The grace of God as lived out in Christ in this way then becomes an efficacious model of perseverance in spite of earthly difficulties.

Monday, September 16, 2013

God


Article 199 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about our belief in God. Our belief in God is described as the “first affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed” in the Article under review. The Church sees God as the end of our faith. He is the eternal creator spirit that alone exists of himself and is infinitely perfect in every possible way. Because God is transcendent of material reality, we can speak of him only analogically, and we first do this apophatically, by identifying what he is not. From this prism, we can then proceed to adduce cataphatic attributes for him. Anselm has seen God to be that than whom nothing more perfect can be conceived. Aquinas in turn has seen God to be the First Cause, whose reality puts paid to the otherwise infinite regress in the accumulation of efficient causes for effects we experience in the universe that God created out of Love.

Furthermore, the Church sees God as the father of Jesus Christ; the first person of the Trinity that consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all living in impenetrable light and deserving of eternal worship and praise. The Elohistic School sees the Trinity as a participatory relationship responsible for the creation of all there is, when God said to his Son and his Spirit, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” and subsequently gave him dominion over all of creation (Gen. 1:26). This God is the one that calls us into communion with him and desires to communicate himself to us in his Son, so that we can participate more fully in his divinity. This he accomplished in the Incarnation, which refers to the coming as man of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus son of Mary, savior of all of humankind. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same God today, the Alpha and the Omega; the First and the Last; the eternal and true, transcendent of all reality there is.

Faith in God is almost as old as humanity. It is impossible to conceive of human beings as devoid of a sense of the divine. The presence of reason in us is a sign that we can potentially know and enter into communion with God. Philosophers tell us that we can know God by natural reason, and they consequently have tried to prove his existence in many philosophical ways. Some of the thinkers that have tried to prove the existence of God include: Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Anselm, Augustine, and Descartes. They have all affirmed that it is impossible to properly conceive of a universe without similarly conceiving of the God that inspires its existence.

Christianity similarly allows for the possibility of the dependence of knowledge of God on pure reason, but goes further to assert that such knowledge is more eminently derivable from revelation also, of the sort we encounter in Tradition and Scripture. In these divine communications, God reveals himself to us as all we conceive of him to be, in such a way that we need not depend on reason alone to supply us with a depiction of God. We see God in the Old Testament speaking to Abraham, to Moses and to the Prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Daniel, Amos, and so on. We see him calling them to his service and performing signs and wonders through them, such as: the parting of the red sea; the receipt and handing on of the Decalogue; the bronze serpent erected at his command to save the Israelites from death at the hands of snakes, and many other such portents of the power of God.

In our day, we know about God in a fuller sense from the example of Christ, and from the Church that is his body; we know who this God is, and we show him to others in the way we demonstrate love and compassion to all of creation. And the all-important need to show love and care for all of creation is felt even greater today than ever before, because we live in a rapidly changing world, where people no longer pay as much attention to God as they should. We live in a world that needs to redirect its sights to the divine and, as ministers of word and sacrament, we have a responsibility to the world to be models of faith, models that will help to point people toward lasting communion with God.