28th A c) The Wedding Banquet. (THE REFUSAL IS OF THE RISEN AND RETURNING JESUS MADE THROUGH THE PREACHING OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES).
1) The story of the wedding banquet, another traditional image or
biblical metaphor for the kingdom of God, plays out its sad history of
REFUSAL.
The invitation offered by the first group of servants (prophets) is
refused. But the invitation offered by the second group of servants
encounters not only indifference but also hostility, to the point that
those servants are executed.
2) In this parable the invitation that is rejected is that of the
risen and returning Jesus which is made through the preaching of
Christian missionaries. Persecution has been predicted by Jesus, but so
too has the judgment on the persecutors. The vivid description in verse
7 of how the king's army destroyed those murderers and their city surely
brought to the minds of Matthew's first readers the Roman conquest of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The claims of the "synagogue across the street"
are rejected. Because the professedly and publicly religious people of Israel
refused the invitation to the kingdom of God, a general invitation has
been made to "everyone they met, bad as well as good."
However the last part of the parable makes clear that mere
acceptance of the invitation does not guarantee participation in the
banquet. The community of Matthew, however, cannot claim election or
membership in a community as their surety of salvation. It is not enough
to just say, Yes Lord. One must receive Jesus' invitation to the
banquet and ACT UPON IT. To be properly dressed is to put on Christ by
deeds of justice and charity, to be properly clothed with the deeds of
Christian discipleship.
3) We believe that we are the successors of Matthew's community, we
are part of the church. By our baptism we too received a white
garment a symbol of our putting on new life in Christ. But we must ask
ourselves if our lives have continued to put on Christ. Do we do deeds
of justice and charity or do we just do what everyone else does? Do we
critically examine our life and our decisions against the teachings of
Jesus. It is not just the Jewish leaders, the synagogue across the
street that can be rejected by Jesus. We can too if we refuse Jesus and
his call to bear fruit, put on Christ by deeds of justice and charity.
l) The parables of Jesus when originally uttered summoned his hearers to critical decision.
2) These same parables, when applied allegorically by Matthew to his church, are not to be read with complacency on the assumption that they deal with the rejection of Jewish leaders.
3) Today they summon Christians who are the heirs of Matthew, not
merely to respond with promises of labor in the vineyard, but to bear
fruit and to "put on Christ" by deeds of justice and charity.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
26 A
26th Sunday of Ordinary time A
Introduction: This Sunday we arrive at a point in Matthew's Gospel
where the conflict between Jesus and the authorities is heating up.
Just prior to today's reading, Jesus in chapter 21 had entered Jerusalem
in triumph. He had cleansed the temple and worked miracles of healing.
The chief priests and elders of the people question his authority: "by
what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this
authority?" Jesus confounds them by a question about John the Baptist.
Matthew follows this controversy by three parables of judgement on those
who do not accept Jesus as the Herald of the Kingdom.
l) In these three parables we pick up the mounting hostility
between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.
2) But we also detect the strained relationship between Matthew's
community (around the year 90) and Judaism.
3) We ask ourselves the question: what do these parables mean for
me today?
a) The two sons. (REFUSAL BEGINS WITH JOHN THE BAPTIST)
1) The "sinners" (prostitutes and tax collectors had been living a
"no" to God) at first REFUSED to do God's will, they ignored the Law and
the teachings of the rabbis. Later, however, they repented through the
preaching of John and Jesus, opening their hearts to God's design.
The righteous, on the other hand, said "yes" to God by meticulously
following the Law. In fact, however, they did not do what God really
wanted. They refused to heed the message of John the Baptist or Jesus.
This parable repeats the demand for repentance verified by action
that is the hallmark of Matthew's Jesus. "None of those who cry out,
'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who DOES
THE WILL of my Father in heaven."7:21
The conversion of the tax collectors and sinners to the way of
holiness should inspire Jesus' opponents to accept his preaching, and
not to regard him with suspicion and hostility.
2) Matthew summons the Jewish leaders of his day to be like the
first son and to join the heirs of tax collectors and harlots--the
Christian community.
3) This parable makes us look at ourselves. Am I more like the
first son or the second son.
This parable summons us who are Christians and heirs of Matthew,
not merely to repond with promises of labor in the vineyard, we must
follow our words with action.
If we said yes, but did "no" we are called to conversion.
Conversion is possible and called for. The son who at first said
no, undergoes conversion and goes. We should learn from the conversion
experience of others and ourselves be converted.
b) The Wicked Tenants. (THE REFUSAL IS OF THE HISTORICAL MINISTRY OF JESUS.)
l) Israel, the Lord's vineyard (Is 5:lff) is tended by laborers who
prove to be faithless. They make a contract, say yes, and then renege
on it say no.
They reject REFUSE the servants of the landowner who comes to claim
his harvest. Matthew gives heavy clues that these are the prophets
rejected by Israel by describing their fate as being "killed" and
"stoned."
Last of all the landowner sends his son, his heir. They kill him.
This is the rejection of Jesus. It is the rejection of the very
cornerstone of God's kingdom.
Matthew's Jesus asks the real question: "When therefore the owner of
the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" The sentence of
judgement is clearly pronounced by the Jewish leaders on themselves.
"He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and let out the
vineyard to other tenants...(who will give him the fruits in their
season." )
2) Because Israel has not responded to Jesus and his Gospel, the
kingdom is taken from their charge and offered to others. Matthew's
Christians receive the heritage of Israel.
But there is also stress on the need for Christians TO BEAR FRUIT,
undergo conversion.
3) What has been my response to Jesus' call in my life? Do I think
that just by being baptised, calling myself Christian I will enter the
kingdom? Jesus challenges me today too to bear fruit.
c) The Wedding Banquet. (THE REFUSAL IS OF THE RISEN AND RETURNING JESUS MADE THROUGH THE PREACHING OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES).
1) The story of the wedding banquet, another traditional image or
biblical metaphor for the kingdom of God, plays out its sad history of
REFUSAL.
The invitation offered by the first group of servants (prophets) is
refused. But the invitation offered by the second group of servants
encounters not only indifference but also hostility, to the point that
those servants are executed.
2) In this parable the invitation that is rejected is that of the
risen and returning Jesus which is made through the preaching of
Christian missionaries. Persecution has been predicted by Jesus, but so
too has the judgment on the persecutors. The vivid description in verse
7 of how the king's army destroyed those murderers and their city surely
brought to the minds of Matthew's first readers the Roman conquest of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The claims of the "synagogue across the street"
are rejected.
Because the professedly and publicly religious people of Israel
refused the invitation to the kingdom of God, a general invitation has
been made to "everyone they met, bad as well as good."
However the last part of the parable makes clear that mere
acceptance of the invitation does not guarantee participation in the
banquet. The community of Matthew, however, cannot claim election or
membership in a community as their surety of salvation. It is not enough
to just say, Yes Lord. One must receive Jesus' invitation to the
banquet and ACT UPON IT. To be properly dressed is to put on Christ by
deeds of justice and charity, to be properly clothed with the deeds of
Christian discipleship.
3) We believe that we are the successors of Matthew's community, we
are part of the true church. By our baptism we too received a white
garment a symbol of our putting on new life in Christ. But we must ask
ourselves if our lives have continued to put on Christ. Do we do deeds
of justice and charity or do we just do what everyone else does? Do we
critically examine our life and our decisions against the teachings of
Jesus. It is not just the Jewish leaders, the synagogue across the
street that can be rejected by Jesus. We can too if we refuse Jesus and
his call to bear fruit, put on Christ by deeds of justice and charity.
l) The parables of Jesus when originally uttered summoned his
hearers to critical decision.
2) These same parables, when applied allegorically by Matthew to his church, are not to be read with complacency on the assumption that they deal with the rejection of Jewish leaders.
3) Today they summon Christians who are the heirs of Matthew, not
merely to respond with promises of labor in the vineyard, but to bear
fruit and to "put on Christ" by deeds of justice and charity.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
25th A
25th Sunday of Ordinary Time A
The grumbling of those who have worked all day is similar to the
grumbling of the elder Brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Like
the Prodigal Son we never know what they did in response to the owner's
answer.
Act I: hirings.
At the outset there is a surprising note. The householder (and not
his steward) goes out from "early in the morning" until the eleventh hour
to assemble the workers. The hearers are given a hint that their normal
view of the world is to be challenged. Different wage agreements: first
group: normal days's wage; hired in the third hour: whatever is right;
hired in the sixth and ninth hour: presumably "whatever is right";
eleventh hour: no mention of payment.
Act II: payments
“...the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman...”
Normally those who had worked l2 hours would be the first to be
paid. If that had happened, they would have left happy. But the
reversal “inversion” in the order of pay lets those who had worked all day
find out what the others have received. As we stand with the workers
and watch the payment, when those who are hired last receive a denarius,
we begin to have the same feelings as those hired first “they thought that they would receive more”
Act III: Dialogue between the owner and the grumbling workers:
l) “I am not cheating you.”
2) “Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?”
3) I question your attitude. “Are you envious because I am genrous?”
The complaint of the dissatisfied workers is, strictly speaking, you
have made them equal to us. They are defining their personal worth in
contrast to others; they are not so much angered by what happened to
them as envious of the good fortune of the other workers. They are so
enclosed in their understanding of justice that it becomes a norm by
which they become judges of others. They want to order the world by
their norms which limit the master's freedom and exclude unexpected
generosity.
The line between following God's will and deciding what God wills is
always thin and fragile.
The grumblers claim that making one hour equal to those who have
worked all day is unfair. The first group of workers have at the end of
the story exactly that they had contracted for in the beginning. They
would have been satisfied with that if it had not been for the treatment
given the group that only worked one hour.
Notice that they are never denied their reward, just their
complaint. Whatever they lose, they lose in their own feelings of
hostility and resentment.
We human beings are curious. When we look at someone who is the
beneficiary of some generosity we want a strict system of justice. But
if we are the beneficiary of some generosity we wonder at those who have
complaints. They are just jealous.
For who among us does not yearn to find a welcome, a helping hand,
an unexpected privilege, even when we do not deserve it.
Jesus showed us that God does not love us because we are wonderful,
but rather, we are wonderful (or can be) because God loves us. DO I
LOVE YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WONDERFUL OR ARE YOU WONDERFUL BECAUSE I LOVE YOU?
Another take on the readings of 25th A
Introduction: This morning we will hear in the first reading from the Prophet Isaias: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.” If I recall occasions when I’ve heard these words quoted, it has usually been when something has happened that is difficult to accept, an accident, a tragedy, a sickness, or a death. But today in the Gospel we hear a different application of that saying.
Four Points to consider:
1) What does it feel like to be left out? Example of kids choosing up sides for a game. What does it feel like to always be the last one chosen or worse to not be chosen? How must the laborers have felt who were left waiting to be hired? Though the parable doesn’t mention them, there probably were some laborers who were not hired at all . Are there people that we are leaving out?
2) What does it feel like to be given something never earned? How must the laborers have felt who only worked a short time and got the same pay as those who had worked all day? Some people cannot accept a gift from us which they think they don’t deserve. Some people can rejoice in their good fortune when they receive something that is given rather gratuitously. Have you ever received something like this in your life?
3) Those who worked all day in the heat were not unjustly treated. They got what they agreed to work for. But they were jealous and envious of those who received the same pay as they did for less work. There are many ways that people can be jealous or envious of others. Jealousy can become a way of life for some people and it is very deadly. It kills them and it kills their relationships with other people.
4) Lastly we consider the owner of the vineyard. He is generous with the laborers who came later into the vineyard. We all know generous people in our families and our communities. Everyone is surely not equally generous. I could name a good number of people that I would identify as extremely generous. So the owner is not just JUST but generous.
When we die and come before the throne of God I think that all of us have the hope that we meet a generous God, not a Just God.
At Communion we pray, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the words and my soul will be healed.’” We receive the Body of Christ from the Generosity of God.
The grumbling of those who have worked all day is similar to the
grumbling of the elder Brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Like
the Prodigal Son we never know what they did in response to the owner's
answer.
Act I: hirings.
At the outset there is a surprising note. The householder (and not
his steward) goes out from "early in the morning" until the eleventh hour
to assemble the workers. The hearers are given a hint that their normal
view of the world is to be challenged. Different wage agreements: first
group: normal days's wage; hired in the third hour: whatever is right;
hired in the sixth and ninth hour: presumably "whatever is right";
eleventh hour: no mention of payment.
Act II: payments
“...the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman...”
Normally those who had worked l2 hours would be the first to be
paid. If that had happened, they would have left happy. But the
reversal “inversion” in the order of pay lets those who had worked all day
find out what the others have received. As we stand with the workers
and watch the payment, when those who are hired last receive a denarius,
we begin to have the same feelings as those hired first “they thought that they would receive more”
Act III: Dialogue between the owner and the grumbling workers:
l) “I am not cheating you.”
2) “Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?”
3) I question your attitude. “Are you envious because I am genrous?”
The complaint of the dissatisfied workers is, strictly speaking, you
have made them equal to us. They are defining their personal worth in
contrast to others; they are not so much angered by what happened to
them as envious of the good fortune of the other workers. They are so
enclosed in their understanding of justice that it becomes a norm by
which they become judges of others. They want to order the world by
their norms which limit the master's freedom and exclude unexpected
generosity.
The line between following God's will and deciding what God wills is
always thin and fragile.
The grumblers claim that making one hour equal to those who have
worked all day is unfair. The first group of workers have at the end of
the story exactly that they had contracted for in the beginning. They
would have been satisfied with that if it had not been for the treatment
given the group that only worked one hour.
Notice that they are never denied their reward, just their
complaint. Whatever they lose, they lose in their own feelings of
hostility and resentment.
We human beings are curious. When we look at someone who is the
beneficiary of some generosity we want a strict system of justice. But
if we are the beneficiary of some generosity we wonder at those who have
complaints. They are just jealous.
For who among us does not yearn to find a welcome, a helping hand,
an unexpected privilege, even when we do not deserve it.
Jesus showed us that God does not love us because we are wonderful,
but rather, we are wonderful (or can be) because God loves us. DO I
LOVE YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WONDERFUL OR ARE YOU WONDERFUL BECAUSE I LOVE YOU?
Another take on the readings of 25th A
Introduction: This morning we will hear in the first reading from the Prophet Isaias: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.” If I recall occasions when I’ve heard these words quoted, it has usually been when something has happened that is difficult to accept, an accident, a tragedy, a sickness, or a death. But today in the Gospel we hear a different application of that saying.
Four Points to consider:
1) What does it feel like to be left out? Example of kids choosing up sides for a game. What does it feel like to always be the last one chosen or worse to not be chosen? How must the laborers have felt who were left waiting to be hired? Though the parable doesn’t mention them, there probably were some laborers who were not hired at all . Are there people that we are leaving out?
2) What does it feel like to be given something never earned? How must the laborers have felt who only worked a short time and got the same pay as those who had worked all day? Some people cannot accept a gift from us which they think they don’t deserve. Some people can rejoice in their good fortune when they receive something that is given rather gratuitously. Have you ever received something like this in your life?
3) Those who worked all day in the heat were not unjustly treated. They got what they agreed to work for. But they were jealous and envious of those who received the same pay as they did for less work. There are many ways that people can be jealous or envious of others. Jealousy can become a way of life for some people and it is very deadly. It kills them and it kills their relationships with other people.
4) Lastly we consider the owner of the vineyard. He is generous with the laborers who came later into the vineyard. We all know generous people in our families and our communities. Everyone is surely not equally generous. I could name a good number of people that I would identify as extremely generous. So the owner is not just JUST but generous.
When we die and come before the throne of God I think that all of us have the hope that we meet a generous God, not a Just God.
At Communion we pray, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the words and my soul will be healed.’” We receive the Body of Christ from the Generosity of God.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
23 A
23rd Sunday of Ordinary Time A
Introduction: Matthew’s Gospel has five sections of Jesus’ teaching. Today’s Gospel comes from the fourth section. It has received different titles. The one I like best is: The first rule of life of a Christian community built upon Jesus’ words." The teachings in this rule of life apply to families, parishes and communities. The basic theme of this discourse is: THE CARE WE NEED TO HAVE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
Don Senior divides the elements of the discourse in this way:1) conversion, turn and become like children (l8:l-4) 2) care for the little ones (l8:5-9) 3) care for the marginal (l8:l0-l4) actively seek out straying sheep. 4) procedures for reconciliation within the community (l8: l5-20) 5) the call for limitless (2l-22) forgiveness (l8: 23-35)
HOMILY
The need for the Christian to seek out the stray and not condemn the stray is complemented by procedures for reconciliation. How are we, as followers of Jesus, to deal with the backsliders in our families, our parishes, our communities? A step by step process is given.
1) What is my reaction when someone sins against me? Usually we expect the offending person to come to us. But Jesus’ process calls for something different. We must be the ones to approach the offender. We are to do this one to one. It sounds easy. It isn’t easy. It is one of the most difficult things to do. It is much easier to find a sympathetic soul upon whom to unburden our grievance; or worse, to air it at once before the whole community; or even worse to take one’s grievances to outsiders. It takes courage to approach the brother or sister personally, and it also takes wisdom to know how. But whether out of cowardice or fear of rejection or passing the responsibility to someone else, how often this simple and direct method is avoided.
It is easier to fall into criticism, gossip. Sometimes authority figures make a general rebuke to a group rather than going one to one. This can allow the person who is the offender to say, “he must be talking about someone else.” The person in the group who has done nothing wrong says, “Gee I wonder if he is talking about me?” This person can go on a guilt trip.
2) If the backslider won’t listen to us one to one, we are then to confront him/her together with a small group. Alcoholics Anonymous speaks about the helping effect of an Intervention. Several people who love and are concerned about a person, name specific detrimental behaviors and set an ultimatum.
3) If the backslider won’t listen to the small group, we are to bring him/her to the church community. If he/she ignores this community, then we are to go to the process of exclusion. The person is to be treated as a gentile or tax collector. However, it is important to keep in mind that Jesus relates to gentiles and tax collectors as persons to be evangelized.
4) Even for those who go through these steps and are no longer open to the direct invitation to return, there is still hope through the prayerful intercession of the community. “..if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.”
Have I interiorized and practiced Jesus’ process? Next week we will hear Jesus tell the story about the unforgiving Servant. We can be that type of Christian. The need for reconciliation dominates the second half of this discourse.
Introduction: Matthew’s Gospel has five sections of Jesus’ teaching. Today’s Gospel comes from the fourth section. It has received different titles. The one I like best is: The first rule of life of a Christian community built upon Jesus’ words." The teachings in this rule of life apply to families, parishes and communities. The basic theme of this discourse is: THE CARE WE NEED TO HAVE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
Don Senior divides the elements of the discourse in this way:1) conversion, turn and become like children (l8:l-4) 2) care for the little ones (l8:5-9) 3) care for the marginal (l8:l0-l4) actively seek out straying sheep. 4) procedures for reconciliation within the community (l8: l5-20) 5) the call for limitless (2l-22) forgiveness (l8: 23-35)
HOMILY
The need for the Christian to seek out the stray and not condemn the stray is complemented by procedures for reconciliation. How are we, as followers of Jesus, to deal with the backsliders in our families, our parishes, our communities? A step by step process is given.
1) What is my reaction when someone sins against me? Usually we expect the offending person to come to us. But Jesus’ process calls for something different. We must be the ones to approach the offender. We are to do this one to one. It sounds easy. It isn’t easy. It is one of the most difficult things to do. It is much easier to find a sympathetic soul upon whom to unburden our grievance; or worse, to air it at once before the whole community; or even worse to take one’s grievances to outsiders. It takes courage to approach the brother or sister personally, and it also takes wisdom to know how. But whether out of cowardice or fear of rejection or passing the responsibility to someone else, how often this simple and direct method is avoided.
It is easier to fall into criticism, gossip. Sometimes authority figures make a general rebuke to a group rather than going one to one. This can allow the person who is the offender to say, “he must be talking about someone else.” The person in the group who has done nothing wrong says, “Gee I wonder if he is talking about me?” This person can go on a guilt trip.
2) If the backslider won’t listen to us one to one, we are then to confront him/her together with a small group. Alcoholics Anonymous speaks about the helping effect of an Intervention. Several people who love and are concerned about a person, name specific detrimental behaviors and set an ultimatum.
3) If the backslider won’t listen to the small group, we are to bring him/her to the church community. If he/she ignores this community, then we are to go to the process of exclusion. The person is to be treated as a gentile or tax collector. However, it is important to keep in mind that Jesus relates to gentiles and tax collectors as persons to be evangelized.
4) Even for those who go through these steps and are no longer open to the direct invitation to return, there is still hope through the prayerful intercession of the community. “..if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.”
Have I interiorized and practiced Jesus’ process? Next week we will hear Jesus tell the story about the unforgiving Servant. We can be that type of Christian. The need for reconciliation dominates the second half of this discourse.
Friday, August 19, 2011
22nd A
22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time A
Introduction: In today's readings we hear of two men, Jeremiah and
Peter who are struggling with difficult parts of being a follower of God .
The Gospel reading is a contrasting balance with the Peter
of last Sunday's Gospel who professes Jesus as: You are the Christ the
Son of the living God. Jesus then designated Peter as the Rock on
whom he would build his church.
HOMILY:
In Today's Gospel we heard the first of three predictions of the
Passion that are found in Matthew's Gospel. The idea that Jesus must go
up to Jerusalem to suffer much and be condemned to death was difficult
for them to accept. After each prediction there is a response of Jesus’ followers, and a teaching of Jesus.
After the first prediction of the Passion, Peter as the
spokesperson gives words to their dissatisfaction with this idea. “God forbid, Lord ! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
To the second prediction the apostles will respond by asking the
question "who is the most important in the kingdom of heaven?"
After the third prediction the mother of James and John will come
asking that her sons be given the places of honor at the right and left
of Jesus when he comes into his kingdom.
__________________________________________________________________
The apostles idea of the Messiah did not include suffering and
death. They were happy to be commissioned to be followers of Jesus when
he shared with them his power to expel demons and to cure every kind of
infirmity and sickness. Now Jesus introduces the idea that he must
suffer much and be condemned to death. Peter objects to this future for
Jesus.
But Jesus reacts to Peter very strongly. “Get behind me Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does but as human beings do.”
__________________________________________________________________
But these words of Jesus are followed by an even greater challenge
to Peter and to us. If we wish to follow Jesus we must be ready to
meet the same fate he is going to meet. Following Jesus has its cost:
one must go up to Jerusalem.
v. 24 “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” As goes the master, so goes the disciple.
v. 25 Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
his life for my sake will find it. If we deny Jesus, selfishly seek
self fulfillment we will be condemned, no freedom, no happiness. If we die, surrender to God we will know everlasting life, freedom, happiness.
v. 26 all human conceptions of loss and gain have been turned
upside down.
__________________________________________________________________
v. 27 fidelity has its reward: The Son of Man... will repay,
reward, each one according to his conduct.
Jesus prediction for himself included to suffer much, be condemned to
death but it also included rising on the third day. So Jesus
prediction for his followers is also deny self, carry the cross, lose
life but also with the promise to receive recompense according to one's
conduct.
__________________________________________________________________
After the first prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: deny self, carry your cross and lose your
life.
After the second prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us
what we must do to be his followers: Mt. l8:3 if we don't change and come
like little children, we cannot enter the kingdom of God.
After the third prediction of the passion we have Jesus teaching us what
we must do to be his followers: Mt. 20: 26,27 “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you, shall be your servant. ...the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Carry our cross, become like little children and serve. How close am I to that model of discipleship?
Jeremiah felt duped by God. He was an object of laughter and everyone mocked him. “The word of the Lord has brought me derision and reproach all the day.” We can identify with Jeremiah’s feelings, “I say to myself, I will not mention him. I will speak in his name no more. But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart. Imprisoned in my bones; I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.” Yet somehow he manages: “But the Lord is with me, like a mighty champion; my persecutors will stumble they will not triumph.” “O Lord of hosts, you who test the just. who probe mind and heart, Let me witness the vengeance you take on them, for to you I have entrusted my cause.”
We too at times wish vengeance. Deception, sorrow and terror have brought the prophet close to the point of despair. He makes it through.
Jeremiah clearly wrestles with God. Have I at times wrestled with God? Have I felt a “fire burning in my heart?” What do I feel is imprisoned in my bones? Has vengeance or forgiveness been more a part of my life?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
21 A
21stA Sunday A cycle
Mt. 16:13-20
As Catholics hear this passage they immediately reflect the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation. This is the biblical foundation for the papal office. The Catechism of the Catholic church #881 cites this passage in precisely this vein.
It is important to take this passage in context with the following verses which we will hear next Sunday. Peter is rock but also stumbling block (obstacle). Moments after his great profession, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God,” Jesus would say, “get behind me Satan You are an obstacle (stumbling block) to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Peter’s original understanding of the title, Messiah, was clearly charged with Jewish political, temporal understandings, which Jesus will shortly correct.
This is only the beginning of Peter’s reign. Braggadocio, denials, betrayals, reconciliations, victories, later struggles with Paul and disappointments with his people will follow. I believe these adjectives also describe the history of the Catholic Church.
At the present moment of history for the Catholic Church the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America made these observations in her presidential address for 2008. (from the article of John Allen, NCR)
The papacy is a “gift” of the Catholic church to other Christians, a leading Catholic ecumenist said ..., but it needs “repair” before those other Christians are likely to accept it. Specifically, Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto called for a papacy that’s “less centralized, less authoritarian, and more respectful of the diversity of local churches.”...
. O’Gara is a longtime veteran of ecumenical conversations with a variety of Christian denominations.
Pope John Paul II, O’Gara said, was an “engaging figure” for many Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans, who admired his strong stands on issues such as abortion and war, his commitment to evangelization, and his capacity to project a Christian voice in global debates. At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:
1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.
In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.
Concretely, O’Gara made two suggestions.
First, she suggested remedying what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance. Quoting the theologian Klaus Schatz, she said that primacy is too often treated as a sort of “ersatz infallibility,” so that even routine administration seems like an exercise of infallibility.
Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used by the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.
At times in our life we may ask or be asked, “Who am I to you?” Why does someone ask this? Perhaps the person has been mistreated, neglected, forgotten, ignored, etc. The person perhaps is thinking of a different and deeper type of commitment, such as marriage. The person may simply want loving reassurance. Why do you think Jesus asks this question? What is my answer to Jesus’ question?
Mt. 16:13-20
As Catholics hear this passage they immediately reflect the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation. This is the biblical foundation for the papal office. The Catechism of the Catholic church #881 cites this passage in precisely this vein.
It is important to take this passage in context with the following verses which we will hear next Sunday. Peter is rock but also stumbling block (obstacle). Moments after his great profession, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God,” Jesus would say, “get behind me Satan You are an obstacle (stumbling block) to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Peter’s original understanding of the title, Messiah, was clearly charged with Jewish political, temporal understandings, which Jesus will shortly correct.
This is only the beginning of Peter’s reign. Braggadocio, denials, betrayals, reconciliations, victories, later struggles with Paul and disappointments with his people will follow. I believe these adjectives also describe the history of the Catholic Church.
At the present moment of history for the Catholic Church the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America made these observations in her presidential address for 2008. (from the article of John Allen, NCR)
The papacy is a “gift” of the Catholic church to other Christians, a leading Catholic ecumenist said ..., but it needs “repair” before those other Christians are likely to accept it. Specifically, Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto called for a papacy that’s “less centralized, less authoritarian, and more respectful of the diversity of local churches.”...
. O’Gara is a longtime veteran of ecumenical conversations with a variety of Christian denominations.
Pope John Paul II, O’Gara said, was an “engaging figure” for many Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans, who admired his strong stands on issues such as abortion and war, his commitment to evangelization, and his capacity to project a Christian voice in global debates. At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:
1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.
In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.
Concretely, O’Gara made two suggestions.
First, she suggested remedying what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance. Quoting the theologian Klaus Schatz, she said that primacy is too often treated as a sort of “ersatz infallibility,” so that even routine administration seems like an exercise of infallibility.
Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used by the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.
At times in our life we may ask or be asked, “Who am I to you?” Why does someone ask this? Perhaps the person has been mistreated, neglected, forgotten, ignored, etc. The person perhaps is thinking of a different and deeper type of commitment, such as marriage. The person may simply want loving reassurance. Why do you think Jesus asks this question? What is my answer to Jesus’ question?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
20th A
20th A
Matthew 15: 21-28
The story of the Canaanite woman has been characterized in different ways. It would seem to be significant that she is the first woman to speak in Matthew's Gospel. Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes states: “This story is often viewed as a troubling embarrassment. A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus. At first he ignores her. He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.” p. 217 Sharon H.Ringe describes Jesus situation this way: "Jesus seems to be caught with his compassion down." Donald Senior in The Gospel of Matthew states, “The story of the Canaanite woman is a remarkable text...” p. 130 Catholic Worker, Jeff Dietrich, titles his reflection in the Agitator, “Exorcising the Demons from Jesus.” In my opinion Dietrich gives the story an exaggerated interpretation. “She (Canaanite woman) has exorcized Jesus and transformed the entire kingdom project. If it had not been for the Canaanite woman, there would have been no second wilderness feeding to the Gentiles. Because of her, the liberating message of the Kindom would include not just the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but all of the lost sheep, all of the expendable victims of empire...Henceforth there would be no more unclean people, no expendables, no dogs, no excuse for treating anyone as less than human. The legacy of the Canaanite woman continues to this day.” But Dietrich also makes some insightful interpretations.
Bailey’s exploration of the Canaanite woman stresses that a critical component in both the parables of Jesus and the dramatic stories about him is the ever-present community. He states that Jesus pretends indifference. By ignoring the woman’s desperate cries he appears to endorse views toward women with which the disciples were comfortable. “The text can be understood as follows: Jesus is irritated by the disciples’ attitudes regarding women and Gentiles.” This view is in conflict with that of Don Senior and Dietrich. Senior sees Jesus himself emphatically resisting the extension of his mission to the Gentiles. Dietrich sees Jesus as downright rude to the woman and rejecting her plea in a most uncompassionate manner. His interpretation is: Jesus “here shows himself to be filled with the same demons of nationalism and patriarchy that he had just criticized in the religious authorities.” In the quick retort of the woman Dietrich sees Jesus stopped in his tracks, knocked over so to speak. “In a single instant she has exorcised from Jesus, the demons of nationalism, religious righteousness, segregation, and patriarchy. Just as he restored the Gerasene demoniac to his right mind, she has restored Jesus to his right mind.”
In the third chapter of Mark’s Gospel vs. 21 we read, “When his (JESUS’)relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” So to me it is not an exaggerated interpretation to have the Canaanite woman restoring Jesus to his right mind.
Warren Carter raises this point: "The woman is not deterred by Jesus' response. Instead she wittily and bravely recasts Jesus' response. Whereas disciples do not understand Jesus parable ('It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs') she understands this one so well that she recasts it to accomplish her goal." Carter also points out she is showing "great...faith". This is the onlyh time this adjective is used to describe faith in the gospel.
This story is clearly dealing with sexism (not talking to a woman), nationalism and racism (dealing with a Gentile outsider) and patriarchy (superiority of males). In this story Jesus overcomes the ethnic, cultural, political, gender, and religious barriers humans have created. It is clearly a powerful story of the compassion of the boundary breaking Jesus for the woman, her daughter and the disciples.
It seems to me our challenge is to find ourselves in this story. Is the Canaanite woman or some other woman working to exorcize some demon in me?
Matthew 15: 21-28
The story of the Canaanite woman has been characterized in different ways. It would seem to be significant that she is the first woman to speak in Matthew's Gospel. Kenneth Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes states: “This story is often viewed as a troubling embarrassment. A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus. At first he ignores her. He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.” p. 217 Sharon H.Ringe describes Jesus situation this way: "Jesus seems to be caught with his compassion down." Donald Senior in The Gospel of Matthew states, “The story of the Canaanite woman is a remarkable text...” p. 130 Catholic Worker, Jeff Dietrich, titles his reflection in the Agitator, “Exorcising the Demons from Jesus.” In my opinion Dietrich gives the story an exaggerated interpretation. “She (Canaanite woman) has exorcized Jesus and transformed the entire kingdom project. If it had not been for the Canaanite woman, there would have been no second wilderness feeding to the Gentiles. Because of her, the liberating message of the Kindom would include not just the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but all of the lost sheep, all of the expendable victims of empire...Henceforth there would be no more unclean people, no expendables, no dogs, no excuse for treating anyone as less than human. The legacy of the Canaanite woman continues to this day.” But Dietrich also makes some insightful interpretations.
Bailey’s exploration of the Canaanite woman stresses that a critical component in both the parables of Jesus and the dramatic stories about him is the ever-present community. He states that Jesus pretends indifference. By ignoring the woman’s desperate cries he appears to endorse views toward women with which the disciples were comfortable. “The text can be understood as follows: Jesus is irritated by the disciples’ attitudes regarding women and Gentiles.” This view is in conflict with that of Don Senior and Dietrich. Senior sees Jesus himself emphatically resisting the extension of his mission to the Gentiles. Dietrich sees Jesus as downright rude to the woman and rejecting her plea in a most uncompassionate manner. His interpretation is: Jesus “here shows himself to be filled with the same demons of nationalism and patriarchy that he had just criticized in the religious authorities.” In the quick retort of the woman Dietrich sees Jesus stopped in his tracks, knocked over so to speak. “In a single instant she has exorcised from Jesus, the demons of nationalism, religious righteousness, segregation, and patriarchy. Just as he restored the Gerasene demoniac to his right mind, she has restored Jesus to his right mind.”
In the third chapter of Mark’s Gospel vs. 21 we read, “When his (JESUS’)relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” So to me it is not an exaggerated interpretation to have the Canaanite woman restoring Jesus to his right mind.
Warren Carter raises this point: "The woman is not deterred by Jesus' response. Instead she wittily and bravely recasts Jesus' response. Whereas disciples do not understand Jesus parable ('It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs') she understands this one so well that she recasts it to accomplish her goal." Carter also points out she is showing "great...faith". This is the onlyh time this adjective is used to describe faith in the gospel.
This story is clearly dealing with sexism (not talking to a woman), nationalism and racism (dealing with a Gentile outsider) and patriarchy (superiority of males). In this story Jesus overcomes the ethnic, cultural, political, gender, and religious barriers humans have created. It is clearly a powerful story of the compassion of the boundary breaking Jesus for the woman, her daughter and the disciples.
It seems to me our challenge is to find ourselves in this story. Is the Canaanite woman or some other woman working to exorcize some demon in me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
