Christmas 2010

Christmas this year.
from Catholic Agitator of the Los Angeles Catholic Worker:
"You could say that we came from a tradition that was pretty much into the Bible. As Anabaptists, a founding premise of our religious identity was that history and tradition could contort the message of Christianity, and that therefore constant reference back to the contents of the Bible was necessary to maintain or arrive at a steady, faithful understanding of Christ's message." (Bold added for emphasis.)
"As someone whose personality tends towards introversion and introspection rather than action, as well as someone who grew up in a tradition emphasizing in many ways, right-belief over right-action, I knew that I needed to be around and learn from people who made a concerted discipline of working out in action the social justice imperatives of the gospel that I believe I had come to recognize through reading the Bible."
"...the part that I value about it most is the chance to hear perspectives on the bible that are formed through daily experience with an embroilment in the systems of oppression that affect the people that we know in the inner city."

I've just heard of another similar story. A man of a certain prominence, began helping out with the weekly Saint Vincent de Paul Society, food distribution. At the regular Sunday service he shared that he previously didn't known much about this service of his church community. He then held up his green envelope that is used for financial contributions to the work. He encouraged others to be generous. To me this was a clear example of how actual contact with the poor brings a different perspective and conversion.
We will hear the Christmas story again this year. It is announcement of HOPE and a call to ACTION!
THE INFANCY NARRATIVES OF LUKE AND MATTHEW both present the clear message: Some People Accepted Jesus. Some People Rejected Jesus. The Gospel of John states it this way: He came to his own but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power (he empowered them) to become children of God, to those who believe in his name. Jn. 1:11,12.

In Matthew there are guiding dreams and a guiding star. Joseph accepts the message of the dream and the magi follow the star. Herod and the scribes and priests of Jerusalem are threatened by the coming child and respond as threatened people do.

In Luke there are announcing angels, Mary and the Shepherds accept the message, but Simeon tells of the "fall of many a sign to be contradicted."

This pattern of announcement, acceptance or rejection will be carried through the entire Gospel. It continues tonight. Tonight we receive and renew the announcement again: For to you is born a Savior who is Christ the Lord. But we must be attentive to what action these words are calling us.

When Luke in his orderly manner according to the Roman way of announcing speaks of the birth of Jesus he tells us: of "Caesar Augustus (the emperor), Quirinius, governor and Joseph and Mary." In the eyes of the world it is from the most important to the least important. But reversal of values will be a continuing part of the Gospel message.
The child to be born is to be called Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.
He is to be called Emmanuel which means God is with us.
Our Gospel tonight presents us the image of Jesus being born on a Journey for a Journey.
We are invited tonight to Journey to Bethlehem. You have all come here tonight to pause on your life journey.
We return to the place where God is homeless and we are at home. We make the journey to Bethlehem each year to rediscover our own roots in the gift of Jesus. But we must be aware of the homeless, the migrants, the hungry, etc.

The words of some of our Christmas carols announce good news to us:
Oh holy night the stars are brightly shining, it is the night of the dear Savior’s birth, long lay the world in sin and error pining till he appeared and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices for yonder breaks a new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees oh hear the angels voices, oh night divine, Oh night when Christ was born o night divine, oh night oh night divine.
O Little Town of Bethlehem. Yet in thy dark street shineth the ever lasting light, the hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

The Gospel Story is an old one we know it quite well but what newness does it bring for us now on this 2010 birthday of Jesus? Is it announcing NEW HOPE TO US? It gives substance to our hope that new life is possible because of the birth of the Son of God.
But retelling and rehearing the story is not enough.
The Gospel writers make clear that Jesus was the awaited one of ages and generations for the Jewish people.
But the birth of Jesus is not to be just a past event. It is to be for us a present reality. Sin and error have been part of our life. But we hear the promise of a new sense of self worth. In our weariness we hear the promise of a thrill of hope. In our darkness we hear the promise of ever lasting light. In our fears we hear the promise of hope. We can begin again, we can be people of hope. Listen to your guiding stars and guiding dreams. If Christ is to be born again this Christmas then we must be people (ACTION) who bring his message to the people that Jesus brought hope to in his life, (Matthew 25) hungry, thirsty, strangers, in need of clothes, sick or imprisoned. Be attentive for Angels of Announcement. Jesus the Son of God was born and wants to be born in us and our world again.

Advent 4 A

Advent 4 A
Learning from Joseph

Introduction: The infancy story as told by Matthew has some very different emphases than the story as told by Luke. In today’s Gospel the person who comes to the forefront is Joseph.

HOMILY: Joseph is offered to us as an example. As the story begins Joseph is presented with a dilemma. His wife is pregnant and he knows that he is not the father and he can only think that another is. In chapter 22 of the book of Deuteronomy two ways are indicated in which a woman might become pregnant before joining her husband: she might willingly have relations with another and commit adultery (vs. 20-24), or she might be forced against her will and thus remain innocent. (vs. 35-37) Joseph could have demanded a trial. As a devout observer of the Mosaic Law, Joseph wished to break his union with someone who he suspected of gross violation of the law. But Joseph also heard the Law (Torah) calling him to care for the defenseless. So he decided to divorce her quietly.

We see Joseph presented as one who keeps the law as it was known and handed down to him. He is faithful to his tradition.
But he is also presented as one, who fulfills the will of God, as he knows it.
The will of God is made known to him in a dream by an angel. He is told to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. It is revealed that the child has been conceived through the Holy Spirit. He is to name him Jesus. When Joseph names the child Jesus he acknowledges him as his son and Joseph becomes the legal father of Jesus. The angel gives the name Jesus “because he will save his people from their sins.”

But Matthew also introduces into his story the words of the prophet Isaiah which speak of the “virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means God is with us. This is a greater identity, which Joseph must accept beyond that of Son of David and Jesus, savior of his people. Jesus is God with us. At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus will proclaim: “I am with you always to the end of the world.”

We are called to grow in the role of Joseph. We do this when we attend to what is holy as it is handed down to us, and when we do our best to defend the weak and helpless. We do this when we attend to that voice that calls to us to go beyond the accepted or imposed limits, when we are open to God’s ability to do new things, so that God might be born once again into our world. Matthew's Gospel proclaims a different way of life from the predominant kingdom of Rome, Herod and the Institutional religion of the scribes and pharisees. Joseph begins living the new way of life which Jesus will proclaim.
The overall mood of Matthew’s Christmas story is quite different from that of Luke’s. There are not triumphant angels, a picturesque gathering of shepherds, little focus on a tender vision of mother and child. Instead there are ominous plots against the child, outbreaks of violence, displacement and exile. Matthew will end his Gospel with similar events, plots against the adult Jesus, and outbreaks of violence against him, crucifixion and death. But Jesus will rise to new life. At the beginning and end of Matthew’s Gospel there is the promise of God’s abiding presence, bringing salvation in spite of sin and rejection. Jesus overcomes obstacles, sin even death itself. He lives. We approach the day when we celebrate that he is born. Christmas.

Advent 2 & 3 A, further insights

Advent 2 & 3 A

Some further insights.

The Gospel reading for the 2nd Sunday of Advent in the A cycle is colored by a variety of Apocalyptic images.

1) John the Baptist is presented as an Elijah figure. Matthew wants to portray John in the likeness of Elijah, with his ascetic clothing and diet (3:4;2 Kgs 1:8) Many expected that Elijah would return as precursor and messenger before the end time (Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6; Sir 48:10-11). Matthew makes this identification of John with Elijah even more explicit at 11:10,14; 17:11-13. (Barbara Reid,The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 22)

2) From the margins and contrary to the perceptions of the religious center, John sees the corrupt nature of the present and the inevitability of God’s wrath to come, which holds people accountable, and for which repentance is the only preparation. Interpreters usually assume that John sees a cataclysmic apocalyptic future scenario (supported by “in those days” in 3:1). (Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins, p. 97)

3) This why the bracing wake-up call is necessary. “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (3:11-12). This image moves us from stones to the common harvest imagery of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought. But be wary of equating Pharisees and Sadducees with chaff – they might have repented and borne good fruit. It’s our turn to prepare for the coming of the Messiah; and we ought not to presume. (John W. Martens, blog in “America” magazine).

The Gospel reading for the 3rd Sunday of Advent in the A cycle

Is John’s question strange after this testimony and John’s baptism of Jesus (3:14)? Somewhat. But there was no uniform, widespread messianic expectation . Jesus’ ministry has demonstrated power (3:11) in authoritative teaching (chs.5-7, 10) and miracles (chs. 8-9) and has offered salvation and promised judgment (10:32-33; 3:11-12). But no cosmic judgment has taken place. John seeks confirmation. His question underlines the means of recognizing Jesus’ identity. Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins, p. 250)

Advent 3 A

Advent 3 A

Introduction: Our First reading of this Sunday, known as REJOICE Sunday, give us an interplay between nature and human society. About nature it says, “the desert...will bloom with abundant flowers.” God’s providence extends to healing. In today’s Gospel we hear: “John ...sent a message through his disciples to ask Jesus, ‘are you ‘He who is to come’ or do we look for another?’”

Homily: The question that comes to my mind on first hearing this Gospel is: WHY did John send this message to Jesus? What was behind it? I’d like to look at two different answers to that question.
1) For the first answer we need to know more about the disciples of John. John had a group of disciples, that is clear. In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist points to Jesus as the Lamb of God and two of his disciples follow Jesus. But what we fail to take into account, is that John had more than two disciples. Some of these disciples continued to follow him even after the coming of Jesus on the scene. In John chapter 3:25 we are told “...a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew about purification...” These disciples also jealously object to the number of people who were following Jesus. In the Acts of the Apostles chapter 18 we hear about a group at Ephesus who had been baptized only with the baptism of John. So there was a group of people who were followers of John throughout Jesus’ life and for some time after his death. Some may even have thought that John was the Messiah. John and Jesus have much in common: both were regarded as prophets, their preaching message in some ways is the same, “Reform your lives! The reign of God is at hand.” They both call for action now and “bearing fruit” in good deeds. Both are arrested on very flimsy grounds, executed because of the weakness of a government official, and buried by their disciples.
Some say that John sent his disciples to Jesus because he was fed up with them. He had told them explicitly that he had only come to announce the coming of Jesus. He had told them very clearly that he, John, was not humanity’s destination, that he was only a sign-board on the road, and yet they remained all the time, like babies that do not want to be weaned, hanging around him, John. He sent them with the question, hoping that Jesus would convince them to stay with Jesus.

2) There is however another explanation offered. John may have lost faith in Jesus. Reflect for a moment, if you will, on the preaching of John that we heard last Sunday. John the Baptist was a desert man, a kind of wild man. The description of his attire would have reminded people of the prophet Elijah. His words would echo for them the message of previous prophets: Malachi, “the day of the Lord”; Amos and Zephaniah, “coming wrath.” “When John the Baptist heard in prison of the works of the Christ, he sent his disciples to Jesus with this question, “are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” When we hear these words our tendency is take the meaning for “works” to be the miracles of Jesus. But there was much more to Jesus’ ministry than miracles. John’s harsh judgment on sinners was not Jesus’ way. Jesus ate and drank with sinners. He sat at table with unsavory types. He conversed with prostitutes and even allows them to wash his feet. He objected to the idea of stoning a woman caught in adultery. People confronted him with the fact that the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast often and offer prayers, but yours eat and drink. (Lk. 5:33)
To me it seems conceivable that John couldn’t put together his idea of a rather rigorous Messiah, with the actions of Jesus. Jesus didn’t fit his idea of what the Messiah, the One who is to come, would be like. (Remember that the Apostles also had a similar difficulty accepting the type of Messiah Jesus would present.) And so John addresses his question to Jesus. It is quite possible that John selectively read the prophets. His preaching would seem to indicate that. But John might have overlooked the broader vision of Isaiah. This whole world would start to change under God’s influence through the efforts of the faithful. Remember that beautiful imagery of today’s first reading: “The wilderness is changing, the wasteland is blooming and the glory of God is seen on its way. I hope that John came to understand that. I hope we under that.

Maybe God is asking us too to understand something new about God this Advent. John could boldly address his question to Jesus. Do you have some question that you wish to address to Jesus?
Some would prefer a God of fire and brimstone, like John projects. By comparing John and Jesus, we may have to take another look at how we understand, project our God. I think we should be asking one another and the TV Evangelists: Are you really the followers of Jesus, he who is to come, or should we look for another? Churches are sometimes full, lots of money is collected but is justice organized? Do our life decisions or life style, make the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead rise? Are we good news to the poor in this world? Maybe God is asking us to do something new to help the blind, deaf, lame, poor and the dead.

Advent 2 A

Advent 2 A

Introduction: The First Sunday of Advent gave us a general orientation to the season, looking back, looking ahead, and living now. Each Sunday of this Advent the first reading is from the book of the Prophet Isaiah. The Second and Third Sundays of Advent propose for us, one of the key persons of the Season, John the Baptist. Our Fourth Sunday will have us look at St. Joseph. Of course Mary can not be far from our thoughts during this pregnant time. We will especially focus on her for the feasts of her Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Homily: The Gospel offers us the picture of a fire and brimstone preacher. With our imagination we see John, arrayed in “a garment of camel’s hair and a leather girdle” eating “locusts”. In my imagination he has long unkempt hair and a beard. From this frightening image of a man come forth even more frightening words: “Repent!” (v.2) The Greek word means “change your mind,” “change your thinking,” “turn around,” “return”, be converted.”

If Christ is to come to us in any meaningful way, if Christmas is to bring the joy and hope that it promises, we Christians have to change our minds, our way of thinking, our way of living. In our times “Sin” itself has almost vanished from our vocabulary.
John identifies a particular group as "coming for baptism, many Pharisees and Sadducees." On page 96,97 of Warren Carter's commentary on Matthew he says, "The phrase coming for baptism can also be translated, coming against the baptism. the greek preposition translated "for" can mean "against." John's prophetic identity suggests likely conflict with the religious elite, and in 2:4-7 the religious leaders are introduced as resistant to God's purposes. More likely then, is that they come to oppose John's baptism and persuade others not to be baptized." John reprimands the religious leaders, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves...” John spews forth scary image after scary image. “Even now the ax lies at the root of the tree. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” “His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into

his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
We must search ourselves. Am I producing good fruit? What are some of the presumptions that I make, that I “say to myself?” Am I living a life that is not bearing good fruit? Am I risking being cut down and thrown into the fire? Is my life such that I will be in the barn with the wheat or in the unquenchable fire with the chaff?

After this serious examination of conscience we need to be reminded of the vision of the prophet Isaiah. Last Sunday he offered us a vision of a New World Order, “swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks...nor shall they train for war again.” Today we heard a vision of a world recreated in peace. Animals that are enemies become friends. Children an small animals dwell in peace with savage carnivores and poisonous snakes. Despite their vulnerability, they risk no harm. We hear of the “spirit of the Lord” coming to rest upon us. This is a spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, fear of the Lord. “There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord, as water covers the sea.”

Let us seek to be part of this New World Order, of a world recreated in peace. We ask for pardon for our sins and pray again our Responsorial Psalm:
JUSTICE SHALL FLOURISH IN HIS TIME AND FULLNESS OF PEACE FOREVER.
O God, with your judgement endow our leaders,
And with your justice, our president and congress;
May you govern your people with justice
And your afflicted ones with judgment. R/.

Justice shall flower in your days,
And profound peace, till the moon be no more.
May God rule from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the Earth. R/.

For God shall rescue the poor when they cry out,
And the afflicted when they have no one to help them.
God shall have pity for the lowly and the poor;
The lives of the poor God shall save. R/.

May God’s name be blessed forever;
As long as the sun God’s name shall remain.
In God shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed;
All the nations shall proclaim God’s happiness. R/.

Advent 1 A

Advent 1 A
Live in the Light.

Introduction: “Advent expresses in symbol and ritual three stages in the human journey, in the Christian journey. Christ has come; Christ will come again; and Christ is here now. We remember the first; we look to the second; we live the third. All three are part and parcel of our lives..,” (this quote is from SIR WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE JESUS by Walter Burkhardt, S.J. It was the inspiration for this homily.)

Homily:

I. First Advent is a remembering. People in Isaiah’s time were offered a New World Order with the famous words, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not rise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. …Let us walk in the light of the Lord.” The future hopeful vision has light overcoming darkness. At midnight Mass we will hear from chapter 9 of Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone.”
In the New Testament Zachary hymned in prophecy of his son John and said: “By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”
The people of Isaiah’s time knew living in darkness. The people of Jesus time knew living in darkness. We know darkness in ourselves and in our time.

People in Jesus’ time are offered a vision of their feet being guided into the way of peace. Jesus said of himself, “I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
In the imagery of Advent light and darkness are present. They will also be present in the imagery of Easter. The darkness at the death of Jesus will lift. Early in the morning on the first day of the week when it was still dark the women at the tomb would be enlightened. We remember.


II. Advent not only looks back, but looks ahead. We not only
recall Christ’s first coming, we anticipate his final coming. The trouble is the end-time is wrapped in darkness. We do not know when it will come. Some Christians are sure they know: The end is soon, it may be any moment now. Some supposed teachers of bible prophecy discover our present generation in the Synoptic signs, in the predictions of Paul, in the Revelation of John. But we must face the stark and clear words of the gospel writer Matthew in our present passage: “Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.”
Nor do we know how Christ will come. The pictures and poetry of the first century tell us very little about the how. We do know that Christ will come in power and majesty and overcome evil.
When Scripture focuses on Christ’s final coming, the stress is not on when and how. Two questions are crucial: First, whenever Christ comes, however he comes, will you be ready? Second, how are you readying Christ’s return, how are you preparing God’s kingdom?

III. We not only look back on the first coming and forward to a final coming. We are not caught between a past that is gone and a future that is not yet here. What links yesterday and tomorrow is today. We are to live now a life that Christ’s first coming made possible, and by living that life now, we prepare for his final coming. He is no longer in a crib of straw, not yet on clouds of glory. But he is here. The light shines in the darkness….now.
But tell me honestly does it? Do you actually find Christ lighting up the darkness in you, the darkness around you? There is darkness in all of us. The death of Jesus, our baptism, even the Christ within us has not simply destroyed all darkness. What are the areas of darkness with me, within you? Is there something of self that you are clinging to, will not let go, even though it torments you? What, in psychological language is your shadow side?
Besides the darkness within us, there is a darkness around us. We still can almost feel the heat and smell the dust and death and darkness from the World Trade Center. We are bombarded with images of our military might in Afghanistan. We see people starving, refugees. We are troubled by our lack of a good immigration policy, etc.,etc.
After more than 2000 years, there is still deep darkness in this redeemed world. Christ is here, for he has come. But the light that is Christ flickers and shines and blazes only through people.
Here is our Advent. Make the Christ who has come a reality a living light in my life and in some other lives. Like the Christophers, light one candle in the darkness. Let Christ dawn.

34 C Christ the King

34 C CHRIST THE KING
Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.

Introduction: The readings present us two images of Jesus as King, the crucified Christ and the cosmic Christ.

Homily: In the Gospel the rulers sneer, the soldiers jeer and one of the criminals reviled Jesus crucified on the cross.
In Mark’s account of the Passion the emphasis of the mockers at this point is “come down from the cross.” They cannot accept a Christ on a cross. They want to get rid of the cross.
In Luke’s account the emphasis is slightly different. Their chorus is: rulers, “let him save himself”; soldiers, “save yourself”; one of the criminals, “save yourself and us.”
We too wish to do away with the cross. But Jesus is clear about this, “if anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.” Luke 9:24 (RSV)
Christ the King as crucified Christ is not what some people were looking for then or are looking for now. The paradox of saving our life by losing it and losing our life to save it is not easily understood or accepted. What are we asking when we cry out as the one criminal did, “save yourself and us.”

But besides these responses of derision and mocking of Jesus, there is in today’s Gospel from Luke the response of acceptance. The contrast between the two criminals on his right and his left is strong and dramatic. They represent conflicting judgements that people had about Jesus.
Luke alone recalls the precious dialogue of Jesus with “the other criminal”. In Luke this other criminal (who we have come to know as the “good thief”) acknowledges the justice of his own sentence and confesses the innocence of one whom he addresses intimately as “Jesus”. The suffering Jesus responds with greater generosity than the petitioner requests, for Jesus will not simply remember the man after entering into his Kingdom; he will take the man with him this very day. The oft-used observation that the “good thief” ultimately stole the Kingdom is not too far from the truth.

Our Second Reading for this feast highlights another aspect of Christ the King. He is the cosmic Christ. There is a mosaic of Christ the pantocrater (ruler of all) in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. It captures something of the cosmic Christ. This is the Christ whom the letter to the Colossians describes in this language, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible…all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together….For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell…” This is an image of a rule without boundaries, one who is king not only of earth but of all creation—and even beyond. This is a kingship beyond any human grasp or gift.
But the next image in Colossians, and developed in the Gospel, is almost the direct opposite, the “King of the Jews” whose throne is a cross (but whose gift of Paradise is as wide as the cosmic image of the second reading.) Colossians picks up from: “For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell…” and continues “and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross through him, whether those on earth or those in heaven.”

We end our liturgical year focusing on the promise of Paradise to the good thief. It is also God’s promise to us. We must take up our cross daily, we must lose our life to save it and save it by losing it. We can perhaps end our sermon and our church year by singing together this refrain several times: “Jesus remember me, when you come into your kingdom. Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus remember when you come into your kingdom.

Benedict XVI Exhortation on Synod of the Word

I’ve just finished my initial reading of:

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
VERBUM DOMINI
OF THE HOLY FATHER
BENEDICT XVI

My initial reactions:

Positive: The language of this exhortation is pretty understandable. (This in contrast to some Encyclicals and other pronouncements from Rome).

The Pope has some excellent quotes which show his familiarity with the Fathers of the Church.

There is an INDEX at the end of the Exhortation.

I took 8 pages of notes of passages which spoke to me.

The copy I was reading had the footnotes at the bottom of each page.

Negative: The exhortation is very lengthy, covering more than 192 pages.

Benedict ends up quoting himself a bit too often for me.

I’m afraid that the length and breadth of this exhortation will limit the number of people who will take the time to read it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some specifics:

p. 19 Human language operates analogically in speaking of the word of God.

...the expression "word of God" here refers to the person of Jesus

...creation itself "the liber naturae" (the book of nature) is an essential part of this symphony...

...God has spoken his word in salvation history...

...the word of God is that Word preached by the apostles...

...The word of God is..Sacred Scripture...

P. 33 ...the Synod pointed to the need to "help the faithful to distinguish the word of God from private revelations

P. 39 The Second Vatican Council also states that this Tradition of apostolic origin is a living and dynamic reality: it "makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit"

p. 45 ...in the dynamic of Christian revelation, silence appears as an important expression of the word of God.

P. 75 ...the concept of the fulfillment of the Scriptures is a complex one, since it has three dimensions: a basic aspect of continuity with the Old Testament revelation; an aspect of discontinuity and an aspect of fulfilment and transcendence.

P. 77 In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance.

---

---

There are some sage words for lectors and homilists. The pope gives seven suggestions and practical proposals for promoting fuller participation in the liturgy.

Some great words on the vocation of the laity and "feminine genius".

---

---

P. 165 The word of God and commitment to justice in society.

P. 167 The proclamation of God’s word, reconciliation and peace between peoples.

P. 172 The proclamation of the word of God and migrants.

P. 174 The proclamation of the word of God and the poor.

P. 176 The proclamation of the word of God and the protection of creation.

　

　

CHRISTIAN SALVATION OR SOTERIOLOGY

CHRISTIAN SALVATION OR SOTERIOLOGY by David Jackson

St. Anselm’s view of the work of Jesus, that he came to pay for sin (expiation, the
satisfaction theory), has been a powerful force in the formation of Catholic understanding.
Recently some theologians have challenged this.

Elizabeth Johnson gave the keynote for the 2008 Assembly of the LCWR. In her presentation she called this “one of the worst theological ideas ever to take hold of this event” (Christ’s death). Johnson argues for seeing the cross not “as a death required by God in repayment for sin,” but rather “as an event of divine love” and as the price paid by Jesus for his ministry. “Jesus did not come to die but to live and to help others live in the joy of divine love.”

Just recently, watching the videos on the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman, gave me an aha moment. Ehrman says “he (Paul) had some kind of visionary experience of Jesus that changed his life....This experience completely transformed his understanding of Jesus. Paul’s thought process seems to have worked backward from his conviction that Jesus really was raised from the dead.” He goes on to say, “...Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for the sins of others. A person’s sins can, therefore, be removed if he or she will accept that sacrifice by faith, or trust in Christ’s death for salvation.” So Paul preceded Anselm’s interpretation.

Accepting Christ as one’s personal Savior seems to me to be quite parallel to Anselm’s thoughts. Christ offered his life on the cross so that we could be saved. The emphasis is more on his death than the life that he lived. Faith is more important than actions.

Johnson further states: “Today, criticisms of this idea that God required the death of Jesus in order to forgive sin are many. Among them: it makes it seem that the main purpose of Jesus’ coming was to die, thus diminishing the importance of his ministry and ignoring the resurrection.” (She then shares criticisms from spirituality, liberation theology, feminist theology and the picture of God that results. She also lists New Testament metaphors besides satisfaction to interpret the death of Jesus. )

Along this same line, Diarmuid O’Murchu in Catching Up With Jesus, p. 26 says: “If we diminish the significance of Jesus’ death, are we not undermining the very meaning of resurrection? This is another assumption we need to revisit. If we honor, as Jesus did, the primary role of the Kingdom of God, which is about life radically lived to the full, then resurrection is not so much about the vindication of his death as about the affirmation of a life lived in utter fullness. Resurrection belongs to the life rather than the death of Jesus. In a similar vein, resurrection is an affirmation and celebration of the fullness of life as exemplified by Jesus and offered as a new horizon of creative engagement for all who follow the pathway of Jesus.”

In Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence, Terrence Rynne points out that historical satisfaction theories of soteriology are being surpassed by contemporary views in terms of peace and nonviolence. Two reviews of this book speak of Rynne’s soteriology. Peter c. Phan, “This insight leads Rynne to offer an extensive critique of Anselm’s satisfaction theory of redemption, which in his eyes is predicated on a faulty understanding of God, lacks a biblical basis, ignores Jesus’ unique mode of ministry and glorifies human suffering.”
John C. Meyer of Bradley University, writes:”Rynne has done a major service for religious people of all denominations by presenting this in-depth study of Gandhi’s life and teaching that offers a model and a new way of understanding Christian salvation and our purpose on earth.” “He (Rynne) points out, however, that historical satisfaction theories of soteriology are being surpassed by contemporary views in terms of peace and nonviolence. Whereas great theologians such as Anselm in the past taught salvation as coming about through the obedient sacrifice of Jesus on the cross which appeased an angry God who needed to be satisfied by the blood of his son, more contemporary soteriologies try to show that it was Jesus’ whole life of suffering by practicing what he was preaching that brought about atonement. Rynne points out that: “Christ died because of the way he lived not because God the Father had him killed.”

31 C. Ordinary Time

31 C
Large lessons from Little Zacchaeus.

Introduction: The last sentence of today’s Gospel reads, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus candidly addressed the fact that people get lost. But the good news is that he came to seek out and save the lost. Together let us pray about these ideas this morning.

Homily: Today I would like to offer you some of my reflections on how people get lost. What does it mean that Jesus seeks out not just Zacchaeus, but also seeks out us, and what does it mean to be saved by Jesus?

I. LOST.
Some years back I remember the County Executive of Milwaukee, Wi. taking some steps to provide for a growing number of homeless people. His words to describe them were “lost souls”. When you hear the words, “Lost” who do you think of?
My own reflection on this question led me to make this list: Lost = People who feel overwhelmed by life, depressed, suicidal, desperate, those who feel completely worthless, empty, those into substance abuse. Depression is experienced in many different ways and at many different levels. Some people feel isolated, unaccepted, unhappy, unloved, frustrated, powerless, a lack of connectedness; they feel lost. Some people, even children feel rejected and belittled. People feel guilty, sinful, they feel compromised or compromising. To feel lost has many different meanings in our lives.
Zacchaeus is a man of power and wealth, but yet he must have felt something missing, some emptiness. He must have felt stuck or trapped. There is a certain desperateness in his climbing that tree to see Jesus.

II. SEEK.
In many stories of Jesus he is asked something and responds. This is not an instance of “you asked me so I’ll tell you.” Luke the Gospel writer tells us, “Jesus came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town.” But Jesus changes his plans. He looked up, called Zacchaeus by name, and invited himself to Zacchaeus’ house. In this passage Jesus is the one who takes the initiative. This is a definite and deliberate seeking out by Jesus. Jesus accepted Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus received Jesus with joy. Nothing is forced or demanded by Jesus. It seems that Jesus looking at Zacchaeus, calling him by name and telling him that he must stay at his house was empowering for Zacchaeus. Beyond Jesus inviting himself to Zacchaeus home we are not told anything that Jesus might have said to Zacchaeus. It seems that Jesus acceptance of him was just the boost he needed to make some changes in his life. He is willing to give to the poor and make reparations.

III. SAVE.
Into Zacchaeus’ emptiness, lostness, stuckness, Jesus comes. Zacchaeus feels found, not found out. Jesus makes him feel saved not lost. Zacchaeus takes the initiative to tell how he is going to change his life. “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.” And Jesus said to him, “today salvation has come to this house…”
We too must realize that Jesus wants to stay with us. He knows us by name. How might Jesus be seeking us out today? Might Jesus be calling you to bring salvation, acceptance into the life of someone who feels lost?
Salvation has many different meanings in our lives.
In different ways we get stuck. Salvation is forgiveness of sin. Salvation is being able to forgive someone who has hurt us. Salvation is moving from desperation to direction. Salvation is being saved from feelings of worthlessness to a sense of self worth. Salvation can consist in being freed of vague, free floating anxiety to naming particular issues. Salvation can mean finding liberation from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through twelve step programs. Being saved can mean finding a solution to problems in my marriage or family. Salvation can mean finding a job. Salvation can mean finding help to overcome depression.
Let us each hear these words for ourselves, “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Jesus truly wants to stay with you. He is looking up, he is calling you by name. He is accepting you and seeking you out. Perhaps Jesus wants to use you to save someone. How are you going to respond to this initiative of Jesus?

30th C

30th "C"
Going up and down in prayer

The THEME FOR THIS SUNDAY CONTINUES to be prayer. Last Sunday we heard the parable of the widow and the unjust judge. In that parable the theme is: persevere as the Widow did in naming and opposing injustice and thus be God-like. Today we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (publican). It talks about an attitude and prayer but much more.

Two go up and two go down. Going up the Pharisee is first, going down the
Tax collector is first.

Is this a time of private prayer or is it a setting of public worship?
Bailey senses evidence for public worship.

Pharisee in a gesture of religious superiority, stands apart from the
other worshipers.

Pharisee-- his posture is described briefly, his prayer at great length.
Tax collector–his posture is described in detail, his prayer very briefly.

Pharisee: I,I,I,I, catalogue of virtues, compares with another.
Prayer in Jewish piety involved primarily the offering of thanks/praise
to God for all of His gifts, and petitions for the worshiper's needs.
This Pharisee does neither. He does not thank God for His gifts but
rather boasts of his own self-achieved righteousness. He has no
requests. Mere self advertisement.

l) stands aloof lest he be defiled by the unrighteous around him, he
congratulates himself.
2) offers scathing criticism of a tax collector nearby.
3) brags of having not only kept the law but exceeded its demands.

Tax collector. Does not stand aloof but "afar off." Feels he is not
worthy to stand with God's people before the altar. His bodily gestures are themselves prayer, eyes not lifted, beats his breast. Does not unroll a catalogue of sins. Does not compare himself with others, trusts in God alone.

PATTERN FOR PRAYER SET FORTH:
Subjects for prayer: self congratulation, boasting of pious achievements, criticism of others are not appropriate.
Humble confession of sin and need, offered in hope
that through the atonement sacrifice this sin might be covered and those
needs met, is appropriate.

Attitudes: pride no place, humility is required.

Self righteousness distorts the vision. A profoundly moving demonstration of remorse was enacted by a sincerely repentant man before the eyes of the self-righteous Pharisee. He saw only a sinner to be avoided.

KINGDOM THEME OF REVERSAL. The widow who is expected to be weak and powerless is aggressive and courageous; she is described with metaphors from the boxing ring. The tax collector who represents a class who were aggressive and often even brutal, seems submissive and deferential.

PRAYER OR ACTION TENSION. The Gospel of Luke counters such facile polarization by juxtaposing the Samaritan who fulfills the law by
showing mercy in a concrete deed with Mary who listens to the word. In this passage he places together a widow who raises her voice in protest against injustice with a tax collector who quietly asks for God's mercy. For Luke, listening to the word of God, prayer for forgiveness, and concern for alleviating suffering and injustice are wedded inseparably, and no human being should put them asunder.

29 C

29 C
Wisdom from Widow.

Introduction: This Sunday and next the Gospel will present us with twin parables. Both parables are about prayer. Luke often times presents us with a teaching which features a man and a woman. Today’s Gospel features a widow, next Sunday’s features a man. It is important to remember that in the time of Jesus life expectancy was very short. (Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, p. 41) “Few ordinary people (those of low status) lived out their thirties…much of Jesus’ audience would have been younger than he, disease-ridden, and looking at a decade or less of life expectancy.” In Jesus’ time with people having a short life span, women married in their early teens. So we should not think of this widow as aged and infirm.

Homily: In this parable two characters are introduced in the early verses. Neither fits the expected stereotype. A judge who neither fears God nor respects human beings is not acting according to what is expected of a good judge. The second book of Chronicles tells what a good judge should do: take care what they do, for they are judging not on behalf of human beings, but on behalf of God, who judges with them. They are admonished to let the fear of God be upon them. They are to act carefully because with God there is no injustice, no partiality, and no bribe taking. It seems that nothing shames this judge. There is no spark of honor left in his soul to which anyone can appeal. As the rich fool was blinded by his wealth, this judge seems to be blinded by his power. As the story proceeds, the judge remains utterly unmoved by the widow’s persistent pleas. The final incongruity is that a powerful judge is afraid that a seemingly poor, defenseless widow will come and give him a black eye.
No less startling is the character of the widow. The bible usually describes widows as poor and defenseless. Widows, orphans and aliens are seen as being the most vulnerable and without resources. Many widows were in financially precarious positions. They were without social status and at the mercy of her nearest male relative, who was responsible to take care of her. The widow in this parable, does not fit this portrait at all. Luke uses a parallel word structure to introduce both the judge and the widow. A stark and direct confrontation is set up.
The shock in the parable comes, not in the exploitation of widows, which was common, but in her public and persistent cry for justice. Bribery was a common practice in this time with judges, she refuses to resort to bribery. The woman speaks of an “adversary”. The issue is most likely a money matter: a debt, a pledge, or a portion of an inheritance that is being withheld from her. There is irony in the fact that her complaint may be against the very man who should have been her provider! (These insights are received from Barbara Reid’s, Parables for Preachers, Year C.)
Most commentators emphasize the judge and say that he is a negative example. If an unjust judge would give in to the relentless pleas of a widow, how much more will God, who is upright. This interpretation can give the wrong impression that if one badgers God persistently enough, one can eventually wear God down and get a positive response.

“There is a far simpler way to understand the parable. It is the widow who is cast in the image of God and who is presented to the disciples as a figure to emulate. When the widow is seen as the God-like figure, then the message of the parable is that when one doggedly resists injustice, faces it, names it, and denounces it until right is achieved, then one is acting as God does. Moreover, it reveals godly power in seeming weakness.
“In a culture that measures power in terms of acquisition of wealth, this parable underscores the paradoxical power of seeming weakness. It shows that the initiative in seeking justice comes from the one who has been wronged, and her power is in doggedly raising her voice day after day after day. The parable portrays not violence, but persistent naming and confronting injustice as the means to accomplish righteousness.”

Digging in to the Gospel tradition

Luke 17: 11-19 This account shows how a leper and legally observant Jesus should behave.
Contrast this with Mark 1:40-44 (read in the B cycle for the 6th Sunday of the year).
from John Crossan, Jesus, p. 83
"In terms of the original situation, Jesus' action puts him on a direct collision course with priestly authority in the Temple. After touching a leper he can hardly turn around and tell him to observe the purity code that he himself has just broken.
But what we see at the transmissional level is intense apologetics seeking to bring Jesus into line with traditional biblical and legal practice--to show him, in terms of purity regulations, as an observant Jew,....especially that terminal injunction in 1:44 to "go show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded."
Finally, at the third or redactional level, as Mark records the story in his gospel, he makes one very significant final change. He himself is much more in sympathy with that legally unobservant Jesus at the story's original level, so he adds, after the injunction to go to the Temple, a phrase translated as "as a testimony to them." It could be better translated with, "as a witness against them"--in other words, "to show them who's boss." But in either case, for Mark, Jesus is enjoining the visit to the Temple not as legal observance but as confrontational witness."

28 C of Ordinary Time

28 C
Lessons from lepers.

Introduction: The first reading and the Gospel today speak about persons with leprosy. There is healing and thanks are returned by one of the ten that Jesus heals.

Homily: The first reading today is obviously chosen because it like the Gospel speaks of a cure from leprosy. But this brief passage that we read does not do justice to this story in the Second Book of Kings. Much of the drama and message of this story is contained in what comes before today’s Gospel passage and what comes after it. In my own words I’d like to retell you the story. Namaan was the commander of the army of the King of Aram. He was held in high esteem by the king. But he was a leper.
In Naaman’s household was a young girl captive from the land of Israel. She had been captured in one of the Arameans raids on Israel. She served Naaman’s wife. This nameless slave girl knew of a prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria. She told her mistress that this prophet could cure Naaman. We are not told how the mistress communicates this message to her husband. But the next thing we know Naaman is telling his king what the young girl said. (Already we have a rather strange phenomenon taking place, the slave girl tells the mistress, the mistress tells her husband and the husband tells the king. It would be rare that the words of a slave girl would have such an impact.)
The King on hearing what the slave girl said, sends Naaman with a letter to the King of Israel. Naaman takes with him large sums of money. But Israel’s king is afraid that the King of Aram is trying to pick a quarrel with him. (We are not told how, but Elisha heard that the King of Israel had torn his garments in fear.) Elisha sends a message to his king to send Naaman to him. So Naaman came, the writer of the Second Book of Kings tells us, “with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house.”
But at this point the story takes a peculiar twist. Elisha sent a messenger to him saying, “Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.” “But Naaman became angry and went away saying, ‘I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy. Are not…the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’” He turned and went away in a rage.
So here we have a bit of a paradox. Naaman heeded the word of the Israel slave girl but he does not heed the word of the prophet Elisha. The reason he can’t listen to Elisha is because he had a preconceived idea about how this healing should take place. The author of 2 Kings strains to tell us in detail how Naaman thought the healing should go. Elisha did not follow his preconceived ideas. Elisha didn’t come out but sent a messanger. Elisha didn’t call on the name of his God. Elisha didn’t stand before him. He didn’t wave his hand over the spot. We almost have to stop and pause for a moment before going on. Though we wonder at Naaman’s response, there is a dynamic of the story that catches us. We probably sense a certain resonance here with people and dynamics in our own life. Does this dynamic between Naaman and Elisha capture something that also happens in my life? Do my preconceived ideas hinder good from happening?
Curiously enough it is the servants who confront Naaman with his foolishness. His servants approached him and said, “Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, ‘Wash and be clean?’” Naaman has to be an impetuous man (makes quick decisions). We are then told: “So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.”
Naaman then returns to Elisha and says, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” Naaman wishes to give a gift to the prophet. But the prophet won’t accept it. We almost wonder if Naaman is going to get angry again and go away in a snit. But no, this time Naaman’s reaction is different. Naaman asks for two mule-loads of earth and promises he will not offer holocaust or sacrifice to any other god except to the Lord. (This is where this Sunday’s passage ends. But there is still more to the story…
Naaman is in a difficult position because on his return to his own country he must accompany his master to worship services to the god Rimmon. Naaman asks that Elisha pardon him on this one count. Elisha tells him, “Go in peace.” We almost feel like we’ve been part of a confession.

But the incident is still not over, there is a kind of epilogue (after story). In contrast to the way the servants have served Naaman we are now told how Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, now does his master a disservice. Gehazi thinks that Elisha has left Naaman off too easily by not accepting what was offered. Gehazi decides to run after him and get something from him. Gehazi lies to Naaman and says that unexpectedly two prophets have come from the hill country and need assistance. Gehazi is well paid. Two of Naaman’s servants accompany him back to the city. Gehazi hides the treasure he has wrongly acquired. When asked by Elisha where he had gone, Gehazi lies. But the prophet who worked the cure on Naaman says that he had accompanied Gehazi in spirit, while Gehazi lied and accepted money. Now Elisha says to his servant: “Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you, and to your descendants forever.” And the writer of Second kings tells us, “So he left his presence leprous, as white as snow.”

There is much to reflect on in the persons of this story. Naaman He can accept a message that comes to him through his wife who heard it from her slave girl and share it with his king. Maybe it is the desperation of the leprosy that allows him to do this. (In the Gospel it is this same desperation that puts together the Samaritan leper and the Jewish lepers.) But he seems to think that he can buy his cure from the prophet of Samaria. He comes with his preconceived ideas about how the cure should take place and because of his anger and impetuosity almost misses his cure. But when cured he accepts that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.” He wants to present Elisha with a gift. When refused he doesn’t turn away in anger this time, but asks for two mule loads of earth. Interpreters tell us he wishes to worship the God of Israel on dirt from Israel. And finally Naaman asks pardon on one account. He knows he cannot sever himself from his responsibility to his king who will worship a different god. He asks and receives permission to accompany his master. “Go in peace.”
The nameless slave girl of Naaman’s wife. It must have been a bit of a risk to share her information about the prophet in Israel in the land of Samaria who she said could cure Naaman. But the slave girl is courageous.
The other servants of Naaman who remain nameless. They take the risk to confront Naaman with the foolishness he has just engaged in. “If he told you to do something difficult you would have, why not wash and be clean?”
The servant of Elisha, Gehazi. He is a wheeler dealer and can’t let his master be gypped. Or is he more concerned about getting wealthy?

We may want to think about the Samaritan leper of the Gospel who was cured and came back to give thanks. Nine did not.

27th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Two scripture scholars have an interesting insight into the final verse of today's Gospel.
Barbara Reid, "The final verse of today's Gospel asserts not that faithful servants are "unprofitable" (NAB), "WORTHLESS" (NRSV) or "useless (NJB), As some translations render the Greek archreioi. Rather, the words mean literally that they are "without need"." Proclaiming the empowering vision of God's reign and rendering faithful service to bring it about satisfies every want and need of disciples."

JOhn Kilgallen, S.J. "This cannot be the correct translation, for the servant in the parable works for his master all day; this servant cannot be called 'useless' or 'unprofitable'. Better is it to say that the servant should say that he has no claim on the master, that he has no right to expect anything but what a servant should receive."

Rich Man and Lazarus

26 C
Do you wish you were a Rich Person?

Introduction: This is the third Sunday in a row that we have heard a parable in Luke’s Gospel. From the parable of the Loving Father we learn that God is like this loving Father. From the parable of the wise steward we learn that we are to imitate him. We should be prudent and take energetic initiative. From today’s Parable of the rich man and Lazarus we learn that we should not imitate the rich man.

1. RICH AND POOR IN THIS LIFE. (vs. 19-21)
Rich Man Poor Man
Inside “thrown down” at the gate
Clothed in purple covered with sores
Fine linen

Feasted sumptuously so hungry desired to eat
Every day crumbs (like a dog)
(used a kind of Pita bread as a (hunger for discarded Pita bread
napkin, discarded on floor) for sustenance)
Lazarus is licked by the dogs.

2. DEATH OF EACH PROTAGONIST AND THE REVERSAL OF FATES IN THE AFTERLIFE. (vs. 22-26)
died died
was buried (no burial spoken of)
Was carried by angels to
Abraham’s bosom.

Hades From the abode of the dead Abraham and Lazarus at
his side
netherworld
Torment
Now sees “he raised his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus resting in his bosom.”
Rich man attempts to get help from Abraham through the sending of Lazarus (treats Lazarus as a servant). “Send Lazarus …” Reversal of fortunes from beginning of story: “…to cool my tongue…(tongue that had savored sumptuous food daily now longs for a drop of water) .

for I am suffering torment in these flames” (dressed in flashy clothes, now clothed in burning flames).
ABRAHAM SPEAKS:
“you received what was good” “…while Lazarus …received
what was bad;
but now he is comforted
here,
whereas you are tormented.”

GREAT ABYSS
Rich man never got across the great abyss between himself and Lazarus at his door.


3. DIALOGUE BETWEEN RICH MAN AND ABRAHAM OVER FATE
OF THOSE STILL ALIVE. (vs. 27-31) Yawning gap between the rich man and Lazarus is sealed by the wealthy man’s inability to see Lazarus as his brother. He turns his attention to his five rich brothers, and wants Lazarus to serve him as his messenger and warn them. The final verse underscores that the rich man is irrevocably blind to the poor man, his brother. Moses and the prophets repeatedly admonish care for the poor. And Lazarus sits at every gate. If one will not heed the Torah and put it into practice when given repeated opportunities, not even an apparition from the dead Lazarus will melt the hardened heart. Right to the end of the parable the rich man continues to bargain with Abraham and to claim a privileged position. What is necessary he cannot do: he must relinquish his status and power and privilege so as to claim Lazarus as his brother. Luke presents the ideal with regard to possessions: all having what they need when possessions are shared. Abraham who figures prominently in this parable was a rich man. But he is remembered as blessed for his generous hospitality. The Gospel parable shows how riches can blind a person not only to the needs of those at their gate, but to the fact that all people are brothers and sisters of the same parent God.

Humility

22nd C
Mr. Busby and humility.

As Luke does very often he uses a meal setting to share with us some teaching of Jesus. Jesus gives some advice for the guests and for the hosts. We are invited today to the Eucharistic banquet. But the invitation for us is also accompanied by a challenge. Today the name of the challenge is humility.

When you hear the word “humility”, what do you think of? Humility is not a very popular virtue. The musical Godspel says: “It isn’t the earth that the meek inherit, it’s the dirt.” Today we heard Jesus say, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Jesus also said, “Learn of me for I am gentle and humble of heart.” Mt. 11:29 Let us then together consider humility.

To meet a truly humble person is in my experience rare. Some years ago while visiting in a nursing home I met a truly humble man. He said to me after some conversation, “I only have half sense. I have wisdom and knowledge but I don’t have any education.” The sister that was visiting with me, and I talked about that later. We both agreed that we had the education but wished we had more of his wisdom and knowledge. We know many people with a great deal of education but wondered whether any of them would say they only have half sense. The humble person gives a true estimate of self. How difficult it is to have a true estimate of self. We always seem to err either thinking too much of ourselves or not enough of ourselves.
There are many ways in which we exalt ourselves by thinking too much of ourselves: boasting (“I could have gotten you a much better deal, price, etc.”) exaggerating, impatience, rigidity, compulsive talking, taking scandal at others, gossiping about other people (“I can’t stand so and so…”)
But humility has also gotten a bad name by people who don’t think enough of themselves. Humility is not: an inferiority complex, feeling sorry for myself, the attitude, “Oh I could never do that…” Humility is not fear.

True humility is spoken of in a different section of Sirach than we read in the first reading, Sirach 10:27 “ My son with humility have self esteem, prize yourself as you deserve.” (Spanish: “ Hijo mio, apreciate moderadamente y estimate en lo que vales.”) Humility means (as the first reading said) “what is too sublime for you, seek not, into things beyond your strength search not.” We all must come to terms with our limitations, age, health, background, ability. Humility means being an attentive listener. Someone has remarked, “God gave us two ears and one mouth to teach us something.” Humility allows us to admit our mistakes, to forgive ourselves, others, God. True humility I believe will be accompanied with a sense of humor.

Jesus said, “learn of me for I am gentle and humble of heart.” When we look at Jesus we see the strength of humility. Jesus could wash the feet of his apostles. This takes humility but also strength. Jesus could eat and drink with sinners and outcasts. He could be criticized for doing this and yet continue doing it. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus could greet Judas as friend. Jesus loved Peter even after Peter denied him. Jesus could say from the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing.”
Humility for Jesus was not purely passive (receiving from others). It was an active virtue. Jesus not only spoke about service, he served. Jesus not only talked about inviting the beggars, crippled, lame and the blind. He ate with beggars, he healed the crippled and lame and blind.
There is a double challenge in Jesus’ words to the host. By inviting the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind there is no hope of these people repaying in kind. Secondly by inviting these people and associating with them, the host risks losing his own social standing.

So how do we become humble? I believe that the root of humility is the absence of self concern. It is the peace of knowing oneself accepted by God as one is and abandoning oneself to his love. We are made to the image and likeness of God. There is goodness and a spark of creation in all of us. We tend to make God into our image: accepting only when good, loving those who love us. God accepts us as we are (unfinished). We have to remind ourselves, “Be patient with me, God isn’t finished with me yet.” God loves us when we are bad and when we are good. God loves us not for what we do but because we are.

Martha and Mary

"Mary was listening to Jesus." Makes me wonder what Jesus was sharing with her. The context of the passage is in the "Way" section of Luke's Gospel. Jesus is journeying to Jerusalem. Attention has been given to the phrase "seated at Jesus' feet". In the Acts Paul is said to have sat at the feet of Gamaliel. So these words have become almost code words for being someone's disciple. I just finished reading the book, Jesus the Village Psychiatrist. The epilogue mentions that the woman of the alabaster jar of ointment that anoints Jesus feet was tending to him in a special way. One reviewer of the book mentioned that he wishes that the author would have developed the many people who supported Jesus in his ministry. Surely he must have been taxed at time by the journeying, the negative reception, the conflicts. Maybe Mary's listening to Jesus was just what he needed. A listening ear to replenish him for the rest of the journey.

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

"Whose sins you shall retain...."

“Whose sins you shall retain.....”
For Pentecost Sunday the Gospel reading was from John Chapter 20:

Barbara E. Reid in the| APRIL 5, 2009 edition of America magazine gave the following interpretation of John 20:23b.

“The second half of verse 23, usually translated “whose sins you retain are retained,” does not have the word sins in the Greek text. A better way to understand it is “anyone you hold fast is held fast.” The sense is that through processes of forgiveness and reconciliation, disciples of Jesus continue his mission of holding on to all, arms folded across our chests, clenching each hand tightly, so that none, especially the most vulnerable, are lost in the struggle.”

I received the following e-mail from a priest friend of mine:
Dave, I just read Barbara Reid's piece in the AMERICA of May 25 - June 1, 2009 - page 30. She comments on the Gospel for Pentecost (B), stating: In the second half of v.23 there is no word "sins" in the Greek text. It does not speak of retaining "sins" of others but of a Spirit-enabled power to retain every beloved one, just as Jesus did not let a single one be lost." This flies in the face of our mis-translated texts. Why is this not shouted from the housetops? It supports my stance that there is "universal salvation"!!

Since this was such a new interpretation for me, I wrote to the scripture scholar Barbara Reid and received the following response:
Dear David,
I'm glad you like the interpretation of John 20:23b. It is not my original interpretation. Sandra Schneiders advanced it in her essay in the collection dedicated to Raymond Brown, LIFE IN ABUNDANCE, edited by John Donahue (Liturgical Press, 2005), and before that, Josephine Massynbaerde Ford said something similar in her book, REDEEMER, FRIEND, AND MOTHER (Fortress Press, 1997).
Blessings,
Barbara

I also followed up with some research of my own on this passage John 20:23b. Here is what I discovered:

My research reveals:
1) KJV, Rheims Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, NRSV, NAB, New American Standard bible all have "sins" in the second half.
2) Two interlinear translations do not have "sin" in the second half: "or whomever ye forgive the sins, they have been forgiven to them; of whomever ye hold, they have been held" (Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English).
"of whomever you forgive the sins they have been forgiven to them; of whomever you hold they have been held" (A new interlinear translation of the Greek New Testament United Bible Societies' Third, Corrected edition.)
In support of your interpretation both interlinear translations have a "; after the first part, thus separating the second part from it.
3) A Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. (and other Early Christian Literature) translation of 4th revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's work.
under the Greek word krateo under the second meaning: hold–“a”. hold tina someone (fast) w. the hand, so that he cannot go away Ac. 3:11.
Lower down under “e” there are five meanings given, the fifth one ( Greek letter epsilon) retain tas amartias the sins J 20:23) In contradiction to this As Barbara Reid states however, "there is no word "sins" in the Greek text.
I love Barbara Reid's interpretation and I think it should be shouted from the roof tops as you suggest.
Nice to know that Jesus did not want a single one to be lost.

Jesus Garden Trip and Beyond!

Some years ago I attended a lecture by Fr. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P. He proposed the question: "What happened here toward the end of Jesus' life? Can we get behind the Gospel accounts of the Agony and what followed?" He stated that topography is important in our searching and seeking.
He then went into an extended comparison of the four Gospel accounts reviewing how there was growing hostility to Jesus prior to the Agony in the Garden. Then he explored in detail the actual Garden accounts in the four Gospels.
His explanation of what happened goes pretty much like this: In chapter 11 of John's Gospel we are told that Lazarus is sick. The sisters Mary and Martha send a message to Jesus, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." Jesus delays for "two days longer in the place where he was. Then after this he said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judea again." The disciples remind him that the Jews "were just now trying to stone you...." He goes and we recall the story of the raising of Lazarus. After this however Jesus doesn't go into Jerusalem until the festival. He is greeted by the crowd with branches of palm trees and shouting. 12:14 "Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it."

He entered Jerusalem to this acclaim.
Jesus knew he was a hunted man. At the Last Supper he knew that one would betray him. There he had an emotional farewell. He had to be living under extreme tension. After the Last Supper he leaves and crosses the brook Kidron and continues to Gethsemane. The trip from the city took him through the huge graveyard at night. Since it was the feast of Passover it would have been a night of the full moon. He walks through this graveyard at night. All this contributed to his coming death moving from his head to his heart. He had to stop and pull himself together. In Mark's one source the human Jesus breaks down. (With Mark's account there are two sources discerned. The second source waters down this experience, to coincide with the picture of Jesus as divine.)
Jesus is able to pull himself together, rally his apostles and confront his enemies. The enemies are coming from the city. He could have escaped. He had done so before (Luke 4:29-30 and certain references in John's Gospel) It would have been just a brief trip to Bethany where he had friends. He could have received food and water there for an escape into the desert. It was then just a short journey over the precipice of the hill to Jericho. The Jews didn't have an army. But this time Jesus is taken. He has a loyalty to his understanding of the Father's will that goes beyond the rational.
As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

Jesus birth location?

These were my two friends on the walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. This cave had an interesting construction. At the immediate entrance to the cave there was a low type of enclosure. It appeared that the front part of the cave was used for the animals. Then as we proceeded back into the cave, there was another higher barrier, that seemed to set off the living space of the family from the area prepared for the animals. In this living space there was a hole in the ceiling of the cave, through which we could see the sky above. It was clearly marked with black from the fire that would warm this area. The hole allowed the smoke to exit the cave.
One of my favorite scripture scholars is Kenneth E. Bailey. In 2008 he published JESUS THROUGH MIDDLE EASTERN EYES (Cultural Studies in the Gospels). The first chapter is titled: "The Story of Jesus' Birth" He states: "The traditional understanding of the account in Luke 2:1-18 contains a number of critical flaws." He then lists five critical flaws.

But the following text together with an accompanying diagram evoked my experience of traveling to Bethlehem, page 28,29: "For the Western mind the word manger invokes the words stable or barn. But in traditional Middle Eastern villages this is not the case. In the parable of the rich fool (Lk. 12:13-21) there is mention of "storehouses" but not barns. People of great wealth would naturally have had separate quarters for animals. But simple village homes in Palestine often had but two rooms. One was exclusively for guests. That room could be attached to the end of the house or be a "prophet's chamber" on the roof, as in the story of Elijah (1 Kings 17:19). The main room was a "family room" where the entire family cooked, ate, slept and lived. The end of the room next to the door, was either a few feet lower than the rest of the floor or blocked off with heavy timbers. Each night into that designated area, the family cow, donkey and a few sheep would be driven. And every morning those same animals were taken out and tied up in the courtyard of the house. The animal stall would then be cleaned for the day. Such simple homes can be traced from the time of David up to the middle of the twentieth century. I have seen them both in Upper Galilee and in Bethlehem." It surely seemed logical to me that the structure of the cave that we had witnessed along our hike would be transferred to a building at a later time.
Bailey goes on to explain the Greek word katalyma. NRSV (Lk. 2:7)translates this word: "...there was no place for them in the inn." Bailey goes on to tell us that Luke used this word on one other occasion in his Gospel (Luke 22: 10-12) "The teacher asks you, 'Where is the guest room (katalyma) where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'"

Date of the Gospels in relation to the Epistles

It is generally accepted among scripture scholars today that the genuine epistles of Paul were written before the Gospels. The earliest Gospel, Mark, is usually dated around 60 A.D. Matthew and Mark between 70 and 80 A.D. and John even later.

Just recently I heard a presentation which offered that the writings of Luke, the Gospel and Acts, were written as a corrective to some of the message of Paul. The case goes something like the following:

Look at the introductory words of the Gospel.
1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Luke mentions eye witnesses and surely knows that Paul was not an eye witness. He is "investigating everything accurately anew".

In the introduction to the Acts Luke states: 1 In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught 2 until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

In Chapter six of Acts, men are chosen "to wait on table". Among them are Stephen and Philip, but notice what happens with Stephen and Philip.

If we think about conversion in the Scriptures, the most popular account many times is that of Saul who became Paul.

But if we look at chapter 6 ff of the Acts of the Apostles we see several conversion experiences. The conversion of Stephen and his long discourse is told in great detail. But at the end of the account we read: They threw him out of the city, and began to stone him. The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul.

The story of Philip demands a conversion on his part. An angel of the Lord tells him to approach the Ethiopian Eunuch, a doubly marginalized person (black and eunuch). It seems only his wealth and prestige allowed him to worship in Jerusalem. The Eunuch is reading from the prophecy of Isaiah or the prophet Isaiah. If he is reading from the prophecy of Isaiah about Eunuch's in chapter 56, we see that Eunuch's will replace some people in the Kingdom. 2 Let not the foreigner say, when he would join himself to the LORD, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people"; Nor let the eunuch say, "See, I am a dry tree." 4 For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant,5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters; an eternal, imperishable name will I give them. 6
And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, ministering to him, Loving the name of the LORD, and becoming his servants-- All who keep the sabbath free from profanation and hold to my covenant,7 Them I will bring to my holy mountain and make joyful in my house of prayer; Their holocausts and sacrifices will be acceptable on my altar, For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.8 Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel: Others will I gather to him besides those already gathered. The quote in Acts is from chapter 53. Philip is to not only approach the Ethiopian Eunuch but to get into the carriage and sit with him. (Remember the Jewish laws about defilement, speaking to a woman in public [Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well], touching a person with a flow of blood, touching a dead body [the man on the road to Jericho], etc.) But the outcome is that Philip baptizes the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Next we have the conversion experience of Paul.

Then we have the dramatic story of Peter's conversion. Three times he must receive the vision to be convinced to go to the house of the Gentile Cornelius. Finally Peter states "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. 35 Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." Peter then preaches and suddenly "While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word."

It would seem to me that Luke is telling the people of his time and us, that we must follow the way of Jesus which is to include, rather than to exclude. This has powerful implications for the present attitudes and treatment toward gay people, divorced people, people of other religions, unchurched people, etc.