Gen. 18: 01 – 15 – Abraham’s Visitors – Held on Sunday, October 21, 2012

Gen. 18:01 – 15 – Abraham’s Visitors

Need for Notification

I learned from the group that if I expect them to respond to my posts, I need to notify them when I actually post.  For those who would like to be notified, I will need your email address.  We are working on how to set up an automatic notification process.

Review

In an effort to follow up on the challenge of the New Evangelization I observed that one of the ironies of Vat. II concerns Catholic tradition; a tradition which extends back for nearly two thousand years.  Much of what emerged from Vat. II was actually the recovering of a much earlier tradition of the Catholic Church.  One example, the notion of collegiality was part of the the Catholic experience long before the present centralization and dominance of the papal office and the curia.  But for the vast majority of Catholic, their sense is the exact opposite.  The only Catholic tradition they know is the present one in which the Pope and the Roman curia play such a dominant role.  So collegiality is viewed as “new” and the present status of pope and centralized operations is viewed as “traditional.”  Recovering our whole past is part of Rising To The Level of Our Times.

I suggested that a first step in the New Evangelization can be something as simple as telling our story.  It is in the concrete events that make up our story that the story of God’s grace, call, forgiveness actually occurs.  Our stories are important because they are our stories.  But they also are important because they are not unique to us as individuals.  If we hear, read the account of others we will discover God is at work in others and those others are part of a community of believers.

Background

It will help if you read the notes, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/18 which point out that this passage is part of a story that continues through chapter 19 and is linked with that story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the first verse of this passage the narrator lets us [the listener / reader] know that the Lord [Yahweh / God] has appeared to Abraham.  But in the next verse, Abraham recognizes three men standing nearby.  Ultimately one of the three, the Lord [Yahweh / God] speaks.  It isn’t until chap. 19: 01 that we learn the other two “men” are angels / messengers. [And the word “angel” conveys a quite different meaning to us than it did to the first listeners to this story.  For us, angels did battle before the heavens and earth were created.  Michael won and Lucifer lost.  Lucifer became the devil, Satan who job is to get us to sin and go to hell.  We all have guardian angels.  None of these concepts existed for the people who first heard this story told.]  It’s not clear if or when Abraham and Sarah recognize that the Lord has appeared to them.

The passage can be divided into two sections, the first one, v. 2 – 8, is concerned with the value and importance of hospitality to the stranger [the very opposite of what will occur in the town of Sodom.]  Pay attention to how much Abraham does, the haste in which he does it, the concern for the strangers.  The next section, v. 9 – 15, concerns the announcement of a child, [Isaac, one who laughs – notice the play on words in the passage] and how it is that Sarah reacts to it.  Will she show hospitality to the words of the stranger?

Our Questions

  1. First who are the characters and what role does each play?  [It seems relatively easy to name the characters but much more difficult to articulate what their role in the passage is.  Yet it is their role that makes the story, as Faryl pointed out in our session, unfold, develop.  The characters are the story in some fundamental way.]
  2. With regard to the “when” question, I continue to ask that we focus on the “when” of our life.  It was in this question, for example, that we learned Michael’s “when” began about five years ago.   He started a journey that took him back to school and will make a major turn starting his new career with a full time position this Monday, October 22.
  3. The plot is content of the third question; how does the story unfold, what is the narrator of the story reacting to in his times, what does he want those people to come away with.
  4. What values are revealed in the story?  What is our emotional reaction to them?  Should we embrace these values, develop them even further, or reject them?  And what our reasons for evaluating the passage in our way?

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/18.

A Couple of Discussion Points

It took some effort to recognize that “hospitality” was the central theme of the first section; although it was quite clear to Kai.  I was fascinated as I listened to the different members of the group recall their grandparents, for the most part, extending hospitality to strangers.  And Carol’s remembrance of their house being marked so the “strangers,” the hungry, the homeless, knew where they would be welcomed and get a good meal.

The image of “hospitality” that is presented is both a value to be lived by us and developed by us.  For our times are different.  I can’t help but recognize that it is the very notion of hospitality that makes St. Anthony All Saints attractive to so many.  And extending that hospitality to members of other ethnic groups is not without its concrete challenges.  Being hospitable to ones family and friends is one thing, but to the stranger, persons who are different, well that’s another matter.

Ken remarked in response to the second section some similarity to the announcement of the birth of Jesus and John the Baptist.  I’m not sure I heard Ken well because I responded to the need to  hear the story in terms of its symbolic meaning.  The story tells of God promising to a couple near one hundred years old that they will have a son by this time next year.  But what is really going on is that we often experience what feels like impossible situations and to believe seems laughable, to others even foolish.  But the story reveals that there is more going on in our life than we are immediately aware of; that belief changes the meaning of what is happening and invites us out of that changed meaning to live differently.

Our discussions covered many other areas but sufficient for today is the day’s stories.

The New Evangelization is learning how to tell the biblical / Christian story in a credible way in the modern world.  What of this passage invites a change in the very meaning of our life personally, communally, socially, historically?  Keep in mind that the answer to that question must be concrete, otherwise it really isn’t the story of Sarah.  For in the story she did become pregnant, Issac was born.  And from Abraham, came Issac; from Issac, Jacob; from Jacob, Israel; and Jesus, us . . .  Three thousand years of a presence, pressing forward

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, New Evangelization, Scripture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The New Evangelization – Fr. Shori’s Addressed on the Weekend of October 13 – 14, 2012

The New Evangelization

Fr. Shori addressed the topic of the New Evangelization at all the Masses over the weekend of October 13 – 14.  I think this topic is extremely important.  First of all because Jesus’ parting words to us in Mt. 28: 18 – 20 were

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Secondly, the very title of this web site, Rise to the Level of our Times, requires one that we know what the level of our times is and two that we do what is required to rise to that level.

My post is to invite a conversation about this call for a new evangelization in light of some sober facts of our time.  One of the stunning facts of our times is the mass exodus the Catholic Church in the United States is experiencing.  We have to face the fact that millions of Catholics have left and are leaving the Church; in fact “lapse” Catholics represent the third largest religious group in the United States.  Pew survey shows America’s vast Catholic exodus http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=56894

Some Catholic leaders speak of this exodus in terms of a pruning away of those who don’t believe, who were just cultural Catholics; and their leaving the Church is positive.  In this narrative those who remain are the true believers.  These leaders hearken back to the biblical notion to identify those who remain as “The Remnant.”  I couldn’t disagree more strongly with this understanding but where do you stand on these matters.

I would be interested in knowing

  1. Do you personally know a “lapsed” Catholic, someone who no longer identifies themselves as a Catholic?  If yes, what was the reason[s] they gave for their no longer belonging or why do you think they no longer belong?  If you know more than one person and there are different reasons for different persons, please be as concrete as you can while respecting privacy, etc.  In other words, avoid vague generalities … Life is concrete and the events that change our lives have a place, a date, very often a person to them.
  2. Would you share your evaluation of their reasons? Or do you agree or disagree with what they said and why?
  3. Have you read anything concerning the “exodus” of Catholics?  If yes, what and what was your evaluation of your reading?
  4. Comment on your understanding and assessment of Fr. Shori’s remarks.
  5. Finally, if others respond, I would invite you to comment on their remarks as well.

If this topic interests you, click on the “comment” link at the bottom of this post, enter your email address and let others know what you think.

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, New Evangelization | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Gen. 17: 01 – 27- The Covenant of the Circumcision – Held on Sunday, October 7, 2012

Review from our Previous Session – Discerning God’s will.  Is there a plan for me?

In reviewing our group’s discussion from two weeks ago, I detected a common theme in the remarks of Sara, Tim, and Ken.  In one way or another, they had to do with doing the will of God.  Sara wondered if Sarai should have accepted her position as the will of God. Tim thought that Hagar could have recognized her carrying the child of Abram, their leader, as an honor.  Ken shared his own struggle to discern God’s will in his work life.

I thought that we could benefit in our efforts to know what God is asking of us if we could place that question in its broadest context.  A couple of important dimensions of that context is first to understand that everything about creation is contingent; that is, it doesn’t have to exit, and given that it does exist, tomorrow is not determined.  It may be highly probable but it doesn’t have to be.  This is true of the basic truths of our faith.  We believe that God redeemed us through the life and death of his Son, Jesus the Christ.  But none of that had to be.  God didn’t have to redeem us.  The Second Person of the Trinity did not have to become man.  His entire life was contingent, including his death on the cross.  Jesus didn’t have to die on the cross but, in fact, he did.

Does God have a plan for us?  The answer is unquestionably yes but that plan is contingent.  What today’s passage confirms is that God is revealed as faithful to his covenant.  We can count on that.  We cannot count, however, on our being faithful.  So our plan changes as we fail in our faithfulness, as we develop and become converted, when “our” world changes.  As St. Augustine urged us, “Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.”

Gen. 17: 01 – 27 – The Covenant of the Circumcision

Background

Each time we gather to celebrate the liturgy, we celebrate what we Christians call the New Covenant.  But the more we can understand the covenant theme as it developed in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures the more meaningful will that weekly celebration become. One place to begin is to recognize that this passage is rooted in, but a revision of, the covenant that God made with Noah.  The symbol of the covenant with Noah was the rainbow whereas the symbol of the covenant with Abraham and Sarah is circumcision.

We are far removed from the radical meaning of that symbol as it was experienced by the Jewish community.  Attempting to get a hold of the radical nature of that symbol is a first step.  Circumcision was not unique to the Jews but what was unique was the ritual symbolized.  Originally it was a rite of passage that occurred in puberty.  It was highly sexualized symbolic act as the male prepared to enter into marriage.  In making circumcision as an event of birth, everything about the symbol changed.  Now it symbolized the passage into a relationship with God, into a life long commitment to faithfulness to the covenant.  We believe that Jesus in his life and death fulfilled that faithfulness for all human beings.  Our faithfulness is in Christ.

From verse 1 through 22 God, the Lord, Yahweh dominates.  In this section there are three subsections which focus on God, v. 4 “as for me;” Abraham, v. 9 “as for you;” and Sarah, v. 15 “as for Sarah.” At the end of this section, God leaves Abraham.  The remaining verses, 23 – 27, give an account of Abraham including Ishmael, mentioned 3 times as his son, being faithful to the covenant in the act of circumcision.

Reading the notes is always a good thing to do.  http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/17

Our questions

Asking questions, as you are tired of reading, focuses our attention to uncover the story as it is rather than as we are accustomed to hearing it.  Who are the characters and what are their roles in this passage? When did this story take place? When did the author / editor compose it? What is the when of your concrete existence?  What is the plot, theme, purpose of this passage?  We’ve added a fourth, what values in this passage are of its time and in our development we are to reject, leave behind and what values are we to affirm, live by, even though the values of our modern culture would lead us to believe that we should leave them behind too, reject them as being out of date, old fashion, or any of a number of evaluative judgments on these values?

For the Christian, the discerning principle is Christ.  Two pieces of evidence I would offer, one internal to us – the fruits of the Holy Spirit, Gal. 5: 22 – 23 “… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” And a second, external – what we do – Mt. 25: 31 – 46 ” I was hungry … thirsty, a stranger, needed clothes, sick, imprisoned … and … whatever you did for these the least of my brothers and sisters you did for me. …”

My Refrain

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

Reading of the passage http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/17.

Discussion

I haven’t found a way yet to elicit an online discussion so I leave this section for anyone to fill in with their own questions, comments, observations.  Simply scroll to the bottom of this entry and click on the comment link, add your email address, and type away.

 

 

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – The Birth of Ishmael Part 2- Held on Sunday, September 23, 2012

Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – The Birth of Ishmael – Part 2

A review of last week uncovered that the group took off on its own without uncovering much of the background by attempting to answer the questions which function to do just that; get at the background.  I felt that this week we should attempt a more disciplined approach.  I’m not sure how successful we actually were but we tried. 

Background

A review of the background from Sunday’s entry dated September 16,  http://rjr.richardross.annaerossi.com/?p=627 as well as the notes http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/16 would offer worthwhile context for this passage. 

Our Basic Questions + 

As we prepare to hear the passage, I again raised for the group a set of questions that, by now, should sound like a mantra.  Nonetheless, for the sake of continuity, here are the questions I think help us to stay focused.  [I think I should really ask the group if the questions are of any benefit …]

Our first question, who are the characters in the passage; to which we have added, and what role does each of the characters play?  To get at the “role” question, we need to pay attention to what the characters say and do and also what we would expect them to say and do but they don’t.  For example, does Abram talk, yes but when in the story and to whom.  Is that his only talking role?  What does that fact communicate?  How does Sarai understand God’s role in her not bearing any child?  What role does she see Abram playing in the conflict she and Hagar are having?  When does Hagar first say anything and to whom?  Is the messenger and YHWH one and the same character with different names or two different characters?  What does YHWH [God] say?  There are so many questions, what are your questions?

The second question in some sense is the most complicated and that is the “when” question.  What is the “when” of the passage?  What is the “when” of the author?  And, most critically, what is our “when,” the “when” of our life at this time?  What do you make of the fact that the author / editor lived nearly a thousand years or more after the time of the story?  Is the author / editor using the past to help explain his present?  How do we do the same think?  What would be concrete examples in your life in which you have done that or hear someone else do that?

A third question, what is the theme, purpose, plot of the passage?

A fourth set of questions has to do with a fact. The bible is a historical document, the cultural values of the times are inevitably imbedded in the book.  Since we also believe that the same bible is the word of God, then there are some values that are transcendent, meant for all people and all times while others are simply a part of the culture of the story and / or of the editor / author.  So we find ourselves in any given passage, affirming some values and rejecting others.  This raises the fundamental question for me, what are the values that we affirm and what values are we rejecting and what is the rationale for such discernment?

My Refrain 

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

The Reading: Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/16. – We reread the passage in its entirety and would invite you to do the same. 

Discussion – Part 1

First then the characters and some indication of their role

  1. Sarai
  • Speaking to Abram she understands her bareness in the light of Yahweh – “The LORD has kept me from bearing children. …” Yahweh is the actor in her life.
  • Now what she does certainly rings of the culture of her day – she decides to be proactive in order to accomplish Yahweh’s will. She thinks she is doing good in giving Hagar, her slave, to Abram to be his wife and bear him the children Yahweh has promised.  This brought out a cavalcade of responses from the group. Here are a few examples …
  • This is a good for Sarai but is this good only a good in  her culture or is it a transcendent good; and how do we discern? On first read, it seems woman today don’t do that; certainly not in the context of slavery in the US. But Heber pointed out that modern technology does allow another woman to bear a child for a childless couple. And that has raised a whole host of modern day issues, more or less unresolved.
  • Sara pointed out that maybe Sarai should have trusted in the Yahweh; her actions might have emerged out of her on insecurity. On the other hand, it is possible to understand what Sarai did in terms of her efforts to find another way to fulfill the will of the Lord, to understand that human actions are part of God’s intentions. These two approaches to discernment are radically different; when to be proactive like Sarai or when to accept [submit] as the will of God what actually happens in one’s life.
  • Ken shared a story from his own life when he was confronted with accepting or being proactive in changing what is. He was proactive but that decision caused it’s share of grief.  Neither is always right or always wrong but how to know that is the challenge. It is the role of the community to help in the discernment process but ultimately only the individual bears the responsibility for choosing.
  • What does it mean that Sara confronts Abram with Hagar’s behavior – “This outrage against me is your fault? …”
  • Of all that things that Sarai says and does in this passage, which attract you and which repulse you and why?  Are there colnflicting values for us?

2. Abram

  • The only time that Abram speaks in this entire passage – “Your maid is in your power. Do to her what you regard as right.”
  • A modern day of passing the buck; not the kind of leadership we would think that a person of Abram’s historical status would do but he does.
  • This passage certainly doesn’t paint a positive picture of the foundational example of biblical faith. He is a bit more like all the rest of us in this passage. Does that offer us hope?

3. Hagar

  • 3.1. When is the first time that she speaks and to whom?
  • What did she do that caused such a response from Sarai – The closest thing we could come up with was an example of losing status in our community for that is what happened to Sarai. She lost status. Think of what happens to a person who loses a job, finds themselves homeless, discovers how differently people treat her, and what she thinks of herself.
  • Tim suggested that it was possible for Hagar to have seen Sarai’ gesture as a great gift. She has been chosen to bear the child of the leader of the clan, the tribe. What an honor! Tim’s comments pointed out how the same actual event can be understood so differently, resulting in radically different responses to that event.
  • As Faryl pointed out, one of the unique  features of this passage is the central character is Hagar and not the prinicple biblical characters of Abraham and Sarah.

4. Yahweh

  • 4.1. Who does Yahweh talk to and to whom doesn’t he talk at all?
  • What does he have to say to Hagar? – “Go back to your mistress and submit to her authority. – How did you react to this sentence from Yahweh? Keep in mind that Hagar did exactly that. How should we transfer this position to our own times?
  • But that is not all that Yahweh had to say – I will make your descendants so numerous that they will be too many to count.” Yahweh invites Hagar to look to her future with hope.  Is there in  the transactions between Yahweh and Hagar something true for all time, if only we can discern?

Much more went on but perhaps this account gives an insight into the some of the richness that exists only if a group of the faithful gather and share.

Discussion – Part 2

From this we turned to the global issue that Heber had raised last week.  He pointed out that the most recent examples of violence is only incidentally related to the movie.  He listed some of the other events he was aware of, the bombing of the Cole, the bombing of the Twin Towers, 9/11.  He was quick to point out that extremists represent only a minority of Muslims and we have extremists in our own country.  Of course, this allowed for an open discussion to which I had suggested two extremes to be avoided.  On the one hand, as Christians there is nothing inherently wrong to be patriotic to the US but again as Christians our highest value is love of God not love of country and God is God of all the world and all its people.  On the other hand, discerning the morally right thing to do is always concrete and, therefore, messy.  Often the right thing to say and do is not all that clear and rarely is it some idealism that is unreflectively applied to our concrete.    There is much more to report but I leave that to you to imagine.

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Culture, Scripture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – The Birth of Ishmael – Held on Sunday, September 16, 2012

Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – The Birth of Ishmael

We began with introductions, a few new members, and a few older ones who were not present.  There were so many coincidences; we begin on the September 16th with the 16th Chapter of Genesis.  The story is that of the birth of Ishmael whom, for many Muslims, their progenitor and link with Abraham.  And finally, there was this past week, the trailer of a movie that by all accounts was not well done and in the process demeans the Muslim religious traditions and at the same time resulted in violence across the Muslim world, our Ambassador was killed, a number of Muslims died.  What a way to begin the year. 

Background

In response to the violence, I reminded us first that we are not our own but called to be of the mind of Christ in our response.  As part of our background, I read two passages from the Vatican II documents which reveal the turn that our Catholic tradition made at that historical moment.

The first was from the Lumen Gentium, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chap. 2, §16 http://bit.ly/S5EtT4 and the second from Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, §3 http://bit.ly/S5EHK3.  Both of these passages are expressed in positive terms with the hope that respectful dialogue can begin and continue to foster improved relationship between the faiths of the world.  It is clear that both that God intended there to exist a multi-religious world in which we are to live and, at the same time, God did not let us know precisely what these relationships are to be.  It’s up to us with God’s grace.

I would encourage the reading of the notes http://bit.ly/S5ER46.  One item worth noting is that in verse 3 the translation on the Bishops’ website is

Thus, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, his wife Sarai took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. [Emphasis Added.]

The word to note is wife, whereas in other Catholic translations, the word is concubine.  I point this out just to show how one word makes a difference. 

Our Basic Questions + 

It comes as no surprise to those who have been following our efforts to “Rise to the Level of our Time,” that we approach the scripture from the lens of a questioning mind and a prayerful heart. The specific questions have become more precise over time.  Our first question, who are the characters in the passage; to which we have added, and what role does each of the characters play?  To get at the “role” question, we need to pay attention to what the characters say and do and also what we would expect them to say and do but they don’t.  The second question in some sense is the most complicated and that is the “when” question.  What is the “when” of the passage?  What is the “when” of the author?  And, most critically, what is our “when,” the “when” of our life at this time?  A third question, what is the theme, purpose, plot of the passage?

I have come to recognize another basic question that continues to emerge in me.  Since the bible is a historical document, the cultural values of the times are inevitably imbedded in the book.  Since we also believe that the same bible is the word of God, then there are some values that are transcendent, meant for all people and all times.  So we find ourselves in any given passage, affirming some values and rejecting others.  This raises the fundamental question for me, what are the values that we affirm and what are rejecting and what is the rationale for such discernment?

My Refrain 

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

The Reading: Gen. 16: 1 – 16 – http://bit.ly/S5ER46. 

Discussion

Before going to the individual characters, I asked if anyone had a comment, question, etc. to make.  This began a lively exchange that lasted for the rest of our session.

Essentially our discussion broke down into two areas both of which are certainly worthwhile.  The first area was raised by Dawn when she wondered how to move from the passage in its cultural and historical setting to our times, what does it mean for a modern woman living in the 21st century.  The other was raised by Heber who reflected on the news covering the Muslim reaction, often quite violent, to the showing of a trailer to a movie that demeans their faith.

I observed that it would be impossible to cover both of these areas in one session.  We agreed to deal with the issues surrounding Heber’s observation next week; should prove very interesting.  And we turned our attention to the concern raised by Dawn.  From hindsight I can say that we didn’t have time even to do justice to her concern.

As I mentioned earlier in this blog, the fundamental question, as I understood it, is that the bible as a historical document reveals inevitably the cultural of its time and as a the Word of God reveals what, in some way, transcends any given culture.  The challenge is to distinguish between the two and on what basis to make that distinction.

A startling example of this challenged emerged when Tim asked well what does God have to say; which was a natural lead into the words on the page.  In the passage, God pursues Hagar.  God is not presented as talking with Abram nor with Sarai but to Hagar.  And what does God say, Return and Submit.  Whoa – that seems to  go against our modern set of values, doesn’t it.  Michael began to talk about the probable human results of such actions.  Instinctively I went to the wall and took the cross off and brought it back to the table.  It is startling how the story of Jesus confounds us.  What are we to do with a leader who wields power in such a manner?  He doesn’t defeat the Romans; he doesn’t reject those who rejected him.  And the cross is only half of the picture.  In response to Jesus’ submission, the Father raises Jesus to a new life, an eternal life, a story for us humans to struggle with for as long as we live, individually, communally, and historically.  No escape.

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, Scripture, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NEXT POST – 09/18 – 19/2012

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

Mk. 7: 31-37 – The Healing of a Deaf Man

Background

Again I am presenting the work of John Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. Two: Mentor, Messiah, and Miracle. The opening geography is Jesus passing through predominantly Gentile region with his salvific message and actions. Hopefully, we can recognize the symbolic value of healing a deaf man; for Jesus and the early Christians experienced many who were deaf to the meaning and message that Jesus and they proclaimed. Possible evidence of this passage’s origins lies in the many symbolic expressions involved in Jesus’ cure. Naming them could bring them easier to our awareness.

The real struggle in hearing this story is for each of us to identify our own deafness. The fact that the people brought the deaf man to Jesus might suggest that others in our life are better able to identify our own deafness since the deafness we are dealing with is, not the physical deafness of not hearing, but the psychological deafness of not wanting to hear, listen. If our enemies were to talk about what we most don’t want to pay attention to, what might that be? Our answer gives us a window into the struggled effort on Jesus’ part to heal this deafness in us. Normally such deafness is threatening to our life as we understand ourselves; it is challenging to who we think we are and such thinking on our part is in actual conflict with who God intends us to be.

Our Questions

There are always, as well, our three basic questions. Keep in mind that the who question has been extended to identify the role that each plays in the passage and that the roles can best be determined by focusing on what is said and/or done; or not said and /or done but what we would expect to have been said and / or done. God’s word speaks to our heart, so the most significant effort on our part is to pay attention to what moves us and question that.

Our Characters

1. Jesus
2. People, later identified as “the crowd”

  • bring the deaf man
  • beg Jesus to heal him
  • “proclaimed” what Jesus had done
  • were exceedingly astonished
  • remark that Jesus “has done all things well …”

3. A deaf man
4. Who the “them” and “they” in this passage are not exactly clear but from the context the “them” seem to be the people, the crowd; and the notes make the same identification.

My refrain:

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

The Reading

31. Again Jesus left the district of Tyre
and went by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee,
into the district of the Decapolis.

32. And people brought to him a deaf man who had a speech impediment
and begged him to lay his hand on him.

33. He took him off by himself away from the crowd.
He put his finger into the man’s ears
and, spitting, touched his tongue;

34. then he looked up to heaven and groaned, and said to him,
“Ephphatha!”– that is, “Be opened!” —

35. And immediately the man’s ears were opened,
his speech impediment was removed,
and he spoke plainly.

36. He ordered them not to tell anyone.
But the more he ordered them not to,
the more they proclaimed it.

37. They were exceedingly astonished and they said,
“He has done all things well.
He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

Mk. 7: 1-8, 14-15, 21-23 Tradition of the Elders

Background

I have drawn this background material from the fourth volume of John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew in which he devotes 55 pages to this one passage that reference 145 notes covering an additional 35 pages. In other words, there is a lot going on here. This passage is one small part of a larger whole in which Fr. Meier delves into the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish Purity Laws. But we must stay focused on just a few observations
that he makes, to better appreciate God’s word to us. It’s obvious too that the church has selected out only a segment of this passage but I have chosen to provide the entire periocope, that is, the biblical unit.

This outline of the passage may help in seeing what Mark is getting at; it also helps in discerning the focus of our church’s choice of verses to be read and which not to include.  The choice always raises the question, why?

1. First Half [ 7:1-13]: Jesus’ Critique of the Tradition of the Elders

  • First Unit [vv 1 – 5]: The Question about Eating with Unclean Hands
  • Second Unit [vv 6-13]: Jesus’ Two Replies, First from the Prophets, then from the Law

2. Pivot [7:14 – 15]: Jesus Teaches the Crowd His Aphorism on Defilement
3. Second Half [7:16 – 23]: Jesus Explains to His Disciples His Aphorim on Defilement

  • First Unit [vv 17-18a]: The Question of the Disciples and the Rebuking Questions of Jesus
  • Second Unit [vv 18b – 19]: First Half of Aphorism Explained – Nothing from the Outside Defiles
  • Third Unit [vv 20 – 23]: Second Half of Aphorism Explained – Things from Within Defile

This whole passage gives us a clear example of the early Christian Community coming to grips with what it means for them to discern what of their heritage their commitment to Christ required them to jettison and what of their heritage that same commitment required them to embrace. Although the content of the discernment is different in our times, the call remains the same. But how to discern what values in our heritage are we to jettison and what to embrace; that is the question. Reading this passage beyond our clear non issue with purity laws to discover what is the same call in our time. In other words what are we holding on to that we need to let go of. It is only in open dialogue amongst ourselves that we can take the first step; otherwise what does this passage mean.  The source of the conflict of values are present, in part, in the hot button issues of our day, the political conflicts represented by out two party system, the issues that matter to you – meaning that you have an emotional reaction to.  Feelings matter are clues to what we value but not necessarily to what is of value.  God is alive in us.

Our Questions

I have attempted to focus the answer to our last question, what is the theme, purpose of this passage. Below again are the characters and our leading question what role do they play in this passage? What does the passage communique in the when of our own lives?

Our Characters

1. Pharisees raise a question and then disappear from the narrative
2. Some scribes from Jerusalem – part of the questioning and they too disappear from the narrative
3. His disciples – unnamed; alone with Jesus they question him
4. All Jews
5. Jesus from his initial response is the only one who speaks thereafter

  • Quotes Isaiah and then Moses
  • Summons the Crowd – tells them his aphorism
  • Responds to the Disciples question

My refrain:

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens
inside of us as we read.

The Reading

1 Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
2 they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
3 (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
4 And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles [and beds].)
5 So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders* but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
6 He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
7 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’
8 You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’ (meaning, dedicated to God),
12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
13 You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.”
14 He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.
15 Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.”
16 –
17 When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable.
18 He said to them, “Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile,
19 since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
20 “But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles.
21 From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
23 All these evils come from within and they defile.”

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Twenty-first Sunday of Ordinary Time

Jn. 6: 60 – 69 The Words of Eternal Life

Background

It seems clear that the setting of this passage has changed. The crowd has been replaced by the disciples, some of whom react as the crowd did. What might help is to remember that
John was composed around 100 AD and the “disciples” could also be referring to disciples in his community. It is also important to note that the Twelve is an important symbolic group at the time of Jesus; taken as a whole, they representated a new Israel, a new Twelve Tribes. As the gospel spread, however, they lost that symbolism. Words matter but need to be understood in their context and that context changes over time.

Another immensely symbolic term is “Son of Man.” Many scholars think that it is the one term that Jesus most indentifed himself with. I will leave it to your imagination to picture its meaning in the context of this passage.

One tell tale sign of John’s authorship is his emphasis on Jesus’ knowledge, “… [he] knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.”
He also most frequently refers to Peter, addressing him as Simon Peter. Even in English the world view of John can be more clearly recognized.

But the real symbolic meaning in this passage is contained in the Peter’s response,  “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” These words of Peter’s have echoed down the centuries for no one has spoken as he did and he spoke not only in words, but deeds as well, and ultimately in every fiber of his life given up, poured out for the sake of the world.  Not easy words, though; not ones that we grasp clearly or grasp only too clearly and when grasped, lived.

Our Questions

I have listed the characters below. What role do the disciples play in this passage? What role, Simon Peter? And, of course, Jesus? I’ve indicated somewhat the when of this passage, at least from its composition timeframe. In the passage itself, the passage seems to relate more to the themes in Jn. 6: 35 – 50, as the notes maintain.  But, as I have insisted in almost every post, the real when, is the when of our life, both at a personal, communal, and historical level. What light does this passage shine on the full range of concrete events that fill those levels in our life? What, finally, is the plot, theme, purpose of this passage.

Our Characters

1. The crowd has been replaced by the disciples – referenced as many, some do not believe, one betrays, and many return to their former way of life
2. Jesus who then seems to refer to himself as “Son of Man” and later is referred to as Master.
3. My Father
4. The Twelve – Simon Peter is named and seems to be referenced as one of the Twelve

My refrain:
Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from the background, our questions, and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens
inside of us as we read.

The Reading

60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Twentieth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Jn. 6: 51 – 58 The Bread of Life Discourse [Continuing]

Background

This passage concludes the church’s focus on the Bread of Life Discourse from John’s Gospel. We may notice that the passage begins by repeating the last verse from last Sunday’s reading and excludes the last verse in the biblical version of this passage; v. 59 which reads: “These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.”

Although this verse [v. 59] isn’t even in our reading, I think it offers a clear example of the challenge in hearing God’s word; discerning what is temporal and what is eternal in God’s word. This verse makes clear the setting in which John places Jesus’ great message on Bread of Life Discourse – in the synagogue. Now “the synagogue” speaks to John’s community who have experienced a real, personal, break with their brother and sister Jews in the synagogue. In a way what “the synagogue” communicated to first generation Christians is very concrete to their situation. The question to ask can, should, this break up, strife, etc. be generalized? Our answer probably would be no. But historically has our answer been no?

When we think of all the strife and struggle between Christians and Jews that have occurred over the centuries; and add to that the strife between Christians and Muslims there is an underlying tow to the message that, in my opinion, actually distorts the very message that God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inviting us to incarnate, make real, live. In other words our very historical and social reality further complicate the challenge to hear God’s message. What was historical to the first generation of Christians was not necessarily what was the eternal word of God. How do we discern, then? Let me offer a suggestion.

It wasn’t until the Second Vatican Council, that the universal salvific intention of God’s plan was given great prominence. So we can read in Gaudium and Spes, The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, at paragraph 22, the following:

All this [the redemptive act of Christ] holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.(31) For, since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. [Emphasis Added]

The “paschal mystery” is being offered to every man [human being.] This is a vision that spans 2000 years but is not spelled out till the last 100 years and is yet to be understood, believed, and, most importantly, lived by the social group that is the church; that is not to say that individual Christians have not lived it out. It is a call from our passage to this day into our future; the true meaning of a 2000 year old tradition, alive and inviting, summoning, beckoning. Who can this God be who loves all of us so . . .

Now let us turn to that passage in its detail, read maybe in the light of the previous few paragraphs. Our too familiar questions: first who are the characters and what are their roles, when does this occur, and what is the plot, theme, purpose of this passage; these are our basic questions but there are others, many others.

Our Characters

  1. It is the crowd later are identified again as “the Jews,” who are quarreling among themselves but with a quite sensible question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [What can this mean?]
  2. Jesus who dominates the passage as the one who speaks throughout nearly the whole of the passage. [It is only in John that Jesus speaks such as this.]
  3. Father – again it is Jesus who speaks of the “living Father [who] sent me and I have life because of the Father.”
  4. Ancestors – who ate and still died. [But how did the Christians understand this in light of the fact that they too were dying?]

My refrain:

Before we read though, let’s quiet ourselves, remember whatever we can from our previous readings, and, most importantly, pay attention to what happens inside of us as we read.

The Reading

Jesus said to the crowds:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever;
and the bread that I will give
is my flesh for the life of the world.”

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them,
“Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so also the one who feeds on me
will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven.
Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died,
whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Your responses, questions, and / or comments are welcomed. You can add them by clicking on the comment link at the end of this post.

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments