Our reflection question for the next RCIA session has to do with scripture. We are asked to reflect on the question: "what does the Bible mean to you right now"? Regarding this question it seems to me that my thinking has evolved over the years as I gained experience and exposure to scripture studies. I think that when I first found scripture compelling it was because of the question: did this really happen? So I was interested in the stories of Exodus and the questions of historicity. Did the Exodus really happen and what proof is there in the historical record of this event? I think that media like newspapers and television still devote a lot of attention to these kind of questions. The fuss over the Da Vinci Code and over the supposed tomb of the family of Jesus reflects such interest. Ultimately though, this question (while it might be interesting) has little to say to me regarding my relationship with God.
A more useful question then, became (and still is): Does this happen today? The importance of this question and its relevance to the spiritual life first came to me in connection with a passage from Exodus 16. In the passage the Israelites have only just passed from slavery in Egypt into the desert. Very soon the people complain to Moses and Aaron: "If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." (Ex 16:3) If you only ask if this incident happened in the past the verse is quite meaningless. If you ask if such a thing does happen there is a chance to gain insight into our relationship with God. This came to me after an incident in my own life. Someone very close to me had gone through a very bad marriage. He abused alcohol and drugs as well as his family. When she and her four children finally left him everyone thought that it was for the best. To my surprise a year or so later she told me that she was thinking of going back to him. After a discussion with her it became clear what was happening. She knew what he was like but the stress and challenges of going on her own seemed to be too much. She was on welfare and trying to train for the job market (after being a housewife for 15 years or so). One of her sons was having profound behavioral problems. So the stress and uncertainty of being free (like the Israelites) led her to think of the security that she had before; even though, like the Israelites, she existed then in a form of slavery. And so, when I began to look at Exodus, and all scripture, in this way I began to see the Bible as something that could speak to me and my condition here and now. I also think that in a simple way this addresses the question about the problem of literalism regarding the Bible. I no longer am interested in the question of could creation have happened exactly as described in Genesis. Instead I can pay more attention to the lessons that the stories of Genesis have for me today.
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Smouldering Wick
The gospel for today, Saturday of the 15th week of ordinary time, has another passage that interests me here and now. In the passage (Matthew 12:14-21) the evangelist applies to Jesus the prophecy of Isaiah 42 including the words, "He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick until he brings justice to victory." In the commentaries I have seen there seems to be a range of opinions about what this means and how it is to be applied but most say that it refers to the gentleness and meekness of Jesus. I liked the insight of St Jerome (quoted in the Catena Aurea): "He who despises a weak spark of faith in a little one, he quenches a smoking flax (wick)."
I think that this passage again illustrates one of the tensions facing the Church when it deals with adult faith formation, especially with regard to sacramental preparation. In our parish, for example, the RCIA director and the person in charge of marriage preparation have been troubled by the prevalence of young couples who have "irregular" living arrangements (they are as yet unmarried, but living together). When the pastor asked an outside expert about the seriousness of these "impediments" the expert answered that on the most basic level the answer depended on your point of view. If the pastor thinks that the Church should be smaller and more faithful to Church teachings he will act one way. If the pastor thinks that the Church should take care not to quench the smouldering wick he will act another way.
I like the point of view about taking care not to quench the smouldering wick. Sometimes people, for various reasons, are not capable of giving full expression to their faith in all that they do. In these cases these people need to be treated with the gentleness of Christ, welcomed, and invited to a fuller encounter with Christ and his Church. So, on the one hand, the Church must be welcoming; but on the other hand, the Church needs to be faithful to its message. This is clearly something that is done on a case by case basis and requires great understanding on the part of the Church representative dealing with this issue.
So, would I as someone involved with RCIA, ever send someone away from the group on the basis that they are not fit or ready for Baptism. I think that the answer has to be that I would not want to send them away but in certain circumstances (that I don't think I could outline right now) I would suggest that they delay Baptism until some future time. This is what has been done in the group I work with. A few years ago a man from a strong evangelical background came to us. During the Catechumenate he had great trouble with the doctrines surrounding Mary. When the time came for reception into the Church (at Easter Vigil) he was told that he needed to decide on his own if he could make the public promise that people being received into the Church make. He decided that at that time he could not, but a couple of years later was received into the Church. So, he was not excluded by the pastor or the RCIA director, but was invited to discern for himself the path he should follow. This, I think, made things work out for the best.
I think that this passage again illustrates one of the tensions facing the Church when it deals with adult faith formation, especially with regard to sacramental preparation. In our parish, for example, the RCIA director and the person in charge of marriage preparation have been troubled by the prevalence of young couples who have "irregular" living arrangements (they are as yet unmarried, but living together). When the pastor asked an outside expert about the seriousness of these "impediments" the expert answered that on the most basic level the answer depended on your point of view. If the pastor thinks that the Church should be smaller and more faithful to Church teachings he will act one way. If the pastor thinks that the Church should take care not to quench the smouldering wick he will act another way.
I like the point of view about taking care not to quench the smouldering wick. Sometimes people, for various reasons, are not capable of giving full expression to their faith in all that they do. In these cases these people need to be treated with the gentleness of Christ, welcomed, and invited to a fuller encounter with Christ and his Church. So, on the one hand, the Church must be welcoming; but on the other hand, the Church needs to be faithful to its message. This is clearly something that is done on a case by case basis and requires great understanding on the part of the Church representative dealing with this issue.
So, would I as someone involved with RCIA, ever send someone away from the group on the basis that they are not fit or ready for Baptism. I think that the answer has to be that I would not want to send them away but in certain circumstances (that I don't think I could outline right now) I would suggest that they delay Baptism until some future time. This is what has been done in the group I work with. A few years ago a man from a strong evangelical background came to us. During the Catechumenate he had great trouble with the doctrines surrounding Mary. When the time came for reception into the Church (at Easter Vigil) he was told that he needed to decide on his own if he could make the public promise that people being received into the Church make. He decided that at that time he could not, but a couple of years later was received into the Church. So, he was not excluded by the pastor or the RCIA director, but was invited to discern for himself the path he should follow. This, I think, made things work out for the best.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bring Fire on the Earth
The Gospel for Monday of the 15th week of ordinary time presents some interesting challenges. In this Gospel (Matthew 10:34 - 11:1) Jesus says that he has not come to bring peace but the sword and to set members of a family against one another. A similar passage in Luke (Luke 12: 49-53) adds, "I have come to bring fire on the earth...." This passage seems to contradict the many passages in the New Testament that emphasize love and the need to preserve the unity of the community.
Some commentaries suggest that the images of fire and conflict represent a judgement against non-believers. Other commentaries suggest that the passages refer to the conflict that already faced the early Church because of persecution by civil and religious authority. I suspect that the second explanation is the best one. Still, I think that the passage could have an important message for the Church today.
We know that we live in a society that believes that each individual constructs their own reality. Increasingly people seem to feel that ideals which come from an external source (like that magisterium of the Church) are invalid and damaging to individual freedom. Some people seem ready to reject the teaching authority of the Church simply on the basis of personal opinion. This creates problems for the Church. On the one hand we want a Church that is welcoming and is intended to embrace as many people as possible and so we, in the Church are often reluctant to "correct" Catholics who hold positions that are contrary to established Church teaching. The controversy over abortion is an especially vivid example of this. The question of the ordination of women is another example.
Now some people feel that not correcting these Catholics who they call "Cafeteria Catholics" is a disservice to both the Church and the individual. They suggest that allowing such dissent to continue unchecked blurs the truths the Church has worked for centuries to pass on. Further, they suggest, that to be charitable to someone who dissents without seeking to correct them tends to jeopardize the salvation of their souls. So, sometimes it might be necessary to have confrontation in the Church in order to provide correction of some kind. So, for example we see the controversy over a bishop refusing the Eucharist to a pro-abortion politician. Agreeing with this point of view has some risks however. The danger of an over zealous emphasis on correctness can result in a cold emphasis on the externals of faith rather than on personal faith and relationship to Jesus.
Some commentaries suggest that the images of fire and conflict represent a judgement against non-believers. Other commentaries suggest that the passages refer to the conflict that already faced the early Church because of persecution by civil and religious authority. I suspect that the second explanation is the best one. Still, I think that the passage could have an important message for the Church today.
We know that we live in a society that believes that each individual constructs their own reality. Increasingly people seem to feel that ideals which come from an external source (like that magisterium of the Church) are invalid and damaging to individual freedom. Some people seem ready to reject the teaching authority of the Church simply on the basis of personal opinion. This creates problems for the Church. On the one hand we want a Church that is welcoming and is intended to embrace as many people as possible and so we, in the Church are often reluctant to "correct" Catholics who hold positions that are contrary to established Church teaching. The controversy over abortion is an especially vivid example of this. The question of the ordination of women is another example.
Now some people feel that not correcting these Catholics who they call "Cafeteria Catholics" is a disservice to both the Church and the individual. They suggest that allowing such dissent to continue unchecked blurs the truths the Church has worked for centuries to pass on. Further, they suggest, that to be charitable to someone who dissents without seeking to correct them tends to jeopardize the salvation of their souls. So, sometimes it might be necessary to have confrontation in the Church in order to provide correction of some kind. So, for example we see the controversy over a bishop refusing the Eucharist to a pro-abortion politician. Agreeing with this point of view has some risks however. The danger of an over zealous emphasis on correctness can result in a cold emphasis on the externals of faith rather than on personal faith and relationship to Jesus.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Touching the hem of the garment
One of the gospel passages that has fascinated me for a long time is the passage from today's Eucharist (Matt 9:18-26). The main focus of the passage seems to be the leader of the synagogue who summons Jesus to revive his daughter. While on the way Jesus encounters the women who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years. Commentators note that this ailment would have made the women ritually "unclean" and she would therefore have been an outcast during all this time. Because of her shame the women can not bring herself to stand before Jesus to ask his help as the leader of the synagogue had done. Instead the best she can do is to reach out to touch the fringe of his cloak (hem of the garment) in the belief that by doing this she will be made well and her faith is rewarded. Her faith has made her well.
On one level both stories are of faith. Both the woman and the leader of the synagogue have great faith and their faith is rewarded by Jesus. On another level the story shows an important part of the mission of Jesus. These miracles are signs that the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus is indeed at hand. Still, I am struck by the difference in status between the leader of the synagogue and the woman. He is a man of great status and we see this when Jesus encounters a great crowd at the leader's house. By contrast the woman is an outcast. Still, the results of their encounters with Jesus are the same. Jesus fulfills their deepest needs. So, an important message that I get from this passage is that we should be careful about judging the faith of people by externals or by status. We see something similar in the story of the Pharisee and the Publican. The faith of people is not something external and cannot necessarily be judged by the Church groups a person belongs to or even (perhaps) how often a person attends Mass. Of course eventually faith does have to manifest itself in works of some kind. I find this insight helpful when dealing with inquirers to RCIA. We want them to tell their stories but we want to be careful about judging their initial motives for signing up. We do of course, want them to experience growth as they go through the process that is part of the RCIA.
On one level both stories are of faith. Both the woman and the leader of the synagogue have great faith and their faith is rewarded by Jesus. On another level the story shows an important part of the mission of Jesus. These miracles are signs that the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus is indeed at hand. Still, I am struck by the difference in status between the leader of the synagogue and the woman. He is a man of great status and we see this when Jesus encounters a great crowd at the leader's house. By contrast the woman is an outcast. Still, the results of their encounters with Jesus are the same. Jesus fulfills their deepest needs. So, an important message that I get from this passage is that we should be careful about judging the faith of people by externals or by status. We see something similar in the story of the Pharisee and the Publican. The faith of people is not something external and cannot necessarily be judged by the Church groups a person belongs to or even (perhaps) how often a person attends Mass. Of course eventually faith does have to manifest itself in works of some kind. I find this insight helpful when dealing with inquirers to RCIA. We want them to tell their stories but we want to be careful about judging their initial motives for signing up. We do of course, want them to experience growth as they go through the process that is part of the RCIA.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Scripture and Tradition
Chapter II of the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) explains the teaching of the Church regarding the role of both Scripture and Tradition in the handing on of the faith. Following are some points mainly from scripture that point to the role of tradition in Divine Revelation.
First of all we have the question of scripture itself. How do we know what books are in the canon of scripture and what books are left out? We cannot find an answer to this question in scripture itself. The answer has to be found in the tradition of the Church eventually given written form by a council of the Church. Regarding Hebrew Scriptures; why does the canon here differ between Protestant churches and the Catholic Church. The answer again is found in tradition. The Catholic Church accepted into the canon of scripture all those books included by the Alexandrian tradition (the Septuagint translation) while during the Reformation Protestant churches instead accepted the later canon of the Palestinian tradition.
Secondly, we find this testimony at the end of John’s gospel: (John 21:25)
25But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
If Jesus is the complete revelation of God and only some of what he said and did was eventually written down it makes sense to me that some of what he taught could also be part of the tradition of the early Church. Also, if we accept the verdict of scripture scholars that the Gospels were written down some time after the life of Christ we must accept that originally the stories of Jesus were handed on by the tradition of the early Church before the scriptures were even put into written form.
We can see evidence of this early tradition in the letters of Paul. For example in 1Corinthian 11:2 we find:
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.
Here Paul seems to be saying that the normal way of passing on the teachings of Christ was through oral tradition. Again in 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 we find:
14For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,* so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Here Paul says that the traditions were passed on both by written letters and by word of mouth. In the second letter to Timothy Paul makes references to tradition as well as to scripture
14For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,* so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. (2Timothy 1:13-14) Note the virtual repetition from 2 Thessalonians.
2You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; 2and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well (2Timothy 2:1-2). Note that Timothy hears the message rather than reading it.
Finally, in the second letter of John we find a passage indicating the desire of the teacher to talk face to face with the people rather than communicating through written letter. (A sentiment found also in 1Thessalonians 3:10).
12 Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2John 12)
Additionally, in Acts 8: 30-31 we see demonstrated a need for people to have help interpreting the scripture. This help comes from tradition.
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to this chariot and join it.’ 30So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ 31He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.
So, it seems to me that there are verses in the scripture that point to a role for tradition as well as for written scripture in passing on the Word of God. We must of course have a proper understanding of what tradition is (it is not the whim of the Magisterium) and we must understand that Tradition and Scripture go together. (All quotes are taken from the NRSV translation of Scripture)
First of all we have the question of scripture itself. How do we know what books are in the canon of scripture and what books are left out? We cannot find an answer to this question in scripture itself. The answer has to be found in the tradition of the Church eventually given written form by a council of the Church. Regarding Hebrew Scriptures; why does the canon here differ between Protestant churches and the Catholic Church. The answer again is found in tradition. The Catholic Church accepted into the canon of scripture all those books included by the Alexandrian tradition (the Septuagint translation) while during the Reformation Protestant churches instead accepted the later canon of the Palestinian tradition.
Secondly, we find this testimony at the end of John’s gospel: (John 21:25)
25But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
If Jesus is the complete revelation of God and only some of what he said and did was eventually written down it makes sense to me that some of what he taught could also be part of the tradition of the early Church. Also, if we accept the verdict of scripture scholars that the Gospels were written down some time after the life of Christ we must accept that originally the stories of Jesus were handed on by the tradition of the early Church before the scriptures were even put into written form.
We can see evidence of this early tradition in the letters of Paul. For example in 1Corinthian 11:2 we find:
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.
Here Paul seems to be saying that the normal way of passing on the teachings of Christ was through oral tradition. Again in 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 we find:
14For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,* so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Here Paul says that the traditions were passed on both by written letters and by word of mouth. In the second letter to Timothy Paul makes references to tradition as well as to scripture
14For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news,* so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. (2Timothy 1:13-14) Note the virtual repetition from 2 Thessalonians.
2You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; 2and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well (2Timothy 2:1-2). Note that Timothy hears the message rather than reading it.
Finally, in the second letter of John we find a passage indicating the desire of the teacher to talk face to face with the people rather than communicating through written letter. (A sentiment found also in 1Thessalonians 3:10).
12 Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2John 12)
Additionally, in Acts 8: 30-31 we see demonstrated a need for people to have help interpreting the scripture. This help comes from tradition.
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to this chariot and join it.’ 30So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ 31He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.
So, it seems to me that there are verses in the scripture that point to a role for tradition as well as for written scripture in passing on the Word of God. We must of course have a proper understanding of what tradition is (it is not the whim of the Magisterium) and we must understand that Tradition and Scripture go together. (All quotes are taken from the NRSV translation of Scripture)
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Prayer, the Saints, and RCIA
Inquirers in RCIA sometimes have questions about the role of saints in Catholic prayer. The first thing to note is that Catholics do not pray to the saints in the sense that they (the saints) have any power of their own. We ask them to pray with us to God, just as I can ask people in my family or community to pray with me to God. We do assume that they can hear us because they are with God, and lived very good holy lives. We feel their prayers joined to ours will be powerful. However, we do not think that it is necessary or essential to pray to saints. The one mediator (intercessor) is Jesus who is the bridge between God and us. Jesus is really the essential conduit. However, we do venerate the saints, which is not to say that we give them adoration and honor due to God alone. It means that we honor them as people who cooperated with God’s grace in this life and are among the great cloud of witnesses in heaven as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom,
especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share
in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the
transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They
contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they
have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master,
they were "put in charge of many things."42 Their intercession is
their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask
them to intercede for us and for the whole world.
The saints are fully human and they give us an example and the hope that we too can succeed if we persevere in doing God’s will. Again, the Catechism says:
956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to
Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more
firmly in holiness. . . .[T]hey do not cease to intercede with the
Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on
earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ
Jesus. . . . So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly
helped." (1Tim 2:1-5)
Do not weep, for I shall be more useful to you after my death
and I shall help you then more effectively than during my
life. (St. Dominic on his deathbed to his brothers)
I want to spend my heaven in doing good on earth. (St Theresa of Lisieux)
Note the pattern of prayer when the Church remembers saints:
“Father, you endowed Anthony Claret with the strength of love and patience to preach the Gospel to many nations. By the help of his prayers may we work generously for your kingdom and gain our brothers and sisters for Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.” (Liturgy of Hours, Oct 24)
Notice that the prayer is addressed to the Father. The example of the saint (in this case, Anthony Claret) is mentioned and the prayer is summarized through Jesus who is the intercessor. Again, the Catechism has this to say about the prayer of intercession:
2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray
as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of
all men, especially sinners.112 He is "able for all time to save those
who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them."113 The Holy Spirit "himself intercedes for
us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."(Romans 8:26-27)
2635 Since Abraham, intercession - asking on behalf of another
- has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God's mercy. In the age
of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an
expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays
looks "not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,"
even to the point of praying for those who do him harm..(Phil 2:4)
2577
2636 The first Christian communities lived this form of fellowship
intensely.116 Thus the Apostle Paul gives them a share in his
ministry of preaching the Gospel117 but also intercedes for them.(Phil 1:3-4)
The intercession of Christians recognizes no boundaries: "for all
men, for kings and all who are in high positions," for persecutors,
for the salvation of those who reject the Gospel.( 2Tim: 2:1)
So, to summarize:
1. Intercessory prayer (praying for the needs of another) is a basic form of prayer.
2. Our belief in the communion of saints means that we remain in community (communion) with those people who have gone before us and are now in heaven.
3. When we remember the saints in our prayers we do not pray for them (that would be pointless) and we do not pray to them (that honor is due to God alone). Rather we remember their example and dare to hope that their prayers might help us on our own journey. Note that occasionally Mary will be addressed in a manner than is different from all other saints. This reflects her unique relationship with Jesus but still does not change the basic pattern of our prayer.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Abraham and Isaac
The Sacrifice of Abraham: Genesis 22:1-18
In this story God tells Abraham to offer his only son Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham is willing to do as he is told and proceeds with the sacrifice only to be stopped at the last moment. God accepts Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac as proof of Abraham’s faith. In the letter to the Hebrews the author identifies this act as proof of the strong faith of Abraham. The passage comes near the end of the Abraham story in Genesis. This passage is the second reading in the Liturgy of the Word at the Easter Vigil.
So, why is this passage part of the Easter Vigil? I think that there are two things that stand out about the story. First of all, the early Church saw the figure of Isaac in the story as being a “Christ” figure of sorts. Isaac, like Christ, was the only son offered to the Father. Isaac, like Christ, carried the wood of the sacrifice to the place of sacrifice. Second, and most importantly, the Church sees Abraham as a model of faith.
Throughout the period of Abraham’s relationship with God from being told to leave his homeland to the question of his being childless to finally being told to offer Isaac in sacrifice there is a strong element of testing. God does not seem willing to just let Abraham “be”. In this reading it would be easy to get side tracked by the horror of what Abraham is asked to do. In fact part of the reason for the story could be that Israel’s neighbors over time probably practiced child sacrifice at certain times. In this context this story merely shows God’s repudiation of such practices. It is also interesting that some commentators point out that Isaac was not likely a young child since he could carry the wood for the sacrifice. It might also be easy to be side tracked by issues surrounding the nature of God. How could God ask such a thing? If God knows all things and knows that Abraham will obey then what is the purpose of the test? These might be worthwhile questions but they miss the point of the reading in the liturgical context of the Easter Vigil.
The central question in this context is; what does faith, which we celebrate when we initiate new members at the Vigil, ask of us? In Genesis, Abraham is asked a number of times to leave security behind and to follow God in faith. God asks Abraham to leave his homeland and in trust Abraham does so. Even though he and Sarah are advanced in age Abraham is asked to believe that God promise (that he would be the father of many nations) would be fulfilled. Finally in this passage Abraham is asked to sacrifice Isaac (the one on whom Abraham’s hopes rest). Abraham’s willingness to completely trust God, even in these extreme circumstances, brings the test to an end. God now knows that Abraham completely trusts God.
Do we completely trust God? The Sacraments of Initiation offer us an intense experience of God and a sacramental celebration of our first commitment to God. After this experience are we going to be able, like Abraham, to continue to leave security behind and to trust God as we continue on our journey of faith? David Gushee, a Baptist commentator, writing in Christianity Today recently wrote:
“I suggest that we tend to confuse the beginning of the faith journey with its entirety. Yes, believe in Jesus – that’s the first step. Yes, invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior. Then, empowered by God’s grace, embark on the journey of discipleship, in which you seek to love God with every fiber of your being, to love your neighbor as yourself, to live out God’s moral will, and to follow Jesus where he leads you, whatever the cost.” That is, I think, a good summary of the essential meaning of Genesis 22: 1-18.
Prayer (from the missal)
God and Father of all who believe in you, you promised Abraham that he would become that father of all nations, and through the death and resurrection of Christ you fulfill that promise: everywhere throughout the world you increase your chosen people. May we respond to your call by joyfully accepting your invitation to the new life of grace. We ask this through Jesus the Lord. Amen.
In this story God tells Abraham to offer his only son Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham is willing to do as he is told and proceeds with the sacrifice only to be stopped at the last moment. God accepts Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac as proof of Abraham’s faith. In the letter to the Hebrews the author identifies this act as proof of the strong faith of Abraham. The passage comes near the end of the Abraham story in Genesis. This passage is the second reading in the Liturgy of the Word at the Easter Vigil.
So, why is this passage part of the Easter Vigil? I think that there are two things that stand out about the story. First of all, the early Church saw the figure of Isaac in the story as being a “Christ” figure of sorts. Isaac, like Christ, was the only son offered to the Father. Isaac, like Christ, carried the wood of the sacrifice to the place of sacrifice. Second, and most importantly, the Church sees Abraham as a model of faith.
Throughout the period of Abraham’s relationship with God from being told to leave his homeland to the question of his being childless to finally being told to offer Isaac in sacrifice there is a strong element of testing. God does not seem willing to just let Abraham “be”. In this reading it would be easy to get side tracked by the horror of what Abraham is asked to do. In fact part of the reason for the story could be that Israel’s neighbors over time probably practiced child sacrifice at certain times. In this context this story merely shows God’s repudiation of such practices. It is also interesting that some commentators point out that Isaac was not likely a young child since he could carry the wood for the sacrifice. It might also be easy to be side tracked by issues surrounding the nature of God. How could God ask such a thing? If God knows all things and knows that Abraham will obey then what is the purpose of the test? These might be worthwhile questions but they miss the point of the reading in the liturgical context of the Easter Vigil.
The central question in this context is; what does faith, which we celebrate when we initiate new members at the Vigil, ask of us? In Genesis, Abraham is asked a number of times to leave security behind and to follow God in faith. God asks Abraham to leave his homeland and in trust Abraham does so. Even though he and Sarah are advanced in age Abraham is asked to believe that God promise (that he would be the father of many nations) would be fulfilled. Finally in this passage Abraham is asked to sacrifice Isaac (the one on whom Abraham’s hopes rest). Abraham’s willingness to completely trust God, even in these extreme circumstances, brings the test to an end. God now knows that Abraham completely trusts God.
Do we completely trust God? The Sacraments of Initiation offer us an intense experience of God and a sacramental celebration of our first commitment to God. After this experience are we going to be able, like Abraham, to continue to leave security behind and to trust God as we continue on our journey of faith? David Gushee, a Baptist commentator, writing in Christianity Today recently wrote:
“I suggest that we tend to confuse the beginning of the faith journey with its entirety. Yes, believe in Jesus – that’s the first step. Yes, invite Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior. Then, empowered by God’s grace, embark on the journey of discipleship, in which you seek to love God with every fiber of your being, to love your neighbor as yourself, to live out God’s moral will, and to follow Jesus where he leads you, whatever the cost.” That is, I think, a good summary of the essential meaning of Genesis 22: 1-18.
Prayer (from the missal)
God and Father of all who believe in you, you promised Abraham that he would become that father of all nations, and through the death and resurrection of Christ you fulfill that promise: everywhere throughout the world you increase your chosen people. May we respond to your call by joyfully accepting your invitation to the new life of grace. We ask this through Jesus the Lord. Amen.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Our Father
In our RCIA group last Wednesday we spent half of the time reflecting on the Our Father. There were many valuable insights shared but we ran out of time and missed what I think is the most valuable insight into the unique nature of this prayer of Jesus. The Our Father is unique compared to what we know of other Jewish prayers of the time because of intimacy with which Jesus addresses the Father. We know that the most common names used for God in Hebrew scriptures emphasize the transcendence and power of God. For example:
- Elohim means mighty or strong one.
- Adonai means master or ruler or lord.
- Yahweh most likely means the self-existent one (I am who I am).
- El Shaddai means God almighty.
There are many other titles given to God but mostly they emphasize the power or the strength of God. The name of God was held in such reverence that writing it was a dangerous act. Often the titles of God are circumlocutions designed to get around actually using the name of God (for example, one title of God translates simply as "the name").
Jesus by contrast calls God Abba, a word which would have been used by a young child addressing their father. It means simply "daddy". So, this title of God together with the petitions that follow gives us a picture of a God who is gentle and forgiving. A God who asks only our love in return. St Hilary in the Office of Readings for Thursday of the Second week of Lent explains it well while explaining the fear of the Lord. "Fear is not to be taken in the sense that common usage gives it. Fear in this ordinary sense is the trepidation our weak humanity feels when it is afraid of suffering something it does not want to happen. (But) For us the fear of God consists wholly in love, and perfect love of God brings our fear of him to its perfection. Our love for God is entrusted with its own responsibility: to observe his counsels, to obey his laws, to trust his promises." So, God is obviously transcendent and mighty and powerful but God is also gentle and forgiving and near to us. It is this "daddy" aspect of God that gives us the confidence to pray the Lord's Prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)